305 Rocket Review

[gsxrpilot]

4 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

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.

First of all, we're comparing Mooney aircraft. So the vespa doesn't apply. There are lots of ground transportation options that are more fuel efficient than air travel. But I'll submit that even a Cessna 150 is not as fuel efficient an aircraft as an M20J. It burns less fuel per hour but will take more hours to get there...

Secondly I started the entire post with "If efficiency is measured in MPG". There are lots of other ways to measure efficiency.

But if MPG is the measure and we're comparing Mooney aircraft, I believe my math holds up.

 

 

[gsxrpilot]

3 minutes ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

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

I didn't bring up the efficiency argument ;-) I was just stating that the Rocket doesn't get the best MPG, IF that's the measure.

Personally, I can't ever be satisfied with any Mooney... thanks to a certain Lancair I once rode in!

[M016576]

29 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I didn't bring up the efficiency argument ;-) I was just stating that the Rocket doesn't get the best MPG, IF that's the measure.

Personally, I can't ever be satisfied with any Mooney... thanks to a certain Lancair I once rode in!

Yeah... don’t go riding in a PC-12... or sit up front in a Lear 60... or take a ride in a F-15...

I just have to keep reminding myself.  “love the one you’re with...”

And if folks think nobody gives any love to the rocket- what about us missile owners (Remember us? Me and Seth? The missiles?  Anyone... anyone..?).  At least people talk about the rockets!

[Hank]

2 hours ago, M016576 said:

And if folks think nobody gives any love to the rocket- what about us missile owners (Remember us? Me and Seth? The missiles?  Anyone... anyone..?).  At least people talk about the rockets!

Tired of your Missile? Want a model people talk about? I've got a C, let's make a deal . . . Can't hardly race for pinks, though. On second thought, can one person pull a Missile out of a hangar, or push it in with full tanks???

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

First of all, we're comparing Mooney aircraft. So the vespa doesn't apply. There are lots of ground transportation options that are more fuel efficient than air travel. But I'll submit that even a Cessna 150 is not as fuel efficient an aircraft as an M20J. It burns less fuel per hour but will take more hours to get there...

Secondly I started the entire post with "If efficiency is measured in MPG". There are lots of other ways to measure efficiency.

But if MPG is the measure and we're comparing Mooney aircraft, I believe my math holds up.

 

 

:-) Im just having fun with you.  Ok - in the constrained to only a mooney category.  M20J is the efficiency king.  In certain conditions a 252 can beat it but generally M20J with all the mods, lopresti cowl, power flow, etc.

In the most efficient thing on the planet unconstrained category - Ill go vespa.

In the unconstrained category, hey Job can I borrow your F15?

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, M016576 said:

Yeah... don’t go riding in a PC-12... or sit up front in a Lear 60... or take a ride in a F-15...

I just have to keep reminding myself.  “love the one you’re with...”

And if folks think nobody gives any love to the rocket- what about us missile owners (Remember us? Me and Seth? The missiles?  Anyone... anyone..?).  At least people talk about the rockets!

What's a missile?

https://goo.gl/images/vVLifN

[Marauder]

What's a missile?

https://goo.gl/images/vVLifN

 

The J that has been modified with the bigger engine (for those who don’t know).

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[peevee]

our rocket was fairly light, IIRC we had about 900lb useful load, between 850-900 anyway

 

I planned on about 1500FPM off the ground at gross and about 205KTAS in the high teens at 75% best power and about 19GPH.

Our engine even with gamis would not run comfortably smooth LOP so I didn't run that way.

65% power gave me about 195 KTAS on about 16GPH and was a good mix of speed and economy.

biggest problem on the rocket is staying aft enough to be in the envelope, nearly impossible, even with max allowed weight in baggage, Erik has the fix for that. We had LR tanks and 108 gallons is what the book said it could hold if you had the patience to cram it in. The fuel helps pull the CG aft so I carried a lot of gas.

I'm not sure any of them make book speeds.

