350HP Mooney

[Niko182]

anyone know the specs on this thing. M20L liquid rocket. looks a tad bit over powered.

not looking to buy it, but the plane is interesting and I can't find any info on it online.

from what I was able to find, only 5 or 6 had the STC done.

http://www.usaaircraft.com/aircraft-for-sale/10/1988-mooney-m20l-liquid-rocket

[Raptor05121]

This plane has been for sale for a while. The 350s were a conversion offered by Rocket Engineering a while back and just like what you said, not many were done. There is (was) a member on here from Brazil with a red one. Very pretty. I think they are THE fastest Mooney ever, albeit a conversion unit.

Check the annual on that one: Annual due 5/16

[Niko182]

I'm not planning on buying it. I think it would be a little bit too much plane for an 18 yo kid with 120 hours on his ticket. just looks insanely fast. I saw somewhere that they cruise at 220 but i find that relatively slow considering a bravo could do exactly the same speed on an engine with 80hp less, and the bravo didn't exactly have major upgrades in aerodynamics compared to the M20L

[aviatoreb]

16 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

anyone know the specs on this thing. M20L liquid rocket. looks a tad bit over powered.

not looking to buy it, but the plane is interesting and I can't find any info on it online.

from what I was able to find, only 5 or 6 had the STC done.

http://www.usaaircraft.com/aircraft-for-sale/10/1988-mooney-m20l-liquid-rocket

Wicked cool airplane.

I heard that 5 were converted this way.

Liquid cooled engine.  Sort of rare so it might be very hard to keep it running.

I heard they actually modified the airframe by adding gussets at leading edges of the tubular structures of flying surfaces.  I dunno - sounds plausible - and necessary ...because.

Rumor has it that this airplane will fly at 260kts.

[Niko182]

damn. 260kts. that's getting pretty close up there with the aerostar and lancairs. I mean just looking at it, it looks insanely fast. Looks like it has cooling pipes that go through the body to end of the aircraft.

[N201MKTurbo]

I noticed there were no payload numbers in the ad. Between the giant engine, water cooling and huge tanks. There may not be any payload left for people.

I've been flying a 310 lately, I bet this plane uses more fuel than the 310 and goes faster too. But it won't haul more.

[ArtVandelay]

I bet it’s range is limited with only 90 gallon tanks. This same plane was for sale back in 2014, there is a thread mentioning it, search for M20L engine conversion.

[LANCECASPER]

On 11/7/2017 at 12:55 PM, Niko182 said:

I'm not planning on buying it. I think it would be a little bit too much plane for an 18 yo kid with 120 hours on his ticket. just looks insanely fast. I saw somewhere that they cruise at 220 but i find that relatively slow considering a bravo could do exactly the same speed on an engine with 80hp less, and the bravo didn't exactly have major upgrades in aerodynamics compared to the M20L

Here are some miscellaneous ramblings . . .

This airplane has been for sale at least half of your life. This idea was conceived by Darwin Conrad - Rocket Engineering (same people that did the Mooney Missile and Rocket and still do the Piper Malibu/Mirage Jetprop). This was at a time when Porsche engiones in L models needed a replacement and early in the TLS history (M Model) when people were burning up cylinders fast and Mooney & Lycoming hadn't come up with the Bravo conversion yet. The real problem with the TIO-540-AF1A engine in the TLS is how people were told to run it - up to 1750 degree TIT and - believe it or not - 500 degree redline on CHT. The baffle seals that the factory put on the engine easily folded back and the engine ran super hot. People were only getting a few hundred hours before top end overhauls. I can tell you from personal experience having the first TIO-540-AF1A that was converted to a TIO-540-AF1B (Bravo) in 1996 that the Bravo does run cooler, but if you have good engine baffles you can keep TIT between 1600-1625 and cylinder temperatures around 380 on either engine. I have a TLS right now that's never been converted to a Bravo and I have made sure that the baffle seals were replaced with GEE-BEE seals. The temperatures are OK without the conversion. When it comes time for a top end or a engine rebuild then I'll do the conversion.

