Rocket Engineerings Lack of POH tables

[aviatoreb]

I have a Mooney Rocket - love it.  Great performer and lots of fun.

 

It seems to be very well engineered, and in many respects, better engineered than the firewall forward of the M20K setup it replaced.

 

But...the POH supplement is surprisingly brief.  There is none of the usual performance information to allow the pilot to calculate important aspects such as take off runway necessary at a given altitude, wind, weight, etc.  Or similarly the information regarding climb to altitude and given weights, fuel flows, etc.  

 

Why am I worried now?  Very soon I will take a commercial pilot check ride and I expect that the oral might ask me to demonstrate my ability to reference such data in the plane I will present to the check ride.  So my current stance will be I will demonstrate my capabilities with the above flight engineering data that is still in my POH, but marked obsolete as it was regarding the TSIO360 that used to be in the airplane as originally certified.

 

How did Rocket Engineering get away with such a brief POH supplement as I have?  Is there a more extensive set of tables and charts that I can acquire?

 

(Side question - what is the official minimum oil allowed in a TSIO520N?)

[N201MKTurbo]

I have the same problem with my turbo 201. The POH supplement says to just use the original 201 power settings. I don't believe for a second that they are accurate, so I'm a test pilot.

 

No problem, it is cool being a test pilot. I get to swagger around like Chuck Yeager!

[N201MKTurbo]

I wouldn't worry about your check ride. Just tell the examiner what the deal is. Demonstrate your abilities to plan by the POH and then let him marvel at the awesome performance of your plane. Your flight will be safer with all the extra performance. The only problem will be in fuel planning, that 520 sucks a lot more fuel!

[Andy95W]

I wouldn't worry about your check ride. Just tell the examiner what the deal is. Demonstrate your abilities to plan by the POH and then let him marvel at the awesome performance of your plane. Your flight will be safer with all the extra performance. The only problem will be in fuel planning, that 520 sucks a lot more fuel!

Going back to your original post- you should NOT reference just the original data from your TSIO-360 engine. You should reference any and all data you currently have for your aircraft as it sits and flies. If you have additional data based upon your experience with your airplane, you should use that in addition to published data from Rocket.

Your examiner will look at what you have to work with and then you can let him marvel at your attention to detail based upon your experience with the airplane- which is exactly what a good commercial pilot does.

Lastly, when in doubt- go with the more conservative of your data and you can't go wrong. That is something else that a good commercial pilot does- use the most restrictive of your available data or regulations. Of all the examiners that I've sent students to, I can't think of one that would bust you as long as you have a good reason for what you do, that you err on the side of caution, and that you use all available resources you can.

Good luck, let us know how your checkride goes!

[David Mazer]

Have you contacted Rocket.  Dar is usually very helpful.

 

As to oil, I usually ran with 9 qt and wouldn't go below 8 before the engine was rebuilt.  After it was rebuilt it didn't matter because it never burned any oil!  Never.  I never added a single quart between oil changes after it was rebuilt.  It was a little weird.

[aviatoreb]

Thanks all.

[aviatoreb]

Good luck, let us know how your checkride goes!

 

Only if I pass!  (You can interpret silence as you wish...)

 

:-)

[RocketAviator]

I will try and see where I can confirm but 9qts is min oil for 520

[carusoam]

The STC would be the place to find such data, if it exists. Expect a few pages in a folder. Sections may include operation and maintenance items...

It may have data related statements like 'T/O distance better than original POH'

This comes from my experience for the 310hp upgrade on the O

Good luck Erik!

-a-

[RocketAviator]

Apparently the official min oil level depends on nose up down angle.

18 deg up 14 deg down 10 quarts is what documents indicates

I can send official Continental PDF if you desire.

[aviatoreb]

Apparently the official min oil level depends on nose up down angle.

18 deg up 14 deg down 10 quarts is what documents indicates

I can send official Continental PDF if you desire.

 

Would you please?

[aviatoreb]

It may have data related statements like 'T/O distance better than original POH'

 

 

I am not finding anything like that - but apparently it is better...

 

 

Good luck Erik!

-a-

 

 

Thanks Anthony!

[RocketAviator]

Would you please?

Erik, pm me your email address

[WardHolbrook]

I wish that I could document what I'm about to tell you, but I can't so take it with a grain (or shaker) of salt...

 

This isn't an issue that's limited to Rocket Engineering STCs; actually, it's quite common. It's been a 100 years since I last flew our Riley Cessna 340, but if I recall correctly, they didn't provide any new performance data with that engine mod either. The way it was explained to me, way back when, was that the FAA will accept either totally new and certified performance data (read mega expen$ive) or some sort of statement that the performance is equal to or surpasses the existing/original certified data. Guess which option is cheaper for the developer of the STC? Guess which option many STC developers elect to pursue? 

