Jump to content

305 Rocket Review


TNIndy

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, MIm20c said:

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?

No.  Rocket Engineering did an impressive job on the baffling (was even noted by the A&P conducting his first Rocket annual this year, under the watchful eye of one of the best IA's I have ever met).  When I sold my F model, the pilot was from Griffin GA and was Moonyized by his father who was the one that came up to Iron Mountain to look at it for purchase.  His dad asked if we would deliver it as he was concerned his son was not up to speed for a Mooney yet.  We did in April of 2000 and it was pretty hot the day we delivered it.  I let my hangar partner / E model Mooney owner / A&P/ best friend Steve fly the leg home in the Rocket and he tried the 2500 RPM/35" climb setting as we headed for the flight levels (I had been taught everything full forward until level off) and we started seeing temps getting to 400 degrees.  I told him go full throttle, full RPM and the temps came down immediately.  

One note on that (Steve); he has IMHO one of the nicest looking, fastest, and efficient E model Mooneys out there (155 knots, 8 gallons an hour, picture posted below).  He has more time in my Rocket over the last 5 years than his E, but has owned the E since the late 70's or early 80's.  He would take the Rocket in a heartbeat over his E. 

The fresh wash job was completed be me just before Oshkosh...........that's the kind of friend he is to me.

Tom

8-01-18 056.JPG

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

I’ll take a ride in your F-15 even if it sours me on my plane any day.....:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, xcrmckenna said:


I’ll take a ride in your F-15 even if it sours me on my plane any day.....:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve rode in a few jet warbirds and been offered a type rating for fuel. 

Therein lies the problem! 

Most of the cheap ones burn about $1000/hour.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve rode in a few jet warbirds and been offered a type rating for fuel. 
Therein lies the problem! 
Most of the cheap ones burn about $1000/hour.

I would pay $2,000 for an hour in an F-15:) It would be worth it even when the better half killed me!!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I’ve rode in a few jet warbirds and been offered a type rating for fuel. 

Therein lies the problem! 

Most of the cheap ones burn about $1000/hour.

So $10K for a type rating? Hmmmmm.... It would be worth it in the right one.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said:

So $10K for a type rating? Hmmmmm.... It would be worth it in the right one.

That’s about right. I can probably work it out. The instructors are glad to get free jet time.

T-33, Jet Provost, MiG-15

Edited by N201MKTurbo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2018 at 10:34 PM, Hank said:

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???

I have gotten to where I can pull my rocket out and push it back into my hangar with full fuel on my own with a towbar, and that includes clearing the tracks. The trick is that I park it close to the hangars on the other side of the taxiway. The taxiway is sloped downwards in the middle for drainage so it is uphill into my hangar. I get a good running start, ensure the nosewheel is lined up and the vertical stabilizer lines up with the line in the back of the hangar. By the time I get to the track, because it's uphill, I'm going slow enough to stop the plane if I have to, but it has enough inertia that I can continue to push it to where it'll clear the track. 

The most important factor in moving your airplane around by hand is to ensure the tires are properly inflated. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2018 at 7:16 PM, aviatoreb said:

 ....  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...).

 

As a current G550 and previous G650ER operator, we discuss fuel efficiency regularly. The G650 is slightly more efficient per trip (mpg) than the G550. 

We get about 1 to 1.2 MPG depending on the length of the trip. But we can carry as many as 16 passengers. So as high as 16 passenger miles per gallon. That compares favorably with a solo Mooney pilot on a trip. 

Note: 1mpg is achieved at M 0.925, 539Kts TAS in the G650ER. 

The G650ER is 20 minutes faster than the G550 on a 2 hour (1000 mile) trip. It's M0.87 climb speed covers much more ground than the M0.75 climb speed of the G550. The M0.90 normal cruise saves some time, and the M0.93 descent saves some time. 

