Bringing my new acclaim home and I want a different prop.

[Schllc]

Since @Danb has finally gotten over his ex “bravo”, and fallen in love with his acclaim, I don’t see him selling it to me anytime soon, so I went on the hunt and pulled the trigger…  
I have found another lost soul looking for some tlc.
I really wanted to get a bravo bc of the lycoming, but just couldn’t find one that made sense, so I went back to what I know.
The third acclaim to be made will soon be mine.  Fortunately it has the gfc 700, FIKI, a 345 Adsb in and out, and I have some waas boxes, so it’s going to be up to date. The plan is to spend the next few years doing a complete restoration to my specs.  Thicker glass, new interior, fresh paint, possibly some type S mods. See how much difference the prop makes before I do any of the other ones. 
 

one question I have for the borg…
This is not a type S, and has the older style prop, so that’s where I’m starting.  I don’t think I’ve seen anyone here put an MT on an acclaim but if anyone has, I would like to know how they like the change, and what was the real difference in weight.
Everything I have read about the MT has said there is less vibration and noise.
The prop is considerably shorter than the hartzel so tip speed will be less, it is less weight on the nose, and the flex and give on the wood and composite blades reduce vibration. The cool look is just a bonus. 
I did fly an Aerostar with MT props two weeks ago and the noise difference is noticeable, and the Aerostar is already pretty quiet. 
I will likely sell the old prop (has tks slinger boots) when the MT comes in so if anyone is interested they can ping me.  I don’t know the lead time for the MT, but the last quote was 40 weeks so I suspect it will be in that range. 
I have missed my Mooney very much and look forward to getting back into my new bird. 

 

Slightly tangential tech question:   
Why don’t  all props feather?  Is it weight?

[Fly Boomer]

10 hours ago, Schllc said:

I would like to know how they like the change, and what was the real difference in weight.

Quite a few MT topics on this forum.  Here is just one, and it's an Acclaim:

https://mooneyspace.com/topic/26877-hartzell-acclaim-3-blade-vs-mt-composite-4-blade/

[LANCECASPER]

10 hours ago, Schllc said:

The third acclaim to be made will soon be mine.  

Hmm . . . the Acclaim  serial numbers have a designation of 31-xxxx, and this is # 3, and it's a TN.

It wouldn't happen to be N313TN?

[Schllc]

8 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Quite a few MT topics on this forum.  Here is just one, and it's an Acclaim:

https://mooneyspace.com/topic/26877-hartzell-acclaim-3-blade-vs-mt-composite-4-blade/

I didn’t see any acclaims on that thread. 
that being said, the performance on the ovation is likely close enough. 
since my main goal is noise and vibration reduction, I’m leaning heavily towards the MT.

i didnt realize that the weight savings would be 24#. That is huge on the nose!  
I wouldn’t want the complexity of reverse, but feathering would be nice.  
That’s a lot of drag for an engine out. 

[exM20K]

19 hours ago, Schllc said:

I have missed my Mooney very much and look forward to getting back into my new bird.

Welcome back.  They're hard to beat if you have the right mission.

-dan

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

I didn’t see any acclaims on that thread. 
that being said, the performance on the ovation is likely close enough. 
since my main goal is noise and vibration reduction, I’m leaning heavily towards the MT.

i didnt realize that the weight savings would be 24#. That is huge on the nose!  
I wouldn’t want the complexity of reverse, but feathering would be nice.  
That’s a lot of drag for an engine out. 

Hmm.  I didn't study it, but the title was

"Hartzell Acclaim 3-Blade vs MT Composite 4-Blade"

The feathering may be for a Rocket.  Those engines came off 414s and maybe some others.

[LANCECASPER]

11 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Hmm.  I didn't study it, but the title was

"Hartzell Acclaim 3-Blade vs MT Composite 4-Blade"

The feathering may be for a Rocket.  Those engines came off 414s and maybe some others.

The feathering was definitely for the Rocket, not for the Acclaim or Ovation or Bravo, etc.

[skykrawler]

On 11/21/2024 at 10:11 PM, Schllc said:

Slightly tangential tech question:   
Why don’t  all props feather?  Is it weight?

I think the following reasons:

Expense, added complexity, and weight.

Governors are different.

Restarting a engine with a feathered prop is challenging without an unfeathering accumulator.

 

[Vance Harral]

On 11/21/2024 at 8:11 PM, Schllc said:

Slightly tangential tech question:   
Why don’t  all props feather?  Is it weight?

The advantages of a feathering prop are a tradeoff against complexity, and new potential problems.  Even if the feathering mechanism was free and weightless, some designers and owners might still choose against having one in a piston single.

