Jump to content

305 Rocket Review


TNIndy

Recommended Posts

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!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by cujet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
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.