Austintatious

On 1/16/2022 at 12:42 PM, philip_g said:

With two large adults in front and 100lbs of lead shot in baggage we were ahead of the cg limit.

One of our w&b is probably off from 40 years of changes. Also that weird cap on top of the envelope shifts rearward. Monroys helped, as the gas shifted us aft a bit, but I assume every rocket has monroys.

Most do, but one of mine does not.  Still I managed a 3:40 min flight from DPA to FTW with 18 gallons still in the tank. 

I am pretty sure my W&B is correct or very close to it.  I looked through it very closely  when I first got the aircraft, checking the changes along the way.  Of course the only way to know for sure is to put it on scales.

On 1/13/2022 at 9:28 AM, AH-1 Cobra Pilot said:

It also depends on your ratings and hours.  I would love to see a chart that details all the factors into prices.

As an ATP, CFI-I, with thousands of hours, my rates are pretty low.  My co-owner, however, is a PP with a few hundred hours, which drives our rate.

Ehh, I am not sure that is the case to be honest.  It may have some degree of effect but I don't think it is drastic.

I cant give an example with my Mooneys, but I can with my glider...  This is a High performance very complex glider with a deploy-able engine that requires a special logbook endorsement and is a tail dragger as well.  It is honestly the most complex and "hands full"  aircraft I have ever flown.    I bought it with a partner that was only a student pilot with about 5 hours of time.  Contrasted to my ATP and 5 type ratings and 4500+ hours.  We paid about $750.00 for the first year.   After that first year, I bought him out of the glider as we decided it was going to be a long time before he was experienced enough to get in it.  Even after taking him off the policy and me logging 50 hours in Make/model , the second year insurance went up.....   Go figure.

You could always see what is for sale near you and go looking.  I mean nobody wants to waste anyone's time, but it sounds like you have decided a mooney is right for you except for the uncertainty of the inside of one, So who is to say you wouldn't be a buyer when you get shown one you like?  If I was a seller, I would give a show and tell to a potential buyer like you.

Mooneys are a bit like a sports car, a bit difficult getting in and out, but once you are in they are fine.  Also, compared to other aircraft, your legs are more straight when you are sitting in it vs sitting in a chair.  Like an F1 car vs a truck.

If you can figure out what the market will be doing, please let us all know!

I have to agree with 201er.  I would not suggesting buying an aircraft before you even have your tickets.   It would be one thing to buy an aircraft for the explicit purpose of getting your tickets and then selling after that is done... and that wouldn't be a Mooney.  Buying a Mooney right now is getting a bit ahead of ones self.   Please, I mean this in the nicest way possible... it is the same as if a 15 year old who is taking drivers ED was shopping for a corvette.  Prioritize your learning... there is a heap of it.  Even after you get your tickets, fly fly fly and then when you know what you want to do in an airplane ( 100$ burgers, fun flying, sight seeing, traveling, barnstorming, aerobatics ECT) then pick one to suit your needs and your abilities/experience.

Ive got one...

The MYTH that Rockets are Nose heavy because of the larger engine.

That would be true if they didn't put the Charlie weights in... but it would also be true that if it had a rotor it would be a helicopter.  They DO put the charlie weights in.

Furthermore, the CG envelope is not changed.  Literally the ONLY way I can be out of CG by being too far forward is if I put two large adults up front and have nothing in the baggage area.  And even then the aircraft flies just fine  ( yea I did this when I first got the aircraft not paying attention.., shame on me)

But put about 40 lbs in the baggage compartment and you are fine.  That is usually the case for me and my wife when we go somewhere.  I am not even certain you can get out of CG to the rear, unless you have a baggage compartment full of gold bullion.

That being said... i would love to get an MT propeller.  I hear that takes about 50 lbs off the nose and that would mean I could likely remove some of the charlie weights.  That would put me over 1150 lbs of useful load.

Man, this thread blew up...

I have a few thoughts on The PPI issues...

I get that if Mechanics were held liable for not finding a big problem as we see with the OP,  that no mechanic  would want to even do a PPI... That being said, if the average Joe cannot be confident in a PPI, then why would they ever buy a used aircraft or bother with the PPI to begin with?   There HAS to be a happy medium in there where mechanics are safe from liability if they do a good PPI and the owner is confident that a PPI is a good measure to use in deciding to buy an older aircraft. 

I tend to try to figure out how I will operate in the future with the knowledge I have accrued.  In this case I have a sort of silly idea, but one might be a good way to increase the likelihood that  I wont get saddled with an expensive problem that went undetected as with the OP.   I'm thinking for the next PPI I have done, I will be very very specific about what I want done... and I will also tell the mechanic that does the PPI that if he finds any "showstoppers" (anything that would make the aircraft unsafe to fly) with the aircraft, that I will give him $1000.00 in cash as a bonus.  Certainly that will get him looking really carefully at everything.  If he finds something like in the OP, then I am out another 1000.00 but at least I wont end up with a 20k repair bill.  If he finds nothing, I can be pretty confident that the aircraft is in good shape.