In a piston prop twin, single engine service ceiling and - more importantly - controllability, are so severely affected by a windmilling prop that feathering capability is a no-brainer even with the complexity and potential problems it brings.  But in a single, the only thing you're buying with a feathering prop is a slight improvement in glide range, in the event of a total engine failure that doesn't affect the ability of the propeller to rotate.  Note that feathering in a single doesn't help you at all if the engine is still making partial power (often the case, and in that case you want all the thrust you can get); or if it seizes suddenly enough that you don't get it feathered before rotation stops.

In exchange for the benefit of feathering in the small number of cases where it actually helps, you get all the failure modes of the feathering hardware .  Those include sticking of the anti-feather shutdown pins, such that the engine feathers on shutdown and is hard on the engine and battery on the subsequent restart; as well as the unlikely-but-catastrophic case of accidentally feathering the propeller in flight at full power, which tends to damage the engine.  And because it would be very high risk to practice feathering and securing the only engine in a single-engine airplane in flight, you'll never train to do this "in real life", only in a simulator or on the ground.  Most of my multi-engine students have a pretty difficult time getting the feather/secure sequence exactly right on their first "real life" attempt, and I suspect the error rate would be even higher amongst pilots of single-engine feathering propellers, who do not hold a multi-engine rating and regularly train the feathering sequence in multi-engine airplanes.

I'm not really arguing that a feathering prop in a piston single is a bad idea.  Just that it's not the no-brainer it might seem to be at first glance, even setting aside the large cost and small weight penalties.

[exM20K]

On 11/21/2024 at 10:11 PM, Schllc said:

Why don’t  all props feather?  Is it weight?

An engine without oil pressure will run for a while before seizing. So in the event of loss of oil pressure on takeoff, would you like to have thrust or not?  The only use case that benefits a single with feathering prop is at altitude, and then it is only a marginal benefit.  If it goes into feather on takeoff, it is simply a bad thing.

The Rocket has this feature because Darwin Conrad used the engine / prop combo off of the Cessna 340. Good marketer that he is, he spun it as a safety benefit, which I do not believe it to be.

-dan

[exM20K]

@Vance Harral you type just a bit faster than me lol.

-dan

[Schllc]

Well, I’m home in one piece. 
I pretty much bought this sight unseen. It was a bit of a gamble, but I thought since it was the original owner there would be some pride of ownership. 
Boy was I wrong.  I don’t think he has ever cleaned the planes interior.
Not an exaggeration either….
Its going to need a lot of tlc

while this was a little disappointing to see, it isn’t really an issue because I was going to redo it all anyway. 
Cosmetically, the guy was a pig, mechanically is better, but not by much. Engine is sound which is the big item,  but as far as all the little things go, if it broke while he owned it and it wasn’t airworthy he didn’t fix it. 
I went to update the data bases and he never updated them. I mean never, they expired in 2007…

Takes all kinds I suppose.  I’ll post some before and after pics in a few weeks. 
She is neglected and dirty but I love her anyway!

[KSMooniac]

30 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Takes all kinds I suppose.  I’ll post some before and after pics in a few weeks. 
She is neglected and dirty but I love her anyway!

Glad you saved her!  Hard to believe a plane as "new" as an Acclaim needs an update/mini-restoration, but I guess the earliest ones are approaching 20 years old already.  geez.  My plane had <2 year old interior when I bought her, and I'm dreaming of new side panels and carpet now after 17+ years.  I did the seats last year.

I still like my MT prop.  I don't believe there is a smoother or lighter solution out there, unless it might be a Hartzell composite that may or may not be ready for Mooney applications.   

[Schllc]

8 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

still like my MT prop.  I don't believe there is a smoother or lighter solution out there, unless it might be a Hartzell composite that may or may not be ready for Mooney applications. 

I am ordering mine this week!  I have a lot of other things to do for noise first. 
Window vent seal is gone, door is leaking, overhead vent isn’t working, and there are a few other leaks I need to chase down. 

[NickG]

46 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Well, I’m home in one piece. 
I pretty much bought this sight unseen. It was a bit of a gamble, but I thought since it was the original owner there would be some pride of ownership. 
Boy was I wrong.  I don’t think he has ever cleaned the planes interior.
Not an exaggeration either….
Its going to need a lot of tlc

while this was a little disappointing to see, it isn’t really an issue because I was going to redo it all anyway. 
Cosmetically, the guy was a pig, mechanically is better, but not by much. Engine is sound which is the big item,  but as far as all the little things go, if it broke while he owned it and it wasn’t airworthy he didn’t fix it. 
I went to update the data bases and he never updated them. I mean never, they expired in 2007…

Takes all kinds I suppose.  I’ll post some before and after pics in a few weeks. 
She is neglected and dirty but I love her anyway!

I Hope the price you paid reflected the owners neglect.....

