Why not a Mooney Acclaim Ultra?

Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

What a great plane, had a chance to watch Julie fly one of these. After the C172, the speed could be a game changer for us. Any Mooney fans or detractors on here? Seems it's Mooney, Cirrus, or Columbia/Cessna 400. Something about the Mooney just looks right.

But she loves the C172, neat plane and very comfortable in a lot of ways.

 

Awesome plane for two people.

 

Here's a good article, although old at 2008.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/mooney-acclaim-type-s-still-the-fastest/#.WsKwkGaZM8Y

No matter what your mission profile, you’re almost certain to notice the room and comfort of the Acclaim Type S. That’s because its dimensions have always been better than most pilots realize. The myth is that Mooneys are universally cramped and compact airplanes. The myth is just that—a myth. Width at the elbows in the front seat of the Acclaim Type S is a significant 43.5 inches. To put that in perspective, it’s 1.5 inches wider than a G36 Bonanza or G58 Baron’s cabin. True, seating is more laid-back in the Mooney than in other airplanes, so the vertical dimension is admittedly shorter, but legroom is excellent, and overall comfort is better than you might expect. Baggage goes behind the rear seats in a huge compartment limited to 120 pounds.

If comfort is better than you expect, avionics sophistication is also equal to anything in the class. Mooney has embraced the Garmin G1000 dual flat-screen avionics suite, along with the Garmin G700 autopilot. The level of avionics sophistication is only slightly below that of a Gulfstream, and the Mach number is just under 0.40.

Make no mistake, no matter what its other talents, the Mooney Acclaim Type S is all about speed. It makes no compromise with comfort, yet flies behind less horsepower and still manages to go faster than anything else in its class. It’s designed for the pilot for whom nothing but the fastest will do. Roy LoPresti would be proud.

Mooney Acclaim Sets World Speed Records
Alex Coley of Jacksonville, Fla., recently set a new world speed record between San Diego, Calif., and Jacksonville in a new Mooney Acclaim. Coley, along with flight instructor Tim Wadsworth, flew from San Diego’s Lindbergh Field to Mooney’s home airport in Kerrville, Texas, refueled the airplane and people in 12 minutes and continued their flight to Craig Airport in Jacksonville. At an average speed of 265 knots, Coley and Wadsworth made the 1,848 nm transcontinental crossing in only six hours and 59 minutes.

Here at Plane & Pilot, we know a little about Mooney speed records. Back in March 1994, Senior Editor Bill Cox piloted a stock Mooney Bravo, the Acclaim’s predecessor, slightly farther (1,867 nm) from Los Angeles to Jacksonville in seven hours and nine minutes, for an average speed of 261 knots. Cox also set new, Class C1C speed marks for Los Angeles to Albuquerque (294 knots), Los Angeles to Dallas (285 knots) and Dallas to Jacksonville (258 knots). Fourteen years later, those records still stand.

 

Craddock sets world record in Mooney

FEBRUARY 23, 2009 BY JANICE WOOD

Dr. Dave Craddock has set a world speed record on a trip from Minneapolis, Minnesota to New Orleans, Louisiana, in the first production Mooney Acclaim Type S. Flying at an average speed of 333 knots with a max ground speed of 357 knots, Craddock traveled 904 nautical miles in 2 hours and 43 minutes.

The record flight, submitted to the National Aeronautics Association (NAA) for review and certification in the C-1.c category, stretched the entire length of the Mississippi River. To accomplish the world-record speed over a recognized course, Craddock flew from Crystal Airport outside of Minneapolis, did a running start at 25,000 feet and a running stop over New Orleans, descending through 11,400 feet.

“I had been watching the weather for several days via the Internet and realized that I could set a blistering record,” Craddock said. “I love flying my Mooney at 25,000 feet, and I look for opportunities to do so.”

Nicknamed the Batmobile, the Acclaim Type S is the third new Mooney for Craddock, who is a dentist from Kewanee, Illinois. As vice-president of the Flying Dentists Association, he used the Acclaim to make meetings in Minneapolis and New Orleans on January 31, along with setting the speed record. “Gone from home only 24 hours, I missed no clinic time,” he said. “I could never, ever have done that trip commercially.”