I may also insist that In addition to a PPI, a fresh annual is completed at my cost.  The seller is responsible for airworthiness items anyway, so what is the problem?   If a seller balks at that, then I'll just walk.  Simple as that.  He can sell to the next sucker.  If they are OK with it, then perhaps I have some recourse should I still have something major fall through the cracks... because the shop signed the aircraft off as airworthy.

Savvy Aviation would hate me for this if they were representing the seller.

The MSC issue I don't know what to say.  I will reiterate that I have not been impressed in the least by the 2 MSC's  I have been to.  And when I say that, I don't mean to say that I wont go to them again or that they will always do bad work... I just mean that I have not seen any real difference from the "random A&P's I have delt with.  Perhaps it was just my expectations that caused this.  I have certainly been to independent shops that did much better work and had nicer facilities.  I have also had the opposite of that experience.  Contrast this to when I take our Lexus or BMW to a dealership for work... they know the cars well and fix things right.. but take those same cars to an independent shop and they dont know them as well and the repair may or may not fix the problem correctly. 

I am really sorry for the OP's experience... 

I would be pretty mad myself if this was to happen to me... In fact, It easily could have happened to me on my first mooney purchase.  During the PPI, they found some internal damage from a gear collapse inside the wing.  It required two complete wing panels to be removed and replaced and it cost the seller about 35,000.00 to fix.   That was about 1/5th the price of the aircraft.  I shudder thinking that it could have been missed.

On my second Mooney purchase, I bought the aircraft from a MSC that had bought the aircraft for the aircraft to resell.  They had done a lot of work to it including a new propeller and re doing the instrument panel.   I had a PPI done elsewhere due to potential conflict of interest.  On that PPI they missed the fact that the MSC had not installed a switch for the prop heat.  After the sale, while digging into that issue,  we found that the MSC had also put the wrong propeller on the aircraft.  The only thing different with this "wrong propeller" was that the anti ice heated boots were for a 24v system while the aircraft has a 12v system, so the prop was not getting sufficient heat.   The shop that did the pre-buy and annual on that aircraft also missed that the Gear warning horn was non functional... That is straight up on the official Mooney annual punch list and they flat out didn't check it on the gear swing.

I like a few others here have been thoroughly unimpressed with the average quality of mechanics for GA.  Even at the MSC's I have been to.    I had my most recent annual done at a new shop...  I hope they did a good job, But I don't know how I would know.  The place is not near home base so I was unable to spectate.  What I do know is that when I took them the aircraft for the annual, I also gave them a pretty long list of squawks to address....  SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY.....  Yet they did not address a single one of them... It was work/money for the taking.  That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the thoroughness of the annual.

What urks me is that the FAA prohibits me from doing so much work that I am perfectly capable of doing.  These older aircraft should be more like experimental aircraft... I do my own work on my experimental glider, including engine work.  Heck a few months ago I had the flaps and ailerons off of it as well.  I get it though... some idiot out there would be using wood screws to hold down flappy sheet metal so that means we all have to suffer.

What mooney has 310 hp and only trues out at 182 knots?

I'm not TKS equipped.... My question to everyone would be.  What does the documentation say?

TKS is unique in that it is a DE-ice and an ANTI ice.  All other systems are one or the other, even heat... Because while heat can melt Ice away, it is not to be used in that manner.  It is an ANTI- Ice system... Conversely, inflatable boots are DE-Ice equipment.

On 12/16/2021 at 6:07 PM, Jetman said:

I am looking to buy into a partnership. My two best options are mooney Ovation (1999) and a Beech Debonair (1962).

Both aircraft are equipped well and have similar radio setups etc. My wife thinks the mooney is to cramped, I say she won't be in it as long.

I would like the feedback of the group with any ownership experience from each. The money difference is relative to the valuation 65,000 for the beech

and 110,000 for the mooney.

Thanks!

 

You guys have sat in both?  I find the Beechcraft to be a bit more stuffy than the mooney.  In fact, the mooney cabin is 2 inches wider than the deb.  Not to mention you will sit in the Debonair a lot longer.

Here is a dumb....

I was getting a citation ready for a flight and when I powered it up, the EFIS would not come on.  I tried everything I could think of and ended up calling the mechanic.  He got in and immediately turned up the dimmer.

 DOH.