The liquid cooled idea is great - that's the Voyager engine that RAM uses on twin Cessna upgrades (http://www.ramaircraft.com/Aircraft-Engine-Upgrade-Packages/Performance/414A-Series-V-Performance/SM044C4-414A-Series-V-Performance.htm). The problem with it in a Mooney is I don't know who you would take it to that has any experience with it for a Mooney annual. Maybe Lasar, Ton Gun or Maxwell and possibly Dugosh - but I don't know for a fact that any of those shops will work on one. Someone told me a couple years ago that there's only one shop in the country that will accept one - not sure which of the four shops it was. Any even if they do, how proficient are they on them if they hardly ever see them? There might be 1 - 3 flying. It would be nice if Mooney would test that engine for a next generation Acclaim replacement - there are a lot of advantages. I just think in its' present state it's destined to be an orphan.

But finally here's the real problem with that airplane that you cite that's for sale- it's an L model - the useful load on that airplane is going to not be good. They originally only held 60 gallons since it had the Porsche engine and J landing gear and brakes. With the 350HP liquid cooled engine you need at least the original M Model 89 gallons of fuel and preferably the Monroy Long Range Tanks. But if you filled them up with one person you would be over gross since this airplane did not have the beefed up landing gear and brakes that came out a little into the M model. I've also heard that due to the weight of this engine that it needs engine mounts every few years.

If this airplane was a $60,000 airplane, maybe. But the engine is going to cost well over that at rebuild time.

[Niko182]

8 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Here are some miscellaneous ramblings . . .

This airplane has been for sale at least half of your life. This idea was conceived by Darwin Conrad - Rocket Engineering (same people that did the Mooney Missile and Rocket and still do the Piper Malibu/Mirage Jetprop). This was at a time when Porsche engiones in L models needed a replacement and early in the TLS history (M Model) when people were burning up cylinders fast and Mooney & Lycoming hadn't come up with the Bravo conversion yet. The real problem with the TIO-540-AF1A engine in the TLS is how people were told to run it - up to 1750 degree TIT and - believe it or not - 500 degree redline on CHT. The baffle seals that the factory put on the engine easily folded back and the engine ran super hot. People were only getting a few hundred hours before top end overhauls. I can tell you from personal experience having the first TIO-540-AF1A that was converted to a TIO-540-AF1B (Bravo) in 1996 that the Bravo does run cooler, but if you have good engine baffles you can keep TIT between 1600-1625 and cylinder temperatures around 380 on either engine. I have a TLS right now that's never been converted to a Bravo and I have made sure that the baffle seals were replaced with GEE-BEE seals. The temperatures are OK without the conversion. When it comes time for a top end or a engine rebuild then I'll do the conversion.

The liquid cooled idea is great - that's the Voyager engine that RAM uses on twin Cessna upgrades (http://www.ramaircraft.com/Aircraft-Engine-Upgrade-Packages/Performance/414A-Series-V-Performance/SM044C4-414A-Series-V-Performance.htm). The problem with it in a Mooney is I don't know who you would take it to that has any experience with it for a Mooney annual. Maybe Lasar, Ton Gun or Maxwell and possibly Dugosh - but I don't know for a fact that any of those shops will work on one. Someone told me a couple years ago that there's only one shop in the country that will accept one - not sure which of the four shops it was. Any even if they do, how proficient are they on them if they hardly ever see them? There might be 1 - 3 flying. It would be nice if Mooney would test that engine for a next generation Acclaim replacement - there are a lot of advantages. I just think in its' present state it's destined to be an orphan.

But finally here's the real problem with that airplane that you cite that's for sale- it's an L model - the useful load on that airplane is going to not be good. They originally only held 60 gallons since it had the Porsche engine and J landing gear and brakes. With the 500 liquid engine you need at least the original M Model 89 gallons of fuel and preferably the Monroy Long Range Tanks. But if you filled them up with one person you would be over gross since this airplane did not have the beefed up landing gear and brakes that came out a little into the M model. I've also heard that due to the weight of this engine that it needs engine mounts every few years.