I bring this up, because the same thing applies to the 305 Rocket. 150Kt climb speed, 200+ in cruise and 230 in descent all add up to time savings. It's not just the cruise speed. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2018 at 8:08 PM, 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!

I do love my Missile.  Only three big issues:

1.  Nose Heavy - this can be mitigated by a new prop like Erik's 4 blade.  I'm fine with it, but when I fly other Mooney's, I'm remembered how much lighter my former F felt.

2.  Fuel burn:  yes, you can back down the power to J fuel burns and speed - but you are ADDICTED to speed and tend not to. What you can't do, is pull back to J/F low power setting fuel burns.  If I just want to go fly for fun, my fuel burn will be be 20-25 gallons at reduced power over two hours vs 15-16 reduced power in my former F.  But that's not really my mission anymore.

3.  Factory Support:  Rocket at some point will stop supporting the Missile and Rocket - when will that be?  5 years?  10?  20?  It's an unknown and it's out there.  Many of the parts in the Missile are Cessna 210 parts, which also are Cessna 340 and 414 parts.  So the parts are there.  The unique Rocket parts - that may be an issue way out there.  I plan to never sell my Missile and have it be my fun plane, local flier, whatever once I get a pressurized aircraft for family and business.  But, at some point I may have to sell the Missile, have a larger pressurized aircraft for distance flying and small two seater for local fun flying.

I still think the J or 252 is the best Mooney in terms of all around speed and efficiency.

I still think the C is the best bang for the buck.

I plan to keep my Missile for a LONG time.

I'm amazed how addicted to the speed I am.  I borrowed a Mooney M20J from a friend (very generous) for a trip when mine was down for maintance and felt something was wrong when I was still a half hour away from home.  And realized I was going 158 knots (FAST J) instead of 185 knots.  A two hour trip was closer to 2.5 that day.  Speed is addictive.  My longer trips do give me time back.  In my F, it was a four hour trip to Atlanta, and really a fuel stop on the way unless I had a tailwind for safety.  It's just under 3 hours in the Missile non-stop.  The round trip times add up.  I don't go to O2 levels often, but I have portable O2 when needed to catch tailwinds.  My fuel burn drops dramatically those days and my ground speed is over 200 knots.  Indicated however drops down with no turbo in the mid teens.

It climbs better than the Ovation, is faster than older Ovations and is a tad slower than the Ultra's.  After sitting in the Ultras at Oshkosh however, man are those seats comfortable and after flying some newer Cirrus aircraft (contract commercial pilot) the G1000 cockpit really does make a lot of sense and is quite impressive.

 

I still love my Missile.

-Seth

Edited by Seth
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seth said:

>3.  Factory Support:  Rocket at some point will stop supporting the Missile and Rocket - when will that be?  5 years?  10?  20?  It's an unknown and it's out there.  Many of the parts in the Missile are Cessna 210 parts, which also are Cessna 340 and 414 parts.  So the parts are there.  The unique Rocket parts - that may be an issue way out there.  I plan to never sell my Missile and have it be my fun plane, local flier, whatever once I get a pressurized aircraft for family and business.  But, at some point I may have to sell the Missile, have a larger pressurized aircraft for distance flying and small two seater for local fun flying.

>After sitting in the Ultras at Oshkosh however, man are those seats comfortable and after flying some newer Cirrus aircraft (contract commercial pilot) the G1000 cockpit really does make a lot of sense and is quite impressive.

Factory support - 10 years ago when I was shopping for this rocket - I hesitated strongly since I was very worried that avgas itself would go away within 5 years.  I am still worried about that.  Barring that good factory support was a major factor, but also standard parts, when selecting this rocket.  Over say that very sexy but very unusual liquid rocket that is faster still, but rare parts.  If the rocket factory stopped supporting, I cannot think of a single part that would be entirely impossible to acquire or get as a suitable substitute from the C340 materials.  Remember when I was looking for that turbo check valve Seth?  Rocket had none - neither did Cessna - but I could have had one custom built (at great cost) if I was willing to wait 3 months. Other rocket specific items, say the exhaust, or perhaps the engine frame, could be reproduced - but yes slower and at greater cost.  But not grounding the airplane permanently.  I cannot think of anything that would be such an item.  Actually, I was even more worried about the mooney specific parts than the rocket specific parts when I purchased my airplane 10 years ago because the health of the mooney factory at that time was very suspect.