16 hours ago, carusoam said:

I spent a minute reading the Astron engine page…

Where they listed Torque in pounds…. Try and convert that to foot-pounds…

If they are engineers… they can’t deliver the tech details required…

If they are sales guys… they need to hone their tech skills…

Looks like they took a page from the engineers cook book… building a turbine from turbocharger parts…. Watched a few YT videos…

Its technically possible, just not very feasible… outrageous FF inefficiency…

 

What are the smallest turbines from GE, RR, and P&W…. Or Garret….

Hey… fresh on the internet….   

https://www.experimentalaircraft.info/homebuilt-aircraft/aircraft-turbine-engine-manufacturers.php

-a-

I agree with you that there are a few of their specs that are suspect.  I do however find the design interesting.  I do not believe they will achieved the claimed RPM's, but for aviation the high RPM's are not needed anyway.. With several of these stacked, say 4 of them, you could still see a lot of power output with a very constant power output to the shaft.  The design would have the "piston" being pushed for 3/4ths of the rotation.  This means that with 4 of them stacked, at any given moment you have 3 rotors driving the output shaft.  That is obviously not as smooth as a turbine output, but it is far better than current piston engines where there are many moments of NOTHING driving the crank (which is why we need a flywheel, which the propeller acts as).

It isn't on that video, but In another I saw a running prototype.  It was running at low RPM however.  Edit: here it is   Notice the flames!  a lot of times they run these off compressed air which is useless IMHO... they appear to actually be combusting fuel/air.

  My biggest concern is how they plan to cool it.  High power output from a small package is problematic when it comes to cooling.

Who knows, It may jut be another scam to soak investors, but I did find the design ingenious.  The ultimate internal combustion engine is certainly a symmetrical rotary engine that has a fully closed combustion chamber which is forced open by expanding gasses.  This is much more efficient than gases blowing past a turbine.  The Wankel engine was close, but the rotary part wobbles which is less than ideal.

13 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I have 5 SolidWorks guys at work who could make a better looking cartoon than that....

thats wonderful... but what do you think of the engine design?

Maybe this engine will pan out https://www.astronaerospace.com/

How would you like a 800 HP motor that weighs 200 lbs ?

I have a never seen any GA aircraft that started as a piston model be converted to a turbo prop model and it be a good thing.

Typically very little speed is gained and it is done so at a great cost to range.   Turbines simply do not become sensible until getting into heavier aircraft.

I would rather see a Turbo diesel on the front of a mooney.  That would GREATLY extend range and maintain the speed while providing for cheaper fuel and more energy out of the same volume of fuel.

6 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

I flew with that setup for awhile and I agree it is much more comfortable that a traditional headset. The only caveat is that once the battery goes you not only lose noise cancelling but you lose audio in the headset all together, so starting with a new battery on a long flight was always a good idea.

This is not the case for the QC 3.... for the QC 2 yes that was the case...  In the newer headset, you only lose the ANR.

1600 TBO. 

I cant comment on going over from personal experience.  What I can say is that in what I have read, the engine is supposedly capable of running at max power, with all parameters at red line for the TBO duration.  That is why certification is so expensive.  Go search out some Mike Bush (Savvy aviation) videos on making it past TBO.  He had a few TSIO520's that he got a few thousand hours out of.

I have a few pennies....  The rocket will allow you many more options over your E.   You will be able to find better winds and the extra speed will mitigate headwinds more, avoid icing better, operate in many more different regimes to optimize flights.  I also believe a better climbing aircraft is a safer aircraft.  I also believe the Fully feathering prop is a much better setup on a SE aircraft (I can explain why if you are interested in that).  The TSIO 520 is a great engine, runs very smooth, starts well cold or hot.  The dual batteries give you a little more time in the event of an gen failure.   And it is almost impossible to load too far aft  (however two pilots and no bags can put you out of forward limits.)

Get the rocket.  get trained in it.

Ehh, I have to deal with Bravo airspace on both ends of my most common trip, FTW - GLS.  So both the DFW and the Houston Bravo snafu's. 

They pretty much treat me as IFR traffic, so I gain no benefit.... What really pisses me off though is that coming out of GLS, I will ask for flight following.  What drives me nuts is that they will keep me low, out of the bravo and way off route.  When I tell them or ask if I can climb or turn more towards destination they tell me "No" because of IFR arrivals into IAH.  Im sitting there wondering why I even called for flight FOLLOWING.  I could just turn the radio off and go on my way and just stay clear of the Bravo.  The controllers don't seem to grasp the " flight FOLLOWING" concept.   I want to be talking with them for my and other aircraft's added safety, but I don't HAVE to be talking to them for what I want to do.  So I am about to just stop calling for VFR FF altogether and save myself 15 min of flying.... But It shouldn't have to be that way.  Someone needs to send out a memo to ATC and tell them that their behavior is going to decrease safety levels as people will simply not call for Flight following to avoid being controlled.

