252 vs 305 vs Bravo

[M016576]

13 hours ago, stevesm20b said:

I would go with the 252 rocket. The ceiling is 28,000ft. The 231 rocket is 24,000ft. Both will climb 2000fpm and at 24,000 still climbs at 1000fpm.

Those are the published ceilings, based on certification of the underlying airframe from what I understand.

 

the true service ceilings are probably almost identical, with the 231 rocket actually having a slightly higher service ceiling with just 1 pilot aboard, as its typically lighter, and has an identical airframe (cowls full open), identical power plant and identical prop.

I've never flown either version- I could be missing something on the early K that makes it that much draggier... But I think you'll find they are basically the same airplane aerodynamically

[aviatoreb]

35 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Those are the published ceilings, based on certification of the underlying airframe from what I understand.

 

the true service ceilings are probably almost identical, with the 231 rocket actually having a slightly higher service ceiling with just 1 pilot aboard, as its typically lighter, and has an identical airframe (cowls full open), identical power plant and identical prop.

I've never flown either version- I could be missing something on the early K that makes it that much draggier... But I think you'll find they are basically the same airplane aerodynamically

But aren't those published ceilings also legal statements too?  Legally a 252 whether rocket converted or not is certified with a 28,000 ceiling, or better - meaning I presumed they tested the ceiling to be 28,000 or greater so this is the legal operating envelope - even if the actual engineering ceiling which occurs when the plane will no longer climb at least 100fpm must be much greater since reports are that a rocket was being tested for certification to 31,000 but they gave up for the legal hassle.

Its really an academic discussion - a 231 rocket is not missing much if it is legally limited to FL24 but a 252 rocket is allowed to FL28.  I was up to FL24 once, and I can attest that it climbs significantly in excess of 1000fpm there with no problem.

[aviatoreb]

It might be that the 252 is the faster of the other two, Bravo and Rocket over the long distance of crossing the country, especially if equipped with long range tanks.  I think the rocket and bravo would require at least two stops for fuel but a long range tank equipped 252 might only need to stop once for fuel.  That would tip the door to door time in favor of the 252 - the tortoise beats the hare.

[M016576]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

But aren't those published ceilings also legal statements too?  Legally a 252 whether rocket converted or not is certified with a 28,000 ceiling, or better - meaning I presumed they tested the ceiling to be 28,000 or greater so this is the legal operating envelope - even if the actual engineering ceiling which occurs when the plane will no longer climb at least 100fpm must be much greater since reports are that a rocket was being tested for certification to 31,000 but they gave up for the legal hassle.

Its really an academic discussion - a 231 rocket is not missing much if it is legally limited to FL24 but a 252 rocket is allowed to FL28.  I was up to FL24 once, and I can attest that it climbs significantly in excess of 1000fpm there with no problem

service ceiling is not a regulatory limit- it is just performance information (much like max demonstrated crosswind).  If a POH has a maximum certified ceiling, then that would be regulatory in nature.  

I don't have a M20K manual, but looking through the J manual, I don't see  maximum certified ceiling restriction... The service ceiling for your rocket is well above the demonstrated stock M20K service ceiling- as is the service ceiling on my Missile.  Neither service ceiling is an operating limit (i.e. A legal limit).  But they are certainly, by definition, a limitation of the airframe/power plant.

for those that are on the fence over this- think about it this way: in a twin, you have a single engine service ceiling.  If an engine quits, and you are above your single engine service ceiling, are you legally operating out of limits?  When your altitude comes down to stabilize 500' above your listed single engine service ceiling, are you legally out of limits now?  Should you descend to "stay legal"?  The answer is, of course, no to those questions.

[ArtVandelay]

Ceilings advertised are based on max gross weight, you can up it if you'll be lighter, the J goes from 18800 to 23200 if at 2300lbs.

[M016576]

36 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

 

Ceilings advertised are based on max gross weight, you can up it if you'll be lighter, the J goes from 18800 to 23200 if at 2300lbs.

