231LV Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 Ok, so I am guessing this topic has been discussed before (although I can't locate it in the archives) but sometimes it is fun to rehash and update the thinking. I have been flying my 231 for about 18 years now. Love it and have it to a point where the important stuff has been replaced/upgraded and all that is left is more cosmetic than safety oriented. I have about 1500 hours in the 231 so I am very comfortable flying it whether IFR or VFR. I am 64 years old and just renewed my insurance (steep bump due to hard insurance market, I am told). My insurance broker tells me getting insurance once a PP hits 70 is becoming very difficult and expensive. My better half has forbidden an experimental, PERIOD. Lately, I have been more aware of the 210 ponies under the cowl. During climb outs, flying in heavy winds, flying below 10,000 feet, ect. My thoughts start turning to what it might be like to fly a Rocket in similar conditions. We have the financial ability to upgrade but I wanted some thoughts from Rocket drivers and the Mooney community, in general. I realize, at the end of the day, it comes down to my mission, my needs, my wants, ect. BUT....thoughts on insuring a Rocket...no more difficult than my 231...just more money for a higher hull value? Mooney pilots at 70 or higher years of age, are you finding insurers more reluctant to give you a quote? My health is pretty good right now but that can change overnight. The biggest issue I kind of struggle with is the support for the Rockets in the fleet...I realize Rocket Engineering is no longer doing the conversions and has not sold off the STC so they are the only game in town. At what point do they stop their support and when that happens, what do current Rocket owners plan to do? Orphaned certified planes in a relatively small fleet are relatively constrained about what parts can be used for replacement, what can be done for upgrades, ect ect. I would love to hear thoughts from Rocket drivers, especially, but will listen to anyone with a cogent thought....thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 1 hour ago, 231LV said: Ok, so I am guessing this topic has been discussed before (although I can't locate it in the archives) but sometimes it is fun to rehash and update the thinking. I have been flying my 231 for about 18 years now. Love it and have it to a point where the important stuff has been replaced/upgraded and all that is left is more cosmetic than safety oriented. I have about 1500 hours in the 231 so I am very comfortable flying it whether IFR or VFR. I am 64 years old and just renewed my insurance (steep bump due to hard insurance market, I am told). My insurance broker tells me getting insurance once a PP hits 70 is becoming very difficult and expensive. My better half has forbidden an experimental, PERIOD. Lately, I have been more aware of the 210 ponies under the cowl. During climb outs, flying in heavy winds, flying below 10,000 feet, ect. My thoughts start turning to what it might be like to fly a Rocket in similar conditions. We have the financial ability to upgrade but I wanted some thoughts from Rocket drivers and the Mooney community, in general. I realize, at the end of the day, it comes down to my mission, my needs, my wants, ect. BUT....thoughts on insuring a Rocket...no more difficult than my 231...just more money for a higher hull value? Mooney pilots at 70 or higher years of age, are you finding insurers more reluctant to give you a quote? My health is pretty good right now but that can change overnight. The biggest issue I kind of struggle with is the support for the Rockets in the fleet...I realize Rocket Engineering is no longer doing the conversions and has not sold off the STC so they are the only game in town. At what point do they stop their support and when that happens, what do current Rocket owners plan to do? Orphaned certified planes in a relatively small fleet are relatively constrained about what parts can be used for replacement, what can be done for upgrades, ect ect. I would love to hear thoughts from Rocket drivers, especially, but will listen to anyone with a cogent thought....thanks An extra 100hp I think makes for a more exciting ride. I think with your extensive 231 experience the transition would be utterly seamless. The engine is less finicky than a 231 engine so that part is actually easier i bet. I say that never having flown as PIC in a 231. In fact I have only ever flown in a 231 covered to a 252 20k. As far as I know, the insurance industry does not have another category for horsepower for the m20k. I think (but don't know) that insurability they are all M20k's. Other than the delta cost for the hull value. I can't think of anything on the rocket that couldn't be overhauled even without rocket helping, although they have been very helpful and that definitely makes it easier. The engine is completely a typical tsio520nb that there are tons of them out there on Cessna twins. The exaust stack is stc specific but there are companies that can do wonders to recreate an exhaust stack overhaul but perhaps very expensive if it were really with no more rocket. Someone correct me on that. Then there is the engine mount cage, which I think is also reproducible by many aviation specific welding shops if it came to that I would presume. I can't think of anything else that is rocket specific. