My take on the 2017 Mooney Ovation Ultra

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
In a previous thread: "Can Mooney and Cirrus save aviation" (https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...e-general-aviation.102513/page-5#post-2375845)

I kind of bashed Mooney because of the customer service I was given and I was disappointed. So while at The AOPA fly in this weekend I was a little cautious going to the Mooney area. I met a guy named Mike Farley from Premier and he gave me the grand tour of the Ovation Ultra and he was great!

At a previous Sun and fun event, I had the opportunity to sit in an Ovation 2. (IMO) The Ultra has more legroom. When I sat in the left seat my legs couldn't touch the pedals and I had to adjust the seat, my legs are really long so not many airplanes have that much legroom not even the new Cirrus SR22's. Not only that but the Ultra is VERY comfortable to sit and take long flights. I took the wife with me to the AOPA event and she overall enjoyed the airplane and the dual doors, (She doesn't like the single door airplanes) and she also didn't have any issues getting in and out of the Mooney because the wings are pretty low to the ground. She is 5 foot 5 1/2. All of the Avionics are where they need to be and if you have flown G1000's the transition should be pretty smooth.

I was told the fuel tanks can hold 89 gallons but you can get a long range option of 100 gallons that can take you to 1450 NM with a 45 min reserve.

(IMO) Mooney got this airplane right, I wasn't necessarily in agreement with the added composite materials they added but overall a wonderful airplane. How it responds to the marketplace dominated by Cirrus is another story. I'm really hoping it does well!

20171027_184010.jpg 20171027_184101.jpg 20171027_184108.jpg 20171028_132753.jpg
 
Is it my imagination or does the instrument panel look a little bit lower than before? I don’t like the submarine effect.
This plane has 2 problems:
No chute.
No pressurization, especially for the Acclaim.
That said, if I had the means... I would buy one.
Personally I’m not a fan of the side stick. If I’m in turbulence I want to have 2 hands on the controls.
 
Is there a price on the ultra, yet?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Why? What can you do with two that you can't do with one?
Click to expand...
Feel more secure whether you actually are or not.

(FWIW, I think you and I would agree you're not and we are better off leaving our other hand free for the power changes we often need to control unwanted climbs, descents and airspeed changes in turbulence.)
 
teejayevans said:
Is it my imagination or does the instrument panel look a little bit lower than before? I don’t like the submarine effect.
This plane has 2 problems:
No chute.
No pressurization, especially for the Acclaim.
That said, if I had the means... I would buy one.
Personally I’m not a fan of the side stick. If I’m in turbulence I want to have 2 hands on the controls.
Click to expand...

IMO it's around the same height. I'm 6 1 1/2 and I can see over the console. I was also impressed with the visibility to see outside. Some people like the Chute and I agree that is good selling point but I would go with the steel rollcage especially what happened to this guy:

http://wfla.com/2017/05/05/crews-respond-to-plane-crash-at-clearwater-air-park/

This is NOT a Cirrus bashing thread but more of a "Pick your poison" thread. ALL safety features in GA are not 100%

CMongoose said:
Is there a price on the ultra, yet?
Click to expand...

Yes 700kish Depending on features TKS, A/C...etc

I forgot to mention the A/C is an add in, a 35k add in. Best to find someone selling one of these with the features you want when it's been on the market for awhile.
 
How does this help lower training, insurance, regulatory compliance, maintenance, fuel, and other costs? 700k entry point. How does this attract younger people to get into flying?

Nice machine - will make very little impact.
 
GLMS_NC said:
How does this help lower training, insurance, regulatory compliance, maintenance, fuel, and other costs? 700k entry point. How does this attract younger people to get into flying?

Nice machine - will make very little impact.
Click to expand...

I doubt very much this airplane was made for the beginner in mind. That is why they are working on the M10 with the beginner in mind. If that comes to market or not is really anybodys guess.
 
teejayevans said:
Is it my imagination or does the instrument panel look a little bit lower than before?
Click to expand...

