Our new Rocket

[kortopates]

Way to many pilots don't take vacuum and equipment failures seriously enough - by that I mean they don't practice partial panel and don't invest in a backup thinking its not a big deal. Although it shouldn't be, especially when they got the rating, but without the practice its proven to be fatal. Attached is presentation I use with my students about an ATP rated Bonanza pilot that had the failure while still VMC on top. He wasn't all that concerned about it, if you listen to the tape, but was unable to descend the first thousand feet into it straight ahead without breaking up and creating an aluminium shower of wreckage over Syosset New York a couple years ago.

196 01 - Training for Emergencies.pdf

[201er]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

We're talking about two different things. First you left out the qualifier in my quote. "if you fly IFR". Here's what I said, "The number one thing I would do for sure, right away, if you fly IFR is put in a back-up attitude indicator in case you lose your AI or vacuum."@mike_elliott @donkaye

@kortopates

Presumably anyone who flies IFR flies VFR or at least in VMC at some point. On average there is less than a few accidents a year caused by failed instruments. There are around a hundred a year resultant from a stall. An AOAi can help you reduce the likelihood of a stall both in IMC and VMC. This is an instrument that can be useful on every single flight, most notably on takeoff and landing. This instrument can help you avoid a dangerous type of accident that is about 100 times more likely to occur than a failed AI accident.

Heck, there are far more accidents (both fatal and non-fatal) because of fuel mismanagement! A fuel totalizator or better fuel gauges are a hundred to one more useful than a backup AI.

Statistically speaking AI failures (both vacuum or instrument) induced are rare. Being in actual IMC (even IFR) is also rare. Perhaps one of our mathematicians can help illustrate how unlikely an AI failure is in IMC if on average they happen about once in 500 hours and the amount of time spent in actual IMC is let's say for someone like me (who does a fair amount of IFR and xcountry) at 79 out of 1432 hours. If my basic math is right, that's about a 6% chance of an AI failure while in actual IMC rather than VMC.

I have all three but it would be downright silly to say that the backup AI is the most useful or life-saving. Staying instrument current and getting occasional IPCs is astronomically more important than a backup instrument.

Edited December 25, 2018 by 201er

[aviatoreb]

13 hours ago, Gavin Woodman said:

As for the question about power setting, I think I was using 31” 2300rpm and 18.7gph. 

Hi Gavin congrats on your new airplane!

that fuel flow sounds a bit too low close to peak for that power setting.  Book says 2300 31” calls for 20gph and I tend to set it a tad more still depending on conditions of the day at 20.2-20.4 to keep the tit appropriately rop.

[Gavin Woodman]

I was using book numbers from the Rocket manual but I think I agree with you. TIT and CHT's were all within comfortable limits. Anyone have digital power tables for the rocket? 

[Gavin Woodman]

As for the back AI vs AOA discussion... I'll let you guys hash it out.

In truth the most important variable in the safety debate is training. Both my partner and I are CFI's ATP's with 5K plus ours.... I think I'm up to 7K as of last month. We both have multiple training events per year in sim and aircraft... practicing all types of relevant abnormal/emergency procedures. Our SOP is to conduct a safety analysis prior to each flight looking at recency as much as equipment and weather.

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, 201er said:

I have all three but it would be downright silly to say that the backup AI is the most useful or life-saving. 

Until you need it

1 hour ago, 201er said:

Staying instrument current and getting occasional IPCs is astronomically more important than a backup instrument.

We would all like to believe that, but it's not true. They are two separate issues and both (training and an attitude backup) are very important issues. 

FAA AC 91-75 recognized that even very experienced pilots were not doing well flying partial panel with a turn coordinator. It authorized a simplified streamlined way to replace the turn coordinator with a back-up attitude indicator and encouraged doing so.

