1081 NM non-stop 5:47 flight in a Mooney Ovation running LOP - 65.7 total gallons used!

[Fly_M20R]

I just did a non-stop flight in my Ovation from KBDH in Minnesota to KFHB in Florida in 5 hrs and 47 min. Flew at 15,000 feet blessed by a nice tailwind and running Lean of Peak. TAS was 163 kts, Fuel Flow 10.2 GPH at wide open throttle (16.9" MP) and 2400 RPM. Ended up using 65.7 gallon for the whole trip. Mooneys are fantastic travel machines!! Without winds flight would have been around 1 hour longer:  ~6:50. I have done a few other non-stop flights with a crosswind (negligible head or tailwind) as well in 6:50. Running lean of peak allows for quite long legs at altitude!

Here are a few panel pictures taken at the same time during the flight. Video coming sometime soon....

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Fly_M20R

[Pinecone]

I beat you.

I did KBJC (Denver) to 0W3 (NE MD) non-stop on 80 gallons is 7 hours.  So about 0.2 NM per gallon better, and 2 knots better.

I do admit that I had a tailwind that at one point was 52 knots directly on the tail.

I hit 229 GS, but by the time I got my phone to snap a pic, it dropped 2 knots.

 

[GeeBee]

Fly_M20R you prove once again what a versatile aircraft the M20R represents, no turbo required!

Not to steal your magnificent achievement and it was not me, it was the original owner of my Ovation, Janice Ribaudo set an NAA speed record KLAS to KPIT with the airplane. 1660 nm at FL230. It was noted here on Mooneyspace. Yours and others constantly demonstrate the ability of the Ovation.

 

[Fly_M20R]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

I beat you.

I did KBJC (Denver) to 0W3 (NE MD) non-stop on 80 gallons is 7 hours.  So about 0.2 NM per gallon better, and 2 knots better.

I do admit that I had a tailwind that at one point was 52 knots directly on the tail.

I hit 229 GS, but by the time I got my phone to snap a pic, it dropped 2 knots.

 

 

Hi Pinecone,

Great numbers! I think that the 252 is the most efficient plane that Mooney has built although I haven't put calculator to Acclaim numbers. I had two of them and have been up to 25,000 ft going from Taos, NM to Florida. Stopped in Nashville for fuel. No wind efficiency (NM per gallon) of 252 does beat the Ovation since it can go higher and keep hp with turbo. You have a great traveling machine! Downside is increased maintenance due to turbocharger. 

Chris

[Fly Boomer]

10 minutes ago, Fly_M20R said:

Downside is increased maintenance due to turbocharger. 

@Pinecone do you have any numbers or any other way to quantify the "turbo penalty"?

[KSMooniac]

My "milestone" flight to date was also 1080 NM in my J, using 55 gallons from Chino to Wichita, but mine took 6:50.  We have tremendously capable machines!

[Pinecone]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

@Pinecone do you have any numbers or any other way to quantify the "turbo penalty"?

Not me.

So far my only turbo expense has been to proactively get a turbo V band clamp to have on the shelf.

I know there will be a turbo overhaul in my future, but right now I am at about 250 hours.

[Fly_M20R]

9 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

My "milestone" flight to date was also 1080 NM in my J, using 55 gallons from Chino to Wichita, but mine took 6:50.  We have tremendously capable machines!

J’s are very efficient! I had one and could get low 160’s (kts) at 10,000 ft and sip mid 9 GPH. Looks like yours rocks!

[LANCECASPER]

12 hours ago, Fly_M20R said:

Downside is increased maintenance due to turbocharger. 

In one 231, three Bravos, one Encore and one Acclaim I've not experienced increased maintenance, having never overhauled a turbo between TBO. But even if others have, I still don't see it as a deterrent.

If the turbo charger gets you there conservatively only 10% faster, at the speeds that Mooneys fly that is getting you 15-20 nm every hour in a turbocharged airplane which saves Total Time on everything on the airplane, including the engine. This is if you don't add any value to your personal savings of your time. Taking the potential cost of a turbo overhaul and weighing it against all of the other factors and I've always found for me the turbo comes out ahead. Others may see it differently. If many people fly your airplane your costs will vary, others may cook the engine. With one person flying the turbo-charged engine, you can manage that well. Or if the previous owner of your turbo airplane cooked your engine it may take some spending to get it back to where it needs to be and then you can manage the engine correctly, but that wasn't the airplane's fault.

The ability to have outstanding climb performance past 10,000 feet is the real reason for me though. Being able to quickly get over the morning and early afternoon buildups here in Texas and fly in cool smooth air makes all of the difference in the world. I use a small Inogen Oxygen generator so I always have oxygen available and feel better when I use it any any altitude. I owned an Ovation for almost two years and loved the airframe (same as the Bravo and Acclaim), loved the panel I had in it, loved it at between 8,000 and 10,000 feet, but after being used to a turbo I sold it and went back to a Bravo and later the Acclaim.

I've mentioned it before but the Acclaim is like having an Encore and Ovation and an Acclaim wrapped up into one airplane since you can fly it at so many power settings and go for efficiency if you want or if time is a concern and fuel burn is not you can get blistering speeds out of a piston engine, while still maintaining cool CHT and TIT.

