Acclaim - Pro's and Con's?

[Jeffro]

Hello All,

I'm new here and considering purchasing a Mooney, upgrading for speed from a Cessna T182T. I'm interested in a modern Mooney - 2007 or newer. Mooney is on my list along with Beechcraft Bonanza, Cessna TTx, Sirrus SR22, and Piper Malibu or M350. Would love to have a TBM, but that's probably out of reach.

• My first question to you Mooniacs is, what are the pro's and con's of the Acclaim Ultra? 
• Second, how would you compare the Acclaim to the Ovation? Any obvious differences other than the turbo/non-turbo and top speed? 
• I live in the PNW. How difficult is it to find great Mooney mechanics and parts?

Thanks in advance to those who choose to respond.

Jeff

[mike_elliott]

It's the sweet spot of singles. 

The bad: UL could be better

The Good: Everything else. 

[exM20K]

What's your 80 or 90% mission?

• It is a fast, capable plane that walks away from all the competition in range, climb, and cruise performance.
• It has available FIKI, which should be a must-have in PNW.
• not many options to choose from:
  • A/C or FIKI or Neither
  • Option 2 (VNAV button on GFC700)
  • SVT
  • 310 HP upgrade STC (highly recommended here)
• 900# ish useful load w/ TKS-FIKI

The planes you're looking at are all good choices if they align best with your mission.

-dan

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Jeffro said:

Thanks in advance to those who choose to respond.

If you hang out here for a bit, you will come to the conclusion that most Mooney people are somewhat fanatical, so most responses will be biased--probably no different than any other type club.  The one thing I would point out in your case is that unless you have flown in a Mooney, you may not know that unlike your 182 or most of the other airplanes you mention, the Mooney has more of a sports car feel.  The cabin width is about the same as most other small GA airplanes, but it feels smaller because of the seating position.  Here is the bottom line:  at least sit in a Mooney or, if you can, fly in one before you go any further.

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, Jeffro said:

Hello All,

I'm new here and considering purchasing a Mooney, upgrading for speed from a Cessna T182T. I'm interested in a modern Mooney - 2007 or newer. Mooney is on my list along with Beechcraft Bonanza, Cessna TTx, Sirrus SR22, and Piper Malibu or M350. Would love to have a TBM, but that's probably out of reach.

• My first question to you Mooniacs is, what are the pro's and con's of the Acclaim Ultra? 
• Second, how would you compare the Acclaim to the Ovation? Any obvious differences other than the turbo/non-turbo and top speed? 
• I live in the PNW. How difficult is it to find great Mooney mechanics and parts?

Thanks in advance to those who choose to respond.

Jeff

I like the engine and other features on the Cessna TTx but the maintenance is very expensive. Also the jury is out on how long the composites hold up in the extreme temperatures. When Cessna moved the composites down to a plant in Mexico for this airplane, the climate there caused some problems that showed up later in failures in the composites.  When I was considering one I talked to owners and a $10,000 annual seemed to be the minimum with some running much higher. The early Columbia 400 and Cessna 400 are orphaned as far as being able to upgrade to WAAS on the G1000.

Piper Malibus were only made from 1984-1987 (Continental Engine). Then the Malibu Mirage came out in 1988 (Lycoming Engine), which later became the M350. I bought a new Mirage in 2000 with a partner and loved the airplane - the weak spot is the engine - we had a couple of engine service bulletins which grounded the airplane. In my opinion you are just asking too much of that engine - there are a lot of systems on that airplane. Also very expensive to maintain compared to the Mooneys I’ve owned. 

I owned 4 turbo Mooneys (2 K’s (231 and Encore) and 2 Bravos) before I bought an Ovation. I liked the panel and everything else except that I was spoiled by the performance of a turbo - mainly for getting over the summer afternoon clouds. I upgraded mine to 310hp, which was great for take-offs and the Ovation climb performance was good up to 8-10k, but after that I was very disappointed. Since you’re coming from a 182 Turbo I wouldn’t consider a non-turbo airplane, especially where you’re located. After the Ovation I bought another Bravo and re-did it and now own an Acclaim. There’s not enough difference in features in the Acclaim and the Acclaim Ultra to justify the extra money. I have had some of the airplanes you mention and looked into the others. I chose the Acclaim and am satisfied. 

