Is there a 200 kts Mooney?

[aviatoreb]

6 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

Nice try, but your maintenance cost per hour is probably 1.5-2x your fuel cost per hour (depending on how much you fly), so the actual cost might be something like $450-600.  Then there is the risk of grounding/needing to get alternate transportation which should be factored in as a cost per flight also (and inconvenience).  And commercial is cheaper round-trip, and I haven't yet made a trip where I didn't intend to come home.  I agree flying Mooneyair is more fun, though.

Wierdly, my wife was using this argument on me when she was trying to convince me to buy a plane.  I was the one pointing out it was a BS argument, but she wouldn't let it go.  Now that I had to buy a new prop, she might be thinking twice about it, though.

I don't think you have it exactly right.  So they say...3 times the fuel price is roughly the operating price (incl the fuel price).

But...

Many parts of airplanes cost as much or more if you fly less since they rot.  So I figure my checkbook is sort of attached to the airplane whether I fly it or not.  So I might as well fly it.  In other words, you already agreed to spend a stupid amount of money owning a cool hunk-o-junk airplane even if you don't fly it and just keep it as a lawn ornament (but still in annual and in good shape).  So Figure that's the overhead cost.  Then when I fly, all I tell myself is ...besides that... I only think about how much the fuel costs.

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I don't think you have it exactly right.  So they say...3 times the fuel price is roughly the operating price (incl the fuel price).

But...

Many parts of airplanes cost as much or more if you fly less since they rot.  So I figure my checkbook is sort of attached to the airplane whether I fly it or not.  So I might as well fly it.  In other words, you already agreed to spend a stupid amount of money owning a cool hunk-o-junk airplane even if you don't fly it and just keep it as a lawn ornament (but still in annual and in good shape).  So Figure that's the overhead cost.  Then when I fly, all I tell myself is ...besides that... I only think about how much the fuel costs.

Yeah, I was figuring for a heavily used plane.  One bad annual or, say, a condemned prop and it all goes to pot, though

[Jerry 5TJ]

I rationalize cost thus: Since I already pay the fixed costs whether I fly or not, I can go fly for an hour, shoot an approach or two, cruise around some, and land back at my Home airport all for about $100.   (30 gallons of JetA at around $3) 

So I tell myself it’s cheaper to fly a turboprop than renting a beat up 172 at the Flight School.  

(No, thanks for your kind offer but I already own the Brooklyn Bridge)

 

 

 

[aviatoreb]

14 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

(No, thanks for your kind offer but I already own the Brooklyn Bridge)

I hear the Brooklyn Bridge is very nice.  How much do you want for it?

 

[Wayne Cease]

For those of us who love to fly, it's easy to make a million reasons the Mooney is better than the airlines. I'm certainly in this camp. I'd rather take my 252 than the airlines any day and anywhere.
But for someone who's only criteria is time and expense, I still maintain you can't beat the airlines except for those situations where the airlines just don't fly where you need to go. You certainly have to factor in the entire cost of ownership, not just the cost gas for an individual trip. 
For me personally? I'd prefer the Mooney regardless the time or the money... but then I'm a pilot and therefore hate to be sitting in the back and not logging the time.

By yourself, nope. Unless one is well off the beaten path and going to somewhere else off the beaten path. With 4 of us we had several trips that were cheaper than going commercial. Full cost, not just fuel.

We've also taken trips with multiple stops that would have been hard to impossible on the airlines and much longer by car. One example: we spent a few days at Disney World, then a few on the beach at Ft Lauderdale, then lunch and the afternoon with my MIL in Sarasota on the way back home to Atlanta.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[peevee]

52 minutes ago, Wayne Cease said:

By yourself, nope. Unless one is well off the beaten path and going to somewhere else off the beaten path. With 4 of us we had several trips that were cheaper than going commercial. Full cost, not just fuel.

We've also taken trips with multiple stops that would have been hard to impossible on the airlines and much longer by car. One example: we spent a few days at Disney World, then a few on the beach at Ft Lauderdale, then lunch and the afternoon with my MIL in Sarasota on the way back home to Atlanta.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

I've had to put rules in place on that after trying to cram too much in a week. 2 night minimum etc.