They're a blast to fly and a bit of a handful. I wouldn't dispatch IFR without a working autopilot, that's for sure.

FWIW the SR22 runs 15,5GPH 75% LOP and about 190-195KTAS

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by peevee

[Yooper Rocketman]

Back to the Rocket and WHY anyone would possible want one when it burns SO MUCH FUEL.

Mine is used a lot for business.  I love Mooney's, so didn't want to move off the brand, and my budget wouldn't support the newest models.  I needed more than my F could provide and found this model to meet those needs. 

A couple mission examples.

I needed to drop a driver off to bring back a new Western Star tractor we found in a York PA dealership and were able to get on a dealer transfer for one of my customers  We could not get out of my home airport until 8 AM due to fog and when we arrived in Eastern PA I lost several hours going to the dealership, checking over the truck and getting all the documents compiled and signed before my driver could get on the road bringing the truck back to the U.P.  When I got back to the FBO, there were a lot of thunderstorms in PA and NY and a decent group of pilots stranded in the lobby.  A good weather radar and forecast study revealed I had a window if I headed out north and traveled across a larger section of Canada on my way back, especially since I could go to FL240 and dodge what larger stuff there was VISUALLY.  The 1214 NM round trip ended up more like 1400 NM, but I landed by 5:30 PM and was sitting in a lawn chair by 5:50 PM watching my kids warm up for their 6:00 soccer game.  Not a parent on the sidelines, besides my wife, had a clue how many miles I had traveled in my own plane that day before showing up for my kids game.

I had a customer out of Marquette that was looking for a couple used dump trucks.  I flew up to KSAW and picked him and his driver up.  We headed to Danville VA for the first truck and I will never forget the comment by the truck driver in the back seat.  He said "we really don't look like we're going very fast", to which I replied "were doing 245 knots, which is over 280 MPH".  He said again "it still doesn't look like we're hardly moving".  My second comment was "son (he was substantially younger than me), you'll realize how fast we were going when you get out of this plane after a three hour flight and it takes you 1 1/2 days to drive back".  We bought one truck there and flew over to St Louis, MO for the second unit.  That one was not as advertised so back to KSAW with my customer, 1700 miles traveled and one truck bought (he bought the second one a week later that we found in lower Michigan), and HE WAS STILL HOME IN TIME FOR DINNER.

I paid ALL the plane's expenses for that year with those two truck sales....and gained a customer for life.  Efficiency.................I guess it's a matter of your own perspective.  A standard J model Mooney could not have performed those two missions in the time frame required.  I've got a bunch more of those types of trips but I won't bore you with the details.  FOR ME, the Rocket has been the best plane for the mission.

Tom

 

[mike_elliott]

16 hours ago, M016576 said:

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

Not at all, other than a big engine and turbo

[cujet]

14 hours ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

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

The 305 Rocket is an amazing time machine, and is among the very fastest piston singles. 

People try to justify all sorts of things in aviation. Reality is that for productivity, speed matters most. A flight from Florida to North Carolina is 2 hours 45 min, enabling a productive day at the destination, and a return flight the same day.  

People tend to forget that airlines can't do this to most destinations. And that slower aircraft can't do this. Even at 145kts, that's a real world 4 hour trip. Total flight time is 8 vs 5.5. Only one aircraft makes similar day trips possible and leave you enough time to be productive. 

God forbid trying that in a 172. 12 hours of flying into a headwind both ways..... 

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by cujet

[aviatoreb]

6 hours ago, Marauder said:

 

The J that has been modified with the bigger engine (for those who don’t know).

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah - I was pulling Seth's leg.  I have ridden in Seth's Mooney with him.  He even let me land it and I marveled how much it handled and felt like a rocket.

[gsxrpilot]

I'll bet a majority of members on this board only dream of using their personal airplane for work and even more so to generate profit. For most of us it's purely personal pleasure, and we've already run up the white flag on financial responsibility by getting out of the car or off the airlines and into a personal airplane. 