[Ragsf15e]

2 hours ago, Jeffro said:

Hello All,

I'm new here and considering purchasing a Mooney, upgrading for speed from a Cessna T182T. I'm interested in a modern Mooney - 2007 or newer. Mooney is on my list along with Beechcraft Bonanza, Cessna TTx, Sirrus SR22, and Piper Malibu or M350. Would love to have a TBM, but that's probably out of reach.

• My first question to you Mooniacs is, what are the pro's and con's of the Acclaim Ultra? 
• Second, how would you compare the Acclaim to the Ovation? Any obvious differences other than the turbo/non-turbo and top speed? 
• I live in the PNW. How difficult is it to find great Mooney mechanics and parts?

Thanks in advance to those who choose to respond.

Jeff

Also there’s good Mooney maintenance at Command in Bellingham or at Troutdale (KTTD) if you’re down toward Portland.

[Schllc]

mission is important,

if you want to fly four adults long distances it’s somewhat limiting. But most people who think they will fly this way, seldom do….

The acclaim gives you all the benefits of those others with more speed for less money, close to half the cost of the bonanza. 
they are also a lot more efficient. 
the seating position is somewhat supine which many people find more comfortable than the typical chair position of other planes. 
then there is the support community here which is undoubtedly the best. 
fly one. It will sell itself. 
 

[Jeffro]

44 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

I like the engine and other features on the Cessna TTx but the maintenance is very expensive. Also the jury is out on how long the composites hold up in the extreme temperatures. When Cessna moved the composites down to a plant in Mexico for this airplane, the climate there caused some problems that showed up later in failures in the composites.  When I was considering one I talked to owners and a $10,000 annual seemed to be the minimum with some running much higher. The early Columbia 400 and Cessna 400 are orphaned as far as being able to upgrade to WAAS on the G1000.

Piper Malibus were only made from 1984-1987 (Continental Engine). Then the Malibu Mirage came out in 1988 (Lycoming Engine), which later became the M350. I bought a new Mirage in 2000 with a partner and loved the airplane - the weak spot is the engine - we had a couple of engine service bulletins which grounded the airplane. In my opinion you are just asking too much of that engine - there are a lot of systems on that airplane. Also very expensive to maintain compared to the Mooneys I’ve owned. 

I owned 4 turbo Mooneys (2 K’s (231 and Encore) and 2 Bravos) before I bought an Ovation. I liked the panel and everything else except that I was spoiled by the performance of a turbo - mainly for getting over the summer afternoon clouds. I upgraded mine to 310hp, which was great for take-offs and the Ovation climb performance was good up to 8-10k, but after that I was very disappointed. Since you’re coming from a 182 Turbo I wouldn’t consider a non-turbo airplane, especially where you’re located. After the Ovation I bought another Bravo and re-did it and now own an Acclaim. There’s not enough difference in features in the Acclaim and the Acclaim Ultra to justify the extra money. I have had some of the airplanes you mention and looked into the others. I chose the Acclaim and am satisfied. 

Great feedback. Thank you.

I hear there is a lawsuit over some of the TTx delaminating. Overall, it looks like an amazing aircraft that didn't do very well in the marketplace. I have a friend that owns one, and he loves it. 

Regarding the Piper, I guess PA-46 would be more accurate. I do like the Lycoming engine and the 350 hp helps. 

I'm afraid to have my wife sit in the Cirrus. She'll love the interior and be sold by the parachute - even though I've tried to explain the pulling a chute is not usually the best option. Plus, anecdotally, it looks like many of the use Cirrus have top overhauls or complete rebuilds with very low hours. Is that the pilot, the engine, the lack of complete control of engine settings or a combination?

Bonanzas seem overpriced, but capable. 

More and more, the Mooney looks like the sweet spot. There's got to be some negatives though.... :-)

[Fly Boomer]

14 minutes ago, Jeffro said:

Plus, anecdotally, it looks like many of the use Cirrus have top overhauls or complete rebuilds with very low hours. Is that the pilot, the engine, the lack of complete control of engine settings or a combination?

No direct experience but from the outside looking in, I would guess that flying a Cirrus "by the book" will eat through cylinders.  Also I suspect that many Cirrus pilots have less experience with a variety of makes and models which helps lead to a "Cirrus way is the only way" mindset.  Any engine can be abused, but guys like me can learn a lot from more experienced guys just by being here and reading everything.