If this airplane was a $60,000 airplane, maybe. But the engine is going to cost well over that at rebuild time.

Thank you. This was some of the info i was interested in. A really cool plane, but seems more of a hassle than a joy to own. I thought the idea of a 350hp mooney was cool, but the plane looks like it costs a tad bit over 200 grand  to buy and maybe a good 40 to 50 per year to own.

[Chessieretriever]

I have the original M20M (TLS not PFM) that Conrad used to obtain the STC for the Liquid "351" rocket from the FAA. That STC was used to later include PFMs albeit I am not sure it all of the original mods were included. Mine has extra gussets on the steel cage, stiffeners on the tail for flutter prevention, stronger landing gear, and an 8 point engine mount as opposed to 4 points. Logs show flights at FL 350. Can consistently cruise faster than an Acclaim in the flight levels at cruise power (due to the higher HP number used for the 70% to begin with). Awesome aircraft. Not for the faint of heart.

Chessie

[jkhirsch]

Just now, Chessieretriever said:

Chessie

Don't just make that post and not even mention anything about your weights/loading capabilities! C'mon man.

[jlunseth]

Thanks for the history Lance, that was my thought when I saw the "L", that it had to be some kind of replacement for the Porsche engines.  

The other issue I can see with it though, is Vne.  Vne is an interesting airspeed.  Most airspeed limitations are in KIAS, because that reflects the pressure the wing is "feeling."  Vne, though, is a little different because the concern is flutter, and flutter is driven partly by what pressure the wing "feels,"  (i.e. KIAS) but also partly by the speed of the particles striking the airfoil, i.e. TAS.  So while Vne appears, on your airspeed indicator, to be a "knots indicated" speed, it isn't really, the "knots indicated" Vne speed just takes into account the maximum TAS the aircraft is going to travel at, within the service ceiling limits of that aircraft, if the KIAS is kept under the indicated Vne.  I am pretty sure that a Mooney going 260 knots at or under 25k is probably going over whatever the TAS limit is at which flutter will happen.  So yes, the airframe would have to be changed and probably significantly so.  Which means no much Useful Load, as was mentioned.  

[Niko182]

21 minutes ago, Chessieretriever said:

I have the original M20M (TLS not PFM) that Conrad used to obtain the STC for the Liquid "351" rocket from the FAA. That STC was used to later include PFMs albeit I am not sure it all of the original mods were included. Mine has extra gussets on the steel cage, stiffeners on the tail for flutter prevention, stronger landing gear, and an 8 point engine mount as opposed to 4 points. Logs show flights at FL 350. Can consistently cruise faster than an Acclaim in the flight levels at cruise power (due to the higher HP number used for the 70% to begin with). Awesome aircraft. Not for the faint of heart.

Chessie

well if you own it, what are you specs. I'm curious on useful load, empy weight, GPH, Cruise speeds, and range, and how much of a handful is it to fly compared to the regular bravo and Acclaim. for instance The 252 rockets where extremely hard to descend with, as owners didn't want to shock cool the engine, and the minimum recommended power on the rocket engine was 45%, which was equal to about 70-75% of the regular TIO-360. I wonder how difficult this thing was to bring down.

[aviatoreb]

21 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

Thanks for the history Lance, that was my thought when I saw the "L", that it had to be some kind of replacement for the Porsche engines.  

