Mooney Rocket purchase possibility

[triple8s]

"I will rent for a while get experience and buy a house first then use some equity to buy the bird once I've some time and IR ratings."

Now this is some serious wisdom no kidding!

[phecksel]

"I will rent for a while get experience and buy a house first then use some equity to buy the bird once I've some time and IR ratings."

Now this is some serious wisdom no kidding!

I wouldn't be in favor of putting his house on the line to buy a toy.

[RJBrown]

Personally I believe in paying cash for toys. Fun money should be just that FUN. If you have to worry about your house to buy toys don't.

[benpilot]

Agree with you RJBrown. Save pay cash is best way to go. I might buy a less expensive plane for cash like a Mooney 201J after getting checked out in the 20F if I like it.

[clipperskipper]

One of the bidders attempted to negotiate a deal outside of eBay, which fell through, hence the aircraft has been relisted. I gave a buddy some recurrent in his 310-R a couple of weeks ago, and we ended up at Port City Air for some cheap (5.25) fuel.

 

I walked to the end of the line, and there was 777MT. It had a Bruce's aircraft cover on her, not much to see inside. The owner is adamant about not running it up, as the engine is pickled, but he'll support a succsessful pre-buy.

 

I'm not sure I'm ready to support a big-bore Continental, but I do have a fair amount of time operating them, C-402 and C-414 included. The Rocket numbers seem a little off Cessna numbers in the burn department. You can run a 402 at 26/23/85pph and it will usually settle in around peak, 29/23/90 will give around the same result.

 

One thing about the big bore reman is that it costs $000's less than the IO-360 variant.

[aviatoreb]

 

 

I'm not sure I'm ready to support a big-bore Continental, but I do have a fair amount of time operating them, C-402 and C-414 included. The Rocket numbers seem a little off Cessna numbers in the burn department. You can run a 402 at 26/23/85pph and it will usually settle in around peak, 29/23/90 will give around the same result.

 

One thing about the big bore reman is that it costs $000's less than the IO-360 variant.

 

Hi Clipper, I have a C402 POH (pdf) from a friend who flies them.  I noticed that the fuel flow settings called for by the POH at same rpm-mp settings (in an engine rated only 5hp less) are indeed somewhat less. ANd as you said.2300/26 is 15gph on std recommended lean whereas in the rocket 2200/26 is 15gph, (again according to each POH - and this is 55% on the rocket POH),  and 2200/26'' is 14.25 on the C402 recommended lean.  The differences get larger at higher power settings.  And as expected the power and likewise recommended fuel flows vary with temperature in the Cessna 402 POH but I wonder why it is not outlined to change in the rocket POH.  The engine is the tsio520nb in the rocket and the tsio520vb in the cessna, but there must be more too it.  Could it be the operating philiosphy of rocket engineering vs cessna?

 

ALso, by the way, what is that you mean about $000?

[egp]

I tie down at the airport where this plane is. I don't know much about this plane or its condition however I took this picture for those interested. I would think the chief mechanic (Rich Ruel) at Port City Air could give anyone interested some additional information as to its condition. There number is 603-430-1111....

[carusoam]

http://www.astroscratchingpad.com/mooney.htm

201ers got birds, Seth is looking into flying limos in the dc area.

Astro writes books...at high altitudes...

Best regards,

-a-

[TWinter]

That should buff to a nice finish........not!  

[benpilot]

 

Guys, I am back from my sailing vacation in the BVI and notice the plane is a sitter which is bad news. Planes like and need to be flown regularly to be in good condition based on what I've heard. 

[aaronk25]

Guys, I am back from my sailing vacation in the BVI and notice the plane is a sitter which is bad news. Planes like and need to be flown regularly to be in good condition based on what I've heard.

Your right you just never know what you got. Maybe I'd be less concerned with a continental than a lycoming but the cylinder barrels still rust and inturn pit. I think turbos also suffer from sitting.

Also I wonder given the distressed state what else has been neglected.

Never know might only need a couple thousands bucks and run well past TBO but might need a 90k engine or a 60k rebuild......

[aaronk25]

Guys, I am back from my sailing vacation in the BVI and notice the plane is a sitter which is bad news. Planes like and need to be flown regularly to be in good condition based on what I've heard.

Your right you just never know what you got. Maybe I'd be less concerned with a continental than a lycoming but the cylinder barrels still rust and inturn pit. I think turbos also suffer from sitting.