[exM20K]

3 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

I rationalize cost thus: Since I already pay the fixed costs whether I fly or not, I can go fly for an hour, shoot an approach or two, cruise around some, and land back at my Home airport all for about $100.   (30 gallons of JetA at around $3) 

So I tell myself it’s cheaper to fly a turboprop than renting a beat up 172 at the Flight School.  

(No, thanks for your kind offer but I already own the Brooklyn Bridge)

 

 

 

You usethe same  dull pencil as I do for assessing TCO!

Reality includes $50-60 for engine reserve, something for props, brakes, etc, but you're probably not too far off the rental piston single price.

-dan

[aviatoreb]

53 minutes ago, peevee said:

I've had to put rules in place on that after trying to cram too much in a week. 2 night minimum etc.

Hows your new SR22?  Hows the speed?  vs your former Rocket?

...you on COPA now?  Well you are welcome to stick around here to of course!

[Wayne Cease]

I've had to put rules in place on that after trying to cram too much in a week. 2 night minimum etc.

Other than the stop in Sarasota we spent at least 3 nights at the other two locations. We really only wanted a lunch-afternoon visit with my MIL, her health wasn't up too much more at the time.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[peevee]

38 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Hows your new SR22?  Hows the speed?  vs your former Rocket?

...you on COPA now?  Well you are welcome to stick around here to of course!

It's good.

It's very comparable to the rocket at 65 percent power ROP in speed and flow.

Like the g1k a lot. 

[peevee]

23 minutes ago, Wayne Cease said:

Other than the stop in Sarasota we spent at least 3 nights at the other two locations. We really only wanted a lunch-afternoon visit with my MIL, her health wasn't up too much more at the time.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Sounds nice.

For awhile I'd try to stay one night and move on, but by the time you park, secure everything, the day is shot and the next day I always want to leave early.

[Wayne Cease]

Just now, peevee said:

Sounds nice.

For awhile I'd try to stay one night and move on, but by the time you park, secure everything, the day is shot and the next day I always want to leave early.

I agree.  One short stop is fine for a day trip, but hopping around and then switching to ground transportation and back to air again can be a pain.

 

 

[Yooper Rocketman]

3 hours ago, peevee said:

It's good.

It's very comparable to the rocket at 65 percent power ROP in speed and flow.

Like the g1k a lot. 

Welcome to the world of composites.  Nice jump.  Now you just need to get a JetA burner and add 100 knots to your file speed.     (Hehehe)

Tom

[aviatoreb]

5 hours ago, peevee said:

It's good.

It's very comparable to the rocket at 65 percent power ROP in speed and flow.

Like the g1k a lot. 

Im glad for you.

Can you call out some numbers?  Is that relative to your rocket - You mentioned your rocket was roughly 10kts slower than book?  Mine is too - I was blaming tks and vg's.  How do your SR22TN and former rocket compare at say 75%?  Etc.

[peevee]

13 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Im glad for you.

Can you call out some numbers?  Is that relative to your rocket - You mentioned your rocket was roughly 10kts slower than book?  Mine is too - I was blaming tks and vg's.  How do your SR22TN and former rocket compare at say 75%?  Etc.

At 17k or so the 22 runs 75 percent power lop at about 15.5gph and about 188 tas

The rocket ran 65 percent rop at 15.3 or so gph and on the flight I delivered it to the buyer ran 186 true.

If you weren't in a hurry they were close. The rocket at 75 percent ran 205-210tas at fl230 at 20gph. 

I don't run the 22 per the manual which calls for 85 percent power. Can't afford new cylinders every 500 hrs.

 

I ran my rocket pretty easy, usually around 1550 tit so you could probably shave a gallon off my figures if you ran it at 1650 redline 

I don't care for the color much. Oh well.

[peevee]

14 hours ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

Welcome to the world of composites.  Nice jump.  Now you just need to get a JetA burner and add 100 knots to your file speed.     (Hehehe)

Tom

Maybe some day.

[MIm20c]

@peevee no luck getting the rocket to run LOP?

Lots of rockets on the used market right now.

[peevee]

Just now, MIm20c said:

@peevee no luck getting the rocket to run LOP?