 

 

[LANCECASPER]

53 minutes ago, 201er said:

Heck, there are far more accidents (both fatal and non-fatal) because of fuel mismanagement! A fuel totalizator or better fuel gauges are a hundred to one more useful than a backup AI.

And he already has one, a Hoskins FT101.

 

[mike_elliott]

2 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

2 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

2 hours ago, 201er said:

I completely agree about the value of both. What I disagree on by far is the priority. The backup AI gives no additional information or benefit. It only serves as a backup to a redundant system that has backup (other instruments and standby vac). Vac pumps/AIs do fail but not all the often. The odds of it happening while in IMC are slim.

 

Here is a pic of the King AP chasing the fine swiss watch KI258 until I disconnected it in IMC. Glad that antiquated old Aspen was there, along with the other partial panel skills being competent and current. This was the second time this AI went TU in under 250 hrs after a proper repair by Bob Bramble.

On another occasion quite a while back I was in a real self induced unusual attitude in the soup in my former F model Mooney. I simply got distracted for a few seconds after given a clearance I didnt expect while hand flying into KOCF a few years back. looking up, I noticed I was in a 45 deg left bank, 1200'/min decent, 2200' AGL. 

"fix this or die" my brain said. Glad I did have the second AI to verify. I also had an AOA, but it was not showing on the Aspen as that wasnt the issue.

ATC "27V everything ok?"

ME "yessir, fine now, just thinking about the laundry I now have to do tonight"

 

 

[aviatoreb]

38 minutes ago, Gavin Woodman said:

I was using book numbers from the Rocket manual but I think I agree with you. TIT and CHT's were all within comfortable limits. Anyone have digital power tables for the rocket? 

Hi Gavin,

I attached the fuel flow tables.  I also attached the part of the rocket POH that reminds that sometimes we need to do a check of accuracy of the TIT reading so that when we lean to a temp on the TIT that it is the true temp reading rather than a miscalibrated reading.  I am worried that if you are running 31'' and 2300 at 18.7 that is a full 1.3 gal lower than I can run and lower than POH so that this may be putting you well near peak rather than rop.

Anyway these are fantastic machines and enjoy!

305Rocket.pdf

[Gavin Woodman]

12 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Hi Gavin,

I attached the fuel flow tables.  I also attached the part of the rocket POH that reminds that sometimes we need to do a check of accuracy of the TIT reading so that when we lean to a temp on the TIT that it is the true temp reading rather than a miscalibrated reading.  I am worried that if you are running 31'' and 2300 at 18.7 that is a full 1.3 gal lower than I can run and lower than POH so that this may be putting you well near peak rather than rop.

Anyway these are fantastic machines and enjoy!

305Rocket.pdf

Thanks for the info. I will have to check my manual in the plane but yours seems to match mine... I did the accuracy check and my was running close to 150 degrees low, so I was targeting something like 1450 on our TIT.

The reality is that at 31/2300 you are only running like 72% power and so the redfin area is rather small... the red fin area doesn't begin until something like 68% power, if my memory serves me correctly. Our GEM 610 is not working properly so my first course of action will be to get a proper unit up and running so that I can do a gami check. We have a T210 that we exclusively run LOP and once I get the fuel injectors dialed, I plan to do the same with this monster.. happy to trade 15KTS for 4GPH. 

[aviatoreb]

42 minutes ago, Gavin Woodman said:

Thanks for the info. I will have to check my manual in the plane but yours seems to match mine... I did the accuracy check and my was running close to 150 degrees low, so I was targeting something like 1450 on our TIT.

The reality is that at 31/2300 you are only running like 72% power and so the redfin area is rather small... the red fin area doesn't begin until something like 68% power, if my memory serves me correctly. Our GEM 610 is not working properly so my first course of action will be to get a proper unit up and running so that I can do a gami check. We have a T210 that we exclusively run LOP and once I get the fuel injectors dialed, I plan to do the same with this monster.. happy to trade 15KTS for 4GPH. 