Exactly- it's performance info, not an operating limitation

[Yooper Rocketman]

20 hours ago, stevesm20b said:

I would go with the 252 rocket. The ceiling is 28,000ft. The 231 rocket is 24,000ft. Both will climb 2000fpm and at 24,000 still climbs at 1000fpm.

I would think real hard about whether you want to fly above 24K.  I routinely fly in the flight levels, and have done many trips at 23k and 24K.  There is little room for error as to keeping O2 sat's where they need to be.  My wife pulled her O2 off for less than a minute to reach back in the luggage area and grab something and she was getting hypoxia symptoms before getting her O2 back on.  I usually only go above 18k to 19k if there is a real considerable benefit in winds, or I need to get over weather.  There's just a lot less time to determine hypoxia issues as you fly above the teens.

[gsengle]

28k in an unpressurized plane isn't safe, imho, anyway.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cujet]

32 minutes ago, gsengle said:

28k in an unpressurized plane isn't safe, imho, anyway.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is a Stemme S10 motorglider above Everest! It has a 30,000 ft service ceiling! (yes, we operate one)

 

As for which aircraft, the answer is simple. The most capable one. You can always throttle back to smaller engine power settings for long range cruise. So the Rocket is the correct answer in my opinion.

[Guest]

21 hours ago, stevesm20b said:

I would go with the 252 rocket. The ceiling is 28,000ft. The 231 rocket is 24,000ft. Both will climb 2000fpm and at 24,000 still climbs at 1000fpm.

It would have to be riding in the back of a C130 to get those performance numbers.

Clarence

[jackn]

7 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

It might be that the 252 is the faster of the other two, Bravo and Rocket over the long distance of crossing the country, especially if equipped with long range tanks.  I think the rocket and bravo would require at least two stops for fuel but a long range tank equipped 252 might only need to stop once for fuel.  That would tip the door to door time in favor of the 252 - the tortoise beats the hare.

Erik, Did you refer to my plane as a tortoise?

[aviatoreb]

Just now, jackn said:

Erik, Did you refer to my plane as a tortoise?

Ummmm - I guess I did.  Sorry Jack.  Forgive me.  I fly a rocket.  :-)  I did say you beat me on transcontinental flights for your miserly fuel burn.  SO my insult of your airplane was clearly a compliment in disguise!

[aviatoreb]

36 minutes ago, cujet said:

As for which aircraft, the answer is simple. The most capable one. You can always throttle back to smaller engine power settings for long range cruise. So the Rocket is the correct answer in my opinion.

Clearly I agree and I chose the rocket.  And love the power - to climb, to cruise fast.

But when I bought it, I told myself exactly what you just said, that no problem I could just fly at very low power to mimic the smaller engine fuel burn.  But darn it if I cannot seem to make myself actually do it.  Go fast!

I do think that even pulled back, to match the 252 native speeds and fuel burn - I tend to burn maybe 1 gal per hour more which I attribute the general innefficiency of larger cylinders.

[Yooper Rocketman]

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

It would have to be riding in the back of a C130 to get those performance numbers.

Clarence

I don't get 2K a minute climb very often, when climbing at cruise climb, but can personally attest it will still be EASILY climbing at 1K a minute when leveling at 24K.  Been there, done that, at gross.  This ain't no Comanche! 

[Tony Armour]

When I decided to move from my 83j to a Rocket eight years ago, it was because I wanted to go as fast as I could....I wanted a rocket :-) hot rodder by nature.

Then I started looking at them and although NOTHING is wrong with the panel etc.....if I was "upgrading" read spending more $$$ I didn't want to be looking at the same old panel just like my 201 and my 201 had seven year old paint and interior that I had done.....it looked NICE. Everything I looked at didn't look near as nice and had the same old panel, many looked down right ratty compared to my J. That combined with a couple well known Mooney folks steering me towards a factory turbocharged airplane convinced me that I could give up a little speed for a newer airframe/panel/goodies, factory designed etc. Now eight years later I'm still happy with my decision. 