Also I wonder given the distressed state what else has been neglected.

Never know might only need a couple thousands bucks and run well past TBO but might need a 90k engine or a 60k rebuild......

[benpilot]

 

exactly. I'm leaning more toward a 201J or 231 if I end up getting a Mooney. Both cost less to operate than the Rocket, burn less fuel and would meet my mission and fly fine over mountains. It would be me and a friend 99.99% of the time flying so both birds work and cost less than 100k for a nice plane. I do need to find out if the rudder extension pedals would solve the ergonomic problem with me being short fat guy (5'6") having the panel shoved in my face with the yoke in my chest. Mooney seem best for tall 6'5" skinny men.

[fluffysheap]

I'd hold out for a turbo if you plan on crossing high mountains frequently.  FL180, maybe 190 is about as high as the J will go.  The lower altitude will cause no-go decisions in conditions when you could have made it in a K model.  IMO, IFR flight across the Rockies is not a great idea most of the time in a non-turbocharged plane.  MEAs are usually above 10K, often 15K, sometimes even higher.  You won't have enough altitude options to avoid ice regions.  The K will go over most weather other than thunderstorms.  Also, in a J you may find yourself grounded due to high winds.  I don't think I would want to fly across the Rockies below FL180 when it's windy.

 

Crossing the Rockies in a J means flying in mountains, whereas in a K you are flying over mountains.  Flying in mountains is difficult, with less margin for error.  Flying high over mountains is much less intense.

 

Going west at high altitude means you need a high TAS to counteract the faster winds that are found at high altitudes.  Depending on where you're going, you might have the jet stream in your face.  I fly Denver-Seattle and sometimes I just have to live with an 80kt headwind.  This would make a J basically useless, whereas in a K it is merely annoying and expensive.  It is mostly a problem if you are going to Washington or Oregon although the jet stream can be anywhere.

 

But if you're flying over less imposing mountains, the J model would do fine.

[RJBrown]

I just sold my J. With MEAs of 16600 10 miles west of here it was worse than expected. 17500 is about as high as a loaded J can get. But if you are trying to climb east of the mountains the downdraft won't let you. There were times it took over an hour to climb to 12500 just to get over Corona pass from APA. But the worst feeling is coming eastbound on the Larks arrival and the downdrafts forcing you BELOW your MEA. A J is unsafe IFR in the mountains. It cannot maintain MEAs. Any downdraft will exceed climb ability. 18,000' AND the ability to climb at that altitude is a minimum.

 I had flown a 1992 MSE through the mountains many times before I bought N231NH. The MSE's performance WAS much better than any other N/A plane I had flown up to that point. After selling N231NH and being without a plane for about 7 years I was filled with fond memories of how well the MSE had flown. These fond memories and trying to minimize flying costs as I contemplated retirement allowed me to foolishly purchase a MSE N1079V. Great flatland plane but wholly unsuited and unsafe for the mountain flying I require.

 Do not compromise if a significant portion of your flying might include the Rocky Mountains, buy a turbo!

East of Denver there are no significant mountains. Mount Mitchell, the highest point east of where I sit is below the traffic pattern altitude of APA where I was based. The J is a magnificent airplane east of here. It is a dangerous mistake west of here.

[aviatoreb]

I just sold my J. With MEAs of 16600 10 miles west of here it was worse than expected. 17500 is about as high as a loaded J can get. But if you are trying to climb east of the mountains the downdraft won't let you. There were times it took over an hour to climb to 12500 just to get over Corona pass from APA. But the worst feeling is coming eastbound on the Larks arrival and the downdrafts forcing you BELOW your MEA. A J is unsafe IFR in the mountains. It cannot maintain MEAs. Any downdraft will exceed climb ability. 18,000' AND the ability to climb at that altitude is a minimum.

 I had flown a 1992 MSE through the mountains many times before I bought N231NH. The MSE's performance WAS much better than any other N/A plane I had flown up to that point. After selling N231NH and being without a plane for about 7 years I was filled with fond memories of how well the MSE had flown. These fond memories and trying to minimize flying costs as I contemplated retirement allowed me to foolishly purchase a MSE N1079V. Great flatland plane but wholly unsuited and unsafe for the mountain flying I require.

 Do not compromise if a significant portion of your flying might include the Rocky Mountains, buy a turbo!

East of Denver there are no significant mountains. Mount Mitchell, the highest point east of where I sit is below the traffic pattern altitude of APA where I was based. The J is a magnificent airplane east of here. It is a dangerous mistake west of here.

