305 Rocket Review

[TNIndy]

Has anyone written a review on a 305 Rocket? Pro's and cons? 

[N201MKTurbo]

11 minutes ago, TNIndy said:

Has anyone written a review on a 305 Rocket? Pro's and cons? 

Pros:

Goes really fast!

Cons:

Sucks fuel like you own an oil company!

Has the full fuel payload of a Cessna 150

[KLRDMD]

1 minute ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Pros:

Goes really fast!

Cons:

Sucks fuel like you own an oil company!

Has the full fuel payload of a Cessna 150

That pretty much sums it up. 

[ArtVandelay]

Pros:
Goes really fast!
Cons:
Sucks fuel like you own an oil company!
Has the full fuel payload of a Cessna 150

You can’t add long range tanks or is it useful load challenged as well?

[KSMooniac]

I believe most or all of them came with long range tanks in the 100 gallon range.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[N201MKTurbo]

I was flying one that was over gross with full tanks and a pilot.

They re-did the WB and now you can take a skinny passenger.

In reality it will climb like a home sick angel with whatever you can fit in it. The landing gear may collapse if you hit a bump in the runway, but it will fly!

[Hank]

@aviatoreb may have some good input, including the effects of the 4-blade MT prop on performance and economy.

[KLRDMD]

20 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I was flying one that was over gross with full tanks and a pilot.

They re-did the WB and now you can take a skinny passenger.

In reality it will climb like a home sick angel with whatever you can fit in it. The landing gear may collapse if you hit a bump in the runway, but it will fly!

My previous Bravo was right at gross with full fuel, full TKS, weekend bags and me.

[FloridaMan]

I can carry 370 lbs of people and stuff with full fuel (1000lb UL and 105 gallons of fuel). So me, a girl and a couple bags should be able to go non-stop from Tampa to NY in somewhere between 4 and 5 hours total time. I have not tried this trip. 

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

@aviatoreb may have some good input, including the effects of the 4-blade MT prop on performance and economy.

I wrote an extensive review some many months ago and people have been asking me lately - but Im not finding it.  Can someone help me find it on here?

Meanwhile I can say that 2 years on (3?) I still love it - even more.

[FloridaMan]

11 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I wrote an extensive review some many months ago and people have been asking me lately - but Im not finding it.  Can someone help me find it on here?

Meanwhile I can say that 2 years on (3?) I still love it - even more.

 

[aviatoreb]

41 minutes ago, Antares said:

 

Thanks!

[TNIndy]

Thanks!

[cujet]

I just rode along with Antares in his 305 Rocket from SAV to PBI. It was a very hot, afternoon departure from Savannah, GA. 

My impression: 

1) Smooth takeoff, with adequate acceleration. Takeoff roll and initial climb match other Mooney aircraft. 

2) IFR cruise climb to 16,000 was uneventful, with a steady 900+ FPM in cruise climb. Including the takeoff roll and a little vectoring, it took us 17 minutes to reach 16,000.  I did notice the climb rate was exactly the same with the initial lower airspeed and greater pitch. Guessing (remember, I'm just an observer) that about 135Kts indicated gives the standard 305 Rocket cruise-climb rate.  I also noticed indicated airspeed remained rock steady in climb, but TAS increased as we climbed. Oh the joys of a turbocharged engine. (same power, thinner air) 

3) Once at 16,000 feet, 205Kts TAS was achieved rather quickly. No waiting long times for speed to build as is the case with some sleek, normally aspirated light aircraft. 

4) The climb higher was a non event, with plenty of power to go up. 

5) We tried an economy cruise setting, at 16,000 and lost about 20Kts. Lowering fuel burn by about 4gph. We talked about getting 10 miles per gallon and I thought (to myself) the lower fuel burn would put us 40 miles behind after 2 hours. Wondering if it's worth it to go slower. I'm doing this by memory, so don't hang me out to dry if I'm wrong, but by going slower the potential is to save 4 gallons on a 2 hour trip. (40 miles, 10mpg) . OK, I'll admit it, I wanted him to fly as fast as possible, as quite frankly, it's fun. 

6) 18,000 is about as high as I can go on full flow O2, with a silicone mask. (health issues) So I was unable to observe what the 305 Rocket's high altitude performance would be like. 

7) The ride into South Florida low altitude thermal turbulence is fantastic. Relatively high wing loading and rapid turbulence penetration speeds lead to a very secure feel. This is not weather related turbulence, but rather the small cell turbulence that upsets light aircraft in the pattern and makes the pilot fight the controls. 

8) Fuel burn is high, we took on 45 gallons at SAV and used it all by PBI. 