The other issue I can see with it though, is Vne.  Vne is an interesting airspeed.  Most airspeed limitations are in KIAS, because that reflects the pressure the wing is "feeling."  Vne, though, is a little different because the concern is flutter, and flutter is driven partly by what pressure the wing "feels,"  (i.e. KIAS) but also partly by the speed of the particles striking the airfoil, i.e. TAS.  So while Vne appears, on your airspeed indicator, to be a "knots indicated" speed, it isn't really, the "knots indicated" Vne speed just takes into account the maximum TAS the aircraft is going to travel at, within the service ceiling limits of that aircraft, if the KIAS is kept under the indicated Vne.  I am pretty sure that a Mooney going 260 knots at or under 25k is probably going over whatever the TAS limit is at which flutter will happen.  So yes, the airframe would have to be changed and probably significantly so.  Which means no much Useful Load, as was mentioned.  

Cheesietriever is an owner and confirmed what I heard as rumor.  Rocket engineering modified the airframe - they added gussets in several locations to stiffen the frame and wings and flying surfaces at the roots.  I presume they increased the red line as a result of stiffening the airframe.  Sounds on the up and up to me.

[LANCECASPER]

41 minutes ago, Chessieretriever said:

I have the original M20M (TLS not PFM) that Conrad used to obtain the STC for the Liquid "351" rocket from the FAA. That STC was used to later include PFMs albeit I am not sure it all of the original mods were included. Mine has extra gussets on the steel cage, stiffeners on the tail for flutter prevention, stronger landing gear, and an 8 point engine mount as opposed to 4 points. Logs show flights at FL 350. Can consistently cruise faster than an Acclaim in the flight levels at cruise power (due to the higher HP number used for the 70% to begin with). Awesome aircraft. Not for the faint of heart.

Chessie

Great to hear! I sat in on a seminar Darwin did in Kerrville at MAPA in 1997 and have always been fascinated about this engine. Where do you get it serviced? Any maintenance issues you've had come up? Glad to hear yours is an M model with the higher gross weight limit.

[aviatoreb]

32 minutes ago, Chessieretriever said:

I have the original M20M (TLS not PFM) that Conrad used to obtain the STC for the Liquid "351" rocket from the FAA. That STC was used to later include PFMs albeit I am not sure it all of the original mods were included. Mine has extra gussets on the steel cage, stiffeners on the tail for flutter prevention, stronger landing gear, and an 8 point engine mount as opposed to 4 points. Logs show flights at FL 350. Can consistently cruise faster than an Acclaim in the flight levels at cruise power (due to the higher HP number used for the 70% to begin with). Awesome aircraft. Not for the faint of heart.

Chessie

Fantastic!  You must include pictures!  And more info....

-so what do you tend to cruise at - and what is your fuel burn?

-what is your best cruise speed at altitude that you have seen in IAS?  I heard 260 is the best all out speed - meaning take off full power at altitude, meaning the bragging speed that you can't actually maintain for more than a few minutes - but what is the best high speed cruise you can do?  And what is the fuel burn?

-whats your sweet spot - where do you like to run it at what speed and burn?

Is it hard to find maintenance.

I was scared off the liquid rockets when I was shopping 8 years ago because I was worried about maintenance.  I was convinced that a normal rocket had a very common engine.  Still I remain very very intrigued.

As the saying goes - you have a rare bird.

[KSMooniac]

Great to hear! I sat in on a seminar Darwin did in Kerrville at MAPA in 1997 and have always been fascinated about this engine. Where do you get it serviced? Any maintenance issues you've had come up? Glad to hear yours is an M model with the higher gross weight limit.

I know in the past Maxwell recommend that RAM be used for L engine issues since they're one of the few that used 'em. Not sure if that is still true or not.

I've heard that it will carry whatever you can put in the cabin with no complaints.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Guest]

I looked after a liquid cooled 414A many years ago, it was a bit of an odd ball, even with RAM support it was a challenge.

There was also straight 414 fitted with a pair of turbocharged IO720’s similar to the turbocharged Comanche 400.

An IO 720 turbocharged or not would be a nice addition to a Mooney without liquid cooling issues.

Or try super charging, like Charlie Horton.

http://www.comancheflyers.com/publication/view/supercharging-a-comanche-400/

Clarence

[aviatoreb]

28 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I looked after a liquid cooled 414A many years ago, it was a bit of an odd ball, even with RAM support it was a challenge.

