Acclaim - Pro's and Con's?

[dkkim73]

4 hours ago, Jeffro said:

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?

It's my understanding it's the same Continental issue that @philiplane mentioned. 

Gut is an important aspect. My wife actually voted for the non-parachute option due to the economics. She declined to let her preference sway my initial decision but subsequently was quite pleased with the Mooney cabin. 

Some of this has to do with economics, which is a delicate subject. If not as price-sensitive, seems like you would owe it to yourself and your family mission to try out a few options.. Someone above mentioned a G36 which is price-wise in a different stratum, similar or more as a good Ultra. I don't think you mentioned any bad planes, but @LANCECASPER already pointed out some issues with the Malibu (I've heard these also from several sources). 

[Grant_Waite]

17 minutes ago, Aviationist said:

I think of your list you’re going to be happiest in a turbo Cirrus both in comfort and safety. The 2 doors should be a big deal and the fact that Cirrus is a very active manufacturer and parts availability should not be an issue long term minus the larger maintenance items with longer wait times (like the parachute)

 

id strongly look at going for the diamond with the JetA piston, and go ahead and excuse yourself from all the Avgas nonsense. 
 

the acclaim is a great airplane, but it is orphaned, has only one door which doesn’t seem like a great option for your family (think emergency and egress) and despite what everyone here will tell you, is tight in the cabin at shoulder level. 
 

Again, I’d look at the diamond options. 

I concur with this, 2 doors makes a huge difference for getting in and out. Diamonds are beautiful planes but also on the pricey side. The  only diamond that’s comparable to a Mooney is the new da50rg which is a 1.5million dollar plane. I’ve also heard that the complexity of the whole fadec can make diamonds quite problematic but that was in the flight school environment. 

[philiplane]

24 minutes ago, dkkim73 said:

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. 

 

Continentals do not have sodium filled exhaust valves, or good oil cooling of the valves, like Lycomings have. It's really hard to overcome that basic difference in design. No matter how carefully you operate a Continental, it will not last as long as a comparable Lycoming. And Lycomings don't suffer from the occasional main bearing shift that results in thrown connecting rods. 

You can extend Continental cylinder life by changing out the exhaust valve rotocoils after 800 hours. They tend to wear out around that time, and once the valves stop rotating, they will burn shortly thereafter. 

[philiplane]

8 minutes ago, Grant_Waite said:

I concur with this, 2 doors makes a huge difference for getting in and out. Diamonds are beautiful planes but also on the pricey side. The  only diamond that’s comparable to a Mooney is the new da50rg which is a 1.5million dollar plane. I’ve also heard that the complexity of the whole fadec can make diamonds quite problematic but that was in the flight school environment. 

A DA50 is not remotely comparable to a Mooney anything. It's a 1.5 million dollar pig with the power-to-weight ratio of an old Cessna 172, and a questionable engine. All of the DA50's produced so far are under a SB to analyze the oil every 50 hours, due to a manufacturing defect that can result in a failed crankshaft. 

[Grant_Waite]

7 minutes ago, philiplane said:

A DA50 is not remotely comparable to a Mooney anything. It's a 1.5 million dollar pig with the power-to-weight ratio of an old Cessna 172, and a questionable engine. All of the DA50's produced so far are under a SB to analyze the oil every 50 hours, due to a manufacturing defect that can result in a failed crankshaft. 

We’re just giving OP all the possible avenues to search for. You can’t argue that the da50 isn’t a nice looking plane. It’s brand new so it’s bound to have issues with it.  

[dkkim73]

2 minutes ago, Grant_Waite said:

We’re just giving OP all the possible avenues to search for. You can’t argue that the da50 isn’t a nice looking plane. It’s brand new so it’s bound to have issues with it.  

At 1.5M aren't we getting to a point where the OP can get a turbine and glance down at us from the mid flight levels and say "I wonder what those people are flying?"

[Jeffro]

1 hour ago, Will.iam said:

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. 

Couldn't agree more. Convincing my wife of these things....that's a whole other bird. 

