305 Rocket Review

[N201MKTurbo]

6 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Throw some sprayers on it an you have a legitimate high speed aerial applicator.

All the space and payload is already taken up with jet fuel. If I recall the fuselage tank holds 1100 liters and each drop tank holds 150 liters, 390 gallons. That will keep the engine running for about an hour.

[13scrappy]

On 8/16/2018 at 3:14 PM, 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

If you come to AZ, I know a CFI who has access to a Rocket he routinely flies, and he has flown mine as well(which is also for sale).  He might do the training elsewhere also.  I am sure he would give you excellent instruction as needed for the Rocket. 

[Cody Stallings]

On 8/11/2018 at 4:55 PM, 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...

Can’t use Rocket an that Efficiency word in the same Sentence!!!  

[aviatoreb]

9 hours ago, Cody Stallings said:

Can’t use Rocket an that Efficiency word in the same Sentence!!!  

Well...a little bit you can.  A guy who files a part 135 King Air C90 has remarked to me several times how I can go essentially the same speed as him but he needs to burn 70gph.

[Cody Stallings]

4 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Well...a little bit you can.  A guy who files a part 135 King Air C90 has remarked to me several times how I can go essentially the same speed as him but he needs to burn 70gph.

Well I Understand what you mean by that.

I was talking more in the Pool of Mooney’s that our breed don’t really seem to standout as being the “Green” way to travel..lol

[FloridaMan]

I don't know about that. I've done a couple LOP tests to check the injector spread and, while mine doesn't seem to run smoothly LOP, the temps looked good (TIT < 1600 and CHTs < 340) and I was able to get fuel burn down to 9-10gph (17mpg at 10,500 where I was showing 10mpg at 21gph at 32"/2400RPM). I didn't like to hang out on that side of peak because of the lack of smoothness, but I think that can be fixed (rearrange injectors, GAMIs and/or fine wire plugs). I would not be surprised if you couldn't give a 252 a run for its money (18 minutes to FL240 and then pull power back) and smoke an M20J's efficiency with the TAS you can get in the FLs. I am still flushing out things with my Rocket, but the grail is to make the same trips as I do in the F at the same fuel burn. The difficult part isn't that you can run a Rocket efficiently, it's having the discipline to do it. I always want to go fast and get to my destination, though sometimes the fastest point to point time is one where you fly efficiently enough to save yourself an hour on the ground for getting fuel, or you may wish to take a longer route over more forgiving terrain that would require a fuel stop otherwise. 

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, FloridaMan said:

I don't know about that. I've done a couple LOP tests to check the injector spread and, while mine doesn't seem to run smoothly LOP, the temps looked good (TIT < 1600 and CHTs < 340) and I was able to get fuel burn down to 9-10gph (17mpg at 10,500 where I was showing 10mpg at 21gph at 32"/2400RPM). I didn't like to hang out on that side of peak because of the lack of smoothness, but I think that can be fixed (rearrange injectors, GAMIs and/or fine wire plugs). I would not be surprised if you couldn't give a 252 a run for its money (18 minutes to FL240 and then pull power back) and smoke an M20J's efficiency with the TAS you can get in the FLs. I am still flushing out things with my Rocket, but the grail is to make the same trips as I do in the F at the same fuel burn. The difficult part isn't that you can run a Rocket efficiently, it's having the discipline to do it. I always want to go fast and get to my destination, though sometimes the fastest point to point time is one where you fly efficiently enough to save yourself an hour on the ground for getting fuel, or you may wish to take a longer route over more forgiving terrain that would require a fuel stop otherwise. 

I think that's right - where you said, "The difficult part isn't that you can run a Rocket efficiently, it's having the discipline to do it." - its fun to go fast.  I have read that a rocket will go 231/252 speeds on 231/252 fuel burn - but that takes discipline to pull it back.  Also I think that is not quite right - I think there is a very small penalty, maybe 0.5/1.0 gph due to dragging bigger cylinders - I don't know exactly, when running 252 speeds.  But it is no surprise that on the same airframe, it is taking much more fuel to go much faster, with a similar type of engine - e.g. 21gph to go much faster.  Only way to go much faster with the same airframe on the same (or less) fuel would be a much more efficient engine, like some kind of diesel.  That is a different story.

[Cody Stallings]

Well, I lack self Discipline then!!!...... An I love it.

[mike_elliott]

54 minutes ago, Cody Stallings said:

Well, I lack self Discipline then!!!...... An I love it.

owning a Rocket is a lot like being married to Raquel Welch......Very few would expect her to cook also!

