252/Encore vs. Rocket

[ChrisH]

Don, I'm very jealous. First, of your Rocket, I'd love to see the extra 40kts, second of your aerostar, I'd love to be pressurized and see yet another 40kts. Happy flying in your new toy, and give us a PIREP of the twin. 

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

Don-

Good info, I didn't know you could increase the useful load on the Rocket.  I guess the question then becomes how far do you want to go (non-stop) which will dictate the amount of fuel you will need to carry and how many people you could bring.  I normally travel with myself, one other adult, two kids and some luggage.  I'm usually right at 500 lbs in the cabin which alllows me to fill the tanks all the way.  I obviously dont get the speed you get but i can fly 800 miles with a comfortable landing reserve. Kids dont like the o2 so I stay right about 10K and will burn about 9gph with a true airspeed of 150kts +/-

[donshapansky]

This year I had work to do in MN and WI and it was right at Oshkosh time! I had tools for training, 2 people and bags that filled the back of my 4 dr pick-up. I went direct Granbury, TX to Holdingford, MN with 30 gals remaining, no help from winds I had a NW crosswind at 4:20 ATE. My return trip was from Fon Du Lac, WI to Granbury, TX in 4:35 with 20 gals remaining. I have 6:00 plus range, both directions were at 11,500 and 12,500' return with winds against me both directions, we were truing 200 kts at 15.5 gph. EDM showed 70% power TIT 1560 - 1570F all cylinders were 360 - 370 F. 

[donshapansky]

[donshapansky]

For some reason the comment section did not attach with the pictures, this was recent trip to San Diego then Bigham City, UT and home. It snowed 12 in. so I had to wait for the plows. The trip home was pretty, it was cold as the panel shot shows -27C and 247 KTAS at FL175, power was set at 63%. the 530 was sitting on 280 kts with ocassional light turbulence.

[BrianNC]

Quote: donshapansky

For some reason the comment section did not attach with the pictures, this was recent trip to San Diego then Bigham City, UT and home. It snowed 12 in. so I had to wait for the plows. The trip home was pretty, it was cold as the panel shot shows -27C and 247 KTAS at FL175, power was set at 63%. the 530 was sitting on 280 kts with ocassional light turbulence.

[sapientia]

Quote: 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.  

[donshapansky]

This is my 3rd Aerostar, I switched because of more mountain destinations, I don't do IFR in a single engine over rocks. Yes the fuel cost is way up but with 2 - 3 people that is a secondary concern. Pressurization is a wonderful feature and A/C !

[ChrisH]

looks like you were burning 22gph a side on that flight, can you run the aerostar LOP?

[donshapansky]

The short answer is no unless you are prepared to run less than 55% on all Lycoming turbo super charged engines with 7.3:1 compression ratios, the TIT will reach 1750 F. The turbo normalized high compression engines will LOP especially with the Machen intercooler STC. I'm not fussed about the fuel burn at 240 ktas it's faster than a KIng Air 90 and nearly as fast as the Meridian and other high dollar airframes. At FL250 the SSII will run 275 kts on 50 - 52 gph, my thinking is the capital cost is way down but the operating cost is up, which works for me. If I'm busy I need the airplane, if I'm not it can sit, it's paid for.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: 201-FLYER

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?

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: aviatoreb

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

[Seth]

I own a Mooney M20J 300 Missile and the gross weight increase was to 3200 lbs which gives me 1067 lbs useful load.  I looked at the Rocket engineering website for both the Missile and Rocket and both are certified to the gross weight incrase to 3200 lbs.  

The Missile is the normally aspirated 300 HP modified M20J

The Rocket is the turbocharged 305 HP modified M20K

http://www.rocketengineering.com/node/79   Missile

http://www.rocketengineering.com/node/74   Rocket

My Missile was converted in 1997 (I think, I'd have to look back at the logs) and had the 3200 gross weight.  If a Rocket or Missile did not have 3200 gross weight when it was converted and the amount increased to 3200 after the fact (pure speculation) does that mean some paperwork can increase your aircraft as is to 3200 gw?

-Seth

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: aviatoreb

[sapientia]

Quote: donshapansky

This is my 3rd Aerostar, I switched because of more mountain destinations, I don't do IFR in a single engine over rocks.