And the other thing they do, both on arrival and departure is to take me way down low and out over the bay... So low and far out that if I have an engine failure, Ill be swimming.  Again this is with VFR flight following... yet they boss me around like I am IFR traffic.  So once again, my solution seems to be turning off the radio and flying how I want.

28 minutes ago, John Mininger said:

I’m going to be one of the people arguing for the EDM 900. If you can fit an 830 in your panel, you can in all likelihood fit a 900. I made a big mistake when I decided to go with the 830. I cut out a template from heavy card stock to what I thought were the dimensions of the 900 and set about trying to find a place in the panel where it would fit. It wouldn’t. And the reason it wouldn’t fit was because I had cut it out to the wrong dimensions! I mistakenly used the 930’s dimensions, not the 900.

Anyway, if I had to make the decision again, I would go with the 900.

The 900 will certainly cost more. Not only for the unit itself, but you will probably want to upgrade your fuel tank senders to Cies; two per tank. That will add at least another $2000 just for the senders, plus the extra labor for both installing the senders and doing fuel quantity calibration. But I would recommend you at least consider the EDM 900

As far as I know, Air Parts of Lock Haven is the only place where that primary engine gauge cluster at the top can be repaired anymore.

I will say though that I like the 830 a lot, and the only problem that I’ve had with it was fluctuating RPM that would swing up and down by about 200. That turned out to be not the fault of the 830. I asked JPI about it at Oshkosh and they said the problem was probably caused by “noise”. But they had no guidance on where it might be coming from, or where one might begin to look for it. I then talked to a very experienced MSC A&P. He told me that whenever they had “funky” issues with avionics, they would relocate the ground cable coming off the battery, from the shelf that runs between the stringers, to the stringer itself. He said that that generally solved the problem 80% of the time. That was done, and the problem went away.

I agree with this... the added cost is not all that much, but you get a large benifit of being able to get rid of a lot of stock gauges that are more prone to failure and inaccuracy and getting more expensive and difficult to find.

Nice looking rocket!

I've got 2 and we have been flying them for several years.   Do you have the extra fuel tanks?  One of mine does and the other does not.  The one without requires smart planning and management to get range out of it.  But I have made it from Chicago Dupaige to FTW in 3:40 with 18 gallons left.

I really like flying in the 17,000 to FL210 range.  Gets me a solid 200-210 true on 17.5 gph.  If I am really trying to stretch the range, Ill pull it back a little and on the descent Ill plan a 700 FPM descent, pull the power back a bit more and lean down to LOP @ 10-11 gph descending at the yellow arc with no speed brakes.   I have not been able to run LOP in cruise, but am working with Gami to get that sorted out.  This airplane simply needs to go high to benefit from the power plant setup.  The only exception is if going high puts you into big headwinds.

That being said, Do yourself a favor and spend the money on a Mountain high oxygen system and a boom cannula.  Not only is it more safe and convenient than constant flow, it saves a massive amount of oxygen.  I fly about 80 hours a year... I used O2 on EVERY flight, even if I am only at 6000 feet, and I typically set the unit to the highest O2 flow possible (which is really not needed) and I only have to fill the tank once a year.  It pays for itself very very quickly. 

The other thing I recommend is a Bose QC3 headset with a You fly mic.  It is very light weight and with the ANR on makes the sound levels VERY nice.   This setup is way better than my much more expensive David Clark X11.

24 minutes ago, PJClark said:

Can you run continuous at 32/2300 and 1640 TIT LOP?

Depends how high I am... I think I could do that below 8 or 10 thousand.  In the high teens I am unable because the TIT does not drop off before  rough running.  I typically cruise at FL180 or FL190  running 31/22 at about 200 knots, 17.5GPH and #5 is around 375 degrees... about 1550 TIT

4 hours ago, philip_g said:

32" and about 380 degrees. Last one lop

That is wild... I wish mine ran that cool... There has to be a cause.  Now I get to go crazy trying to figure it out.

1 minute ago, Austintatious said:

I asked because as I understand it, The 252 had cooling flow modifications to help cool the engine up to FL280.

On 11/22/2021 at 11:00 PM, Cody Stallings said:

Always really cool.

IMO the Rocket has the best cooling of any piston pounding single bug smasher I have flown

 

That is nice... But I have been running 31" 2200 RPM.  IF I was to pull it back to 28/23 I think I would probably be about 360 on number 5

On 11/22/2021 at 11:43 PM, philip_g said:

I agree. Never a problem in ours.

I kind of wonder why the question about 231/252. I can't imagine once converted the baffles or mount or anything else is different 

I asked because as I understand it, The 252 had cooling flow modifications to help cool the engine up to FL280.  I dont know if they stayed there or not with the rocket mod.