[Jeffro]

1 hour ago, dkkim73 said:

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. 

 

I'm a Savvy fan and LOP is how I operate my plane most of the time. I watch cylinder temps very closely, as well as the rest of the numbers. Unless something has changed on the Cirrus in the generations after 3, I believe Cirrus takes these decisions/task out of the pilots' hands. This I don't like. 

[Jeffro]

59 minutes ago, philiplane said:

Continentals do not have sodium filled exhaust valves, or good oil cooling of the valves, like Lycomings have. It's really hard to overcome that basic difference in design. No matter how carefully you operate a Continental, it will not last as long as a comparable Lycoming. And Lycomings don't suffer from the occasional main bearing shift that results in thrown connecting rods. 

You can extend Continental cylinder life by changing out the exhaust valve rotocoils after 800 hours. They tend to wear out around that time, and once the valves stop rotating, they will burn shortly thereafter. 

Your words confirm my observation that Lycoming's tend to last longer. That Continental 550 is a beast though. 

Really good intel about changing out the exhaust valve rotocoils. I hadn't heard that before. 

Thanks!

[1980Mooney]

5 hours 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?

 

5 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

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. 

 

4 hours ago, NickG said:

The Cirrus engines have a middling reputation, generally well founded. ... So now I have an Ovation with 310HP STC, full glass and love it.

 

2 hours ago, philiplane said:

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

These anecdotes referencing "Cirrus engines" having different life are rather fanciful. As if the Cirrus is running some radically different engine.  They are all Continental 550's of one form or another.  CIrrus, Mooney, TTX - Their 6 cylinder engines are all siblings from the same Continental stable - some identical twins, some fraternal twins.  Continental has experienced a number of manufacturing problems over the last 20 years and a number of recalls.  I think it has less to do with the airframe manufacturer or pilot and more to do with the engine manufacturer as @philiplane highlights.

One thing in Mooney's favor was that they originally de-rated the 550, limited RPM to 2,500 and HP to 280.  That may extend the life some but many converted to the 310 HP upgrade and 2,700 RPM so it is probably moot.

But the main reason why it seems that there are more Cirrus SR22 and SR22T with engine issues,  is because there are so many, many more Cirrus flying with Continental 550's.  For all we know, the actual life of a Continental 550 in a Cirrus may be statistically equal or even better than other airframes when evaluated as a function of the entire flying fleet.

Source: GAMA Deliveries

The numbers speak for themselves.  That is why there is support and availability for Cirrus.  It is also why it is hard to get Mooney to pay a third party supplier to manufacture a proprietary part - the population is too small.  Also highlights why there is limited financial incentive for Mooney or Garmin to develop G1000 upgrades.

 

Edited August 12 by 1980Mooney

[Marc_B]

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/editorial/mooney-acclaim-ultra-tops-in-raw-speed/
reading this thread made me think of this article. 

 

[Grant_Waite]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

 

 

These anecdotes referencing "Cirrus engines" having different life are rather fanciful. As if the Cirrus is running some radically different engine.  They are all Continental 550's of one form or another.  CIrrus, Mooney, TTX - Their 6 cylinder engines are all siblings from the same Continental stable - some identical twins, some fraternal twins.  Continental has experienced a number of manufacturing problems over the last 20 years and a number of recalls.  I think it has less to do with the airframe manufacturer or pilot and more to do with the engine manufacturer as @philiplane highlights.

One thing in Mooney's favor was that they originally de-rated the 550, limited RPM to 2,500 and HP to 280.  That may extend the life some but many converted to the 310 HP upgrade and 2,700 RPM so it is probably moot.

But the main reason why it seems that there are more Cirrus SR22 and SR22T with engine issues,  is because there are so many, many more Cirrus flying with Continental 550's.  For all we know, the actual life of a Continental 550 in a Cirrus may be statistically equal or even better than other airframes when evaluated as a function of the entire flying fleet.