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louisut Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 (edited) On the support, I'm not terribly concerned. For one, it's not the current reality. On the contrary, Rocket Engineering provided excellent support, for example when we replaced the exhaust recently and when the engine truss was repaired before that. The engine itself is standard in a Cessna 414 and so it's not going anywhere. The drawings are in the manual for everything else. I'm actually more concerned about Mooney parts in general than Rocket Engineering specifically. Rockets in general are forward CG on account of the big engine, so I'd look for a 252 Rocket conversion. They're more rare but I believe the longer body solves the CG issues of the 231 conversion. Lastly, if you need lots of useful load, then this isn't the plane. Between the bigger engine and the ballast, it's basically a two-seater. Edited April 17, 2021 by louisut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gubni Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 I spoke with a guy yesterday who has a 231 that upgraded to a 252. He said it was a simple swap that required new motor mounts and a new cowling. The motor was about the same price and he said its a better designed motor also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
231LV Posted April 16, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 (edited) 19 hours ago, Gubni said: I spoke with a guy yesterday who has a 231 that upgraded to a 252. He said it was a simple swap that required new motor mounts and a new cowling. The motor was about the same price and he said its a better designed motor also. I need to correct my response...that WAS a Rocket assuming the conversion went to the big engine. Edited April 17, 2021 by 231LV wrong response 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsxrpilot Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 55 minutes ago, Gubni said: I spoke with a guy yesterday who has a 231 that upgraded to a 252. He said it was a simple swap that required new motor mounts and a new cowling. The motor was about the same price and he said its a better designed motor also. It WAS... but not available anymore. The current situation is... 231's stay 231's 262's stay 262's Missiles stay Missiles Rockets stay Rockets The only movement still available is that 252's can become Encores. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 The cost of conversion back in the day.... ... was simply outrageous. Today... change “was simply” to “is.” When used in context with the cost of insurance at age 70... If sneaking an experimental past the finance administrator was a challenge... How is sneaking a 75amu FW forward upgrade going to work out..? Then there is the whole availability of STCs... The owner of the 262 STC passed, left no forwarding address... Rocket engineering is great... find a few dozen friends doing the same thing, they will start building them again... Continue on going through the various Channels including finding pre-flown parts with their doCumentation... Basically it’s only as difficult as bolting on a pair of snails to boost the MP on an Ovation... Lets say you have a giant budget, and you really want to get this done... Contact the Mooney factory see if they are willing to help you engineer the upgrades... from what you have to what you want... The Encore is still an M20K... So, all the upgrades it takes to get to ultimate level of M20K... are clearly documented... according to the FAA... Start gathering all the details you need to assemble... You might want to hire somebody with the knowledge of what is needed... Somebody with the mechanical skills, that worked at the factory.... that still does annuals on current Mooneys at his shop... +1 for turning a forever-plane into current technology! How nice is the panel you have? For trade up... contact Jimmy at GMax... PP thoughts only, not a mechanic... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
