New Mooney Acclaim

bnt83 said:
Bottom line is that if Beech or Piper really wanted to add the proper number of doors to an airplane, it could be done pretty easily. Some of these one-door wonders don't even have much equipment on the wall to worry about.
Click to expand...
It might be easy to do but for the numbers of Bo's and Baron's they're building I doubt it is worth the cost.
I would think that a good bit of testing would be required for this change as well.
I also wonder about any extra liability. Now there are two doors that could pop open causing the airplane to immediately nose dive into the ground. :rolleyes:
 
LevelWing said:
Thanks. I figured the Saratoga would be faster than that. However you do get a lot more room in there than a Mooney.
Click to expand...

I agree about the speed. That is at 65% power. It is a 1980 Toga. I have been told the newer ones go faster.
 
I dunno, my pokey old M20C will haul close to a half ton of fuel, pax and whatever else. With a couple more cylinders banging away its hard to believe the new ones would do less. Granted, if you really want enough fuel to fly the pond you won't be bringing lots of friends along. But most grownup airplanes are about making intelligent choices, e.g. gas or pax. You can easily put enough gas in for a long trip and fill the seats. Most complex aircraft are the same way, you can fill the seats or the tanks, but not both.
 
Scott@KTYR said:
466 pounds useful load with 89 gal in the tank. That is two people and a small bag!!
Click to expand...
Sounds like a couple of people need to lose some weight.

"Please step away from the double cheeseburger and super sized fries and soda." :D

My wife, I and either one of our daughters combined weigh under that.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yep. Lots of benefits to the Mooney system.
Click to expand...

All makes & models fly in & out of here from all over the world. Seems like every year we see a few more blown tires than strut failures.

The rubbers are essentially immune to stone/FOD damage which costs some operators a lot of money.

Seems likel a leaky engine would quickly ruin the rubbers. Fuel leaks can't be good either. Long periods of inactivity is bad.


Pluses and minuses on both sides.
 
wayne said:
Sounds like a couple of people need to lose some weight.

"Please step away from the double cheeseburger and super sized fries and soda." :D

My wife, I and either one of our daughters combined weigh under that.
Click to expand...

I am not over weight, I just have Big Bones:D
 
This is a step in the right direction. The second door made me look at Beech B19 seriously back in the day. Now add a chute and you have a competitor for Cirrus.
 
zaitcev said:
This is a step in the right direction. The second door made me look at Beech B19 seriously back in the day. Now add a chute and you have a competitor for Cirrus.
Click to expand...

I thought about a chute, too, but it looks like useful load is already at a premium. I'm not sure how much weight it adds.
 
jkgoblue said:
I've never been to enamored with Mooneys but I gotta tell ya, this looks like a great update. I'm happy to see some of these legacy manufactures are updating more than just a panel. Just adding a pilots side door is a big deal. It would seem that that alone would require a major FAA recertification but I know very little on that topic.

Nice looking plane.

http://aero-news.net/getmorefromann.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=c128075d-5c8c-4299-b2c7-9fb2b90e7aae
Click to expand...

Damned tail is still on backwards.

Flame on!
 
Last edited:
rbridges said:
I thought about a chute, too, but it looks like useful load is already at a premium. I'm not sure how much weight it adds.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall it is about 80 lbs.
 
I'll admit it's beautiful, just like my M 20B model. I'll just wait for the $70,000 Pilot's door STC.
 
All y'all that love it, please go buy it and put whatever you have on the used market. Cheap. Especially if it's fast. Haha.
 
I'm lucky enough to know someone with an Acclaim Type S that lets me used it from time to time.

It's fast as hell...and pretty fun to fly.

But..it has basically..no useful load left if you fill up the tanks. Topped off, TKS topped off, and it's basically a 1 person airplane.
 
bnt83 said:
The rubber doughnuts in the gear just seem silly to me.
Click to expand...


Almost zero maintenance, sure rides a little stiffer on the ground but unless you plan on driving the plane to the destination it's a mute point.

Simple, light and less upkeep and cost....sure silly...I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aaronk25 said:
Almost zero maintenance, sure rides a little stiffer on the ground but unless you plan on driving the plane to the destination it's a mute point.

Simple, light and less upkeep and cost....sure silly...I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yep, zero maintenance. I'll never come out to fly and find one low. Happens routinely to my Cessna friends. Just don't let it happen on a weekend at a rural airport, there won't be anyone around with a compressor to pump it back up.

A new set right now is available (highway robbery rates!) for ~$1000, and should last at least 10-15 years. When I replaced mine in 2013, the manufacturing date molded into them was "06-69," so they were a little overdue but worked. It just taxis and lands a little smoother now . . .
 
Instead of this, I think they should have went with the idea of refurbishing M-20J's and selling those with modern avionics, a new engine, lighting and perhaps aerodynamic/ aesthetic updates. That would be a better seller and would help stabilize the market. It's good revenue for everyone and boosts confidence in the fleet parts availability.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Instead of this, I think they should have went with the idea of refurbishing M-20J's and selling those with modern avionics, a new engine, lighting and perhaps aerodynamic/ aesthetic updates. That would be a better seller and would help stabilize the market. It's good revenue for everyone and boosts confidence in the fleet parts availability.
Click to expand...