I'm starting with a new employer this week and this one is happy for me to expense the use of my airplane when I use it to fly to customer meetings. This alone makes me think I've won the lottery... but it's still not paying for its self and therefore for me, MPG still holds the edge over the extra speed. 

As has been said, the J is the true MPG winner, but the 252 is a very close second (sometimes in first place) but with much better dispatch rate because of the altitude capability.

Someone once said, "after two hours, every airplane is to slow.*"

*exception... @Yooper Rocketman's Evolution... after two hours in that airplane I'd still be trying to catch up to it ;-)

[M016576]

2 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Not at all, other than a big engine and turbo

That might depend on the scope of comparison.  For the sake of a comparison- let’s say avionics are upgraded to a similar level- as many rockets and bravos have been upgraded in one way or another, same with the interior and paint.

rocket-bravo similarities:  same control system, same fuel system, same wing, same tail, similar useful loads, similar climb and cruise speeds.

differences: 

rockets: cg is further forward (nose heavy feel at slow speeds), conti turbo motor

bravo: further aft cg, more balanced slow speed feel, lyc turbo motor, can be had with air conditioning and Fiki at the cost of useful load. Slightly longer fuselage/cargo area.

What is it that makes a bravo “not at all” like a rocket?  I don’t own either- just table topping what I see as the differences: and they look very very similar to me (even the price tag to acquire and maintain).

Edited August 12, 2018 by M016576

[TNIndy]

Peevee, Thanks for the fuel consumption numbers. Real world examples at 65% vs 75% help draw comparisons 

[TNIndy]

It sounds like the numbers below that came from rocket engineering marketing materials are far from real world numbers

• Economy cruise speed (55% power, 26” MAP, 2200 RPM, 13.9 GPH) – 200 knots

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, M016576 said:

That might depend on the scope of comparison.  For the sake of a comparison- let’s say avionics are upgraded to a similar level- as many rockets and bravos have been upgraded in one way or another, same with the interior and paint.

rocket-bravo similarities:  same control system, same fuel system, same wing, same tail, similar useful loads, similar climb and cruise speeds.

differences: 

rockets: cg is further forward (nose heavy feel at slow speeds), conti turbo motor

bravo: further aft cg, more balanced slow speed feel, lyc turbo motor, can be had with air conditioning and Fiki at the cost of useful load. Slightly longer fuselage/cargo area.

What is it that makes a bravo “not at all” like a rocket?  I don’t own either- just table topping what I see as the differences: and they look very very similar to me (even the price tag to acquire and maintain).

There are many differences starting with a different airframe, dual buss's, dual alternators, dual batteries, bigger brakes, different handling, different engine operations, different systems along with the options and differences you mentioned. Its kind of like saying a C is like an ovation with a smaller airframe and smaller engine. Yea, they came from the same factory, but fly the 2 of them, they are completely different if you appreciate the subtleties. This is not to "diss the Rocket at all, just to point out they are different, not just a larger cargo area and higher useful load as stated. @rocketman owns one of each, along with a J and has been somewhat conditioned to them both, but will tell you they are not the same also.

 

[carusoam]

As for Rocket engineering documentation....

I only have one plane that got the 310hp STC...  But the documentation was complete with real numbers...

T/O distance and climb rates measured with a portable WAAS GPS and mobile app...  FF displayed on the instrument panel...

Much different than the documents generated by other sales organizations in a different millenium...

 

The consumers are much more knowledgeable and instrumented today, as are the companies supplying the details....

Expect more...

Mooneys and Rocket Engineering.... Perfect together....

PP thoughts only, n=1 statistics applied...

Best regards,

-a-

[Yooper Rocketman]

3 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Someone once said, "after two hours, every airplane is to slow.*"

*exception... @Yooper Rocketman's Evolution... after two hours in that airplane I'd still be trying to catch up to it ;-)

Paul,  It's a IVPT.  The Evolution is the next prop-jet model brought to market by Lancair, who then changed their name to Evolution Company and sold the Lancair company to some boys in Texas who recently introduced the Mako.  The EVO (Evolution) was purpose built as a pressurized turbine, unlike the IVPT that evolved from the basic IV series.  