 

[Hank]

35 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

owning a Rocket is a lot like being married to Raquel Welch......Very few would expect her to cook also!

 

Many of us have no idea what life with Raquel would be like. But you seem to have hit it out of the ballpark with Alice. There aren't many like her!

[mike_elliott]

Many of us have no idea what life with Raquel would be like. But you seem to have hit it out of the ballpark with Alice. There aren't many like her!

...and she cooks too!!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Yooper Rocketman]

On 4/12/2019 at 5:12 PM, mike_elliott said:

owning a Rocket is a lot like being married to Raquel Welch......Very few would expect her to cook also!

 

After 18 years of Rocket ownership how do you transition up?  I think I found it!!!  Only took me 18 years and 10,000 hours to get there.......BEFORE it flew.

Tom

 

[Niko182]

On 4/12/2019 at 11:21 AM, FloridaMan said:

I don't know about that. I've done a couple LOP tests to check the injector spread and, while mine doesn't seem to run smoothly LOP, the temps looked good (TIT < 1600 and CHTs < 340) and I was able to get fuel burn down to 9-10gph (17mpg at 10,500 where I was showing 10mpg at 21gph at 32"/2400RPM). I didn't like to hang out on that side of peak because of the lack of smoothness, but I think that can be fixed (rearrange injectors, GAMIs and/or fine wire plugs). I would not be surprised if you couldn't give a 252 a run for its money (18 minutes to FL240 and then pull power back) and smoke an M20J's efficiency with the TAS you can get in the FLs. I am still flushing out things with my Rocket, but the grail is to make the same trips as I do in the F at the same fuel burn. The difficult part isn't that you can run a Rocket efficiently, it's having the discipline to do it. I always want to go fast and get to my destination, though sometimes the fastest point to point time is one where you fly efficiently enough to save yourself an hour on the ground for getting fuel, or you may wish to take a longer route over more forgiving terrain that would require a fuel stop otherwise. 

the J and the K have the same efficiency. however, the J is happiest at 8 to 12k. take an Encore to 28,000ft, and I bet it'll be really efficient there.

[FloridaMan]

17 hours ago, Niko182 said:

the J and the K have the same efficiency. however, the J is happiest at 8 to 12k. take an Encore to 28,000ft, and I bet it'll be really efficient there.

Yes, but at what altitude does that climb start to take longer? The Rocket will get there quickly and then you can throttle back. If it takes 45minutes at 18gph vs 20 minutes at 26gph there are certain flight profiles where the Rocket will be faster and more efficient with fuel burned in the climb. I haven’t done the math and I need to. I am still climbing at 1000+fpm at 24,000ft when I take off at max gross. 

[Austintatious]

On 8/17/2018 at 10:37 PM, aviatoreb said:

One very expensive option for the towel bars is there is some kind of mod that places those antennae inside the plastic wing tips thus essentially eliminating them entirely from the wind.  I figure the VOR system will be gone in 5 years....

8lbs is quite a lot.  Hard to believe its that much...but they are quite round and big.

..right isn't the answer to Carusoam's question that the pounds of drag will be relatively the same at any given IAS (not TAS) at 17? (vs 7).

Not a chance.... there are still NDB's!  Not only that, but we have thousands and thousands of WAAS approaches and the controllers still seem bent on putting us on the ILS instead.

 

the Tech has been there for year, the gobment however seems to be dragging its feet.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Austintatious said:

Not a chance.... there are still NDB's!  Not only that, but we have thousands and thousands of WAAS approaches and the controllers still seem bent on putting us on the ILS instead.

 

the Tech has been there for year, the gobment however seems to be dragging its feet.

VORs are not going away, they are just being reduced. Since LORAN was shutdown, that leaves VORs as the only backup to GPS . . . The minimum amount of VORs needed to define airways and approaches will be kept, the rest will go are going away.

[whiskytango]

Let's see... the Rooskies could jam GPS and do a HEMP attack on the VORS.  All that would be left is Celestial Navigation.  Somehow I don't think it will be too easy for the F-35 drivers to get a good fix while traveling at Mach 1.6 

[FloridaMan]

INS can be made plenty accurate and I’d bet that I could have a decent solution working in days (hours if I didn’t have to do data collection and tuning in flight). No interest in giving it up for GA for the same patriotic reasons that I opted to not be a compsci professor. 

I know the Alaska guys are flying NDB all over the place and we don’t have the F35 to fight a bunch of proxy wars against shithole countries like our wars have been since ww2. 