[LANCECASPER]

24 minutes ago, Jeffro said:

Plus, anecdotally, it looks like many of the use Cirrus have top overhauls or complete rebuilds with very low hours. Is that the pilot, the engine, the lack of complete control of engine settings or a combination?

 

No question that Continentals go through more cylinders, however I would put a good portion of the Cirrus top overhauls on open-checkbook maintenance. Mooney owners are more frugal and many would probably insist on a ring flush or some other alternatives before agreeing to a complete top overhaul. Continentals also have a much wider range of acceptable compressions and a shop that likes to run up the tab could easily convince most Cirrus owners that 60/80 is not good and to spend the money without exploring the options. 

[Fritz1]

Test fly each of them, talk to owners and let the wife sit in each of them, pros and cons will be self evident

[NickG]

1 hour ago, Jeffro said:

Great feedback. Thank you.

I hear there is a lawsuit over some of the TTx delaminating. Overall, it looks like an amazing aircraft that didn't do very well in the marketplace. I have a friend that owns one, and he loves it. 

Regarding the Piper, I guess PA-46 would be more accurate. I do like the Lycoming engine and the 350 hp helps. 

I'm afraid to have my wife sit in the Cirrus. She'll love the interior and be sold by the parachute - even though I've tried to explain the pulling a chute is not usually the best option. Plus, anecdotally, it looks like many of the use Cirrus have top overhauls or complete rebuilds with very low hours. Is that the pilot, the engine, the lack of complete control of engine settings or a combination?

Bonanzas seem overpriced, but capable. 

More and more, the Mooney looks like the sweet spot. There's got to be some negatives though.... :-)

The Cirrus engines have a middling reputation, generally well founded. They are however, wonderful planes. I have about 30 hours in the Cirrus but an old service injury on my left arm and shoulder made the side stick very uncomfortable as I’m extremely right hand dominant. I intensely dislike the side stick feedback. My wife loved the Cirrus, didn’t  like the price. She kept pointing at Mooneys on the ramp and asking “what’s that one?”. So now I have an Ovation with 310HP STC, full glass and love it. I live in Las Vegas and thought I would desperately need a turbo but so far that hasn’t been the case.  Having said that, If you think a Turbo is part of your requirement, you cannot go wrong with an Acclaim which is in my opinion the absolute best plane in its class. Fantastic birds!

[PT20J]

29 minutes ago, Fritz1 said:

Test fly each of them, talk to owners and let the wife sit in each of them, pros and cons will be self evident

THIS^^^.  The Cirrus has the advantage that the company is still in business. The wingspan is longer so make sure it will fit your hangar. 

[Mcstealth]

Be honest with yourself about your mission. What is the mission? What outside factors(spouse) have influence over the purchase decision?

All of the planes you mentioned will cover the "traveller" category. What attributes do you value most in a traveller? Those attributes will/should lead your decision making. 

As for Mooney Acclaims: Best in class efficiency,  speed, and range. And doing all of this using  less stock horsepower than all of its competitors. If those are qualities are high on your list, then???? The added bonus is that the Acclaim is so much better looking.

[M20F]

Four great posts if my math is right asking mission details.  Without mission details @Jeffro pretty hard to advise.  

[Ragsf15e]

5 hours ago, Jeffro said:

Hello All,

I'm new here and considering purchasing a Mooney, upgrading for speed from a Cessna T182T. I'm interested in a modern Mooney - 2007 or newer. Mooney is on my list along with Beechcraft Bonanza, Cessna TTx, Sirrus SR22, and Piper Malibu or M350. Would love to have a TBM, but that's probably out of reach.

• My first question to you Mooniacs is, what are the pro's and con's of the Acclaim Ultra? 
• Second, how would you compare the Acclaim to the Ovation? Any obvious differences other than the turbo/non-turbo and top speed? 
• I live in the PNW. How difficult is it to find great Mooney mechanics and parts?

Thanks in advance to those who choose to respond.

Jeff

You really do have to go try them.  Sitting in a Mooney is much different than a Cirrus.  You sit on the floor with legs outstretched kind of like a low sports car.  Getting in and out from that position isn’t for everyone, but it’s comfortable enough for long trips.