Source: GAMA Deliveries

The numbers speak for themselves.  That is why there is support and availability for Cirrus.  It is also why it is hard to get Mooney to pay a third party supplier to manufacture a proprietary part - the population is too small.  Also highlights why there is limited financial incentive for Mooney or Garmin to develop G1000 upgrades.

 

This proves a great point. Mooney has always struggled as a company. They built a great plane, but could never market or sell it correctly to sustain. They’ve always been behind the curve and always will be. It sucks mooney won’t ever compete with cirrus. Not even Cessna can compete with them. Cirrus can market a product, add the features needed, and most importantly deliver. Speed isn’t what sells planes, I think cirrus has shown that. Having 2 doors, the chute, and being advertised as “less” maintenance cost due to the fixed gear has won them the best selling ga plane year after year. I will always wonder if Mooney just sold them as expensive as a cirrus, added a chute, would they be able to take some sales away from cirrus to survive. 

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, Marc_B said:

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/editorial/mooney-acclaim-ultra-tops-in-raw-speed/
reading this thread made me think of this article. 

 

These numbers are bunk.  A SR22T is supposedly 10 kn slower than a SR22 through 14,000 feet? - total crap.  And an Ovation is 13-15 kn slower than an Acclaim at 6,000 ft, while both airplanes are the same weight, same airfoil, same fuselage, and each plane's engines are at 65% cruise power, “best performance"  meaning both are ROP either at 201 HP (65% of 310) or both are at 182 HP (65% of 280)- ??  Complete Crap.  Aviation Consumer should be ashamed. 

Edited August 12 by 1980Mooney

[Danb]

8 hours ago, Grant_Waite said:

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. 

This is where you need to sit and fly awhile in those mentioned planes, I believe the Mooney is the most comfortable than the others especially on long trips. A good friend of mine major medical player within the FAA flies often from Midatlantic to OK City and often mentioned the drawback to his 3 year old S22T is it tiring while my Mooney is the opposite. Try and Fly.  We’re all different I’ve had sports cars got 60+ years they fit me well.  Good luck, I’m on my fourth Mooney 2 J a Bravo an Acclaim I like the bravo best mainly do to the lycoming power plant 

D

[toto]

4 hours ago, Grant_Waite said:

Not even Cessna can compete with them.

I mean, the Textron vs Cirrus SEP sales numbers are awfully close, and most of the Textron numbers are Cessnas. 

[Brandt]

9 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

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

 

Well said.  As for differences, the Ultra has the second door, which your wife will like.  It has an upgraded interior and panel switches.  And it has the NXi. Think that’s it.  The Ultra interior gives any Cirrus strong competition. And the Ultra is about 30 kts faster at altitude than the SR22T.

[Brandt]

9 hours ago, philiplane said:

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

Since it’s the same engine as the Bonanza, Cirrus and TTx, not sure that matters much.

[Brandt]

8 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

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. 

 

I’ve gone through one cylinder in 800 hours and that was due to a bad ring. 

[NickG]

9 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

 

 

These anecdotes referencing "Cirrus engines" having different life are rather fanciful. As if the Cirrus is running some radically different engine.  They are all Continental 550's of one form or another.  CIrrus, Mooney, TTX - Their 6 cylinder engines are all siblings from the same Continental stable - some identical twins, some fraternal twins.  Continental has experienced a number of manufacturing problems over the last 20 years and a number of recalls.  I think it has less to do with the airframe manufacturer or pilot and more to do with the engine manufacturer as @philiplane highlights.

One thing in Mooney's favor was that they originally de-rated the 550, limited RPM to 2,500 and HP to 280.  That may extend the life some but many converted to the 310 HP upgrade and 2,700 RPM so it is probably moot.

But the main reason why it seems that there are more Cirrus SR22 and SR22T with engine issues,  is because there are so many, many more Cirrus flying with Continental 550's.  For all we know, the actual life of a Continental 550 in a Cirrus may be statistically equal or even better than other airframes when evaluated as a function of the entire flying fleet.