Darwin Conrad took the 231 air frame which was seeing "higher than normal" engine issues (mostly related to manual waste gate controls and pilots new to turbos not operating them correctly) and installed the Cessna 340 / 414 engine system in it.  This engine is all automatic waste gate control and added nearly 100 more HP to the air frame.  He converted more than 100 of them and, IMHO, changed the focus of the factory pretty quickly to new models with more HP and speed.  At the time I bought mine I was really looking for a 252.  The Rockets were significantly cheaper and easier to find.  1800 Rocket hours later, and with a turbine in my stable now, my wife and I still love that Mooney.  It will be a sad day when I sign the bill of sale over to the next owner, which will happen before the ball drops for 2019.

Tom

[exM20K]

4 hours ago, carusoam said:

As for Rocket engineering documentation....

I only have one plane that got the 310hp STC...  But the documentation was complete with real numbers...

T/O distance and climb rates measured with a portable WAAS GPS and mobile app...  FF displayed on the instrument panel...

Much different than the documents generated by other sales organizations in a different millenium...

 

The consumers are much more knowledgeable and instrumented today, as are the companies supplying the details....

Expect more...

Mooneys and Rocket Engineering.... Perfect together....

PP thoughts only, n=1 statistics applied...

Best regards,

-a-

Thread drift warning.... Interesting that Mooney did the full t/o and climb documentation for the M20R 310HP.  Mooney elected not to purchase the M20TN 310HP STC from Kenin (RIP), and it is now sold and supported by Bob Minnis.  This has good and bad aspects: good: STC holder was able to include JPI mini-tach as an approved installation so I didn't have to put some butt-ugly EI unit in the panel.  Bad: performance documentation is basically: "Meets or exceeds original spec."

-dan

[cujet]

9 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'll bet a majority of members on this board only dream of using their personal airplane for work and even more so to generate profit. For most of us it's purely personal pleasure, and we've already run up the white flag on financial responsibility by getting out of the car or off the airlines and into a personal airplane. 

I'm starting with a new employer this week and this one is happy for me to expense the use of my airplane when I use it to fly to customer meetings.  

Airplane ownership makes other things in life possible. Including the ability to work long hours at earning a good income and then go where you want with limited time off. That flight to a desired destination one of took last Wednesday (hypothetical) was made possible by aircraft ownership. That single day could be spend driving to the next town or flying 3 states away and back. 

[rbridges]

I have nothing to contribute. Still salivating about 200 knots. 

[Bryan]

I think it all depends on the mission. Yeah, I can pull back to “economy” mode. Do I? Most of the time, no, I like to go fast, but it does depend on my mission.  I do pull it back on missions that I need the MPG and have a great tailwind.

Isn’t the best speed mod skipping the fuel stop?

Knowing my fuel and my plane is what gets me around. I’d love to own an Acclaim and just throw money at the fuel pump but financially my wallet isn’t thick enough for either.

[MIm20c]

8 hours ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

1800 Rocket hours later, and with a turbine in my stable now, my wife and I still love that Mooney.  It will be a sad day when I sign the bill of sale over to the next owner, which will happen before the ball drops for 2019.

Tom

Hmmm, sounds like a good upgrade from a TN’d C model and TKS would be nice for MI...

Any problems with cht’s on full power climbs to the FL’s?

[aaronk25]

It sounds like the numbers below that came from rocket engineering marketing materials are far from real world numbers

• Economy cruise speed (55% power, 26” MAP, 2200 RPM, 13.9 GPH) – 200 knots

Ya that’s way up there though in altitude. I got to be PIC, in one a couple years back and coming from my J, it was awesome.

After running hard I backed it down to peak, 12.8gph, 2200rpm somewhere around 30” and was truing at 183kts at 16 or 17,000. It’s been a couple years but that was impressive from a efficiency standpoint of a fire breathing dragon (compared to the j)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro