N20RJ

[Canadian Gal]

Anyone here own, or experienced with N20RJ.

 

A 2018 Ovation Ultra that is currently for sale.

 

[Bolter]

Not specific to this Ovation Ultra, but all Ovations (including mine) there are some weight limits that can get you, even though it is hard to get out of the CG.  Assuming you already know what you want for your mission, I would watch the Useful Load of the FIKI or Air Conditioned Ovations.  This Ovation Ultra lists for 940 lbs UL.  If you have 3 doctors/pax on board, you may only be flying an hour before getting to your IFR reserve.  And possibly still above the maximum landing weight of 3200 pounds when you get there, if your doctors are heavy or carry a lot of gear.

A typical set of values for an Ovation: 3368 Gross, 3200 Max Ldg, 2350 Empty.   (gross and landing weights are the same for Ultra and previous Ovations with 310HP).  PM me with your email and I will send you an example Ovation POH and TKS supplement for FIKI.  

-dan

[irishpilot]

I would watch the Useful Load of the FIKI or Air Conditioned Ovations.  This Ovation Ultra lists for 940 lbs UL.  If you have 3 doctors/pax on board, you may only be flying an hour before getting to your IFR reserve.  And possibly still above the maximum landing weight of 3200 pounds when you get there, if your doctors are heavy or carry a lot of gear.
  
-dan

This. Long body Mooney's are comfortable, stable, and fast. But UL is the limiting factor. Sold my Bravo for the reasons Dan stated. Needed a four person plane, not a 2 person + bags plane. However, if you routinely use it as a 1-2 person flyer it is a time machine.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[LANCECASPER]

Exactly what's been mentioned. Ovation Ultra is a great airplane, but not for hauling four adults and not for regularly flying into gravel or grass strips. Using 180 average per adult, you're at 720. That leaves 40 gallons of fuel if you have no bags. That 940 useful load probably includes the TKS equipment but not the fluid, which is also very heavy. (If you pick up any ice on the fuselage that adds to the weight pretty fast as well.) If you're buying it because it's fast, any fuel stop negates the speed. There is a reason that other planes, and not Mooneys, have been used for years as people haulers.

A Cessna 206 would be a great choice, (a Cessna 208 even better if the funds are there ). Get an airplane that fits the mission and even allows for some extra load when you need it, don't try to make the airplane you'd really like to fly fit the mission. Either you'll end up disappointed and your judgment in purchasing it will be questioned by your doctors or you will talk yourself into flying it over gross which can lead to bad results. People on here have had to leave the Mooney family when their two kids reached mid-teen years due to room and useful load. You would be going into it wanting to carrying four adults knowing that. 

[Brandt]

4 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Exactly what's been mentioned. Ovation Ultra is a great airplane, but not for hauling four adults and not for regularly flying into gravel or grass strips. Using 180 average per adult, you're at 720. That leaves 40 gallons of fuel if you have no bags. That 940 useful load probably includes the TKS equipment but not the fluid, which is also very heavy. (If you pick up any ice on the fuselage that adds to the weight pretty fast as well.) If you're buying it because it's fast, any fuel stop negates the speed. There is a reason that other planes, and not Mooneys, have been used for years as people haulers.

A Cessna 206 would be a great choice, (a Cessna 208 even better if the funds are there ). Get an airplane that fits the mission and even allows for some extra load when you need it, don't try to make the airplane you'd really like to fly fit the mission. Either you'll end up disappointed and your judgment in purchasing it will be questioned by your doctors or you will talk yourself into flying it over gross which can lead to bad results. People on here have had to leave the Mooney family when their two kids reached mid-teen years due to room and useful load. You would be going into it wanting to carrying four adults knowing that. 

Disagree.  The Mooney is fine.  Just make sure you hire skinny doctors who believe in traveling light…

[Fly Boomer]

13 minutes ago, Brandt said:

Disagree.  The Mooney is fine.  Just make sure you hire skinny doctors who believe in traveling light…

Do you land on gravel sand bars in the back country?

[ZuluZulu]

6 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Exactly what's been mentioned. Ovation Ultra is a great airplane, but not for hauling four adults and not for regularly flying into gravel or grass strips. Using 180 average per adult, you're at 720. That leaves 40 gallons of fuel if you have no bags. That 940 useful load probably includes the TKS equipment but not the fluid, which is also very heavy. (If you pick up any ice on the fuselage that adds to the weight pretty fast as well.) If you're buying it because it's fast, any fuel stop negates the speed. There is a reason that other planes, and not Mooneys, have been used for years as people haulers.