Most parts for the engines are easily available, but the factory has been hit/miss and barely in business for a while, so that’s a consideration.

[kortopates]

…
There’s not enough difference in features in the Acclaim and the Acclaim Ultra to justify the extra money.

Probably true, but i’d get the Ultra just for the Nxi avionics since it’s a big plus and offers increased obsolescence security. But i wouldn’t expect to ever see either see upgrade options - but we’ll hope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dkkim73]

I am about 81 hrs into my Acclaim Type S (2009, FIKI w/ VNAV). 

Could write a book about some of the nuances but I think a lot of essentials have been covered above. The only "real drawback" in my mind (besides Mooney as a company in a holding mode) is the limited useful load. 

For my mission (commuting with high terrain, IMC, icing, need for wx avoidance) it has been a near-perfect fit. It is a very very efficient airframe with a strong wing, coupled with (IIUC) one of the more efficient (in terms of BSFC) powerful engines in the class (the TSIO-550G). The G1000 is dated but very well thought-out and provides immense capability. 

It is an outstanding commuting or "executive" airplane, for 1 or 2 people, over a pretty long range. For loading up more people, one has to defuel. OTOH my fuel on board today was about 6.5hrs, so "defueling" is relative. 

Cabin fit is a bit Corvette-like but I like it a lot. It is not a van. 

Looked at: Cirrus SR22T, T182T, T/P210, Bo's A36 and F33. Did not look at the TTx before buying but thought about it when I came across one. 

Bang-for-buck is hard to beat. I would have had to pay more for Cirrus for what I needed. Bo's can be pricey and I thought more variable in many ways, provenance, availability, FIKI-ish ness. You already have the plane I thought would be a simpler solution (I was transitioning to retracts and had a long GA hiatus). But finding FIKI T182 was harder and really not cheap anyway. TTx is impressive but I got the impression total cost of ownership for composite would be higher. The pressurized planes would offer that but higher cost, complexity, not really better safety records, more insurance PITA. 

Acclaim vs. Acclaim Ultra I can't really answer, as I didn't seriously consider Ultra (a person I thought helpful and credible said "if you can swing it, get the Ultra and don't look back"). But you can get most of the essentials in a Type S for much less. 

I did think a *lot* about the Ovation. But the turbo offers huge "outs" for where I fly (central and western MT).

I did a lot of flying (completion primary training) in the Puget Sound, KBFI. Did instruments in the midwest but was very sensitive to the MEA's, icing etc in the Puget Sound. I would think a turbo (and FIKI) would be very, very compelling out there. Unless you are a fair-weather/summer pilot. However, 1. you already fly turbo 2. those are not fair-weather planes you describe for the most part. 

HTH,

David

 

[Grant_Waite]

1 minute ago, kortopates said:

 

Probably true, but i’d get the Ultra just for the Nxi avionics since it’s a big plus and offers increased obsolescence security. But i wouldn’t expect to ever see either see upgrade options - but we’ll hope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Mooney, are great planes don’t get me wrong but there’s quite a few parts that are impossible to get. Mooney doesn’t offer much anymore in terms of support or service. Lasar is hands down the best but they are working with a culmination of years of parts hoarding. The Mooney seating position is probably the most uncomfortable position of any of your choices. It’s unbearable but also not great. You can pick up a gen3 sr22T for about the same, most times less than a Mooney with nxi. Cirrus being in business is a huge deal but you need to plan ahead for parts. I love bonanzas but unless you need 6 seats I wouldn’t pay what a modern g36 cost. If you want to get places fast then a Mooney is the best choice. Just be ready for a limited selection of parts that’s steadily declining. 

[dkkim73]

Let me add to the clinical, Spock-like description above: It is very fun and gratifying to fly, instills confidence, and is a "magic carpet" in many ways that have given me days of my own time back over the last few months...

Also a very elegant design; all Mooneys gets compliments due to some intuitive aerodynamic je ne sais quoi... maybe it's that rakish tail

[dkkim73]

12 minutes ago, Grant_Waite said:

You can pick up a gen3 sr22T for about the same, most times less than a Mooney with nxi. 

The FIKI turbo Cirri were going for $80-100K more than the non-NXi Acclaims when I was looking. The Ultras are a significant price bump. 
The market is shifting, so it's probably worth 1. doing some good searches 2. maybe chatting with brokers re: price points and trends. 

