donshapansky

My Rocket and had never been able to run LOP smoothly or without getting very close to 1700 TIT during the leaning process. After overhauling the cylinders in March, I went back to GAMI after doing a spreadsheet in .2 gph spacing and they changed 2 injectors to tighten up the spread to within .4 gph. I have since flown 15 hrs LOP with excellent results as follows: Granbury, TX to St. Cloud, MN 4:36 non-stop with 30 gallons remaining at 6,500' due to low level tailwinds vs higher headwinds. I have 100 gals useable. Power settings were 32.5 inches @ 2450 rpm (72%) with 193 KTAS No 2 cylinder was hottest, 370F the rest in 350 +/- 2 days later I returned from Fond du Lac, WI at 12,500' with the same power settings, less tailwinds, I had 18 gals left after 4:36 ET. Hottest cylinder was No. 2 at 360F with cowl flaps closed. 197 KTAS and smooth running engine! In conclusion I'm saving 6 gph or at least $35.00/hr with cooler CHTs and a ton more range than I thought possible with this engine combo. Incidentally my oil level is 12 qts (with a new air/oil sep) and after 15 hrs on this oil almost no change in level and the color is still golden!

I would think you must have some other issues going on, I have the same model with the Rocket STC, over 700 hrs without any motor problems. I just touched some wood to remove the jinx.

Sorry, I meant my configuration without the Monroy option is very limited. The ND trip would have meant another fuel stop going north without the extra cushion I would added more fuel to stay within my personal limits of 20 gallons remaining at the end of the flight.

Here my 2 cents worth, in the past 8 yrs I have flown 1700 hrs almost all for business purposes, I cover the US central, midwest and ocassionally the west coast. In the last 2 days I have been to ND and back from Texas, my base. After flying normally aspirated for 1000 hrs and 700 turbo'd I'll pay the extra for the flexibility of a turbocharged engine. The trip to ND was a challenge due to low level turbulence and strong NW winds, I could choose to endure the bouncing or go higher gaining true airspeed and much smoother flight conditions, the higher option turned out to be the best of both as I gained 15 kts ground speed and a smooth ride, using 78% power I burned a little more fuel but the ride was so much less tiring. On the way back last night any altitude below 13,000' was moderate turbulence until I got close to TX, so at 15,500' set up LOP 14 gph 215 - 230 kts ground speed. I left Watford City, ND at 3:00 pm Central and with a break at North Platte, NE was home at 8:15 pm Central 965NM travelled experienced very light icing around Rapid City on the way back at 15,500 with options if it started to accumulate of higher. Without a turbo I would not have made the trip nearly as confident of keeping my appointments due to the risks of icing, turbulence and sheer discomfort. If you have a schedule to keep a turbo is an asset, 100 gallons useable is mandatory working the western part of the country IMHOP.

It seems that it is not uncommon in several engine combos such as this one but certainly not unique to this configuration. Many Lycs have this limitation as well according to GAMI.

I could tolerate the roughness if the speed came back but it didn't even with John Paul from GAMI operating the levers, the fuel spreads didn't change and if I recall the TIT became the limiting factor in richening the mixture to recover the power loss.

It doesn't add back the speed but it does run rough. I believe that there is a difference between a turbo normalized engine's behavior LOP and a turbo supercharged engine. The compression ratio difference makes the turbo work harder in the case of the lower compression ratio. This has been confirmed by Tim at GAMI.

I run my Rocket 2 ways, into a headwind I run ROP (TIT 120 - 150 F below 1650 F) at 2450 and 30 inches for approx 20-21 gph with all head temps at 380 or less. With a tailwind I will run LOP with all cyls at or greater than 50 F LOP for 14 gph, all cyls are 360 F or less and the MP is 29 in. @ 2400 rpm. (62% power) At 8 - 9 K the ROP TAS is 195 kts and LOP is 183 kts +/- It takes a well maintained ignition system with GAMI's to do this but the engine will run smoothly LOP and more importantly the TIT is well under the 1650 F max ( a couple of days ago at 9500' at 18C LOP, the TIT was 1530 F). I just pulled all cylinders on my Rocket at 750 hrs SNEW (ECI Cerminil) all bores were straight with no wear, we freshened everything with new valves, springs, wrings etc. The valves and seats were in good shape with no discernable guide wear, we had 2 stuck rings and a broken inner valve spring was found. The airplane was in Venice Florida for about a year and 50 hrs SMOH, the humidity did its thing and caused the ring problem. Oil temp is another important item to control, I have to run a baffle in TX between Nov and Mar to get the temp anywhere close to 180 F. The Rocket cooler is very effective in a TX summer, but overly effective in winter.

I had them do the glareshield, the control wheels, the center windshield post cover and floor mats, everything was beautifully done!

I have found that when the speed is where it's supposed to be, the flare is the challenge, when it's time to flair I never pull back on the controls. I simply engage the trim up button and hold it all the way through the flair. It works for me!

I recently flew back from UT to TX at 17,500' and started to pick-up rime at very low rate, I immediately decended to 15,500 and stayed in the clear. The accumulation stayed on until 8 C and 9000', that's the second time I have seen ice stay on at well above freezing temps. I think the airfoil and forward speed has something to do with it.