[donshapansky]

When I was younger I was invincible now I'm less invincible. Plus I've had to declare emergencies twice in single engine airplanes in both cases over the Rockies and both cases at night. Both ended up OK but I realize more than ever the more hours in the air the more the odds are something is bound to happen. My company can afford to fly a twin and the only piston twin that will fly with one engine windmilling and gear flaps down an maintain level flight is the 700 Superstar series. I have done it with a factory pilot on board. It will also cruise on autopilot with one caged at 185 KTAS in the teens.  

[John Pleisse]

Quote: donshapansky

When I was younger I was invincible now I'm less invincible. Plus I've had to declare emergencies twice in single engine airplanes in both cases over the Rockies and both cases at night. Both ended up OK but I realize more than ever the more hours in the air the more the odds are something is bound to happen. My company can afford to fly a twin and the only piston twin that will fly with one engine windmilling and gear flaps down an maintain level flight is the 700 Superstar series. I have done it with a factory pilot on board. It will also cruise on autopilot with one caged at 185 KTAS in the teens.  

[donshapansky]

The 602P is better than an older (without intercoolers and high altitude turbos) stock 601P at altitude, but low and slow dirty, No Thank You! 

[jackn]

The Rocket is a lot of airplane for the money. An Encore with a high time engine, no TKS, older panel goes for around $200K, add those options and you're looking at spending much more(if you can find one). Never flew a rocket, so I have no opinion on their actual performance.

[donshapansky]

You won't forget it!

[BrianNC]

Quote: donshapansky

You won't forget it!

[RJBrown]

 The Rocket burns more fuel and goes faster. In the long run operating expenses are a bit closer than they initially look. The engine cost are about the same and you go further per hour in the Rocket. The useful in my old Rocket was over 1100. The Rocket setup gets 100% power clear up to 24000'. I have seen 1500FPM at 26K. It is impossible to load out of CG.

The airframe changes are an 8 point attachment for the engine mount instead of the stock 4 and the addition of a battery shelf in the tail cone. Initially the Rocket had a gross weight increase to 3040#. Later Rocket got approval for the 3200# gross take off weight. The landing weight remains at 3040# for all Rockets. The weight increase was just under 200# with the conversion. The conversion added just over 100# to the conversions useful. Unless additional equipment was added the useful could be as high as 1132#. Most non TKS Rockets have over 1000# gross. The change from 3040 to 3200 gross weight is a re-labeled ASI and paperwork, similar to the J gross weight increase.

A stock 231 with stock tanks filled has 32# more useful than a Rocket with Monroy tanks filled (101gal). 1000 Nautical range is easily achieved in the Rocket.

 The weight limit on a Rocket is based on what it can land with not what it can take off with. The theoretical 400# overgross Rocket ,tanked for Hawaii for example, would still outclimb the 231. Mooney changed the gear to allow the later models gross weight increase to 3368#. Same wing, same tail, less horsepower.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: RJBrown

 The Rocket burns more fuel and goes faster. In the long run operating expenses are a bit closer than they initially look. The engine cost are about the same and you go further per hour in the Rocket. The useful in my old Rocket was over 1100. The Rocket setup gets 100% power clear up to 24000'. I have seen 1500FPM at 26K. It is impossible to load out of CG.

The airframe changes are an 8 point attachment for the engine mount instead of the stock 4 and the addition of a battery shelf in the tail cone. Initially the Rocket had a gross weight increase to 3040#. Later Rocket got approval for the 3200# gross take off weight. The landing weight remains at 3040# for all Rockets. The weight increase was just under 200# with the conversion. The conversion added just over 100# to the conversions useful. Unless additional equipment was added the useful could be as high as 1132#. Most non TKS Rockets have over 1000# gross. The change from 3040 to 3200 gross weight is a re-labeled ASI and paperwork, similar to the J gross weight increase.

A stock 231 with stock tanks filled has 32# more useful than a Rocket with Monroy tanks filled (101gal). 1000 Nautical range is easily achieved in the Rocket.

 The weight limit on a Rocket is based on what it can land with not what it can take off with. The theoretical 400# overgross Rocket ,tanked for Hawaii for example, would still outclimb the 231. Mooney changed the gear to allow the later models gross weight increase to 3368#. Same wing, same tail, less horsepower.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: jackn

The Rocket is a lot of airplane for the money. An Encore with a high time engine, no TKS, older panel goes for around $200K, add those options and you're looking at spending much more(if you can find one). Never flew a rocket, so I have no opinion on their actual performance.