231LV Posted April 16, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 1 hour ago, carusoam said: The cost of conversion back in the day.... ... was simply outrageous. Today... change “was simply” to “is.” When used in context with the cost of insurance at age 70... If sneaking an experimental past the finance administrator was a challenge... How is sneaking a 75amu FW forward upgrade going to work out..? Then there is the whole availability of STCs... The owner of the 262 STC passed, left no forwarding address... Rocket engineering is great... find a few dozen friends doing the same thing, they will start building them again... Continue on going through the various Channels including finding pre-flown parts with their doCumentation... Basically it’s only as difficult as bolting on a pair of snails to boost the MP on an Ovation... Lets say you have a giant budget, and you really want to get this done... Contact the Mooney factory see if they are willing to help you engineer the upgrades... from what you have to what you want... The Encore is still an M20K... So, all the upgrades it takes to get to ultimate level of M20K... are clearly documented... according to the FAA... Start gathering all the details you need to assemble... You might want to hire somebody with the knowledge of what is needed... Somebody with the mechanical skills, that worked at the factory.... that still does annuals on current Mooneys at his shop... +1 for turning a forever-plane into current technology! How nice is the panel you have? For trade up... contact Jimmy at GMax... PP thoughts only, not a mechanic... Best regards, -a- ummm...only thinking about selling my 231 and buying a Rocket...nothing more...regarding an experimental, there are some really nice ones with great track records but La Patrona is opposed to flying something "someone built in their garage"....or something similar to that...she still may not go for the "swap" of our 231 to a Rocket...she kind of likes the 231 and we just did a new interior and a schedule for a new paint job but it still has a "franken panel" with some glass and some steam gauges....I would like to get an idea of the typical useful load on the Rocket...my 231 us about 900 lbs of UL..a bit on the light side.....certainly trying to carry 4 people, that is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 3 hours ago, 231LV said: That isn't a Rocket And it is not possible to do that conversion today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A64Pilot Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 (edited) I don’t understand, what would an Experimental do for you? Surely insurence isn’t any easier for one. You don’t have to have insurence, if and when I’m refused insurence, I’ll fly without it, I’ll still try to get liability if possible, but I’m not going to quit flying just because some insurence company won’t cover me anymore. ‘Now why some have to have insurence is because they owe money on the airplane, and if your not going to pay cash for the Rocket, I’d say stick with what you have as I assume it’s paid for and you don’t have to have insurence to fly it. ‘What I have heard is that at some age, likely 70, the insurence companies are going to require a full FAA physical. I’m actually in a running argument with my broker about that, she’s telling everyone in the neighborhood to keep their FAA med and don’t go basic med because when they turn 70 they are going to have to have one. ‘I don’t understand why keep FAA med and roll the dice year after year, if insurence requires it, and you desire insurence, then go get an FAA medical when you turn 70. ‘Basic Med has in my opinion been the best thing to happen for us older guys, and I’m not giving that up. Insurence has always been what mostly determined min qualifications, not the FAA, and they are going to do it with physicals too. Edited April 16, 2021 by A64Pilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 5 hours ago, louisut said: On the support, I'm not terribly concerned. For one, it's not the current reality. On the contrary, Rocket Engineering provided excellent support, for example when we replaced the exhaust recently and when the engine truss was repaired before that. The engine itself is standard in a Cessna 414 and so it's not going anywhere. The drawings are in the manual for everything else. I'm actually more concerned about Mooney parts in general than Rocket Engineering specifically. Rockets in general are forward CG on account of the big engine, so I'd look for a 252 Rocket conversion. They're more rare but I believe the longer body solves the CG issues of the 231 conversion. Lastly, if you need lots of useful load, then this isn't the plane. Between the bigger engine and the ballast, it's basically a two-seater. Your information is incorrect. A 231 and a 252 are both an M20K which are IDENTICAL airframes as far as length of body and basic structure. A 252 M20K is not a long body anymore than a 231 M20K. They are both considered mid length body as is a M20J. (and an F?) They enjoy the same W&B issues benefits and nuisances. The standard rocket whether 231 or 252 is within the original balance envelope but now near the from rather than near the middle. I entirely solved the otherwise somewhat nose heavy W&B by significantly lightening the prop - I got an MT 4 blade prop that is 35lb light than the big 3 blade McCauley it replaced. Now my balance envelope is more like the original 231 balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