I did my Rocket at Crider Aircraft in Mena, AR in January 2010, I had some paint that blistered, some rain damage in 350 hrs and this January he took it back and made a bunch of repairs for free under his 2 year warranty that he offered. The price was $8,500.00 plus local tax. My pictures are on my info base here.

All American had one with FIKI recently for sale I beleive, I will say that the big baggage looks great, but I can't believe how much will go in the Rocket, the back cab area of my SuperCrew F-150 can be piled high and it all goes in the baggage area so far. I think the Lycoming engine is tough, especially the cylinders, they seem to take 400F + and live.

I don't have the Bravo empty weight number but I bet you a steak dinner it is a lot more than my Rocket at 2251 lbs. That gives my Rocket a 946 lb usefull, which is right in the range of the average equipped Bravo maybe it is less if it has A/C or TKS. They both have similar fuel capacity, so where is the advantage in payload for the Bravo? I can tell you that you can fill the tanks and the seats with my W&B calculator and the C of G stays nailed in the center with fuel full or empty, that is a rare occurance.

Not that I know of, I have taken my MSC's advice, we use Mouse Milk or Corrosion X on all slip joints at every oilchange which is usually monthly, we have seen no issues at all.

I'm sorry I forgot the critical word re trade for a Bravo, put NOT in front of the word trade.

I have a 1988 252 Rocket, I have over 700 hrs in the left seat, I would trade for a Bravo even swap! The useful load is as good or better than a Bravo, it's faster, runs cooler and costs less to buy. There is one recurring AD which is a visual inspection of the exhaust transistion pipe across the front underside of the engine at 60hr intervals, when the oil is changed the A&P inspects it .

In December I made a quick trip in my Rocket from Granbury, TX to Somerset, PA, I was wheels up at 06:00 Central time and 4:56 ATE, got there for lunch and training sessions to 17:00 Eastern, I found 30 kts quartering tailwinds at 11,500 then up to 15.5 for last 90 minutes and 240 kts ground speed. Wheels up 17:30 I started home at 6500' bucking 45 kts on the nose truing 194 kts, after looking over XM winds on my 530W I took a more southerly route, almost direct to Little Rock, I managed 180 kts most of the way and landed with 1 hr reserve left. After refueling I was home by midnight, there is a lot to be said for a turbo when you just got to get there. I do a lot of westbound flights to UT, ND, CO, WY on business. I rarely see less than 170 kts ground spd, I used to fly a late model Super Viking with 175 knot TAS, I used to do westbound flights on select days of my choosing. Mountain waves are a lot less disconcerting when you have the horsepower available! The SV would cruise nicely at 16.0' but with 17.0" MP I have seen swings of 60 KIAS, I like 29.0" MP a lot better.

Roberto, I think I neglected to give you an e-mail to send me your comments on Meridian vs TBM service issues you experienced and other comments. I currently fly a Rocket and have a lot of Aerostar time ( up till now my favorite) but due to airframe age and the risk of longer term support I'm looking to change to a kerosene burner. Don Shapansky donshapansky@sprintmail.com

Roberto, I confess I am interested as a second choice in a used Meridian say a 2005 -2006 with the gross weight increase and other changes, I really would like to know what you found to be troublesome compared to the TBM? My first choice would be a late model JetProp conversion with the -35 PT6 according to the forums it has a lot of advantages over the Meridian in climb, fuel burn but less useful load.

I've thought about that as an alternative, but I don't think there is an airport around me within 30 miles that has the balanced field length especially at 100 - 110 OAT. My freind sneaks his Citation in with low fuel and himself, but that's all he's willing to risk!

Hey, Parker I've sat in one but it was over 2 million, an older TBM has useful load issues about the same as the JetProp with no better speed and a lot more money. ?

When I look at the next airplane for me in the business world, get me there, get me home safely and now sometimes I need to take a couple of engineers with me, or bring someone to a meeting fast, none of the new singles really offer the answer (maybe the Matrix) due to useful load issues. They are all in the same price range as a good used Mirage JetProp, which is a whole lot more capable with useful load issues about the same as the Matrix. So the debate rages on in my head, twins are maintenance and fuel hogs without much change in speed (Aerostar 700 exempted) , what to do I don't know yet. I'm glad I'm not trying to figure out the future of Mooney, cause it ain't easy!

Any major changes such as a fuselage is probably like starting over in terms of the FAA requirements, the composite saga of the FAA learning on the OEM's dime started with the Lear Fan, basically nuetered the Beech Starship by adding so many stiffeners etc. it lost all weight advantages it had over the King Air 300 - 350 series and Beech finally used composites only on the fuselage of the Premier I with aluminum wings and empenage. I bet the costs would easily top $20 million to make the changes. Cirrus spent $62 million to the SR20 certified for sale, they are planning on $125 million for the new Vision Jet.

So then if it's 210 airplanes over 3 yrs you can't afford to recertify a whole bunch of changes to the airframe and still get a return on investment that would rival other oportunities in the world market place. That's a small picture of the limitations that any would be investor is going to be faced with! Not ver enticing is it? I admire anyone who will give this industry consideration and after a sober look will still proceed to take the risk!