The engine parts issues seem to dog both Acclaim owners and SR22T owners from what I saw last year (TSIO-550, V-bands, etc). Having Cirrus a going concern seems like a non-trivial benefit, though I recall reading a lot of complaints about lead time regardless. I'd thought compositive would be cheaper but heard contrary the more I read. Parts going forward should ideally not be a problem, but supply lead time seems like an issue for many makes. 
I'm not trying to dissuade anyone, the plane has a lot going for it, wouldn't kick one out of bed for eating crackers. Just sharing my own thoughts towards the end of last year. 

[philiplane]

The biggest con with the Acclaim is the Continental engine. It eats money. Cylinders, starter adapters, leaks, etc.

[Will.iam]

3 hours ago, Jeffro said:

Great feedback. Thank you.

I hear there is a lawsuit over some of the TTx delaminating. Overall, it looks like an amazing aircraft that didn't do very well in the marketplace. I have a friend that owns one, and he loves it. 

Regarding the Piper, I guess PA-46 would be more accurate. I do like the Lycoming engine and the 350 hp helps. 

I'm afraid to have my wife sit in the Cirrus. She'll love the interior and be sold by the parachute - even though I've tried to explain the pulling a chute is not usually the best option. Plus, anecdotally, it looks like many of the use Cirrus have top overhauls or complete rebuilds with very low hours. Is that the pilot, the engine, the lack of complete control of engine settings or a combination?

Bonanzas seem overpriced, but capable. 

More and more, the Mooney looks like the sweet spot. There's got to be some negatives though.... :-)

If your wife is a worrier and wants the security of a parachute, explain to her at  less than 100 ft the chute will not open in time to save you, also once you pull the chute you have forfeited all control including your downward velocity which i think is something on the order of 20mph? The airplane will be damaged and you will at minimum have a sore body and now are at the mercy of the winds. Sure would suck to float into those high power lines or land in a highway and get struck by a semi truck that didn’t see you plop in or land on the corner of a 20 story building only to fall down the side. Cirrus admits the caps system is to save lives not to prevent damage. In fairness they have repaired quite a few aircraft that have had the parachute deployed. And claim 100% survival rate for systems deployed above 1000ft and not over their design limit of 200knots IIRC but notice they say survived not uninjured, they don’t publish the broken bones or whiplash percentages that would scare the worrier, their best ally in wanting the system and thus sell of their type of plane. There are very few cases i can think of where i would want a parachute system or where i think it would be better. If my plane had a structural failure in cruise would be one of those times and with a plane made of composites were there is little to no warning when it fails compared to metal airplanes showing fatigue or can bend before it breaks, i see the extra security, but in pattern circuits where if you get distracted enough to not maintain airspeed and stall the airplane, you are fooling yourself if you think you will then have the clarity to pull the chute. By the time you recognize what happened you are already most likely to low for even the chute to save you.
On climb out. I would rather have the protection of a steel roll cage and as long as i didn’t stall / spin it into the ground will most likely survive. Than try that with the composite plane. 

[Grant_Waite]

I look at the options like this. If money is no concern go get a g36 bonanza. Cheaper to maintain than 350 has the same amount of seats and good load with speed. If you solely want to go fast with 2 people the Mooney is the best plane there is. And lastly the cirrus is just a good all around. Comfortable, cheaper maintenance but the parachute makes up for not having retract. I’ve never flown one but can’t imagine they are that bad. Bonanzas seating position is so natural and go decently fast, not to mention a high load for most 36 series. The mooneys are the pilots plane. They handle the best out of any plane but have heavy control forces in return. They are hands down the fastest but lack in useful load and options. Go fly all of them, roll around in the interior and take whoever is going to fly with you the most. 

[dkkim73]

24 minutes ago, philiplane said:

The biggest con with the Acclaim is the Continental engine. It eats money. Cylinders, starter adapters, leaks, etc.

IIUC you are quite knowledgeable about Mooney maintenance. So this is an honest question:

Is it not true that this has a lot to do with how they are flown? From going through the APS online course, lots of Busch videos,  talking to other Acclaim flyers (e.g. @Schllc), the Savvy folks (incl. Paul @kortopates), it sounds like lean-of-peak operation, attention to cylinder peak spread, etc, can mitigate the reputation for cylinder-eating.