Source: GAMA Deliveries

The numbers speak for themselves.  That is why there is support and availability for Cirrus.  It is also why it is hard to get Mooney to pay a third party supplier to manufacture a proprietary part - the population is too small.  Also highlights why there is limited financial incentive for Mooney or Garmin to develop G1000 upgrades.

 

Yes, a by far larger data set no doubt for Cirrus. I was referring to issues like this:

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/cirrus-grounds-its-own-planes-warns-operators-of-engine-issues-with-some-sr22s/#

The relative young age of the fleet means there are more newer engines out there with Continental QC issues. Still great planes just another data point.

[philiplane]

8 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

These numbers are bunk.  A SR22T is supposedly 10 kn slower than a SR22 through 14,000 feet? - total crap.  And an Ovation is 13-15 kn slower than an Acclaim at 6,000 ft, while both airplanes are the same weight, same airfoil, same fuselage, and each plane's engines are at 65% cruise power, “best performance"  meaning both are ROP either at 201 HP (65% of 310) or both are at 182 HP (65% of 280)- ??  Complete Crap.  Aviation Consumer should be ashamed. 

Not total crap. But not 100 percent accurate either. All turbo airplanes are a few knots slower (on the same power & fuel flow) below 8000 feet for a simple reason. The engines are heavier, and nearly all that extra weight is up front. The weight difference on a Cirrus turbo vs non-turbo is as much as 180 pounds. Because turbos will come with oxygen, de-ice, and other equipment that add weight and drag, in addition to the heavier engine.  The turbo Cirrus will be faster above 8000 feet, up to its' max cruise of 214 KTAS at FL250 on 18 GPH. I can get a little more speed if I can move some weight aft.

[GeeBee]

My view is a Part 23 single engine airplane, as well as most light twins is, they are a toy. Buy the toy that makes you happy because they all break in one way or another. Unless you got a newer Lycoming you got cam issues, and the fuel injection is not so great either. If you got a Continental you got to baby the cylinders. As to speeds, unless it is a real dog, 10-15 knots here or there makes zero difference in most enroute times block to block. As Rosana Dana said, "It's always something" buy what you like and enjoy.  
 

[1980Mooney]

4 hours ago, toto said:

I mean, the Textron vs Cirrus SEP sales numbers are awfully close, and most of the Textron numbers are Cessnas. 

I am not sure where you are getting that notion. Cirrus sales of SEP are more than double Textron. 
 

In 2023:

Cirrus sold 612 SEP

Textron sold 292 SEP (180 of the total was low-end 172’s almost exclusively for training/flight schools.  Only 5 Bonanza’s were sold)

https://gama.aero/facts-and-statistics/quarterly-shipments-and-billings/

[Mcstealth]

14 hours ago, Grant_Waite said:

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. 

"Comfort" is such a subjective conversation. One man's apple is another man's orange. I would not go as far to say that the Mooney is the most uncomfortable. I know I love long distance driving in my low slung, legs forward seated sports car. I know I loath driving the same long distances in a Surburban. There are a multitude of articles about the long distance prowess of different Mooney models and nary a mention about the "uncomfortableness" of their respective cockpits. 

Again, apples to oranges, and, to each their own. 

[Fly Boomer]

12 hours ago, Jeffro said:

Your words confirm my observation that Lycoming's tend to last longer. That Continental 550 is a beast though. 

Really good intel about changing out the exhaust valve rotocoils. I hadn't heard that before. 

Thanks!

Mike Busch says borescope frequently, and change the rotocoils on condition.

[Grant_Waite]

5 hours ago, toto said:

I mean, the Textron vs Cirrus SEP sales numbers are awfully close, and most of the Textron numbers are Cessnas. 

I don’t know where you are getting that information from but Textron doesn’t come close with cirrus on sales. They seem to only care about growing their jet fleet and have left their ga fleet in the dust. They haven’t changed the design or function of any of the Cessna singles, nor the Beechcraft fleet. I wish they would make a new equivalent of the 210. Or maybe tease the idea making a modern 421.