 

NOTE: I believe Antares' 305 Rocket to be 10+ below book speeds and in need of a drag reduction (antenna removal) and weight reduction program. He still has ADF, Loran and the associated antennas. His ailerons are reflexed 1 inch in flight and there may be other issues slowing him down. 

Edited August 11, 2018 by cujet

[ArtVandelay]

By comparison my J would burn half the avgas and take 2:17, a 200 knot should make the trip (337nm) in under 2 hours, more like 1:45. You must have gotten vectored the long way?

[TNIndy]

It looks like the flight was 392 miles. Based on that you got 8.7 miles per gallon assuming all 45 gallons of fuel was consumed. That sounds low?

[ArtVandelay]

It looks like the flight was 392 miles. Based on that you got 8.7 miles per gallon assuming all 45 gallons of fuel was consumed. That sounds low?

Ksav-ssi-kpbi is 337nm according to Garmin.

[M016576]

Seems like a Rocket is just like a bravo, but has a smaller cargo bay, and a slightly higher useful load?

[TNIndy]

I looked up the actual flight on flightaware. It shows the flight took one hour and 52 minutes

[cujet]

1 hour ago, TNIndy said:

It looks like the flight was 392 miles. Based on that you got 8.7 miles per gallon assuming all 45 gallons of fuel was consumed. That sounds low?

Without a fuel totalizer, I don't really know that all the 45 gal was used up. We had a discussion in flight and it came out to be 10MPG in cruise. 

[N201MKTurbo]

I know the Rocket is stupid fast, but my turbo J would have done it in in about 2:20 with ~22 gallons. That suits me just fine.

[cujet]

3 hours ago, teejayevans said:

By comparison my J would burn half the avgas and take 2:17, a 200 knot should make the trip (337nm) in under 2 hours, more like 1:45. You must have gotten vectored the long way?

We had a bit of a headwind. Ground speed was in the 180's to 190. That same day, your J would not have made the trip at no wind, planned numbers either. As you would have been fighting the substantial headwinds at lower altitudes. 2.5 and 25 would be close for you that day. 

Which brings up the point, the 305 Rocket is a nice choice for longer flights. 

[gsxrpilot]

If efficiency is measured in MPG... then depending on the day, either a J or a 252 K is going to beat the Rocket. If the wind gives an advantage at higher altitudes, the 252 will be more efficient. If there's no wind advantage up high, the J will be more efficient than the Rocket every time. 

You can always get there faster burning more fuel. But if it's efficiency you want...

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said:

If efficiency is measured in MPG... then depending on the day, either a J or a 252 K is going to beat the Rocket. If the wind gives an advantage at higher altitudes, the 252 will be more efficient. If there's no wind advantage up high, the J will be more efficient than the Rocket every time. 

You can always get there faster burning more fuel. But if it's efficiency you want...

That is mathematically a faulty analysis.

If it is efficiency you want, then you want a vespa scooter.

If speed is also a factor, then you want a balance between fuel efficiency and speed goal.  Then what you choose depends on how much value you place on each.

But ... then you must also consider how much you value cost.  If cost is no object and fuel efficiency is not important to you, then you want a gulf stream g6.  (Everyone sing that song...like a G6...like a G6...).

If you have a constrained optimization problem, meaning max dollars for example, then you cannot afford a g6 and you are forced to settle for a TBM930.  Or maybe you are forced to settle for a Cessna 150.  Or maybe you are forced to settle for a motorized parachute.  Or a vespa scooter.

I have a bicycle.  I have flown my airplane to get worked on at a "nearby" airport. And dropped it off.  12 min KPTD to KSLK through the mountains.  Taken my nice road bike out with lovely carbon wheels.  And ridden home, almost 3 hours.  I also have fetched my airplane after a few times I diverted to KMSS in IFR which was too low for KPTD but KMSS has an ILS.  20 miles on the bike - lots of fun...then throw it into the back and fly home like 5 minutes.  Which is more efficient?  Time efficient?  Fuel efficient?  Dollar efficient?  A convex combination (the tech word for a weighted sum where the weights all add to one)?

Oh I forgot to throw in the fun factor into my cost function.

[Yooper Rocketman]

I always get a kick out of how so many boast about the speed and efficiency of their Mooney until someone has a faster plane.  Then we just talk about efficiency????

Airplanes are ALWAYS a trade off.  Speed, efficiency, payload, seat count, acquisition cost, operating costs, maintenance factors, the list goes on and on.  If you compare the Rocket to most other high performance singles and the lions share of twins, it stacks up pretty good.  On this forum,  I’ve always been amazed at how it’s treated like the black sheep..........well, by those that don’t own them or have any appreciable time in them.   

But then, what would I know?

Tom