252/Encore vs. Rocket

[BrianNC]

I am starting a new thread to compare these two after the 252/Encore thread where I asked for more detail on that plane. I didn't want this question to get lost in the other thread since it's basically stopped.

The Bravo was also brought up in that discussion So what I am seeing is basically that the Bravo and 252/Encore are similar, the Bravo being an Encore with a longer body and larger engine, so fuel burn is higher, but similar perfomance number in cruise at altitude. As astelmaszek said, 'never ending climb rate' with the Bravo is an advantage of the larger engine, but at a higher GPH.

So now I'm bringing the Rocket into the discussion. Is the Rocket then bascially a shorter body Bravo? Comparing the Rocket to the 252/Encore, would you say about the same performance, but on more gas, just as between the 252/Encore and Bravo?

And if one were going to pick between an Encore and Rocket, which way would you go and why? Enough difference in cruise speed and fuel burn to matter?

I found this Rocket performance page at Mooneyland. These are some pretty good numbers. 196 KTS at 17.5K feet on only 13.9 GPH which is 55% power. Not bad.

Edit: couldn't get the attachment to work. You can find it at the link below if you scroll down.

http://www.mooneyland.com/mooney_rocket.htm

[sapientia]

Quote: BrianNC

So now I'm bringing the Rocket into the discussion. Is the Rocket then bascially a shorter body Bravo? Comparing the Rocket to the 252/Encore, would you say about the same performance, but on more gas, just as between the 252/Encore and Bravo?

[BrianNC]

Thanks for the info. I knew it wasn't a Bravo, I just meant practically speaking as far as performance numbers. A short body Bravo so to speak in relation to performance.

[donshapansky]

I have owned a Rocket for 4 years coming up in June '12 and have just over 900 hrs in the left seat. It is a 252 with only 1800TT when I bought it and 50 SMOH, it was in need of a lot of primping and maintenance to get it to the standard I wanted for long distance flights at any time with reliable dispatch.

Initial impressions were WOW, this thing climbs and puts some great speeds even down low, especially compared to a Bravo, the useful load is identical but it would not run smoothly LOP. After a lot of messing it came down to getting rid of the fine wire plugs, new high tension harnesses and 2 trips to GAMI and finally I can run smoothly with NO LOSS IN SPEED.

Here are some numbers:

Yesterday 7500' OAT 13C 32"MAP 2450 RPM 15.0 gph 185 KTAS at 3200lbs TIT 1550F Hottest cyl 360F cowl flaps closed

I regularly see 195 KTAS at 10 - 11 K with similar numbers as above the DA will affect fuel flows somewhat but I never see more than 16 gph.

at 17,500 it will true 210 - 215 at the same fuel flows.

Climb rates are what ever you want, I usually see 900 ft/min at 150 KTIAS unless the DA is way up the indicated will drop slightly or stand it on it's tail and get 1700 - 1800 ft/min @ 120 kts.

I have flown the Bravo and the Acclaim but not the Type S the Bravo is 20 kts slower in all the parameters I saw and the Acclaim in 280 hp config is 5 kts slower indicated in cruise I don't recall the climb numbers.

I have recently acquired a Piper Aerostar with the 700 STC and will soon offer the Rocket for sale if you are interested, it's at Maxwell for the annual now and should be ready in a week or two then it's going in for some paint touch-up. The interior side panels are removed for freshing up now and someone will get a wonderful airframe combo for a lot less then anything comparable.

[sapientia]

Nice looking plane!  Took a look at your posted pics of 252AC; if it's still available towards the fall I may be interested.

[donshapansky]

Thanks if you want I can send you more pictures and data when you are getting closer, I maybe another month or two before I'm ready to part with it. Maxwell is doing the annual, installing the 406 ELT, replacing all the plugs with the new Tempest plugs, IFR cert.  

[BrianNC]

Nice plane Don. Send me the info when you're ready.

How were you only burning 13.1 GPH at 78% power? : )

[donshapansky]

I didn't show those figures I said the lowest in the previous post was 15.0 gph and as high as 16.0 gph on a cool day. I never see over 72 - 73% power on the EDM 930 and the trip a couiple days ago at 15.0 gph was 64 - 65% on the EDM 930.

[BrianNC]

Quote: donshapansky

I didn't show those figures I said the lowest in the previous post was 15.0 gph and as high as 16.0 gph on a cool day. I never see over 72 - 73% power on the EDM 930 and the trip a couiple days ago at 15.0 gph was 64 - 65% on the EDM 930.

[HeyChuck]

I have flown a 1997 Encore about 800 hours in a little over 8 years, and it has proved to be a wonderful and fuel efficient airplane. It is well balanced and responsive for flying down low on local flights, and very fast up high. My useful load is 990 lbs, or 537 lbs with full fuel. Since the price of AvGas has risen over $5/gal, I have been using more conservative power settings and running LOP in cruise. I always climb at full power (24 gal/hr, ~1000 fpm @ 115 KIAS) to my cruising altitude. The cylinders stay nice and cool in cruise, typically 320 to 340 degrees. I typically see about 156 KTAS at 12.5k' on 9.7 gal/hr (about 55% power). It goes progressively faster up high, and on a long cross country at ~25k' I have seen about 175 KTAS and that power setting. Of course it will go faster if you want to burn more fuel; I used to fly it at 75% power and saw about 186 KTAS at 17.5k' and 13 gph. These are all pretty close to the "book" performance numbers. The Bravo and Rocket may go a little faster, but as fuel gets increasingly expensive I prefer the efficiency of the Encore, which always gets me there fast enough. 