A Cessna 206 would be a great choice, (a Cessna 208 even better if the funds are there ). Get an airplane that fits the mission and even allows for some extra load when you need it, don't try to make the airplane you'd really like to fly fit the mission. Either you'll end up disappointed and your judgment in purchasing it will be questioned by your doctors or you will talk yourself into flying it over gross which can lead to bad results. People on here have had to leave the Mooney family when their two kids reached mid-teen years due to room and useful load. You would be going into it wanting to carrying four adults knowing that. 

Would a Cherokee Six/Saratoga handle grass strips as well as a 206? I’ve never flown one but I have flown 4-seat Cherokees. 

[Brandt]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Do you land on gravel sand bars in the back country?

Not so far. Pontoons would be an eye catching STC, though. 

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, Brandt said:

Just make sure you hire skinny doctors who believe in traveling light…

Paging Doctor Howser . . .  Doctor Doogie Howser . . .

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, ZuluZulu said:

Would a Cherokee Six/Saratoga handle grass strips as well as a 206? I’ve never flown one but I have flown 4-seat Cherokees. 

If I remember correctly the Lance and the Saratoga were retractable versions and the Cherokee Sixes were fixed gear. Landing in the winter time in Canada,  a fixed gear without wheel pants would make life a little easier. I remember taxiing through snow in a Grumman Tiger with wheel pants in North Dakota. The runways had been cleared but not the taxiways yet. The compacted snow in the wheel pants virtually brought it to a stop.

[ZuluZulu]

9 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

If I remember correctly the Lance and the Saratoga were retractable versions and the Cherokee Sixes were fixed gear. Landing in the winter time in Canada,  a fixed gear without wheel pants would make life a little easier. I remember taxiing through snow in a Grumman Tiger with wheel pants in North Dakota. The runways had been cleared but not the taxiways yet. The compacted snow in the wheel pants virtually brought it to a stop.

A friend used to fly a fixed-gear Saratoga in a flying club.  One of the few, I think.

[Guest]

PA32-300, or PA32-301, straight wing Cherokee six or taper wing Saratoga.  Just leave out the “R” in the model for fixed gear version.

[ilovecornfields]

Flying doctors around for hire is a job I would never want.

You really are going to want a very capable plane and pilot(s) if you expect to ferry them around predictably in different weather conditions. At a minimum a FIKI Cessna 310 or 414? Doctors tend to be very goal oriented and time sensitive and canceling or delaying because the weather is iffy isn’t always well received.

One of my colleagues went up to me a couple weeks ago and said he wanted to move to Oregon and commute to work (in CA) in an airplane “like I do.” My advice was not to do it. I never put myself in a situation where I have to fly to get to work (or home) on time. Even with a FIKI airplane and obviously superior pilot.

Be careful. 

[PT20J]

54 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

PA32-300, or PA32-301, straight wing Cherokee six or taper wing Saratoga.  Just leave out the “R” in the model for fixed gear version.

Now you've gone and done it -- mentioned fixed gear on MooneySpace!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, PT20J said:

Now you've gone and done it -- mentioned fixed gear on MooneySpace!

Even better it’s available as a float plane

[A64Pilot]

4 hours ago, ZuluZulu said:

Would a Cherokee Six/Saratoga handle grass strips as well as a 206? I’ve never flown one but I have flown 4-seat Cherokees. 

No, landing speeds are higher for one, but low wings in general are not good backcountry aircraft, but as she’s looking at a Mooney, she isn’t doing any back country flying.

206 would be very difficult to beat and a turbo 206 isn’t slow, a 210 and a J model are about the same speed, 206 turbo is about the same, just much thirstier than a 210.

But you would be amazed what you can carry in a 206 or 210 for that matter, it’s getting it into the airplane that can sometimes be an issue.

Cherokee 6 in my opinion if runway isn’t too short or too rough are very under appreciated load haulers, a fiend even used his to haul deceased people in caskets to where they were going to be buried. A surprising number of people die in Florida but want to be buried back home up North.

But there is a reason why Cessna 205, 206’s and 207’s are so prevalent up in the NWT. 210 and I assume a 206 is an excellent IFR machine.

210 I flew carried 120 gls with flint tanks and had no problem with four 200+ lb men, and they fit too. It burned at cruise about 13 to 15 gls an hour so eight and a half hours of fuel, no reserve.

The Turbo 210 and P 210 were the first singles to be certified for known icing I think, the P-210 should be avoided unless you really have the need though, just like anything pressurized.

For any real backcountry flying you want the little wheel in the back, and a high wing. High wings are out of the mud, rocks and bushes, but you won’t likely ever see a high wing crop duster because you can’t see out when turning, so of course there are disadvantages, but I miss my Maule every time I have to get out of the Mooney and anytime it’s raining, or rarely when I want to carry something large.

Good article

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/aircraftreviews/load-hauler-bargains-pipers-have-an-edge/

The Cherokee 6 is for the cost hard to beat, if she’s even looking at a Mooney a 6 can easily go anywhere a Mooney can runway wise, and as it’s being bought for the Pax is likely the most comfortable and quietest of the group.

