Jump to content

New Rocket Conversions Anyone?


Jsavage3

Recommended Posts

Expect supply and demand caused a slow down in orders....

1) Supply of Ks is always dwindling...

2) supply of customers with 100AMU, and an existing K gets harder to come by...

3) competition with things like Bravos...

4) Bringing potential customers up to speed with the excellence of Rocket Engineering...

5) Rocket Engineering’s desire to sell too few systems each year... makes the cost of specialized parts sitting on a shelf for years, even more challenging...

6) Speaking of competition... Many Mooney people have moved on to Rocket engineering based Brand P products... find Jerry...

How many Turbine sales would it take to make a Mooney turbine a possibility?

A turbine Rocket would be cool...

A turbine Ovation wouldn’t be bad at all...

Cruising in the lower FLs below Vne would be pretty fast... :)

Speed brakes would be a plus...

Can we get (K-V) on one STC?

I sense Jonny laughing at me when he gets this far... :D

PP thoughts only, not a turbine operator...

Best regards,

-a-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, carusoam said:

Expect supply and demand caused a slow down in orders....

1) Supply of Ks is always dwindling...

2) supply of customers with 100AMU, and an existing K gets harder to come by...

3) competition with things like Bravos...

4) Bringing potential customers up to speed with the excellence of Rocket Engineering...

5) Rocket Engineering’s desire to sell too few systems each year... makes the cost of specialized parts sitting on a shelf for years, even more challenging...

6) Speaking of competition... Many Mooney people have moved on to Rocket engineering based Brand P products... find Jerry...

How many Turbine sales would it take to make a Mooney turbine a possibility?

A turbine Rocket would be cool...

A turbine Ovation wouldn’t be bad at all...

Cruising in the lower FLs below Vne would be pretty fast... :)

Speed brakes would be a plus...

Can we get (K-V) on one STC?

I sense Jonny laughing at me when he gets this far... :D

PP thoughts only, not a turbine operator...

Best regards,

-a-

 

Putting a turbine on the nose of a Mooney requires a near complete redesign....first off, it has to be pressurized since turbine operations are almost always in the flight levels because they are far more efficient up high. A turbine puts out much more power than a Continental or Lycoming so the mounting system and airframe has to be beefed up to handle it. The cost of a turbine exceeds (by a huge amount) a Continental or Lycoming as does the hourly fuel burn....There are already new-design Turbines on the market and all exceed the million dollar threshold so all in all.....it would be impractical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 231LV said:

Putting a turbine on the nose of a Mooney requires a near complete redesign....first off, it has to be pressurized since turbine operations are almost always in the flight levels because they are far more efficient up high. A turbine puts out much more power than a Continental or Lycoming so the mounting system and airframe has to be beefed up to handle it. The cost of a turbine exceeds (by a huge amount) a Continental or Lycoming as does the hourly fuel burn....There are already new-design Turbines on the market and all exceed the million dollar threshold so all in all.....it would be impractical.

1. Doesn't have to be pressurized - the m20k already does 24/28k' depending on 231 vs 252.  Unless they certify it for RVSM, you're still stuck at FL280 and below. Use your existing O2.

2. Upgraded mount isn't really an excuse. Rocket already did a 9G rated 8 point mount on the Rocket vs the stock 4 point tsio-360 mount. No stretch of the imagination to assume they could mount a smaller turbine engine.

3. Cost being impractical is relative. What other certified 4 seat turbine are you going to find for the same $? A Walter 601D could be had around $35k (last reported price from http://diemechturbinesolution.com ). You'd be hard pressed to find a good 360/520 overhaul for that price.

Not saying it'll happen. I'm just not good with naysayers.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a new upcoming and smaller than others to be certified turbine engine that could plausibly go on the nose of a Mooney.

https://www.avweb.com/ownership/engines/hill-helicopters-unveils-new-turbine-engine/

Hill Helicopters - GT50 engine - maximum continuous power of 400 HP, fuel consumption of 35 GPH and TBO of 5,000 hours or 20,000 cycles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Mooney started putting big bore 6 cylinder Lycomings (TLS in 1989) and Continenatals (Ovation in 1994) on their new airplanes.