231LV Posted April 16, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 44 minutes ago, A64Pilot said: I don’t understand, what would an Experimental do for you? Surely insurence isn’t any easier for one. Well, the Experimentals offer new technology, new materials and new designs. Many are faster than our beloved Mooneys and offer some pretty stunning designs. The materials allow remarkable shaping for better aerodynamics, lighter structure and much less costly maintenance. You are right about insurance, however. Getting it for an Experimental like a Lancair is impossible. I never buy a plane with borrowed money but I do have assets which I would like to protect including the airplane. Once I hit 70, I will have to assess the risk management....but back to Rockets...what is a typical UL? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted April 17, 2021 Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 1LV, Could of said... I’m interested in a Rocket... You spent so much digital ink on how great your existing ship is.... I thought you didn’t want to part with it... That’s OK... I read your post a few times to make sure I sorted it properly... 1) You have a great M20K that may be up for sale... 2) You are concerned with world issues... (today’s issue is the cost of insurance) tomorrow it will be something different... 3) You want to go faster... 4) Your finance administrator said no to all things experimental... the insurance argument works here as well... no need to fire the finance admin... 5) The really cool experimentals take so long to build... But, you can still buy one that is flying... I think the cogent argument you are looking for is something like this.... you have been approved to stay flying the same M20K you have... You debated with so many of the points people made... It comes across as if you are defending your decision from decades ago... As for Rockets... there are a few steps better than an ordinary M20K... a Missile is an upgraded M20J... a Standing O is an upgraded M20R O1... Screamin’ Eagle... all examples of Rocket Engineering... Rocket engineering supports there products in an exasperatingly slow way... If you are not comfortable with that... consider how well Mooney supports their products... a similar exasperation may ensue... Either way... you won’t need a lot of parts to fly your plane for the next decade... most consumables don’t go through these organizations... The Rocket is what you want... get one... The next step up the ladder... is the Bravo... plenty available in the wild... Step after that... is called the Acclaim... Not too many available... but it is worth it for consideration... There is that Ultimate Mooney if you have the gigantic budget to work with... Try to be part of the conversation... involve the people that can help you get to where you want to go... If you artfully shut people out... it will just be you and me left in the conversation... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louisut Posted April 17, 2021 Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 5 hours ago, aviatoreb said: Your information is incorrect. A 231 and a 252 are both an M20K which are IDENTICAL airframes as far as length of body and basic structure. A 252 M20K is not a long body anymore than a 231 M20K. They are both considered mid length body as is a M20J. (and an F?) They enjoy the same W&B issues benefits and nuisances. The standard rocket whether 231 or 252 is within the original balance envelope but now near the from rather than near the middle. I entirely solved the otherwise somewhat nose heavy W&B by significantly lightening the prop - I got an MT 4 blade prop that is 35lb light than the big 3 blade McCauley it replaced. Now my balance envelope is more like the original 231 balance. My mistake. I'm not sure what I was thinking of, but thanks for clarifying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJBrown Posted April 17, 2021 Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 The Rocket is the ultimate Mooney. Converted my 231 in 94 and put over 1000 trouble free hours on it. Original cost to convert was $60,000 in 1992. All the engine management issues of the 231 disappeared with the conversion. Open cowl flaps are a must for maximum climb. Stays cool all the way up. The entire power unit, engine with turbo and prop were taken directly from Cessna twins TSIO520NB including the full feathering prop. motor mount and exhaust were the two big changes as noted above. Engine mount tied into the fuselage in 8 places unlike the Stock 4 of every factory Mooney. The Rocket I owned through 2004 had a useful of right at 1000# 101 gal of fuel left only 400 for passengers. two standard people in front brings balance to front edge. The more you load it the better it gets. You cannot get out of balance to the rear without overloading. 