Great - yeah that 1450 target as representing 1600 is exactly what I wanted to point out to you.  Glad you found the note on calibrating your TIT reading to actual TIT.

And this is a good the difference then in our fuel flows.  I am targeting more like 1550-1575 TiT (and my TIT is reading very close to true) vs the book recommendation of 1600 - for my less experience margin of error.  

Agreed that the TSIO520NB are a bit down rated in the rocket install, meaning they have a bit more to give, but also if treated well they tend to easily make TBO and beyond.  They are rated 310, 325, and even 335HP in certain C340 and C414 installations of the same engine.

They are a tad harder than some to tune to run LOP but they can be made to run quite well LOP.  Being only TIT limited at LOP (rather than smoothness).

[Gavin Woodman]

9 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Great - yeah that 1450 target as representing 1600 is exactly what I wanted to point out to you.  Glad you found the note on calibrating your TIT reading to actual TIT.

And this is a good the difference then in our fuel flows.  I am targeting more like 1550-1575 TiT (and my TIT is reading very close to true) vs the book recommendation of 1600 - for my less experience margin of error.  

Agreed that the TSIO520NB are a bit down rated in the rocket install, meaning they have a bit more to give, but also if treated well they tend to easily make TBO and beyond.  They are rated 310, 325, and even 335HP in certain C340 and C414 installations of the same engine.

They are a tad harder than some to tune to run LOP but they can be made to run quite well LOP.  Being only TIT limited at LOP (rather than smoothness).

All great info. I can't wait to get her dialed in. We got really lucky, the previous owner put in a factory new engine/turbo at the end of 2016 and it now only has about 70hours on it total time.... so she is barely broken in. One of the reasons for the higher TIT setting is to get the rings seated. 

[aviatoreb]

8 minutes ago, Gavin Woodman said:

All great info. I can't wait to get her dialed in. We got really lucky, the previous owner put in a factory new engine/turbo at the end of 2016 and it now only has about 70hours on it total time.... so she is barely broken in. One of the reasons for the higher TIT setting is to get the rings seated. 

Yup. That'll do it!  Lucky you still in break in.  Enjoy!

[FloridaMan]

3 hours ago, Gavin Woodman said:

Thanks for the info. I will have to check my manual in the plane but yours seems to match mine... I did the accuracy check and my was running close to 150 degrees low, so I was targeting something like 1450 on our TIT.

The reality is that at 31/2300 you are only running like 72% power and so the redfin area is rather small... the red fin area doesn't begin until something like 68% power, if my memory serves me correctly. Our GEM 610 is not working properly so my first course of action will be to get a proper unit up and running so that I can do a gami check. We have a T210 that we exclusively run LOP and once I get the fuel injectors dialed, I plan to do the same with this monster.. happy to trade 15KTS for 4GPH. 

Also, @SpamPilot, another new Rocket owner, brought to my attention in conversation that he believed the table in the top right for rate of climb that lacks the lines between the settings were for 100% power, and not aligned with the data to the left of those settings. There are a number of new Rocket owners on the forum right now, myself, @SpamPilot, and @Cody Stallings. The active experienced Rocket guys on here are, and I apologize if I missed anyone here, are @Yooper Rocketman and @aviatoreb. One thing I found interesting in the chart is that it says "max continuous power of 80%", but the book for the Continental TSIO520-NB (and only the N/NB variants) shows no limit for 100% power (at 310HP, no less). Please, by all means, keep us apprised of what you find and how you flush things out with your new Rocket for efficient operations. 

As for fueling, it takes work to fully top off the inboard tanks. I fill to the flapper, then do the outboard tank to the rim, and then slowly nurse fuel into the inboard tank by holding the flapper open with the nozzle. The outboard tank will (very) slowly run inwards. When the inboard tank remains full, I then go and top off the outboard tank. 