Sure - but there were potentially M20K owners out there who wanted to buy.

What is the recurring cost to Rocket engineering for continuing to sell their product.  They need to stock engine cages, exhaust stacks, and a few other specialized parts, but some of the parts like engines, etc are mostly already in the market place.  Are there more recurring costs of providing the plans and STC to make a conversion?  If there are and those recurring costs require a certain number of sales per year I get it - but I cannot imagine what they are.  If not, then why not sell to a customer even if they appear rarely at their door.  One every other year?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better than Ovation speed on a stock 201 for $100k plus airframe. What’s not to love? Glad they made ‘em in the 60ish airframes that exist. They own the conversion. Mooney could produce the cowls, perhaps modifying to better maximize airflow and sell them to Rocket. Same with K fuel valve. This can be done for well under $100k as exhaust and engine six point mount are not THAT expensive to produce. Mooney saw the Missile as competitive force and made their own. Perhaps new Mooney could purchase and build Missile conversions?  Why the hell not?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Missile=Awesome said:

BUT, the more I think about it you will only be able to use it for 15 years, (with fossil fuels being phased out by 2035) so why bother...

Time to sell that airline stock, too. Don't see them going electric, solar or hydrazene . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2020 at 9:25 AM, Tx_Aggie said:

For the sake of discussion, would they consider Missile conversions as part of the needed 20 or is that separate? Also what would be the cost of conversion in today’s dollars? Thanks!

This is relevant - I bet you could get more Missile conversions signups than Rocket conversions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think for a moment...

1) adding turbines to non pressurized existing planes is what Rocket Engineering does... usually  six seaters... sure, it is less practical for most people... how many shades of practicality do airplanes have?

2) engines are expensive... but when you factor in the the TBO... aka hot section inspections.... it isn’t that far from IO550 costs... spread out over a longer period of time...

3) Sure Honeywell’s PT6 is a bit big for a four seater... but, that’s the STC writers responsibility to determine what engine is best for the application... See what is on the front of a Lancair IVPT...

4) Don’t forget Mooney signed a letter of agreement with RR to use their tiny turbine on the existing Ovation/Acclaim airframes of the time... remember the Great Recession?  That turbine was originally built for helicopter applications... somewhat a low altitude type of application...

5) As far as building a new Missile goes... How hard can it be? There was an Ovation being parted out over in Europe... see how many of those parts bolt up to the front of an M20J?  Get the legs... and the MGTW could get very interesting....   :)

6) An Actual Missile uses the M20K’s cowling.... it could be a tad better with a current light weight cowling of a recent Ovation...

7) zero to Vr must be really cool in a 300hp Missile, it’s pretty cool in the heavier Ovation... same with climb rate.

PP thoughts only, finances calculated for sport only, not real life numbers...

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, carusoam said:

1) adding turbines to non pressurized existing planes is what Rocket Engineering does... usually  six seaters... sure, it is less practical for most people... how many shades of practicality do airplanes have?

Rocket adds turbines to pressurized 6 place Mailbus/Mirages and calls them JetProps.

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

10 minutes ago, carusoam said:


Looks like I got my details mixed up...  I should have invited Jerry, MS’s Jet Prop guy... :)

Thanks and best regards,

-a-

Actually you are both right....and your details are not mixed up.  Rocket Engineering has done a couple other less successful turbine conversions. 

https://rocketengineering.com/rocket-engineering/

They did the TurbineAir - a 500shp PT-6 conversion on a Bonanza B36TC platform ( 6 place unpressurized !)

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=f01ce269-c074-4115-b533-71add7da2841

And the Royal Turbine- 2 PT-6s conversion on a Duke (pressurized 6 place!)

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/301-knots/

http://flycasey.com/royal-turbine-duke/

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SkepticalJohn said:

1. Doesn't have to be pressurized - the m20k already does 24/28k' depending on 231 vs 252.  Unless they certify it for RVSM, you're still stuck at FL280 and below. Use your existing O2.

2. Upgraded mount isn't really an excuse. Rocket already did a 9G rated 8 point mount on the Rocket vs the stock 4 point tsio-360 mount. No stretch of the imagination to assume they could mount a smaller turbine engine.