[BrianNC]

Quote: HeyChuck

I have flown a 1997 Encore about 800 hours in a little over 8 years, and it has proved to be a wonderful and fuel efficient airplane. It is well balanced and responsive for flying down low on local flights, and very fast up high. My useful load is 990 lbs, or 537 lbs with full fuel. Since the price of AvGas has risen over $5/gal, I have been using more conservative power settings and running LOP in cruise. I always climb at full power (24 gal/hr, ~1000 fpm @ 115 KIAS) to my cruising altitude. The cylinders stay nice and cool in cruise, typically 320 to 340 degrees. I typically see about 156 KTAS at 12.5k' on 9.7 gal/hr (about 55% power). It goes progressively faster up high, and on a long cross country at ~25k' I have seen about 175 KTAS and that power setting. Of course it will go faster if you want to burn more fuel; I used to fly it at 75% power and saw about 186 KTAS at 17.5k' and 13 gph. These are all pretty close to the "book" performance numbers. The Bravo and Rocket may go a little faster, but as fuel gets increasingly expensive I prefer the efficiency of the Encore, which always gets me there fast enough. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Anyone looking to buy the nicest Rocket out there needs to buy Don Shapansky's.  I seem to run into it just about every other time I'm at Don Maxwell's shop...It's a machine maintained to Mooney spec, that's for sure.

[BrianNC]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

Anyone looking to buy the nicest Rocket out there needs to buy Don Shapansky's.  I seem to run into it just about every other time I'm at Don Maxwell's shop...It's a machine maintained to Mooney spec, that's for sure.

[xftrplt]

Quote: BrianNC

I was looking at the pic. The engine monitor appeared to be showing 78% power with 13.1GPH. I may be reading it wrong. : )

[BrianNC]

Quote: xftrplt

You are correct. You are misreading it.

It shows 13.1 MPG, burning 19.2 GPH. (GS:  251KTS.)

BTW, a 430/530 will make the same calculation in Aux pages/Fuel Planning, listed as EFF (efficiency).

[BrianNC]

By the way Parker, as one who bought the 252 and had it converted to an Encore, and possible considered a Rocket, what are your thoughts?

[donshapansky]

The pictures posted are from my first major trip to OR in 2008 running ROP at 17,500' it was late summer as I recall, I had left Eugene, OR and went direct to Evanston, WY.

[BrianNC]

Quote: donshapansky

The pictures posted are from my first major trip to OR in 2008 running ROP at 17,500' it was late summer as I recall, I had left Eugene, OR and went direct to Evanston, WY.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: BrianNC

By the way Parker, as one who bought the 252 and had it converted to an Encore, and possible considered a Rocket, what are your thoughts?

[donshapansky]

If I recall correctly I had a 35 kt tailwind that varied a little, groundspeed started out at 235 and over a 30 mintue period it elevated. So by deduction my TAS was approx. 217 kts. 

[sapientia]

This question is for Don and Parker.  One of my concerns with the Rocket is useful load.  With full fuel you are looking at pilot only with minimal if any baggage based on the average useful load numbers I see listed on Rockets for sale.  I am also aware that Parker recently had the 252 to Encore conversion uping the engine power a bit and changing the brake system out resulting in a higher gross weight and thus useful load.  Can this conversion be done to a  252 Rocket in order to bump up the load capacity?  I realize the engine aspect is uneccessary but the brake conversion would be very relevant. 

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

Ahhh, the old Rocket useful load question.   Once you see what the answer is you will see why I didnt find much value in a Rocket and went with a "regular K". My useful load is 950 lbs. with full fuel I could fly longer then my bladder would allow and still have 500 lbs of people and stuff in the cabin.  Although the Rocket would get me to my destination quicker it would be at the expense of more fuel and a reduced useful load. Not sure why the conversion never allowed a higher useful load?

[donshapansky]

The Rocket gross weight can be increased from 2900, my Rocket has the 3200 lb gross so with 2251 lb empty that leaves 949 useful much the same as any long body M20R or M20TN. The other big deal is at max gross with all seats full you are not even close to being in an aft condition, I have done calculations on E-Flite at 550 lbs over and still not aft! You can be at the forward limits but as the fuel burns off the C of G envelope base range extends forward and the condition is gone as fuel burns off.

[donshapansky]

The brake question is not the question, either set of brakes work well the bigger problem is locking up the brakes enough to flat spot a tire without realizing it is happening, the HD brakes are much easier to flat spot a tire with. I had considered it at the beginning of my experience but would not consider it after 900 hrs into all kinds of short strips brakes are not the issue with 3200 lbs gross!

[Parker_Woodruff]

My max takeoff weight is 3130 lbs.

It looks like Don has me beat in terms of max weight, but he also has a heavier engine.