My Ovation had the 310 hp STC, which made for great take-offs,  but the climb performance when I got past 10,000 wasn't what I had hoped it would be. Ovations are still great airplanes when the considerations I mentioned aren't a concern. If I had never flown a turbo Mooney I'd be flying an Ovation today.

[Fly Boomer]

56 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Not me.

So far my only turbo expense has been to proactively get a turbo V band clamp to have on the shelf.

I know there will be a turbo overhaul in my future, but right now I am at about 250 hours.

I have read articles saying the "penalty", if there is one, is largely exaggerated.  Of course, it may be easier to abuse a turbocharged engine, but any engine can be abused if someone wants to work at it.  I'm hoping the penalty is less than whatever the common "wisdom" thinks it is.

[GeeBee]

I rarely see Acclaims that have not had mid-life cylinder replacements. How you factor that in, I don't know, but I know they chew cylinders faster and that is common sense coupled with a lot of experience. Heat is the enemy of all engines and you can't compress air without heat.

 

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

I rarely see Acclaims that have not had mid-life cylinder replacements. How you factor that in, I don't know, but I know they chew cylinders faster and that is common sense coupled with a lot of experience. Heat is the enemy of all engines and you can't compress air without heat.

 

Good point, the Acclaims had a coking issue early on which Continental and Mooney took awhile to address. If people flew them hard and didn't regularly check the air/oil separator hoses they had problems. There's a service bulletin which deals with this and since then it seems to be much better.

How I factor in cylinder replacements? I had to have one cylinder rebuilt on a Bravo back around 1998 - that's my only experience and expense with cylinder replacement other that electing to do a Bravo conversion (wet-head conversion) on a TLS back a few years ago. So cylinder replacements on the turbos I've flown have not been an issue. But again, in many cases it's the way they are flown. I've known a couple people in my life that could probably break an anvil just by the way I saw them treat things.

On many Continentals, turbo and N/A, people are replacing the cylinders at around half TBO. I suspect some of that has to do with how it was flown and some to do with the way Continental builds cylinders. The Ovation I bought had just over 1000 hours and the cylinders had been replaced just 50 hours before by the previous owner.

[TheBearFlies]

So Good! KGXY-KPNS Greeley-Pensacola including a beach fly by. Probably added 20 minutes. 6 hours. I stayed at 11,000 the entire way.

 

 

[vorlon1]

9 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I hit 229 GS, but by the time I got my phone to snap a pic, it dropped 2 knots.

 

Yeah, it really stinks to be you. ;-)

[Fly_M20R]

8 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Fly_M20R you prove once again what a versatile aircraft the M20R represents, no turbo required!

Not to steal your magnificent achievement and it was not me, it was the original owner of my Ovation, Janice Ribaudo set an NAA speed record KLAS to KPIT with the airplane. 1660 nm at FL230. It was noted here on Mooneyspace. Yours and others constantly demonstrate the ability of the Ovation.

 

Amazing to get to FL230 in the Ovation. It must have "crawled" up to that level. MP must have been ~7". Wonder what the KIAS was at that low power setting and what angle of attack was required to maintain level flight. Have you gone up past 20,000 ft in the plane? How does it climb above 20,000?

Chris

[Fly_M20R]

5 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

In one 231, three Bravos, one Encore and one Acclaim I've not experienced increased maintenance, having never overhauled a turbo between TBO. But even if others have, I still don't see it as a deterrent.

If the turbo charger gets you there conservatively only 10% faster, at the speeds that Mooneys fly that is getting you 15-20 nm every hour in a turbocharged airplane which saves Total Time on everything on the airplane, including the engine. This is if you don't add any value to your personal savings of your time. Taking the potential cost of a turbo overhaul and weighing it against all of the other factors and I've always found for me the turbo comes out ahead. Others may see it differently. If many people fly your airplane your costs will vary, others may cook the engine. With one person flying the turbo-charged engine, you can manage that well. Or if the previous owner of your turbo airplane cooked your engine it may takes some spending to get it back to where it needs to be and then you can manage the engine correctly, but that wasn't the airplane's fault.

The ability to have outstanding climb performance past 10,000 feet is the real reason for me though. Being able to quickly get over the morning and early afternoon buildups here in Texas and fly in cool smooth air makes all of the difference in the world. I use a small Inogen Oxygen generator so I always have oxygen available and feel better when I use it any any altitude. I owned an Ovation for almost two years and loved the airframe (same as the Bravo and Acclaim), loved the panel I had in it, loved it at between 8,000 and 10,000n feet, but after being used to a turbo I sold it and went back to a Bravo and later the Acclaim.

I've mentioned it before but the Acclaim is like having an Encore and Ovation and an Acclaim wrapped up into one airplane since you can fly it at so many power settings and go for efficiency if you want or if time is a concern and fuel burn is not you can get blistering speeds out of a piston engine, while still maintaining cool CHT and TIT.

My Ovation had the 310 hp STC, which made for great take-offs,  but the climb performance when I got past 10,000 wasn't what I had hoped it would be. Ovations are still great airplanes when the considerations I mentioned aren't a concern. If I had never flown a turbo Mooney I'd be flying an Ovation today.