A Bravo WILL burn more fuel than a K. I figure 20gph and come close to burning that too (but paid $3.18 gallon today) Neither of the other two are long bodies. Bravo seats don't down fold down....they come OUT and they both come out in one minute, back in in two minutes ! I'm talking plenty of room to stretch out for the night, I have.

Frequently I pack that huge area full. From a couple full size road bikes to the dog crate or enough supplies to self sustain for a week in the Bahamas. I would not give up the room of my long body, ever. Normally I have one or neither rear seat in my airplane.

All that said, once a guy on my field asked what the best airplane was for his mission. Him and his wife, multiple trips to Utah from Georgia and the normal Florida, Bahamas etc. My reply was a 231 ( of course 252 is the best in that group) mainly because of fuel burn and still having the altitude capability. 

I don't miss not having TKS living in Ga. And rarely flying up north. I don't want and so far will not/have no need to fly in those conditions. (Daughter has moved to Baltimore so that's getting close) Although TKS is "supposed" to book $40-50k more, watching Bravos on the market that does not seem to be true. You might find a deal with TKS now days.

GA to Utah one fuel stop, light headwind. Ga to Vegas two stops light headwind but it was close to one stop. Return trips, light tailwind always one stop.

I suggest you look at, sit in and investigate all of them. You can spend all the money in the world to make the outside pretty, the panel perfect but you can't stretch a K/Rocket :-)

Like said above, most owners think they have the best/perfect airplane....and you know what ? All of them (me) are right. With any of them you can't go wrong !

Edited February 7, 2016 by Tony Armour

[Tony Armour]

On February 4, 2016 at 7:25 PM, jcollier said:

 

I'm not looking for folks to explain to me "how I should fly commercial" or "why would you do that" answers

Thanks for your time, in advance!

 

Joshua

Ha !! You really think anyone here will tell you that load of crap ! Flying there by Mooney is the best part ! :-)

[carusoam]

TA,

have you seen Tom's turbine project?

You machine builders are really interesting people! 

I have my hands full for a short period of time with a simple NA engine.  2kfpm...310hp!

 

CUJet,  where are you and your Stemme located?

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

My seats are removable.  Just like yours I think Tony.  I don't know how but they are and like you it takes less than one minute to remove and maybe 2 min to put back in.  SO I also get a large bay but it is exactly 10'' less than a Bravo.  That is quite enough to easily put full size bikes which I do often.  (Word to the wise with bikes, wheels off, seat post off, pedals off, and wrap everything in a BBQ bag).

I do get 2k fpm initial on a cold day, sometimes >2k and I do not how fast since it is beyond the ASI's scale, but less in the summer, maybe 1400 or 1500 but it keeps pulling all the way up.  Not in the frigid cold, just early fall chill I timed a climb to 10k in 6ix and a half minutes, and to 17k in under thirteen minutes.

Edited February 7, 2016 by aviatoreb

[aviatoreb]

22 hours ago, M016576 said:

service ceiling is not a regulatory limit- it is just performance information (much like max demonstrated crosswind).  If a POH has a maximum certified ceiling, then that would be regulatory in nature.  

What will it say in the POH if it is a maximum certified ceiling vs service ceiling? 

[bonal]

Very nice meeting you yesterday Jcollier so what did you think of the TLS. Good luck with your search seems you have some real exciting options to decide on.

[M016576]

3 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

What will it say in the POH if it is a maximum certified ceiling vs service ceiling? 

In chapter 2 (limitations), you would see "maximum certified ceiling" or "maximum operating ceiling" and it would have an altitude.  Typically a restriction like that on an aircraft would be due to an engine performance limitation. 

[donkaye]

No realistic comparison.  I've flown and taught in all of them extensively.  The fact that I have chosen Bravo ownership for the past 23 years says what I think of the Bravo.

The 252 is efficient but small and underpowered (spelled too slow) for my tastes.  The Rocket is small, but does have great climb performance due to its power to weight ratio.  Due to the heavy weight of the engine it is susceptible to prop strikes even while taxiing.  The 28K certification is just a problem in my opinion.  It is just not a good environment for the human body unpressurized and could present some definite issues for useful consciousness after an oxygen system failure.  It's got a terrible CG envelope providing for only 2 people at maximum gross weight.  Legally it's pretty difficult to get 3 people in at a reduction in gross weight and forget about 4 people.