Never liked it despite a low GAMI spread, .2 or so.

the 550 I can set to 2500rpm and just keep pulling the mixture back to whatever power setting I want. It runs uncomfortably lean of peak smoothly.

[M016576]

51 minutes ago, peevee said:

Never liked it despite a low GAMI spread, .2 or so.

the 550 I can set to 2500rpm and just keep pulling the mixture back to whatever power setting I want. It runs uncomfortably lean of peak smoothly.

This has been my experience with the IO-550 as well... can’t even really tell it’s LOP other than the egt dropping when getting leaner 

[peevee]

1 hour ago, M016576 said:

This has been my experience with the IO-550 as well... can’t even really tell it’s LOP other than the egt dropping when getting leaner 

yeah it just keeps going. the 520 never really ran smoothly LOP. Some do, some don't apparently. Cylinder issues aside I like the 550 a lot.

I can tell you we looked for a year for a partner on the rocket, I had 3 offers in a couple weeks on the sr22.

It's not a major deal but I don't particularly care for the free castering nose wheel.

I love the GFC700 and garmin perspective (g1000)

[Yooper Rocketman]

3 hours ago, MIm20c said:

@peevee no luck getting the rocket to run LOP?

Lots of rockets on the used market right now.

I tried too many times, finally fearing my lean tests, while I was working with George Braly, were going to eventually cook my cylinders.  After several injector swaps, sent up by GAMI. with no luck, he finally told me they've had marginal success with the TSIO520 because of the "updraft" Intake system.  I gave up and run ROP.

I think I'm about 450 past TBO, had exhaust valve work done on two cylinders over 18 years and both valve issues were found at annual's, so no excitement related to the failures.  I can't say I'm unhappy with that engine.  Chad, at the local FBO, maintained a fleet of twin Cessnas with this engine, and says he can't remember one ever getting the kind of service mine has given me.  Probably related more to consistent running with one operator (me) than anything else.

Hoping the new one burning the stinky gas is as, or more, reliable.

Tom

[carusoam]

The intake on the IO550 provides the magic.  The good gami spread closes the loop.

At high MP, provided by lower altitude, the NA IO550 can run 90°F LOP.  It just shuts off any leaner than that.  Turn the red knob in, she refires smoothly...

The engine intake is MP sensitive. At higher alts, lower MP... going 50°F LOP is a challenge.

Deep LOP isn’t as much fun as deep ROP...

Low MP isn't as much fun as high MP...

Best regards,

-a-

[exM20K]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

The intake on the IO550 provides the magic.  The good gami spread closes the loop.

At high MP, provided by lower altitude, the NA IO550 can run 90°F LOP.  It just shuts off any leaner than that.  Turn the red knob in, she refires smoothly...

The engine intake is MP sensitive. At higher alts, lower MP... going 50°F LOP is a challenge.

Deep LOP isn’t as much fun as deep ROP...

Low MP isn't as much fun as high MP...

Best regards,

-a-

Ditto the TSIO 550 G.  80* LOP is what I generally run.

[aviatoreb]

13 hours ago, peevee said:

At 17k or so the 22 runs 75 percent power lop at about 15.5gph and about 188 tas

The rocket ran 65 percent rop at 15.3 or so gph and on the flight I delivered it to the buyer ran 186 true.

If you weren't in a hurry they were close. The rocket at 75 percent ran 205-210tas at fl230 at 20gph. 

I don't run the 22 per the manual which calls for 85 percent power. Can't afford new cylinders every 500 hrs.

 

I ran my rocket pretty easy, usually around 1550 tit so you could probably shave a gallon off my figures if you ran it at 1650 redline 

I don't care for the color much. Oh well.

She looks nice - congratulations!

I think your rocket was even slower than ten slower than book?  Anyway slower than mine and I have tks and vg s.  And 15gph is 55% power rop - and I can burn it even lower lop at 55.

[peevee]

57 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

She looks nice - congratulations!

I think your rocket was even slower than ten slower than book?  Anyway slower than mine and I have tks and vg s.  And 15gph is 55% power rop - and I can burn it even lower lop at 55.

I always suspected the Aspen just wasn't that accurate in calculating tas

Maxwell claimed our one piece belly cost us 10kts.

I think he has no idea what he's talking about.