In prolonged aggressive climbs, I notice my fuel flow start to fall off when I start getting into the flight levels. I don't know if this is normal, but the low boost pump and a quick mixture adjustment seems to take care of it. It might be something worth watching. 

As a word of caution, @Yooper Rocketman and @aviatoreb have both experienced turbocharger related failures at altitude. The first link has to do with a new engine and a hose failure and the others were high time turbochargers, as far as I understand. I don't have my engine manuals on me right now, but I believe there was some advice in the Continental manual about avoiding restarts above FL200 due to risk of damage to the pressurized mags, but Rockets don't have pressurized mags (none of us could believe it either); I believe that in the event of a turbocharger failure that you may end up with an excessively rich condition. I keep leaning until the engine starts running as something in my checklist for emergency procedures in the event of loss of manifold pressure. 

We lost a member here in a Rocket a couple years back. My understand was that he was a low time pilot and managed to overshoot the end of the runway; I wouldn't expect this to be something that someone with your experience would run into, but thought I'd include it with these: 

 

[donkaye]

6 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

We're talking about two different things. First you left out the qualifier in my quote. "if you fly IFR". Here's what I said, "The number one thing I would do for sure, right away, if you fly IFR is put in a back-up attitude indicator in case you lose your AI or vacuum." 

Although we practice partial panel and can do it well under the hood, when an AI starts to go in IMC under high workload it can first be confusing and then be very stressful. Whether they declare it or not, losing an AI in IMC is an emergency for most pilots.

While I agree that AOA is valuable, it is definitely not the first thing I would recommend to an IFR pilot who doesn't have another AI in the panel. If you took all single engine IFR pilots and disabled their AI in real IMC (which in most cases also disables their autopilot) how do you think they would do compared to covering up the AOA's for all pilots in VFR? A CFI friend of mine who flew and taught for American for 30+ years won't take on an IFR student who doesn't have a backup AI in their airplane.

But, I may be way off, let's let a few experienced instructors weigh in. Calling @mike_elliott @donkaye

@kortopates

Because backup AI's are relatively inexpensive now, I am one of those instructors who won't do an instrument rating or fly in instrument conditions with a student unless the student has a backup AI.  Can you fly the airplane with needle, ball, and airspeed?  Yes.  In todays world, though, do you really want the added risk associated with it?  For me, the answer is, No.

[carusoam]

Restarting a TC’d engine at altitude is worth learning about...

a failed TC or lost hose connection happens...

The engine’s CR doesn’t allow for restart until lower...  

know that it will restart, under the well known conditions...

Unfortunately, there isn’t a good way to practice this experience...

Best regards,

-a-

[donkaye]

To those new to the Rocket:  It is a great airplane but special attention needs to be given to weight and balance.  I just can't understand anyone putting in long range tanks in it.  I would like someone to show me how with even one person and full extended range fuel you will be within the CG range.  You almost certainly will be out of CG, and at most it would be a one person airplane.  Even with factory fuel tanks it is a 2 person airplane.  You can get 3 people in weighing 200, 180, 180 with as maximum 25 gallons of fuel.  With 4 people weighing 200, 180, 180, 180 you could have a maximum of 30 gallons of fuel.  Many people just operate outside the CG range.  That is bad news.  So, please be careful with this airplane, or you could be in big trouble.  Play "What if" with the below Rocket Weight and Balance Spreadsheet to see what I mean.

wb Version 3.8 231 Rocket.xls

[kpaul]

6 hours ago, 201er said:

Statistically speaking AI failures (both vacuum or instrument) induced are rare. Being in actual IMC (even IFR) is also rare. Perhaps one of our mathematicians can help illustrate how unlikely an AI failure is in IMC

It happened to me in my Mooney in the first 50 hours of ownership.  In my case it was a non-event due to having a stand-by vac system. 

Not because of this event, but I now have 3 AIs.  2xG5s and my original AI to drive my A/P.  Additionally, I have thousands of landings where AOA was the primary instrument we used. I love AOA and am having one installed at annual later this week. 