 

Congratulations RJ on selling your J.  Can't wait to see a post from you sometime soon I hope announcing a new-to-you rocket.  Don't forget the pictures.

[carusoam]

RJ,

How would the Missile compare in your environment?

Just wondering about your thoughts and experience...

Best regards,

-a-

[Robert Flood]

Love my 95 M20J Missile 550 310hp, very fast and nice.  My problem is the muffler is a big concern.  Appreciate anyone with these missile muffler problems.  Best way to fix and where? 

[carusoam]

Welcome aboard Robert.

You may consider starting a new thread specific to your concern.

Adding some detail about the challenge you are having would help. I have an IO550 as well, but I'm not familiar with any exhaust issues...

There are a small number of Missiles here. Asking a Missile question in the middle of a rocket discussion may not get found by everyone that you may like to include.

Trying to help....

Best regards,

-a-

[benpilot]

Thanks so with the exception of flying over the Rockies, would a non turbo Mooney be adequate for flying in California, New Mexico and Montana? I might just save up for a 252 turbo mooney.

[RJBrown]

What are between California, New Mexico and Montana?

The Rocky Mountains?

Montana's highest point is 12807'

California's is 14505'

New Mexico's is 13167'

[larryb]

Thanks so with the exception of flying over the Rockies, would a non turbo Mooney be adequate for flying in California, New Mexico and Montana? I might just save up for a 252 turbo mooney.

I have a j and fly krhv to ktrk frequently. A turbo would be nice but the j does fine. I am usually 350lb under gross taking off out of Truckee with my wife and myself, a couple bags and about 35 gal fuel. If I had to fly it at gross weight I may not be so happy.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[fluffysheap]

Thanks so with the exception of flying over the Rockies, would a non turbo Mooney be adequate for flying in California, New Mexico and Montana? I might just save up for a 252 turbo mooney.

It is hard to go between those places without crossing the Rockies.  All three of those states have lots of places where you don't need a turbo, but point A to point B would make the turbo preferable.

 

It's never really a necessity, you'll just have a lot more utility out of the aircraft if you have it.  Without the turbo, you need light winds and no ice.  With the turbo, you can go over the ice and dangerous winds.

 

As a rule of thumb, each knot of surface wind can produce up to 100FPM of downdraft at low altitudes in the mountains.  15 knots wind = 1500FPM downdraft.  Up in the flight levels, that downdraft has probably subsided to only about 500FPM.  I have met pilots who have been sucked right out of the sky by a lee-side downdraft.  Of course, this doesn't happen everywhere in the mountains, or there wouldn't be any mountain airports.  It is dependent on the terrain and the direction of the wind, but it happens.

 

Perhaps before buying a plane, a mountain flying course would be in order.  Then you can make your own informed decision on what mountain aircraft performance is like.  I did mountain flying in a DA40, which was quite educational.  It's a moderately powered plane, but with the long glider-like wings, it was easy to feel the 3-D winds that exist in the mountains.

[benpilot]

 

Agree about the mountain flying course from a qualified CFI who actually flies mountains on regular basis. Many CFI don't have much actual mountain flying experience. Now a normal trainer like a Cessna 172 or Piper would be inadequate for this. Need something with more power to deal with high density airports at high elevation. Something like a 182, Mooney, or Bonanza is the right plane for this. I'd hate to be in a 160HP trainer and not be able to make it over a mountain pass and have a bad day.

[231LV]

Thanks so with the exception of flying over the Rockies, would a non turbo Mooney be adequate for flying in California, New Mexico and Montana? I might just save up for a 252 turbo mooney.

I have owned my 231 for 10 years and have about 1000 hours on it. I fly out of Livermore and have gone north past the Artic Circle, south to Cabo and southeast to the Yucatan in it. Never have I regretted having the turbo. It simply removes the worries of everything except ice. The 231 is probably the best bang for your buck regarding a turbo BUT the 252 is a beautiful plane. The downside of a turbo ( and the reason my wife and I are thinking about going with a Rocket) is the O2. Getting O2 enroute is expensive and a pain. Wearing masks or cannulas for hours is not very pleasant. Unless you plan to stay in eastern Montana or California Central Valley, a non-turbo will be pushed to get up high enough to go direct anywhere and forget it if flying high IMC. In New Mexico, plan for 1/2 fuel load and you should be OK