As good as they are to me they are just so darn ugly  

[Pinecone]

The numbers stated are why I like my 252/Encore.

1119 pound useful load.  And around 10 GPH for 135 IAS.  In the mid-teens, this works out to around 174 KTAS.

[kortopates]

The numbers stated are why I like my 252/Encore.
1119 pound useful load.  And around 10 GPH for 135 IAS.  In the mid-teens, this works out to around 174 KTAS.

You did the Encore conversion? I thought you bought a 252 - that was fast if you just did the conversion!

Me too on the useful, over 1120!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pinecone]

9 hours ago, kortopates said:

You did the Encore conversion? I thought you bought a 252 - that was fast if you just did the conversion!

Me too on the useful, over 1120!

No, I did not DO the Encore conversion.  It was already done, with a Factory Reman -SB engine.

I haven't compared the POHs, but I don't think the Encore conversion does much for cruise speed, but the extra 230 pounds is nice.

[kortopates]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

No, I did not DO the Encore conversion.  It was already done, with a Factory Reman -SB engine.

I haven't compared the POHs, but I don't think the Encore conversion does much for cruise speed, but the extra 230 pounds is nice.

Thanks, I missed that for some reason but I did recall your post about the missing MC rods for the newer MC used for the Encore and should have realzed.

No real cruise performance gains, the 10 HP is much like the Ovation3 upgrade and Acclaim upgrade, intended just for takeoff and climb performance. Of course a pilot could choose to operate cruise at little higher if they wanted too. But from a engine longevity standpoint that wouldn't be wise. 

The brakes don't stop any faster/shorter either but we don't have to replace the pad as frequently with twice as many per caliper now.

Yes, the extra 230 lb useful load is everything in this conversion raising the useful to be better than most Bravo's and its the last in a line of fuel efficient Mooney.s.

[Pinecone]

2 hours ago, kortopates said:

Thanks, I missed that for some reason but I did recall your post about the missing MC rods for the newer MC used for the Encore and should have realzed.

No real cruise performance gains, the 10 HP is much like the Ovation3 upgrade and Acclaim upgrade, intended just for takeoff and climb performance. Of course a pilot could choose to operate cruise at little higher if they wanted too. But from a engine longevity standpoint that wouldn't be wise. 

The brakes don't stop any faster/shorter either but we don't have to replace the pad as frequently with twice as many per caliper now.

Yes, the extra 230 lb useful load is everything in this conversion raising the useful to be better than most Bravo's and its the last in a line of fuel efficient Mooney.s.

And you do lose service ceiling.  But it is not like many 252s cruised over FL250

[Niko182]

If you want to fly 4 people around and with gravel strips, why has no one mentioned an A36.  Add the TAT conversion and it will match the ovation performance wise. If you need weather capability, look at a 58 baron with boots. I've landed my eagle/ ovation at one gravel strip (Amboy, CA). Its not something I'd do often, let alone regularly. Grass is alright, but I understand where most owners are come from, when they state they aren't willing to land anywhere other than pavement.

I'll also add that I can take 4 170 pound people plus 100 lbs of baggage, and a little over 70 gallons of fuel. It is something you can do if you have the useful load, but if you do it often, you are going to want something with a set of barn doors. my 2 cents, hence the reason I stated 36 or 58.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Niko182

[Canadian Gal]

Thanks everyone.

 

I just wondered if someone here owned or flew it.

 

I'm well aware of the useful load, and typically fly 1 or 2 people around, if not alone.

For big loads my 185 can haul the linebacker sized guys.

 

Appreciate all your feed back.

[hais]

On 1/27/2023 at 4:34 PM, A64Pilot said:

As good as they are to me they are just so darn ugly

You think they are ugly? Wait till you see the tail of a Mooney...oops...this is MS? Quick delete... 

[Canadian Gal]

On 1/27/2023 at 9:57 AM, Brandt said:

Disagree.  The Mooney is fine.  Just make sure you hire skinny doctors who believe in traveling light…

Not a fat doctor amongst them.

 

It also helps that I am not heavy.

 

My heaviest Doc and I together are 315 lbs.

 

I'm a believer in the Cherokee six for a family plane, my parents have owned one a long time, still do, and many family trips were done in it.

 

If I had to regularly haul 4 people, especially if any were fat, I would be looking at other planes.

 

When I fly a patient and a parent, it is usually not far.

 

If I wasn't going to be happy with an Ovation ultra, there isn't much else out there I would be happy with, unless making a large jump.

 

No desire to go the 340 or 414 route.

 

It would likely be wait a while and get a new Denali or Kodiak.

 

Or simply buy another 185 that stays on wheels year round...I'm a 185 fan.