Micheal, how does the 300 do in terms of payload with 106 USG on board? That is where I find the Ovation and the Acclaim most lacking.
Actually, Mooney did not use to publish schedules like that in the old POH´s but simply would indicate power tables at different RPM and power settings. Much easier now to make out cruise regimes. I only know 2 people who actually operate an Ovation and they usually fly at either 65 or 55%, they use the low power regime only if they really need it.
Out of interest, what are the corresponding values for the -300? FF/TAS at the different settings? I don´t have any data for this plane at all at the moment.
the Columbia 300 has the same range and speed as the Ovation? Wow. I really did not know that, that is quite a surprise.(I suppose you refer to the standard tank variant? I am not aware of any long range options in the Columbia.
The Columbia 300/350/400 carries 106 gallons fuel, stnd, there are no options.
The POH gives 1320NM max range, BUT that’s because it does not show performance for less than 50% power rather than the 45% power schedule the Mooney uses.
Thermawing only works because the heating elements are insulated from the airflow by the ice accumulation itself. So it actually needs ice to allow the heater to get warm enough for melting the ice. So wether it works or not one can only tell when it is already too late…
In my experience it is effective as anti-ice as well as de-ice. You can see ice accumulating on the inboard LE while the Thermawing elements remain entirely clear. No boots to cycle, no fluid to manage.
Boots work really well. I don’t have any patches on mine. Look after them they last well.
anyway… i dont own an A/C so cannot test it
Me neither, but I wouldn’t mind testing it with a hired airplane – I’m curious enough 
That 7,5 kW alternator is pretty substantial of course, with that kind of power it probably can be done. But not every engine can drive such an alternator in addition to all the other accessories which limits the potential customers somewhat.
Anyway, I could (and can) never understand why people don’t like de-ice boots. It’s a simple and comparatively cheap system that can be fitted to almost any aircraft (from C172 to Lockheed Super Constellation), draws next to zero power from the engine, is simple to operate, very reliable and requires almost no maintenance apart from the odd patch that needs to be sticked on.
@whatnext
i understand although the tech seems serious enough (spinned off from NASA supported research)
they say in their doc that it can repaired, also replaced element by element and the alternator is 7500W/70V DC
anyway… i dont own an A/C so cannot test it
Longest one I’ve done so far is 4:30, manual flying, glad that that is now a thing of the past, but it was quite enough too.
Begining of this year I flew TB20 without autopilot for 6 hours (3:20+2:40 with brief landing for customes and refueling) with last 2 hours in IMC, night and icing and both approaches VOR in IMC. It was fun to test myself Luckiliy I had a co-pilot who provided me with help on charts and few 5 minutes breaks during last portion of the second flight.
That reminded me on days when I was young – my soaring flights used to be 4 to 6 hours, of course manual flying, looking down to roads, rivers and villages for navigation and at the same time searching for thermals and ridges providing lift. And I feel little bit spoiled
What about those Corvalis/Columbias flying with the Thermawing ?
I only believe what I have seen and tried myself 
The biggest problem I see with electric anti ice is the enormous quantity of thermal energy that gets carried away through convective heat transfer by cold air flowing at 100+ kt. The Thermawing only works because the heating elements are insulated from the airflow by the ice accumulation itself. So it actually needs ice to allow the heater to get warm enough for melting the ice. So wether it works or not one can only tell when it is already too late… Due to the large current demand, the system is divided in zones that need to be energised in a specific sequence. One can imagine that the slightest malfunction of any component will fail the entire system. And what about the vulnerability of the plastic surface, which is also the conductor? Just look at the dozens of patches that most ordinary rubber deice boots carry after a few years in operation. Will it be possible to patch-up a Thermawing after being struck by gravel or a bird?
One of the aircraft I fly (the C550 Bravo) has a small portion of the inner leading edge, less than one meter, anti-iced electrically. The idea is that no large chunks of ice that might form there get detached and swallowed by the engines. That little bit of electrically heated wing consumes 200A at 28V per side. Too much even for two turbojets which means that the heating elements need to be cycled. And this is only for one meter of wing! The rest is done by boots because the same two turbojets that can not supply enough electricity to deice the whole wing can’t deliver sufficient bleed-air either. And this is why I am somewhat skeptical about the Thermawing.
Electric anti ice would be nice, but will not come. The laws of physics are against it.
What about those Corvalis/Columbias flying with the Thermawing ?
I have no equity in them , but i must say i found that very interesting compared to TKS, although it seems quite rarely installed.
I am happy 2 people here were able to give feedback
I agree, this long flights in so small planes are not much fun, especcially if you have passengers who have no relation to flying and just want to get there.
Longest one I’ve done so far is 4:30, manual flying, glad that that is now a thing of the past, but it was quite enough too.
There is another aspect however. Particularly with the avgas situation in several countries, this kind of fuel capacity can be very helpful even on shorter flights. Only time I had to do this was when flying to Bulgaria, with an airport of entry with no fuel and on to a 1-20 hour away destination. Fuelled up in Belgrade, flew to Plovdiv without fuelling and then on to Primorsko, landing with enough to go to Burgas and 45 minutes left. There, same thing, fuel to the top, fly back to Belgrade via Plovdiv (border control), tank cheap in Belgrade and back home.
Now, payload permitting, if I get to a place like Belgrade or others where there is cheap fuel and plenty, with a plane like that you can fuel up pretty much and fly on 1€ Avgas for the next 1200 or so miles, no matter how often you land inbetween (provided you are not over the MLW). Greece, Spain, other places with either no avgas or very expensive gas then can be much more feasible.
What I am missing in my plane is the 64 USG the “F” and “J” model have as opposed to the 52 the C, E and G Model have. That is about 1-30 more flight time and just about to 900 NM or so. There is not much you can’t do with that kind of range, 650-700 NM is often not enough.
Re flying slow: 165-170 kts is about what you’d see in the Ovation in it’s long range mode. That is 10 to 15 kts slower than it usually goes (not many go balls to the wall all the way), but a massive range increase. That is ok. I would not do the long range cruise recommended by Mooney on the C model where you hang in the air with 100 kts when with 130 to 140 kts I only loose maybe 30-40 miles.