I have zero doubt that in a total radio and radar blackout those F35s in IMC at mach 1.6 will have a better fix on position than we do on our best days. In the event of a major conflict, we can kiss GPS goodbye with a quickness. 

[L39pilot]

The quest for speed gets addictive!  I left a V35B for an L39C & now 320 kts is slow.   My best was 590mph @ FL24 (great tailwind).  But we won’t talk about efficiency, fuel burn etc.  maybe we can talk about sexy on the ramp (It attracts the FAA as quickly as the ladies)!  But they are pressurized, air conditioned & incredible deice.

Have enjoyed the discussion on 305 vs 252.  Thanks guys!

Boots

[L39pilot]

The quest for speed gets addictive!  I left a V35B for an L39C & now 320 kts is slow.   My best was 590mph @ FL24 (great tailwind).  But we won’t talk about efficiency, fuel burn etc.  maybe we can talk about sexy on the ramp (It attracts the FAA as quickly as the ladies)!  But they are pressurized, air conditioned & incredible deice.

Have enjoyed the discussion on 305 vs 252.  Thanks guys!

Boots

[L39pilot]

This one was much quicker but only taxpayers could afford purchase, fuel & maintenance:

[Austintatious]

I thought I might chime back in on this thread... I have had a chance to put some flying on my rocket... unfortunately most of it has been test flights after work and delivery and recovery to/from new paint.

So For my rocket, I have 1050 lbs of useful load, 600 lbs full fuel load (75 gal tanks)

CG :  Have to watch it with 2 large people in the front you are out forward of the envelope slightly.  With 40 lbs in the baggage you are fine.  I think you would have trouble getting out of CG aft.

Speed:  I do not fly mine fast.  I do a high power climb and she will climb 1000+ FPM at 120 IAS for as long as you want to.

Efficiency:  I actually see the rocket as really efficient.  IT just got a set of GAMI injectors and Today it was doing 200 knots true at 17,500 on 16 gph... This likely could have been reduced to 15 GPH.  This is at 33" and 2200 RPM 1550 TIT.   Obviously going higher would have yielded faster speeds at the same fuel flow.  In the descent she screams.  When you talk about efficiency, you have to consider speed... You just have to.  Is 15gph @ 200 knots more efficient than 9GPH @  140 knots ?  Well, no, by about 2 less miles per gallon.... However consider that for a 600 mile cruise block, there will be only 3 hours put on the 200 knot aircraft vs 4.3 on the 140 knots aircraft... 45 gallons burned vs 38.7 .... that 6.3 gallons is about 25 bucks in fuel... So you about break even when you consider the hourly reserve!   Free speed!

Flying it :  

The power is a lot of fun for takeoff and the climb is very nice. 

I like having the option of being able to get high if I want and have spent a lot of time and money making the O2 easy to use and organized in the cabin.  Flying on 02 is absolutely wonderful.  Even if you are flying at 9-13k I recommend it.  You will feel like you are sitting at sea level.   Handling wise the airplane does not fly like a small aircraft.  For being so small, it certainly flies like a much larger ship.  

It is Difficult to slow down.  There is a reason they put speed brakes on these things... because you NEED them. 

It likes a lot of nose up trim for landing.  When There is no one in the back I basically go full up trim for landing.

The engine is very smooth. I use cheap QC25 bose headsets with ufly mics and at 2200 RPM is is VERY comfortable.  Not quite a turbine but pretty close!

Workload can be a bit high.  I definitely wouldn't put a fresh PP in the thing.  It is nothing unmanageable but to take care of the engine, get efficiency and do all that pilot stuff you need to be capable of dedicating attention to a lot of different things at the same time.

 

I am simply loving it.  I am very happy that I went with a Rocket.   We are considering buying another Mooney and we will definitely be considering a second rocket.

 

[carusoam]

His and hers Rockets, Austin?

Flying formation in the FLs?

Best regards,

-a-

[Austintatious]

10 hours ago, carusoam said:

His and hers Rockets, Austin?

Flying formation in the FLs?

Best regards,

-a-

Hah, not exactly.  My partner and I are based at 2 different airports and we each pay for hangar.  So you can imagine we run into situations where one of us has to go without.  We like the idea of having 2 aircraft to share so that if one is down for maintenance/improvements or annual we still have one available.

 

We have not decided for sure if we are going to spring for another.  We wont pay any more for hangar, but fixed annual inspection cost and insurance will go up.  We are still mulling it over. 

[Cody Stallings]

On 8/11/2018 at 6:26 PM, 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

Very well said.

You can take one of those Mooney drivers and take them for a spin in the black sheep an 9/10 times make them a believer too!