 

The M-series onward used the PFM body, which was longer than the 201/231/252. With the now standard pilot side door ease of entry/exit for the 2nd row has improved. They won't have legs with 4 people, but still go a couple hrs comfortably, which at 200+ kts is still a fair stretch. With 2 people and long range tanks, engage the autopilot and set the alarm clock for a 6 hr wake-up call. But hey, I'm biased after spending 1500 hr in my old short body E model.

 

Notice all those records were going east. Different story going west.

 

Big big tailwinds!

 

I think the modern Mooneys look pretty neat, especially for two people and if you don't mind wearing oxygen.

What are real-world speeds like in those airplanes? And how do they compare to something like a Cessna TTx or Cirrus?

 

When I said it's a great plane for two people, I was referring to its useful load (not room in the cabin). Load it with options and fuel, and you're only carrying two people and their luggage. For two people, though, it's one hell of a cross country machine.

 

Why not the Mooney Acclaim?

I think a more appropriate question is "why the Acclaim over a Cirrus and TTx or XXX"?

Which does it do better (or worse) and by how much?

Payload?
Range?
Speed?
Fuel efficiency?
Comfort?
Weight capacity?
Cost to own?
Safety record/capability?
Avionics capabilities?

Edit: Found this https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/cessna-ttx-versus-world-comparison-specs#page-5

Does anyone know where to find a "chart" formatted comparison of the relevant competitors?

 

Cirrus' website use to have chart comparisons to its competitors. I don't know if it still does.

 

Thanks. Here is the link: http://whycirrus.com/compare/compare.aspx

Not all on one page and no comparison to some of the planes in the link I posted earlier...I guess they don't consider them competitors in the class or something.

 

I was a Mooney 231 owner. That model had a 200 Kt top speed, but I usually cruised at 175KIAS at 10-12,000 ft rather than 20-24,000 ft ceilings where you could get the extra airspeed. Didn't like going on oxygen masks, and at 10-12,000 nasal canula were less obtrusive. 175 KIAS was also usually the sweet spot for fuel burn vs distance (11-12 gallons per hour). Good groundspeeds when the winds were going your way or on approaches (keeping ahead of 727's tailing you on descent). But if you had a fast approach, you had to know how to slow it down on final or you got into trouble.

I'd look at a Mooney again if I were in the market, but I agree that $200,000 over competitors might not be worth it. One thing I liked was that the wing structure was supposedly good for about 20G's and the airframe had never had an in-flight breakup at the time I bought it (although that stat has changed due to a Mooney pilot flying into a thunderstorm).

 

I've always wondered about the +/- to a sidestick vs yoke. What are your thoughts?

 

I've only flown a sidestick once (and didn't land) in a pal's Cirrus. I was surprised that it was as natural as I found it (going in I was unsure if it would be different than a yoke).

So, the "space" being more open is the big plus and no downside.

Are even some commercial jets or biz jets sidestick?

 

Agree with you on most except the "old tin can" looks. The Mooney is a far prettier airplane with its distinctive "backwards" tail than the ungainly looking Columbia.

 

Laminar flow wings, which of course the newer generation planes have (Cirrus/TTx) and which the Mooney has had from the very beginning (50's), are susceptible to ice or other contamination (bugs). New airfoil design is probably better than Mooney, but the Mooney airfoil did have a nice 'drag bucket' where you could get it 'on the step' so to speak. Everyone has always strived to match Mooney efficiency (201 does stand for something).

As far as utility, while the Mooney was never certified as such it was tested well past utility when they were competing in the Air Force primary trainer competition in '89/90 time frame. The guy who designed the Mooney metal wing was supposedly at Beech when the tail issue first arose, and made sure there were no repeats of that on the Mooney.

Ramp appeal of an RG beats a trike hands down, every day.

Always had one hand on the throttle during landing, even in most challenging conditions.

 

All three are great aircraft. Speaking of in flight breakup, has anyone ever heard of a Cirrus or Columbia break up? The only one I remember is when the chute is pulled at high speed on the Cirrus.

Imagine how fast the Mooney would be with composite design, no rivets. It's still fast and they promote the single spar design that runs from wing tip to wing tip.

Put that video up on your smart TV and watch, listen. It looks beautiful in flight. Perhaps old school but classic and graceful.

 

Cool video, do you miss it?