 

So, when it comes to your oral (and in day-to-day operations), you'll want to use the data that is in your POH. Although now it's obviously quite conservative, it's the only certified data that you've got. I wouldn't bring it up unless s/he says something about it and if something is said, all I'd say is that the airplane performs very well, but no credit is provided for the increased performance in the approved POH.  I think that's the answer that they'd want to hear from you and that's the answer that I'd give if I were taking a checkride. The last thing I would do on a checkride oral is use "uncertified data based upon personal experience". That would have raised the red flag quicker than anything I could think of on any checkride I've ever taken.

 

Good luck on the checkride. 

[aviatoreb]

I wish that I could document what I'm about to tell you, but I can't so take it with a grain (or shaker) of salt...

 

This isn't an issue that's limited to Rocket Engineering STCs; actually, it's quite common. It's been a 100 years since I last flew our Riley Cessna 340, but if I recall correctly, they didn't provide any new performance data with that engine mod either. The way it was explained to me, way back when, was that the FAA will accept either totally new and certified performance data (read mega expen$ive) or some sort of statement that the performance is equal to or surpasses the existing/original certified data. Guess which option is cheaper for the developer of the STC? Guess which option many STC developers elect to pursue? 

 

So, when it comes to your oral (and in day-to-day operations), you'll want to use the data that is in your POH. Although now it's obviously quite conservative, it's the only certified data that you've got. I wouldn't bring it up unless s/he says something about it and if something is said, all I'd say is that the airplane performs very well, but no credit is provided for the increased performance in the approved POH.  I think that's the answer that they'd want to hear from you and that's the answer that I'd give if I were taking a checkride. The last thing I would do on a checkride oral is use "uncertified data based upon personal experience". That would have raised the red flag quicker than anything I could think of on any checkride I've ever taken.

 

Good luck on the checkride. 

 

Hi Ward,  That was exactly the discussion and words I was looking for.  What to say? (and not to say!)  A check ride is a special environment and I know it is easy to inadvertently say the wrong thing - thanks for providing the above.

 

In fact in my own operations, I do not actually fly so as to exceed the original 231 poh - defacto - since the landing performance is no better than and likely slightly worse than the original 231 airframe since the plane stalls at 1kts IAS faster and it is a bit heavier.  So it is likely a plane that can fly out of anything it can land in.  That said, I have never landed a field less than 2400ft - avoiding anything shorter - which some may call me whimpy for - but I can take name calling.  (P.S. - I have been able to land it in 1500-1600 feet to full stop (rolling distance - not 50ft obstacle distance) in training on my home "short field" of 3700ft.

 

Runway performance is one area where the lack of replacement POH data is annoying.  The lack of engine performance/fuel burn for settings is also lacking, but easier to manage with monitoring fuel flow, time as backup, etc, and then using software to help calculate against the winds aloft - I like weathermeister.  Anyway long story short - fuel performance for fuel planning is not "better than" the original, but decidedly worse as the tsio520nb is more of a fuel hog than the tsio360.  SO I need to be on top of my game to fuel plan safely.  ....but as you said I will avoid saying, "from my experience" as that sounds like I am a test-pilot-bravado-rules don't apply to me sort.

[WardHolbrook]

Hi Ward,  That was exactly the discussion and words I was looking for.  What to say? (and not to say!)  A check ride is a special environment and I know it is easy to inadvertently say the wrong thing - thanks for providing the above.

 

In fact in my own operations, I do not actually fly so as to exceed the original 231 poh - defacto - since the landing performance is no better than and likely slightly worse than the original 231 airframe since the plane stalls at 1kts IAS faster and it is a bit heavier.  So it is likely a plane that can fly out of anything it can land in.  That said, I have never landed a field less than 2400ft - avoiding anything shorter - which some may call me whimpy for - but I can take name calling.  (P.S. - I have been able to land it in 1500-1600 feet to full stop (rolling distance - not 50ft obstacle distance) in training on my home "short field" of 3700ft.

 

Runway performance is one area where the lack of replacement POH data is annoying.  The lack of engine performance/fuel burn for settings is also lacking, but easier to manage with monitoring fuel flow, time as backup, etc, and then using software to help calculate against the winds aloft - I like weathermeister.  Anyway long story short - fuel performance for fuel planning is not "better than" the original, but decidedly worse as the tsio520nb is more of a fuel hog than the tsio360.  SO I need to be on top of my game to fuel plan safely.  ....but as you said I will avoid saying, "from my experience" as that sounds like I am a test-pilot-bravado-rules don't apply to me sort.

You'll do just fine. Oh and by the way, aircraft manufacturers can have the same issues. Anyone seen the performance charts for a new Maule?  