[Schllc]

32 minutes ago, NickG said:

I Hope the price you paid reflected the owners neglect.....

No one ever really gets to that number…

I paid more than I should have, but timing was a factor, and most of the big ticket neglected items would have been changed anyway. 
I knew I was going to get a project for this one, so I’m not going to let this spoil my joy. 
I would have preferred the seller to be a good guy, but he turned out to be kind of a jerk, which makes the transaction less happy than one would hope.  
He promised to tank it up for me, I got there and it was less than half full, so he called the FBO and topped off.  Then after we closed he said he changed his mind and it was “my problem to pay the FBO”.  it wasn’t the $400 that upset me, it was just a crappy move.  
Oh well, I only had to see him for a few hours, but tomorrow he wakes up and he is still him….

Other than that, I’m very happy to be back in a Mooney, and I’m looking forward to making it better than new. 

[NickG]

3 hours ago, Schllc said:

No one ever really gets to that number…

I paid more than I should have, but timing was a factor, and most of the big ticket neglected items would have been changed anyway. 
I knew I was going to get a project for this one, so I’m not going to let this spoil my joy. 
I would have preferred the seller to be a good guy, but he turned out to be kind of a jerk, which makes the transaction less happy than one would hope.  
He promised to tank it up for me, I got there and it was less than half full, so he called the FBO and topped off.  Then after we closed he said he changed his mind and it was “my problem to pay the FBO”.  it wasn’t the $400 that upset me, it was just a crappy move.  
Oh well, I only had to see him for a few hours, but tomorrow he wakes up and he is still him….

Other than that, I’m very happy to be back in a Mooney, and I’m looking forward to making it better than new. 

Congratulations!!!! I’m 100% sure you will make the plane perfect and have many hundreds of happy, safe flying hours in it!!!

[dkkim73]

Welcome back, Ray. We have the usual table at Carmine's Italian Bistro, in the back. Dan, and Dan, and Dave, and...

 

 

 

[mike_elliott]

Acclaims are a drug...hard to break that habit

[Jeff Uphoff]

12 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Acclaims are a drug...hard to break that habit

Mooneys in general, really--I'm on my third, and they keep getting bigger each time!

[Danb]

22 hours ago, Jeff Uphoff said:

Mooneys in general, really--I'm on my third, and they keep getting bigger each time!

So true..

[Ragsf15e]

On 11/26/2024 at 4:04 PM, Schllc said:

No one ever really gets to that number…

I paid more than I should have, but timing was a factor, and most of the big ticket neglected items would have been changed anyway. 
I knew I was going to get a project for this one, so I’m not going to let this spoil my joy. 
I would have preferred the seller to be a good guy, but he turned out to be kind of a jerk, which makes the transaction less happy than one would hope.  
He promised to tank it up for me, I got there and it was less than half full, so he called the FBO and topped off.  Then after we closed he said he changed his mind and it was “my problem to pay the FBO”.  it wasn’t the $400 that upset me, it was just a crappy move.  
Oh well, I only had to see him for a few hours, but tomorrow he wakes up and he is still him….

Other than that, I’m very happy to be back in a Mooney, and I’m looking forward to making it better than new. 

Im curious how you search to find these airplanes?  Maybe you haven’t bought as many as @KLRDMD but you don’t find them off Controller, TAP or Barnstormers do you?

Is there some other way to find (hopefully nicer than your previous owner) who might want to sell?

[Schllc]

Some I find on websites, some word of mouth from brokers or people that I know.  But when I shop I am vigilant and being the first guy through the door making a fair offer with a quick close seems to be very attractive to sellers. A lot of guys scanned the FAA registry and send out letters. I did that when looking for my Aerostar. 

I have found that there are two “general routes” to go to buy a plane.  
The more common is a prebuy, thorough inspection etc. this is a protracted process that certainly has its benefits.  
The other method, which  I prefer, is a lower offer, but for cash with a quick close.  

I do a thorough logbook review,  personal inspection and then a thumbs up or down and quick closing. I have found that this method is very enticing to people who are actually ready to sell because it’s fast.  
I have purchased more than a couple of planes this way and have been fortunate to not have anything big come up.  But if the seller doesn’t really want to sell, it isn’t always going to be well received. 
The reality is that even in a prebuy, the time a shop spends on a plane is pretty minimal, and while it may catch a big ticket item, or some things, it can also miss 30 $1,000 items..     
This is not to suggest a prebuy doesn’t have value, I just think it’s a little less important on a newer plane with good history.  
l”ve also heard some horror stories of issues when people did a prebuy and it was missed, so there is no magic bullet. 
 

 

[Scott Ashton]

Let me know when you are around - I would love to stop by and see her!

 

congrats!

[mike_elliott]

Congrats Ray