Couple that with the fact that they are giving away Bravos at ridiculously low prices, the Bravo is the best airplane for the price.

 

[Awful_Charlie]

Seems to be a bit of a mix up in 'Service Ceiling" and 'Maximum Operating Altitude'

Both are defined in the FARs: a 'Service Ceiling' is where the climb rate drops below 100'/min, and 'Maximum Operating Altitude' is due to structural (normally pressurised) or an arbitrary limit (non pressurised). As Don says above, FL250 is a harsh environment for a human and it gets worse at FL280. Actual service ceiling will depend on the weight of the aircraft and the temperature on the day, whereas Maximum operating Altitude is a limit in the same way that 'flight into known icingprohibited'is a limit - you might be able to break them, but if you get a knock on the door, as PiC you are responsible

ISTR that there was some loophole that existed for a short period that allowed the Rocket to get the FL280 certification, and that it has since been closed, however it didn't retrospectively apply to aircraft already certified hence that limitation is still the one that applied in a small number of cases

[Mcstealth]

16 hours ago, Tony Armour said:

When I decided to move from my 83j to a Rocket eight years ago, it was because I wanted to go as fast as I could....I wanted a rocket :-) hot rodder by nature.

Then I started looking at them and although NOTHING is wrong with the panel etc.....if I was "upgrading" read spending more $$$ I didn't want to be looking at the same old panel just like my 201 and my 201 had seven year old paint and interior that I had done.....it looked NICE. Everything I looked at didn't look near as nice and had the same old panel, many looked down right ratty compared to my J. That combined with a couple well known Mooney folks steering me towards a factory turbocharged airplane convinced me that I could give up a little speed for a newer airframe/panel/goodies, factory designed etc. Now eight years later I'm still happy with my decision. 

A Bravo WILL burn more fuel than a K. I figure 20gph and come close to burning that too (but paid $3.18 gallon today) Neither of the other two are long bodies. Bravo seats don't down fold down....they come OUT and they both come out in one minute, back in in two minutes ! I'm talking plenty of room to stretch out for the night, I have.

Frequently I pack that huge area full. From a couple full size road bikes to the dog crate or enough supplies to self sustain for a week in the Bahamas. I would not give up the room of my long body, ever. Normally I have one or neither rear seat in my airplane.

All that said, once a guy on my field asked what the best airplane was for his mission. Him and his wife, multiple trips to Utah from Georgia and the normal Florida, Bahamas etc. My reply was a 231 ( of course 252 is the best in that group) mainly because of fuel burn and still having the altitude capability. 

I don't miss not having TKS living in Ga. And rarely flying up north. I don't want and so far will not/have no need to fly in those conditions. (Daughter has moved to Baltimore so that's getting close) Although TKS is "supposed" to book $40-50k more, watching Bravos on the market that does not seem to be true. You might find a deal with TKS now days.

GA to Utah one fuel stop, light headwind. Ga to Vegas two stops light headwind but it was close to one stop. Return trips, light tailwind always one stop.

I suggest you look at, sit in and investigate all of them. You can spend all the money in the world to make the outside pretty, the panel perfect but you can't stretch a K/Rocket :-)

Like said above, most owners think they have the best/perfect airplane....and you know what ? All of them (me) are right. With any of them you can't go wrong !

Says Tony with his thumbs in his ears, fingers waving, saying nanny nanny nanny!!!!!!

Good post Tony.

[jcollier]

13 hours ago, bonal said:

Very nice meeting you yesterday Jcollier so what did you think of the TLS. Good luck with your search seems you have some real exciting options to decide on.

It was a pleasure to meet you and your wife!  I have really enjoyed the TLS.  But I have a lot to learn.  It is abundantly clear, these planes do NOT want to stop flying!  lol  We are very excited to find the right ship and began our mooney adventures.