Also note that airplanes are finding their way to salvage yards  at a great rate compared to the growth of pilot population.  If you are actually flying, then the likelihood in the future of finding a serviceable, or overhaul able repairable part are seemngly growing.

Thinking on a 10 year time scale.

In 10 years with avgas completely gone, we might either need to hang a diesel motor, or an electric motor, or just hang the airplane on the end of a pole on our front yards and buy an all electric carbon fiber little quadcopter transport vehicle and call it a day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all,

New guy here.  Don't own a Mooney right now:  I'm still negotiating with the Ministries of Interior and Finance.  However, I did own a '78 J back in 2003-05.

Now I've got the bug again.  For reasons similar to some of the earlier posters, I am used to going FAST so I'm interested in a Rocket.  I don't care much about efficiency with in reason, and I'm not interested in another J. :-)

Here's my question though, and it's about speed (of course).  There's a video on YouTube of a guy's Rocket at FL180, power set at 30" and 2200 rpm, and he's getting a TAS of 210 knots.  hard to read but it looks like OAT is -10.  He's doing this at 16 gph. 65% power,  nice and cool and going to make TBO. Freaking awesom, I've got the bug.

Meanwhile I've got someone's power settings sheet for the Rocket and that's about book numbers.  Freaking awsome again.  Where do I get one?

BUT:  another guy says elsewhere that he plans 10-15k feet, 185 KTAS, and 21 gph.  Not so good.  According to the Rocket sheet I reference above, 21 gph at 12k feet matches 75% power with 31" and 2400 rpm, and he should be getting 203 KTAS with that.  He's 18 KTAS slow.  Big deal. Not so good. Doesn't scratch the speed itch in a way that feels right.

What's up with these two airplanes?  the second one is an '83 231 conversion. I don't know what the YouTube airplane is.  Could that 18 KTAS difference be because the faster airplane is a -252 conversion?  Or is maybe something not set up right with the slower one?

Or--and this is way possible:  am I such a single engine piston noob that I'm not reading it right? (however, there's no fuzz on the YouTube numbers, they're right there as he pans over each of the instruments).

Help me out?

Rocket wannabe...

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome aboard PJC...

One a few of the oddities related to TC performance....

  • Drag goes down as altitude goes up...
  • Power is maintained as long as you are below critical altitude of the TC system...
  • Efficiency is extra nice when flying LOP converting 100% of the fuel to power, compared to ROP...
  • Typical limitations apply... keep an eye on TIT and CHTs.

The Rocket And 252 are nicely/more completely developed birds compared to the prior art...

Flying a TC’d Mooney below the FLs leaves a lot of benefits on the table...

We have a few people around here that are great authors and don’t mind discussing turbo ops...  

Use the search function, you will probably find them quickly...

Best regards,

-a-

Speaking of Rocket Engineering performance projects...

Seth, have you seen Jerry’s PA46T? A couple of MSers have gone this way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2018 at 6:13 PM, xcrmckenna said:


I would pay $2,000 for an hour in an F-15:) It would be worth it even when the better half killed me!!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are SU-27s available for 5000AMUs. They are similar to an F-15

They burn 1200 Gal/Hr so at $3/gal, an hours worth of fuel would be $3600

Edited by N201MKTurbo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PJClark said:

 

What's up with these two airplanes?  the second one is an '83 231 conversion. I don't know what the YouTube airplane is.  Could that 18 KTAS difference be because the faster airplane is a -252 conversion?  Or is maybe something not set up right with the slower one? 