Just wait a few more years. There will be RV10's around the price of a well equipped M20J and way under the price of an Acclaim.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Instead of this, I think they should have went with the idea of refurbishing M-20J's and selling those with modern avionics, a new engine, lighting and perhaps aerodynamic/ aesthetic updates. That would be a better seller and would help stabilize the market. It's good revenue for everyone and boosts confidence in the fleet parts availability.
Click to expand...
Even if they did this the price would still be pretty high. I'm not sure the cost would be worth it for Mooney. If I decide to upgrade my Mooney at some point I'd be looking at either a J or a K.


rbridges said:
or someone's right arm depending on the plane. :lol:
Click to expand...
I love the J-Bar.



bnt83 said:
Just wait a few more years. There will be RV10's around the price of a well equipped M20J and way under the price of an Acclaim.
Click to expand...
If they just did the Part 23 re-write I'd be happy. Better equipment for a lot less in a certified plane. :(
 
jesse said:
I'm lucky enough to know someone with an Acclaim Type S that lets me used it from time to time.

It's fast as hell...and pretty fun to fly.

But..it has basically..no useful load left if you fill up the tanks. Topped off, TKS topped off, and it's basically a 1 person airplane.
Click to expand...

All true, but I top mine off only if I'm going from Denver to the west coast solo. And flying nonstop from Denver to Napa in 4:30 with an hour of fuel left in the tanks is pretty nice.

Most of the time I launch with 30 gallons per side, which gets me from Denver to Albuquerque with plenty to spare in about 1.5 hours, or Denver to El Paso in 2.5 hours. I also fill the TKS only half way because I seldom fly in the clouds any more.

I have the 310hp upgrade, and there's nothing that matches the thrill of climbing out of Aspen at 2000fpm!

The Acclaim rocks for those who want to go high, far and fast without hauling much stuff. As I'm getting older I'm unloading more and more baggage so it's the perfect ride for me. :)
 
Last edited:
Aaronk25 said:
Almost zero maintenance, sure rides a little stiffer on the ground but unless you plan on driving the plane to the destination it's a mute point.

Simple, light and less upkeep and cost....sure silly...I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Its still silly, kinda like seeing pneumatic deice boots on a jet.
 
colojo said:
All true, but I top mine off only if I'm going from Denver to the west coast solo. And flying nonstop from Denver to Napa in 4:30 with an hour of fuel left in the tanks is pretty nice.

Most of the time I launch with 30 gallons per side, which gets me from Denver to Albuquerque with plenty to spare in about 1.5 hours, or Denver to El Paso in 2.5 hours. I also fill the TKS only half way because I seldom fly in the clouds any more.

I have the 310hp upgrade, and there's nothing that matches the thrill of climbing out of Aspen at 2000fpm!

The Acclaim rocks for those who want to go high, far and fast without hauling much stuff. As I'm getting older I'm unloading more and more baggage so it's the perfect ride for me. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah. Thing is though..I'd rather take the Malibu even if I'm solo. It's by far more comfortable, has air conditioning, and is pressurized so the turbos actually become useful. It also costs less than that Acclaim does.
 
jesse said:
Yeah. Thing is though..I'd rather take the Malibu even if I'm solo. It's by far more comfortable, has air conditioning, and is pressurized so the turbos actually become useful. It also costs less than that Acclaim does.
Click to expand...

Now, you're just bragging... ;)
 
Our club has a Mooney Eagle I could fly for $210/hr. Its been modified to a screaming eagle whatever that means.

They say its a 190kt plane? Tempting but the M20J's rent for $150.hr and they will do close to 160kts
 
jesse said:
Yeah. Thing is though..I'd rather take the Malibu even if I'm solo. It's by far more comfortable, has air conditioning, and is pressurized so the turbos actually become useful. It also costs less than that Acclaim does.
Click to expand...

But it won't fit in a typical little hangar, and any of the three air/oil oleos might leave you somewhere with a collapsed strut. :rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
LevelWing said:
Even if they did this the price would still be pretty high. I'm not sure the cost would be worth it for Mooney. If I decide to upgrade my Mooney at some point I'd be looking at either a J or a K.
Click to expand...

We might see something on the "new" market for less than $1/4 mill. That's cheap in aviation dollars. Throw in bonus tax depreciation and it could kickstart the aviation industry.
 
Jaybird180 said:
We might see something on the "new" market for less than $1/4 mill. That's cheap in aviation dollars. Throw in bonus tax depreciation and it could kickstart the aviation industry.
Click to expand...
That's true. I don't see Mooney, or anybody else for that matter, doing it. Even AOPA's Cessna 152 "Re-Imagined" cost something like $90,000. For a 152. That's not worth it when for the same amount I could easily have an M20J or a nicer equipped M20C/E/F.
 
jesse said:
Yeah. Thing is though..I'd rather take the Malibu even if I'm solo. It's by far more comfortable, has air conditioning, and is pressurized so the turbos actually become useful. It also costs less than that Acclaim does.
Click to expand...

And I thought I was old.
 
bnt83 said:
Which won't change labor costs much if at all.
Click to expand...
But the savings in installing non-TSO equipment, or even doing part of the labor yourself legally, will make a marked improvement in the total outlay of mx and upgrade costs.
 
I'm a sucker for a pilot side door and low wings. I just need them to drop the price down to 50k and I'm all set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top