[Houman]

Talking about the fuel, I was wondering if anyone has an idea for the rocket fuel burn during taxi, climb and decent. I'm really conservative on fuel, but now that Foreflight has these settings configurable for the plane, I want to add them in to get a better idea for my fuel planning.

 

I know this might not be the most efficient way, but I want to have at least an hour of fuel left on every leg, even during the day... the times I have not followed my own rules on this ( on my Beech Sundowner ), I was amazed how the tank looked after landing and couldn't believe how close I had become to starving the engine...

[manoflamancha]

You might check the Rocket website for fuel burn estimates. They have a chart that estimates it I think it is around 20-25gph if memory is correct. Good luck on the commercial checkride that's crazy fun to do it in a Rocket! Have instrument approaches and holding patterns been difficult in the Rocket? I'd imagine flying at 50% power yields something like 150kts making for a very fast approach speed!

[Jeff H.]

Late to the party, but maybe this is helpful:

 

- Online versions of the Rocket Manual do not include all the pages in the actual manual.  If you don't have the paper version, you don't have all the available information.  All information below is from the Rocket Manual.

 

- 9 Qts minimum oil.

- Take off:  "Refer to the flight manual for take off performance.  We certified it to do as good or better -- this is your safety margin."

- Landing: "Landing distance charts in the flight manual may be used.  We certify the aircraft to equal or better than these performance charts."

- 35 MP/2500 RPM = 26-27 GPH

 

Power chart attached.  Note takeoff, climb and cruise power settings along with fuel flows.

 

Jeff

 

 

[aviatoreb]

Late to the party, but maybe this is helpful:

 

- Online versions of the Rocket Manual do not include all the pages in the actual manual.  If you don't have the paper version, you don't have all the available information.  All information below is from the Rocket Manual.

 

- 9 Qts minimum oil.

- Take off:  "Refer to the flight manual for take off performance.  We certified it to do as good or better -- this is your safety margin."

- Landing: "Landing distance charts in the flight manual may be used.  We certify the aircraft to equal or better than these performance charts."

- 35 MP/2500 RPM = 26-27 GPH

 

Power chart attached.  Note takeoff, climb and cruise power settings along with fuel flows.

 

Jeff

 

Wow - thanks Jeff.  I do have the paper - but it is very thin - somehow I did not find those datum you refer too, but they are the magic words I need.  

 

Weather and the dpe need to both cooperate but I have a signature in the log book and hopefully there will be a check ride on Sunday.

[RocketAviator]

I will try and see where I can confirm but 9qts is min oil for 520

Ok I can confirm 9 qts is minimum operating level.  13 quart capacity which includes 1 qt for the oil filter.  I have two Rocket Manuals, one that is a supplemental portion of the POH and one that is independently bound.  I was sure I had read it.... I thought... as I had noted 9 qts on my check list!!

Alas while reading the Service portion of the bound I see where I had marked the page with a color sticky tab....

I am going to have my secretary Scan the POH, Supplemental POH Rocket & the Rocket Manual.  I am hoping that they can be scanned with searchable content but that is not very likely.  We will see.

[aviatoreb]

Thanks Rocketaviator!
 

Oh hum - check ride keeps getting delayed.  5 times for weather now, and once because my wife is out of town and my youngest son was/is sick.  I have had my sign off for over 3 weeks now and can't seem to get to a check ride.  And now my original DPE is out of town for the holiday and I was trying for another. But I can't do it until new year it seems now...its pretty hard and disappointing getting ready for a check ride the night before excitement to wake up and be disappointed to unexpected unpredicted IFR conditions FIVE times.  I am IFR cert, but that doesn't matter since the performance maneuvers for commercial require VFR for ground reference.

 

Don't worry folks - someday - the clouds, the stars and I will line up with the DPE for the check ride - in early early 2015 at this point, and I'm gonna knock it outa the park!  

"I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And doggone it, people like me." - Stuart Smalley

[M016576]

A little thread creep- I printed off the Missile POH tables from the rocket website a few days ago to run some comparisons and noticed that the Manifold Pressures they have listed for some of the power settings are unachievable by a NA engine (like 24.5" at 9000'). So much for actual test data.

Luckily I'm building my own tables.

[aviatoreb]

A little thread creep- I printed off the Missile POH tables from the rocket website a few days ago to run some comparisons and noticed that the Manifold Pressures they have listed for some of the power settings are unachievable by a NA engine (like 24.5" at 9000'). So much for actual test data.

Luckily I'm building my own tables.

 

I have found that there are at least 3 and conflicting different flight test engineering tables regarding the rocket.

[M016576]

I have found that there are at least 3 and conflicting different flight test engineering tables regarding the rocket.

I've found 2 seperate sets for the missile: neither accurate. Either their test pilot was really bad at collecting data (unlikely) or their advertising department "tweaked" the data.