3. Cost being impractical is relative. What other certified 4 seat turbine are you going to find for the same $? A Walter 601D could be had around $35k (last reported price from http://diemechturbinesolution.com ). You'd be hard pressed to find a good 360/520 overhaul for that price.

Not saying it'll happen. I'm just not good with naysayers.

I guess you and I see it from two entirely different perspectives....doesn't make me a naysayer or you a pollyanna...just two different perspectives....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Rocket adds turbines to pressurized 6 place Mailbus/Mirages and calls them JetProps.

And they end up being 3.5 seat planes when all is said and done. Allegedly mighty fine planes though. There are some C210 turbine conversions as well. My point being that the donor airframe is significantly larger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tmo said:

And they end up being 3.5 seat planes when all is said and done. Allegedly mighty fine planes though. There are some C210 turbine conversions as well. My point being that the donor airframe is significantly larger.

JetProp PT6A conversions of PA46 Malibu or Mirage have 1,300 to 1,400 pounds of useful load.   The tanks will hold up to 1,000 pounds of JetA.  Yes, the PA46 is larger and weighs 1,000 pounds more than the heaviest long body Mooney. 

The P210 Silver Eagle conversions use the smaller RR250 engine.  It too is larger and heavier than any Mooney airframe.  P210SE have about the same useful load as JetProps but as full fuel is around 750 pounds they will legally carry more people and baggage.  

If you want to carry lots of fuel and fill the seats you need either smaller people or a bigger airplane.   I haven’t had much luck with the former so I’m casually eyeing the PC-12.  It weighs as much as three Acclaims.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

JetProp PT6A conversions of PA46 Malibu or Mirage have 1,300 to 1,400 pounds of useful load.   The tanks will hold up to 1,000 pounds of JetA.  Yes, the PA46 is larger and weighs 1,000 pounds more than the heaviest long body Mooney. 

The P210 Silver Eagle conversions use the smaller RR250 engine.  It too is larger and heavier than any Mooney airframe.  P210SE have about the same useful load as JetProps but as full fuel is around 750 pounds they will legally carry more people and baggage.  

If you want to carry lots of fuel and fill the seats you need either smaller people or a bigger airplane.   I haven’t had much luck with the former so I’m casually eyeing the PC-12.  It weighs as much as three Acclaims.  

The PC12 is quite a load hauler.  They use one as a medical lift company platform across the hangar area from me and I am often impressed with how much stuff they put in there.

SO you jumped right over the tbm - why?

Or for a faster and big load hauler there is the kestrel airplane recently certified.

I dont think the pt6 or the rr250 would ever be reasonable on a Mooney.  A smaller turbo prop might.  The RR500 that never happened would have been maybe.  This one I clipped earlier in this thread might - 

https://www.avweb.com/ownership/engines/hill-helicopters-unveils-new-turbine-engine/

Hill Helicopters - GT50 engine - maximum continuous power of 400 HP, fuel consumption of 35 GPH and TBO of 5,000 hours or 20,000 cycles.

Not as a load hauler but as a two up but unpressurized go fast airplane?  How much HP and fuel flow would that be at a lower setting?  Can it run continuous reasonably at 275 or 300?

Remember the rocket bonanza turbo prop conversion is an unpressurized turbo prop and it is an interesting airplane for a niche market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there allegedly is/was a turbine powered C172: https://www.pbsaerospace.com/news-events/news/the-cessna-172t-flies-with-a-tp100-engine

240HP sounds about right for a nice K...

There is also the SubSonex with the jet version of same engine; the Sonex website lists the engine at $65k.

The company that designed and makes it is actually Czech: https://www.pbs.cz/en/our-business/aerospace/aircraftgines/turbopropgine-pbs-tp100

Edited by tmo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

TBM is ~ twice the op-ex of the JetProp for ‘not much more’ speed or UL.  PC-12 is about like TBM in op-ex, similar to the JetProp in speed and will haul it all.   

I get that.  

What about that new Kestrel?  More speed, more load and more range than a PC12.

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.