I sat in the Acclaim Ultra last year and the panel is indeed lower because they removed the annunciator panel. It's a nice improvement. I think they did a very good job on the new panels, basically eliminating the flaws in the Acclaim and Ovation panels.
 
I like Mooneys, but have always found them a tad claustrophobic.

I think the second door and lower panel might go a long way to alleviate that feeling.

Nice to see some competition to the Cirrus - hope they succeed in selling a bunch of them.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I doubt very much this airplane was made for the beginner in mind. That is why they are working on the M10 with the beginner in mind. If that comes to market or not is really anybodys guess.
Click to expand...

when did say say anything about a beginner? If one starts in the M10 they would look for an upgrade at some point. Could they afford this? This will not make a dent in saving GA.

I admit it's nice unit.

We have to lower, or contain, costs. And I see minimal success on this front.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Feel more secure whether you actually are or not.

(FWIW, I think you and I would agree you're not and we are better off leaving our other hand free for the power changes we often need to control unwanted climbs, descents and airspeed changes in turbulence.)
Click to expand...

I can do that with a yoke as well, but a yoke gives me the option.
 
GLMS_NC said:
when did say say anything about a beginner? If one starts in the M10 they would look for an upgrade at some point. Could they afford this? This will not make a dent in saving GA.

I admit it's nice unit.

We have to lower, or contain, costs. And I see minimal success on this front.
Click to expand...

Rough guesstimates:
Avionics $100,000
Engine $100,000
Liability insurance $100,000
Certification costs $100,000

Tough to build a capable plane, that’s low volume, basically hand made, on the $300,000 left for much less.
 
The M10 is DOA.

Short of a miracle of engineering there will never be another retractable gear GA plane certified in the US, which means that all that market will go to old designs with an existing type certificate.

I love Mooneys. I've got lots of time in older ones (231, 201, ranger) and rode in an Ovation a few weeks ago. Damn nice plane that is way out of my range.
 
teejayevans said:
Rough guesstimates:
Avionics $100,000
Engine $100,000
Liability insurance $100,000
Certification costs $100,000

Tough to build a capable plane, that’s low volume, basically hand made, on the $300,000 left for much less.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree.

Brand new IO-550 is no where close to 100k. Avionics 100k? Absolute farce.

And herein lies one more problem. Certification. FAA stands for Finally Abolish Aviation.
 
GLMS_NC said:
Totally disagree.

Brand new IO-550 is no where close to 100k. Avionics 100k? Absolute farce.

And herein lies one more problem. Certification. FAA stands for Finally Abolish Aviation.
Click to expand...

I've seen 550's for 50k but does the price include Installation, I'm not sure!
 
GLMS_NC said:
Totally disagree.

Brand new IO-550 is no where close to 100k. Avionics 100k? Absolute farce.

And herein lies one more problem. Certification. FAA stands for Finally Abolish Aviation.
Click to expand...

List price is $67,000, that’s just engine...add electric fuel pump and other installation costs. The turbo version obviously more.
Somewhere someone said the AC was $35,000!?
A dual screen G500 is $25,000, the 3 screen G1000, with transponder, ADSB, audio.....got to be close to $100,000.
 
GLMS_NC said:
Certification. FAA stands for Finally Abolish Aviation.
Click to expand...
And who forces you to fly certificated aircraft? You can fly an experimental one, plenty of choices on the market, some actually pretty high-end in terms of performance.
 
Interesting that the panel appears to have a more rectangular form to best fit the glass displays, as opposed to the more (half) elliptical designs in other aircraft. I like it. It looks much more pleasing.
 
GLMS_NC said:
FAA stands for Finally Abolish Aviation.
Click to expand...