[201er]

1 minute ago, kpaul said:

It happened to me in my Mooney in the first 50 hours of ownership.  In my case it was a non-event due to having a stand-by vac system. 

Not because of this event, but I now have 3 AIs.  2xG5s and my original AI to drive my A/P.  Additionally, I have thousands of landings where AOA was the primary instrument we used. I love AOA and am having one installed at annual later this week. 

Thanks. That way basically my point. Not that AI problems don't happen but that with the existing redundancy of a standby vac, partial panel, and the relatively low time spent in actual IMC, that it isn't the " The number one thing I would do for sure, right away"

Did you end up calling your G5 or your original AI as the primary vs backup?

[kpaul]

2 minutes ago, 201er said:

Thanks. That way basically my point. Not that AI problems don't happen but that with the existing redundancy of a standby vac, partial panel, and the relatively low time spent in actual IMC, that it isn't the " The number one thing I would do for sure, right away"

Did you end up calling your G5 or your original AI as the primary vs backup? 

I was single AI at the time.  I happened to catch the vac gauge drop to zero out of the corner of my eye about the same time I got the Low Vac warning light.  I just pulled the handle on the back up vac, the AI didn't even have a change to drift.

Today, I would have to lose both Vac systems to even lose A/P.  In addition I would have to also lose both G5s to be completely without an AI.  Oh and I would have to have my Stratus and IPad fail as well since that is my back-up three times removed.

[LANCECASPER]

 

17 minutes ago, kpaul said:

It happened to me in my Mooney in the first 50 hours of ownership.  In my case it was a non-event due to having a stand-by vac system. 

Not because of this event, but I now have 3 AIs.  2xG5s and my original AI to drive my A/P.  Additionally, I have thousands of landings where AOA was the primary instrument we used. I love AOA and am having one installed at annual later this week. 

Good post!  Your back-up and good assessment made it a non-event. Your 3 AI's give you a "which two are telling me the same info" scenario should you lose one. 

I installed AOA earlier this year and want to take some time to practice some patterns and landings with sole reference to it.

 

[gsxrpilot]

I wish someone would come calibrate my Aspen AOA. 

[Guest]

As always, interesting discussion and viewpoints.  From Spruce a simple Standby Vacuum System is $575 and a G-5 is $2149.  Both require installation, the G-5 likely being less but in the end very similar total cost.  

The SVS drives one instrument, where the G-5 is completely separate.  Not many twin engined airframes with only one propeller driven by two engines.

Clarence

 

Edited December 26, 2018 by M20Doc

[skykrawler]

Thanks to the folks keeping to the Rocket topic rather than an AOA debate.

[Jeremy95]

Just a couple days ago I decided to try the 72% power setting on my way back from Dallas and found that at 19 gal/hr kept my tit at about 1560-1570 after adjusting for temp correction. 

I’ve also tried some LOP at 55% power. If anyone has gamis, I’m curious to compare. At lower alt (8500 ft) I have gotten it to run smoothly at about 11.5 gal/hr and approx 155 Ktas. The biggest problem I’ve seen though is tit is right up against limits and at higher altitudes tit starts creeping up to a point where I can’t run LOP at all. I am considering buying gamis but was hoping for some real world experience and tit numbers to find out if it’s worth the cost.

I’m sure most of you guys are already tracking but one of the biggest frustrations  I had early on was hot starting. I read the Mike Busch article (https://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184350-1.html) prior to buying the airplane so I was expecting it but what seems to work the best for me is a combination of the articles recommendation and the rocket manual. I use mixture cutoff and full throttle with 30 seconds of primer. Push the mixture back in and give it about 3 seconds of primer. Then pull throttle to a little above idle and mixture to cutoff. I start cranking the engine while smoothly feeding in mixture until it fires. Not sure that’s the best technique out there but it has worked for me every time.