Mooney Rocket pro's and cons

[Dingo]

Ok Guys

Doing some serious thinking, and looking for any comments on the Mooney Rockets. I’m about 2 weeks from jumping on plane and coming your side with the intent to purchase and have ferried back to Australia. To upgrade my old E model

The Specs look great, and look to be great value for money. So brings me to the question, why do they appear so cheap in comparison to non modified Mooneys.

 And if anyone knows of a good value Rocket for sale

Cheers

Darren

[LT4BIRD]

Rocket's eat a lot of fuel.

 If you can take the fuel bill 180kts low level 200+ high.

Conversions never bring top dollar. Factory planes hold there value much better.

[LT4BIRD]

ttt

 

[KLRDMD]

Quote: Dingo

The Specs look great, and look to be great value for money. So brings me to the question, why do they appear so cheap in comparison to non modified Mooneys.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Like Ken, I'd rather have a Bravo.

What I really want is a 310 horsepower Screamin' Eagle.

[Mcstealth]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

Like Ken, I'd rather have a Bravo.

What I really want is a 310 horsepower Screamin' Eagle.

[jlunseth]

While the concept is cool, there are always two issues with the high HP Mooney conversions.  One, the airframe Vne is still the same, so there is a limit to how fast you can go.  Two, there is about enough useful load for a pilot on a diet with no charts in the back seat.  But then, I used to drive a little English two seater, so who am I to talk.

[danb35]

I understood the MGW (or at least MTOW) on the Rocket to be 3200 lb., giving similar payload to an inmodified 231.  Is this not correct?

[74657]

You are correct.  Rocket included an increase in the gross weight in the STC for the Missile and Rocket.  Useful in my Missile is just under 1000 lbs.......

[jasonwojo]

I love my Rocket!  It is a 1979 M20K "231" with good paint/interior and a whole lot of garmin stuff in the panel.  It burns more fuel than stock Mooneys of the same era, but I take off shorter, climb quicker, and go faster too.  Performance numbers are like newer Mooneys, if not faster.  I just sold my Rocket converted 1991 M20M "Bravo" (one of five built), and believe it was one of the fastest Mooneys in existance (335hp).  Glide is better during an engine out situation since the prop is fully feathering.  They are a lot of plane for the money.  I have not had any maintenance issues related to the conversion.  Rocket Engineering builds great products and the "305" conversion is no exception.  They support their conversion. Parts are available, and, for the most part, common.  The engine compartment is very tight, and, hence, a pain in the but to work on.  The TSIO-520NB motor is powerful and very strong.  I have a good useful load and the plane does not struggle under a FULL load.  If your mission is about flying high and flying fast, this is the plane for you.  The plane will definitely support local missions, but why have the turbo if you don't go high.  Fly one and you will want one!  Fly mine and you will want to buy it.  Let me know if I can answer any specific questions... 

[AustinChurch]

I have the Missile conversion (IO-550 300HP) and love it!  My useful load is 1055 lbs and with the extended tanks, 94 gallons, I still have a full fuel payload of 491 lbs. 

I can flight plan 8000-10000 msl at 185 knots TAS averaging 17 gph.  If I want to save fuel, I back her down to 13 gph for 170 knots TAS.  At that setting I have an absolute range of 7 hours/1200 nautical miles.  At 18000 msl, she'll do 175 on 10 gph or at 8000 you can do 160 on 10 gph.  In other words, the 550 in the 201 airframe allows for a lot of flexibility. You can go fast on very little fuel, like a 201, or you can go faster on a bit more fuel like an Ovation.

Service ceiling is still 18800, which is the stock 201's service ceiling, although at that altitude she still manages 400fpm climb.  At sea level, she climbs out at 1500 fpm and I have never seen higher than 338 degrees on my CHT.  It is a very well engineerd conversion that gives you premium performance without the premium price!

[RJBrown]

Quote: jlunseth

While the concept is cool, there are always two issues with the high HP Mooney conversions.  One, the airframe Vne is still the same, so there is a limit to how fast you can go.  Two, there is about enough useful load for a pilot on a diet with no charts in the back seat.  But then, I used to drive a little English two seater, so who am I to talk.

[danb35]

I'm also interested in a Rocket, though it will be a year at least before I would be able to upgrade to one.  I compare a 201 to my 20F and see a slight gain, but a 231 is just a little more, and a Rocket is just a little more yet...  It seems the market values Rockets at or below 252s, which just doesn't make any sense to me.

What, if any, service issues are there?  Any major SBs, ADs, etc.?  Would anybody have a copy of the AFM Supplement they could share?

[donshapansky]

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 .  

[donshapansky]

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

[danb35]

Quote: donshapansky

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 .  

[donshapansky]

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.

[jlunseth]

Quote: RJBrown

Long range tanks and speed brakes are a must.

[RJBrown]

Bravo gets an gross weight of 3368 and the limit for a Rocket is 3200. They share the same wing and tail but the Rocket has 35+ more horsepower. The airframe is lighter on the Rocket so the "legal" load is greater. The legal difference is from the landing weight, the bravos gear was upgraded. Rockets outperform Bravos at any weight.

Built in O2 is standard on both so that is already taken in to account. Modern avionics weight less. Full usefull fuel was 606# on my Rocket. You spout numbers but don't compare them to anything. Face it other than the gear weight limit every number favors the Rocket. In fact I believe that Mooney FOLLOWED Rocket to the Continental engine because they "had" to.

[donshapansky]

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.

[blacknchrome]

I think the Rocket is a great airplane - they are no doubt very fast. I'd love to fly one. But, the Bravo is a fabulous airplane with a few advantages, which of course are always one's opinion.

I do think there is something to be said for having a little more cabin room and baggage room of the longbody Bravo. Also, from what I've seen/read/heard, I think it is more likely to get more trouble-free hours out of a big-bore Lycoming (Bravo) than a big-bore Continental (STC's). I'm also not sure you'll find a Rocket with FIKI.

[donshapansky]

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.

[Mcxmike]

I flew our Rocket almost every week back & forth from Florida to Chicago (266 times) over a six year period. I found it to be a fast, econonomical & stable cruiser with little maintanence problems. Its a great package!

[Mcstealth]

Quote: Mcxmike

I flew our Rocket almost every week back & forth from Florida to Chicago (266 times) over a six year period. I found it to be a fast, econonomical & stable cruiser with little maintanence problems. Its a great package!

[Mcxmike]

I never had any problems with the winds in the Chicago area. It was more of a struggle with dodgeing T storms in the in the southern states and icing conditions in the northern states... The rocket has plenty of power to get above or out of the way of those bad things.  Its a great conversion!