Real world Ovation2 vs Acclaim vs AcclaimS Performance

[1980Mooney]

10 hours ago, Z W said:

Caught a tailwind of up to 70 knots, and made it to the Kansas City area in a little over 3 hours.  Smooth air, no clouds, no traffic, within glide distance of multiple airports almost the whole time.  Didn't even make a radio call between leaving the pattern in Colorado and entering it in Missouri.  175 KTAS at 13 GPH (TIT limited, I like to keep it under 1600).  Landed with 2 hours of reserve fuel.

Some days the turbo really shines.

No one ever mentions when they are bucking a 70 knot headwind up high and are either screwed or need to fly down low with the 172's.....

[1980Mooney]

Like Groundhog day, this has been discussed before...six (6) years of discussion:

https://mooneyspace.com/topic/18071-real-world-performance-differences-between-acclaim-and-ovation/

 

[Schllc]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

No one ever mentions when they are bucking a 70 knot headwind up high and are either screwed or need to fly down low with the 172's.....

Yeah…. But the 172 doesn’t have an option….

it isn’t always a panacea, it’s a trade off, but I enjoy it. I’m sure the guys in the 172’s feel the exact same way for their own reasons. 
I love all planes, just some more than others.

[1980Mooney]

On 11/11/2024 at 8:33 PM, qwerty1 said:

Thank you, several interesting points I'd love to pick your mind on:

1) I'm assuming 'maintain' difference being a 'rounding error' means regular maintenance/fuel 5-10% but NOT overhauls, correct? This even if so is pretty interesting to me would have thought acclaim more expensive at every turn

2) Sorry just trying to improve my terminology too, what does 'appointed' refer to - optional modifications like a/c vs no etc?

3) Not mentioned but I'm confident you know, what is the load/weight differential assuming full tanks? Did you ever do extended tank options, on either per chance?

Not sure why you would think that an Acclaim is "more expensive at every turn". 

The Eagle, Ovation and Acclaim all have the same long body with Continental 550 cubic inch 6.  Maintenance of the landing gear (gear, pucks & actuator), control surfaces, paint, glass, lighting, fuel tankage & senders, speed brakes is all the same (ok - the Eagle did not have rudder trim or speed brakes) so the cost is the same. 

As you move up the model chain there is a of "layering on" of hardware and options.  In addition to the turbo-charged engine and built-in oxygen, an Acclaim will likely have more hardware (accessories) that will add weight and increase maintenance cost like FIKI or/and Air conditioning, fully adjustable seats, Speed brakes were an option in the Eagle. Built-in oxygen was an option on Ovations. 

• The additional hardware (standard or option) will need maintenance - some more regular and some more expensive than others.  

Acclaims will have G1000 panels  - 2005 Ovations and up will have G1000 also.  Older Ovations and Eagles came with vacuum and "steam gauges".  What each has today varies.

I think the "5-10%" increased cost was related to fuel consumption.  That again is related primarily to speed.  For a given altitude, increased speed in general will require more horsepower and more fuel consumption as a function of a square due to drag.  Acclaim owners will go higher to do better than that with less drag in thinner air.  But not many passengers like oxygen cannulas up their noses and even less like masks.   As a result you will see a lot flying at 10-12 K feet.

An Acclaim primarily flown at 10-12 K will have higher fuel consumption and higher engine maintenance than an Ovation.  You will likely need to do a top overhaul in an Acclaim before TBO.  That is over $25 K today.  You already mentioned turbos.

[LANCECASPER]

13 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Not sure why you would think that an Acclaim is "more expensive at every turn". 

The Eagle, Ovation and Acclaim all have the same long body with Continental 550 cubic inch 6.  Maintenance of the landing gear (gear, pucks & actuator), control surfaces, paint, glass, lighting, fuel tankage & senders, speed brakes is all the same (ok - the Eagle did not have rudder trim or speed brakes) so the cost is the same. 

As you move up the model chain there is a of "layering on" of hardware and options.  In addition to the turbo-charged engine and built-in oxygen, an Acclaim will likely have more hardware (accessories) that will add weight and increase maintenance cost like FIKI or/and Air conditioning, fully adjustable seats, Speed brakes were an option in the Eagle. Built-in oxygen was an option on Ovations. 

• The additional hardware (standard or option) will need maintenance - some more regular and some more expensive than others.  

Acclaims will have G1000 panels  - 2005 Ovations and up will have G1000 also.  Older Ovations and Eagles came with vacuum and "steam gauges".  What each has today varies.

I think the "5-10%" increased cost was related to fuel consumption.  That again is related primarily to speed.  For a given altitude, increased speed in general will require more horsepower and more fuel consumption as a function of a square due to drag.  Acclaim owners will go higher to do better than that with less drag in thinner air.  But not many passengers like oxygen cannulas up their noses and even less like masks.   As a result you will see a lot flying at 10-12 K feet.

An Acclaim primarily flown at 10-12 K will have higher fuel consumption and higher engine maintenance than an Ovation.  You will likely need to do a top overhaul in an Acclaim before TBO.  That is over $25 K today.  You already mentioned turbos.

 

Having owned a couple K models, three Bravos, an Ovation and an Acclaim there is not much difference in engine maintenance costs between all of those models .

In the Acclaim vs. Ovation scenario, if the Acclaim gets you there 10% faster, you're using 10% less engine time (plus 10% less time on the airframe, moving parts, etc), which is how we normally measure overall costs. (If you fly higher, that percent goes up.) That difference over the years that you own it should cover most of the additional costs associated with a turbo. 

Since these are all used airplanes, the biggest variable will be how the previous owner(s) flew and maintained the airplane. (As an example the Ovation I owned had just had a top overhaul at 1000 hrs before I bought it. I ended up spending a lot on the airplane in the time that I owned it catching up on deferred maintenance. That wasn't the Ovation's fault, just an example of the costs having more to do with how it was flown and how it was maintained, than the model you choose. After catching up then it will depend on how you fly and maintain it.)

[Will.iam]

With the weight of the original 3 blade would a MT composite 3 blade be faster as you get 28 lbs off the nose thus less up trim of the horizontal stab which would be less drag?