4 standard people 120# in baggage area and the balance in fuel is within the envelope but not the 2900# landing weight. ‘with 310 (305) horsepower it has better power to weight than any other Mooney. The engine was slowed down by 25rpm to get the 305 number. Because a 310 Rocket sounds like a Cessna. TLS/Bravo 270 hp Acclaim 280 hp. More power, lighter weight and smaller fuselage with less parasitic drag equals better climb and higher speed. Faster at every fuel flow. Rockets numbers are “real” They are the result of real test flights in real conditions. Acclaims numbers come from the sales department. just like 201, 231 and 252. Only faster Mooney was the Liquid Rocket with the 350hp Voyager engine. Highest I had mine, 4 times, was 26,000’ each time was under 2800#. It was still climbing at 1500fpm. long range tanks and speed brakes are a must. 200kts @ 20gph @ 12,000’ faster higher. 238@ 24,000’ All Rich of peak. I owned it before Gami/LOP was a thing. If money were no object I would start with the lowest airframe time Rocket I could find and equip it the way I wanted. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
231LV Posted April 17, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 8 hours ago, RJBrown said: The Rocket is the ultimate Mooney. Converted my 231 in 94 and put over 1000 trouble free hours on it. Original cost to convert was $60,000 in 1992. All the engine management issues of the 231 disappeared with the conversion. Open cowl flaps are a must for maximum climb. Stays cool all the way up. The entire power unit, engine with turbo and prop were taken directly from Cessna twins TSIO520NB including the full feathering prop. motor mount and exhaust were the two big changes as noted above. Engine mount tied into the fuselage in 8 places unlike the Stock 4 of every factory Mooney. The Rocket I owned through 2004 had a useful of right at 1000# 101 gal of fuel left only 400 for passengers. two standard people in front brings balance to front edge. The more you load it the better it gets. You cannot get out of balance to the rear without overloading. 4 standard people 120# in baggage area and the balance in fuel is within the envelope but not the 2900# landing weight. ‘with 310 (305) horsepower it has better power to weight than any other Mooney. The engine was slowed down by 25rpm to get the 305 number. Because a 310 Rocket sounds like a Cessna. TLS/Bravo 270 hp Acclaim 280 hp. More power, lighter weight and smaller fuselage with less parasitic drag equals better climb and higher speed. Faster at every fuel flow. Rockets numbers are “real” They are the result of real test flights in real conditions. Acclaims numbers come from the sales department. just like 201, 231 and 252. Only faster Mooney was the Liquid Rocket with the 350hp Voyager engine. Highest I had mine, 4 times, was 26,000’ each time was under 2800#. It was still climbing at 1500fpm. long range tanks and speed brakes are a must. 200kts @ 20gph @ 12,000’ faster higher. 238@ 24,000’ All Rich of peak. I owned it before Gami/LOP was a thing. If money were no object I would start with the lowest airframe time Rocket I could find and equip it the way I wanted. Thank you for the detailed info....this is what I was looking for to help make a "go/no go" decision. I really appreciate your post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJClark Posted April 17, 2021 Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 8 hours ago, RJBrown said: If money were no object I would start with the lowest airframe time Rocket I could find and equip it the way I wanted. Amen! not to say money was NO object, but this is precisely what I did. I have a $225k airplane but it's a 2019 Mooney 252/305 Rocket. I'll be 62 this year, I have 3000 hours in "fast iron" in the Air Force, about 150 in Mooneys, and I and my Rocket are insured for $2,100/year. I saw about a $30 increase last July for my second year of ownership. It's a ton of bang for the buck, and it's outright, outrageous FUN! 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
231LV Posted April 17, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2021 Absolutely gorgeous airplane! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlunseth Posted April 19, 2021 Report Share Posted April 19, 2021 Among other things, converting from a 231 to a "252" requires a new cowling. 15 AMU's. And a new engine and engine controls, cowl flaps. It is still a 14V system, hence the 262 designation for those that were converted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.