Yeah buddy. They did a heck of a job shooting primary non-commercial in the head. Clean job too, professional assassin work.

olasek said:
And who forces you to fly certificated aircraft? You can fly an experimental one, plenty of choices on the market, some actually pretty high-end in terms of performance.
Click to expand...

fwiw that hasn't been my experience wrt the 4-seater market. Why the snark though? Do you work for the FAA or something? o_O
 
aftCG said:
Short of a miracle of engineering there will never be another retractable gear GA plane certified in the US, which means that all that market will go to old designs with an existing type certificate.
Click to expand...
I suspect the above statement needs some qualification, like "never be another retractable gear GA airplane powered by a single piston engine", or something. Both Tecnam P2006T and Cirrus SF50 Vision were certified (relatively) recently, and both have retractable gear. Pilatus PC12 is certainly a GA airplane too.
 
Out of curiosity (stupidity?), why the statement that they’ll never certify a retract single engine piston again?
 
skiermike said:
Out of curiosity (stupidity?), why the statement that they’ll never certify a retract single engine piston again?
Click to expand...

I think the insinuation is that since aerodynamic refinement has been forethought enough into the design of gear legs and wheel fairings of restart production aircraft, in addition to the flush nature of composite skin fabrication, the complexity of gear retraction mechanism at what are still in the aggregate slow small airplanes (sub 200 KTAS), is no longer a worthwhile opportunity cost for customers to pursue. Obviously there are people who disagree as well.

The reason you won't see the same philosophy applied to twins is that in the case of twins, drag index is of more consequence to the whole discussion of OEI. In addition, most twins suffer from worse gas mileage compared to their single counterparts (normalized for airframe cross sectional drag index) so the economics of removing the legs from the airstream still pan out.

If we are to take that notion at face value, then the natural extension is to suggest Mooney is still attempting to produce a retract under the existing cert due to simpleton economic incentive, and not because of some sort of branding/signature cachet as Mooniacs may or may not hint at.
 
skiermike said:
why the statement that they’ll never certify a retract single engine piston again?
Click to expand...
To be precise he (aftCG) never used the word 'piston'. But he qualified his statement with 'in the US', so he implies there will be perhaps retractable singles coming .. say out of Europe? Where does he see this vibrant design/production of new GA airplanes coming from beyond the US is beyond me.
hindsight2020 said:
is no longer a worthwhile opportunity cost for customers to pursue.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. Retractable pistons lost their allure in view of recent aerodynamic/other advancements.
 
Just for comparison, the Cirrus SR20 vs Mooney M20J:
Both are 200 HP planes, both well under 200K obviously, the Cirrus has the advantage of being a newer design, but fixed gear of course:
At 8000’, 55% HP, 9.5gph
Cirrus does 136K, M20J does 145K.
clearly the fixed gear even with the aerodynamic improvements is a substantial drag.
 
teejayevans said:
Just for comparison, the Cirrus SR20 vs Mooney M20J:
Both are 200 HP planes, both well under 200K obviously, the Cirrus has the advantage of being a newer design, but fixed gear of course:
At 8000’, 55% HP, 9.5gph
Cirrus does 136K, M20J does 145K.
clearly the fixed gear even with the aerodynamic improvements is a substantial drag.
Click to expand...

Mooney vs SR20

(Think I'd rather have the Lycoming, preferably without a D2XXX or D3XXX series magneto) Parts overall should be cheaper too.
 
teejayevans said:
Just for comparison, the Cirrus SR20 vs Mooney M20J:
Both are 200 HP planes, both well under 200K obviously, the Cirrus has the advantage of being a newer design, but fixed gear of course:
At 8000’, 55% HP, 9.5gph
Cirrus does 136K, M20J does 145K.
clearly the fixed gear even with the aerodynamic improvements is a substantial drag.
Click to expand...

You have to consider that the cockpit of the Cirrus is much larger than the Mooney adding drag. At only 9 knts difference I would go for the fixed gear any day.
 
I've seen two Mooney crashes recently, one an engine out over an LA neighborhood at night, the other a departure stall over trees into a house. That's right, the airplane was imbedded in someone's house.