As Director of Maintenance of a corporate flight department with some very interesting toys, I get to play with speed issues on a fairly regular basis. There is no magic to it. Drag is king. 

1) Flight control rigging

2) External drag, such as antenna, wing steps and any other added external components, strobes, beacons, etc. 

3) Cooling drag issues. Including baffle issues, cowl flaps and more

4) Weight, such as fuel load, coupled with CG related drag. 

 

In general, the only way an aircraft will make "book numbers" is if everything is optimized. When you see an airplane that is 18kts slow at a particular power setting, it's drag and nothing else. Remember, many aircraft were speed tested with one external VHF antenna and a transponder blade. No ELT, VOR or 2nd com antenna, and probably no wing step. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you gentlemen.

to clarify:  as it happens, the 185 knot Rocket has no step.  I kinda figured it had to be drag--I'm thinking mostly of control rigging, or even an elevator trim setting that's having to overcompensate for forward CG.  That airplane should be fairly clean.  It has a 1 piece belly, and the panel has a 430W, a KX155, and a KT76 xponder, no ADF.  Maybe the antenna is still there...

Or maybe it's the way his fuel system is set up?  I figure at that 21gph setting he's running the recommended 100-150 ROP, but maybe not getting a clean burn and actually making the HP?

on the other side, the YouTube Rocket (N231AM, just looked again) is almost certainly running LOP at 15.9 gph.  I can't divine his CHTs from the JPI, but the legacy TIT guage is reading 1425. He's got a 530, a KNS 80, something else as a King Comm, and a newish looking Garmin Transponder.  Antennas should be about a wash between the two unless they have a bunch of un-removed stuff (I'm not enough of a GA guy to know if you can even leave that stuff on).

Point is, the faster guy is getting 210 at 65% power at FL180, he'll probably also get the book number of 195 KTAS at 12,000, which is plenty fast, still at the elegant ~16 gph--and those 10-15 knots are enough for me to want that airplane more than I'd want an Ovation (not trying to start anything with that--I can live with an Ovation if the differnce isn't big enough).

But the slower guy is getting pretty much an Ovation number on a ton of gas, and he's 18 KTAS slower than book at 12 k, so he llikely won't make 210 KTAS at 65% power, either.

The slower airplane is nicely priced, and I'm tempted--pending the approval of the aforementioned Ministries, which are not yet in danger of granting it--but suddenly wondering about this speed differential.

Any other ideas?

And to thrown in another one:  IF I were to buy one of these machines, are there Rocket CFIIs one can find to teach what needs to be learned???  And can one get some training in a Rocket from such a CFII before one goes to collect the airplane from its pre-buy?  I'm obviously not the first person to confront this problem so I'm guessing there's a simple solution I'm too dumb to have thought of!

Thanks

PJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PJ,

try and update your avatar info.  We have a few CFIIs that would be good for the Rocket. 252, 262, Bravo ops...

It May help to know where you are...

I can’t remember how you are trying to compare planes from internet videos? But, that is only going to lead you astray...

When you get to the buying mode... you are going to want to know if the plane is performing properly... this is where the Guru of Mooneys can be a great resource...

Look up what a PPI is... pay DMax to fly it and perform the PPI...

This is all about getting what you paid for.

Transition Training comes after that.

When you are done, you have bought a great plane, and are fully trained in its idiosyncrasies....

Yes, this costs a few amu... but a lot less than being uditwof in a plane that appeared to look really good in an internet video...

Buying a Rocket is truly a complex machine. Buying one takes some expertise.

Hire the expertise you need for a few days.  The great expertise you have isn’t enough to cover all the bases you want covered...

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, PJClark said:

IF I were to buy one of these machines, are there Rocket CFIIs one can find to teach what needs to be learned???

Yes

15 hours ago, PJClark said:

And can one get some training in a Rocket from such a CFII before one goes to collect the airplane from its pre-buy? 