Agree, one should buy the Mooney model that fits the majority of missions flown best (distance, terrain, weather patterns, etc) as well as budget available. 

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, Fly_M20R said:

Amazing to get to FL230 in the Ovation. It must have "crawled" up to that level. MP must have been ~7". Wonder what the KIAS was at that low power setting and what angle of attack was required to maintain level flight. Have you gone up past 20,000 ft in the plane? How does it climb above 20,000?

Chris

I have not but I know where Janice Ribaudo is and I have thought about contacting her about the flight. I just don't want to be "creepy". She also set a record in it KPIT-PANC. I would like to know the details about that one too.

 

[Fly_M20R]

4 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I have not but I know where Janice Ribaudo is and I have thought about contacting her about the flight. I just don't want to be "creepy". She also set a record in it KPIT-PANC. I would like to know the details about that one too.

 

OK. I understand. Definitely don't want to be perceived as "creepy". Does it have long range tanks? 

I have been up to 17,000 a few times and no issues climbing there. But I can imagine that it would be <100 fpm when getting close to FL2300. Could be its max. (???)

[Pinecone]

14 hours ago, vorlon1 said:

Yeah, it really stinks to be you. ;-)

Worse.  That was at 10.1 GPH.

[GeeBee]

12 hours ago, Fly_M20R said:

OK. I understand. Definitely don't want to be perceived as "creepy". Does it have long range tanks? 

I have been up to 17,000 a few times and no issues climbing there. But I can imagine that it would be <100 fpm when getting close to FL2300. Could be its max. (???)

No standard 89 gallon tanks. FL230 is the service ceiling.

[GaryP1007]

Maybe I need an Acclaim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fly_M20R]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

No standard 89 gallon tanks. FL230 is the service ceiling.

I also have standard 89 gal tanks (at the bottom of tabs) and can fill to 102 total usable by going really slowly once at the tabs. Use that for long trips. She may have done that herself.

The ceiling in my '95 Ovation is 20,000. Will double check in the POH (if listed). I wonder if yours (ex-hers) is higher since it is a '04 model. 280 or 310 hp engine?

I need to experiment and see how mine performs above 20,000.

Nice history on your plane!!

Chris

[Fly_M20R]

21 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

In one 231, three Bravos, one Encore and one Acclaim I've not experienced increased maintenance, having never overhauled a turbo between TBO. But even if others have, I still don't see it as a deterrent.

If the turbo charger gets you there conservatively only 10% faster, at the speeds that Mooneys fly that is getting you 15-20 nm every hour in a turbocharged airplane which saves Total Time on everything on the airplane, including the engine. This is if you don't add any value to your personal savings of your time. Taking the potential cost of a turbo overhaul and weighing it against all of the other factors and I've always found for me the turbo comes out ahead. Others may see it differently. If many people fly your airplane your costs will vary, others may cook the engine. With one person flying the turbo-charged engine, you can manage that well. Or if the previous owner of your turbo airplane cooked your engine it may take some spending to get it back to where it needs to be and then you can manage the engine correctly, but that wasn't the airplane's fault.

The ability to have outstanding climb performance past 10,000 feet is the real reason for me though. Being able to quickly get over the morning and early afternoon buildups here in Texas and fly in cool smooth air makes all of the difference in the world. I use a small Inogen Oxygen generator so I always have oxygen available and feel better when I use it any any altitude. I owned an Ovation for almost two years and loved the airframe (same as the Bravo and Acclaim), loved the panel I had in it, loved it at between 8,000 and 10,000 feet, but after being used to a turbo I sold it and went back to a Bravo and later the Acclaim.

I've mentioned it before but the Acclaim is like having an Encore and Ovation and an Acclaim wrapped up into one airplane since you can fly it at so many power settings and go for efficiency if you want or if time is a concern and fuel burn is not you can get blistering speeds out of a piston engine, while still maintaining cool CHT and TIT.

My Ovation had the 310 hp STC, which made for great take-offs,  but the climb performance when I got past 10,000 wasn't what I had hoped it would be. Ovations are still great airplanes when the considerations I mentioned aren't a concern. If I had never flown a turbo Mooney I'd be flying an Ovation today.

Hi Lancecasper,

I have owned with a partner two Bravos and this is the first leg of a flight I did from Hayward, CA to KFHB. Fuel and O2 stop at 5T6 then to Baton Rouge and final leg to FL. All same day. It was October with a nice jet stream which I followed along its somewhat Southerly bend. Had 100 kt tailwinds for part of the way. Did break 300 kt ground speed a few times.   The Bravos are great planes for these missions. An Acclaim would be better as you said since it wraps up the 252, Ovation, and Acclaim into one!

Regards,

Chris

 

[1Germaican]

What do you use for O2 delivery?

 

[0TreeLemur]

In June I flew nonstop at 11,500 from northern Colorado (FNL) to Tuscaloosa, AL (TCL), 941 nm in 6 hours in our J, and landed with 15 gallons left in the 64 gallon tanks.  Tailwinds are wonderful.