In both accidents the aircraft was largely destroyed (in the second one the left wing was torn off by a tree). And in both everyone walked away with little more than cuts and bruises. You can have your chute.
 
teejayevans said:
Personally I’m not a fan of the side stick. If I’m in turbulence I want to have 2 hands on the controls.
Click to expand...

Actually, the center yoke makes it worse. Your arm is unsupported, so as you hit turbulence there is a PIO caused by the delay in your arm/body bouncing around.
While a side yoke, or side stick where the arm is supported reduces PIO caused by the arm being free to bounce around like a shock absorb-er. Now to be fair, after a while in the bumps, my arm does get a bit sore from the pounding against the arm rest.

teejayevans said:
Just for comparison, the Cirrus SR20 vs Mooney M20J:
Both are 200 HP planes, both well under 200K obviously, the Cirrus has the advantage of being a newer design, but fixed gear of course:
At 8000’, 55% HP, 9.5gph
Cirrus does 136K, M20J does 145K.
clearly the fixed gear even with the aerodynamic improvements is a substantial drag.
Click to expand...

A better comparison is to see what the drag is just on the nose wheel for an RV.
Or get some academics to compare two well designed versions of the same model.
In your comparison of a SR20 vs the M20J you are comparing a plane where you sit on the floor versus one where you sit upright. And the vertical height matters in terms of drag. Let alone consider the interference of two doors versus one door, cabin width....
At the end of the day, at the speeds we operate with piston planes, it is hard to make a retract more efficient than a fixed gear if proper attention is paid to the gear design. Can it be done? Sure. Is it worth it, not really. The engineering costs for the fixed gear are significantly lower than the costs for both the initial engineering and the production for the retract gear. Hence, it is not likely you will see a traditional retract gear introduced in GA as a new design.

Tim
 
steingar said:
I've seen two Mooney crashes recently, one an engine out over an LA neighborhood at night, the other a departure stall over trees into a house. That's right, the airplane was imbedded in someone's house.

In both accidents the aircraft was largely destroyed (in the second one the left wing was torn off by a tree). And in both everyone walked away with little more than cuts and bruises. You can have your chute.
Click to expand...

The chute adds a lot of onging cost that a whole lot of GA aircraft owners couldn't support, I know I can't.
 
bnt83 said:
The chute adds a lot of onging cost that a whole lot of GA aircraft owners couldn't support, I know I can't.
Click to expand...

How much do you think it ads?

Tim
 
steingar said:
Repack is once a decade and around 15AMUs. Not for the feint of heart (or wallet).
Click to expand...

So it costs say, $2400 a year for hangar, $1200 a year for parachute, $2500 a year insurance, what? $800 a year for database subscriptions?, $3000 a year inspections, we haven't flown yet.
 
tspear said:
How much do you think it ads?

Tim
Click to expand...

About $1,200/year. Hopefully that doesn't put someone out of plane ownership, especially since it's planned, not a sudden unexpected bill.
 
steingar said:
Repack is once a decade and around 15AMUs. Not for the feint of heart (or wallet).
Click to expand...

Is one required to re-pack? Is the parachute system on the MEL for Cirrus? If not, one could decide to tag it out or mark it as inop and not rely on the system.
 
bnt83 said:
$1000 a year just for that on top of everything else.
Click to expand...

steingar said:
Repack is once a decade and around 15AMUs. Not for the feint of heart (or wallet).
Click to expand...

Every time I have sat down and crunched the numbers with multiple other owners. It ends up being a wash when comparing equivalent airplanes.
e.g. Mooney M20J vs SR20, A35 vs SR22.
The retract gear swings, metal inspections...
Over ten years it all washes out to be about the same, usually with a slight edge to the fixed gear.

The cheapest plane is often the Cessna 172 or the 206.

Tim
 
Bill Jennings said:
Is one required to re-pack? Is the parachute system on the MEL for Cirrus? If not, one could decide to tag it out or mark it as inop and not rely on the system.
Click to expand...

I have been told by multiple mechanics, it is required. And also the chute cutters, which was every six years. Not sure what it is now.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top