Highly unlikely. A school plane Rocket doesnt exist that I know of.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, PJClark said:

Thank you gentlemen.

to clarify:  as it happens, the 185 knot Rocket has no step.  I kinda figured it had to be drag--I'm thinking mostly of control rigging, or even an elevator trim setting that's having to overcompensate for forward CG.  That airplane should be fairly clean.  It has a 1 piece belly, and the panel has a 430W, a KX155, and a KT76 xponder, no ADF.  Maybe the antenna is still there...

Or maybe it's the way his fuel system is set up?  I figure at that 21gph setting he's running the recommended 100-150 ROP, but maybe not getting a clean burn and actually making the HP?

on the other side, the YouTube Rocket (N231AM, just looked again) is almost certainly running LOP at 15.9 gph.  I can't divine his CHTs from the JPI, but the legacy TIT guage is reading 1425. He's got a 530, a KNS 80, something else as a King Comm, and a newish looking Garmin Transponder.  Antennas should be about a wash between the two unless they have a bunch of un-removed stuff (I'm not enough of a GA guy to know if you can even leave that stuff on).

Point is, the faster guy is getting 210 at 65% power at FL180, he'll probably also get the book number of 195 KTAS at 12,000, which is plenty fast, still at the elegant ~16 gph--and those 10-15 knots are enough for me to want that airplane more than I'd want an Ovation (not trying to start anything with that--I can live with an Ovation if the differnce isn't big enough).

But the slower guy is getting pretty much an Ovation number on a ton of gas, and he's 18 KTAS slower than book at 12 k, so he llikely won't make 210 KTAS at 65% power, either.

The slower airplane is nicely priced, and I'm tempted--pending the approval of the aforementioned Ministries, which are not yet in danger of granting it--but suddenly wondering about this speed differential.

Any other ideas?

And to thrown in another one:  IF I were to buy one of these machines, are there Rocket CFIIs one can find to teach what needs to be learned???  And can one get some training in a Rocket from such a CFII before one goes to collect the airplane from its pre-buy?  I'm obviously not the first person to confront this problem so I'm guessing there's a simple solution I'm too dumb to have thought of!

Thanks

PJ

My friend Rene has quite a bit of experience in Rockets. He is a CFII and can probably arrange training in a Rocket. He has access to three of them. It depends on insurance more than anything.

Edited by N201MKTurbo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2018 at 6:14 PM, PJClark said:

 but maybe not getting a clean burn and actually making the HP?

 Antennas should be about a wash between the two unless they have a bunch of un-removed stuff (I'm not enough of a GA guy to know if you can even leave that stuff on).

 

It would have to be down 50+ HP to lose 18Kts. 

We would like to believe that all antenna are equal. They are not. Those VOR bar antenna you see on many aircraft are very high drag items. ADF is a bad one, if mounted externally. 

Very low drag antenna: 

263.jpg

Very high drag "towel bar" antenna:

002.jpg

 

I'm not claiming that a couple of antennas cause the 18Kt loss. But it's good to understand that book numbers often do not include any gross offenders. Let's put that another way, making book numbers often takes an amazing amount of effort, generally involving the removal of equipment and the optimization of all things drag related. 

An interesting example includes the Gulfstream GIV aircraft as originally designed. It was easily capable of far exceeding M0.88 (MMO) in cruise flight at FL410, even when heavy. Add in a properly faired Satcom antenna and it's radome on top of the tail and the maximum cruise speed drops to M0.85. Same altitude, same fuel flows, huge drop in cruise speed. Just one change that looks completely invisible to the casual observer. 

 

The common angled fiberglass covered VHF com and LORAN antenna each create about 4 pounds of drag at Rocket speeds.  12 pounds of drag, with 3 of those babies. Conversely, the blade style VHF antenna have 3/4 pounds of drag. 

 

The removal of the V antenna on a Bonanza is worth almost 3kts, and it's has only 2 pounds drag at Bonanza speeds. 

Edited by cujet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.