There was also straight 414 fitted with a pair of turbocharged IO720’s similar to the turbocharged Comanche 400.

An IO 720 turbocharged or not would be a nice addition to a Mooney without liquid cooling issues.

Or try super charging, like Charlie Horton.

http://www.comancheflyers.com/publication/view/supercharging-a-comanche-400/

Clarence

I saw a webpage once where some guy super charged his Comanche 400? If I remember right that was also a 260TAS airplane.

I think there would be major balance issues trying to fit a IO720 to a mooney - maybe if they really made an even longer stretch than even the long body stretch 18'' longer than a M20M/R it could be made to work.  It would be a wicked fast airplane.  Beef up the structure super charge it and watch it go 270!  Or 225 below 10,000 ft.

[MIm20c]

If Mooney could get the Acclaim in the 260-270 TAS territory I would think it would be a strong seller.  That’s right up there with TP’s burning 60-100 gph.  I think I could force myself to wear a o2 mask for 260+kts. 

What would it take to turn the tsio 550 into a 350hp engine rated for full power continuously at 25k?  How much hp is being produced for the 242 kts currently?

[Niko182]

1 minute ago, MIm20c said:

If Mooney could get the Acclaim in the 260-270 TAS territory I would think it would be a strong seller.  That’s right up there with TP’s burning 60-100 gph.  I think I could force myself to wear a o2 mask for 260+kts. 

What would it take to turn the tsio 550 into a 350hp engine rated for full power continuously at 25k?  How much hp is being produced for the 242 kts currently?

my guess is that at 25k, youd be using at least 290HP. to get something to go 242kts isn't easy even with the little amount of air.

[aviatoreb]

5 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

If Mooney could get the Acclaim in the 260-270 TAS territory I would think it would be a strong seller.  That’s right up there with TP’s burning 60-100 gph.  I think I could force myself to wear a o2 mask for 260+kts. 

What would it take to turn the tsio 550 into a 350hp engine rated for full power continuously at 25k?  How much hp is being produced for the 242 kts currently?

I think Clarence could save Mooney. Clarence how do you feel about developing a major STC mod?  You run a MSC, right?  Common' bud - you got this!

Could you modify a Mooney long body to cary an IO720?  Include a super charger.  If a mooney could do 225 at 10k and 270 at 25k....we would have a MAJOR rebound.

Someone needs to run the W&B for such a thing - could it be made to work theoretically?

Problem is it would require also the gussets work like on the Mooney rocket 351 liquid to stiffen the airframe.

225 at 10k would be quite a thing and it would really sell airplanes.

[MIm20c]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

Problem is it would require also the gussets work like on the Mooney rocket 351 liquid to stiffen the airframe  

Would you need to if the POH specified the turbo was to be in TN mode until 20k + feet at which time it could be switched to a TC setup?  Meaning the IAS would still be ina normal range.

i would think a TC would be far easier on the engine vs a supercharger. 

[aviatoreb]

20 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

Would you need to if the POH specified the turbo was to be in TN mode until 20k + feet at which time it could be switched to a TC setup?  Meaning the IAS would still be ina normal range.

i would think a TC would be far easier on the engine vs a supercharger. 

..I was guessing super charger would be easier - you know more than me.  TN sounds great - can you do it?

W&B is the main obstacle.  How much heavier is an IO720 than a IO550?

[carusoam]

Great topic...

The L was the first Long Body.

The TLS came with many improvements over the L.

Aside from the P engine, the landing gear strength was a limit to anyone swapping engines.  Cost benefit ratio didn't work very well.

Adding weight to the front of a Mooney is a bit of a challenge. An IO720 comes with two additional cylinders, and you probably want to add a pair of TNs with that..?

Fortunately the Long Body has some extra volume behind the engine and in front of the fire wall...

Time to drag out the Turbine project...  

Best regards,

-a-