Rocket annual operating costs

[aviatoreb]

There were a lot of issues addressed during that annual. But, the engine was 30, the cylinders were 3, the turbo was 1.225, the waste gate was 1.25, etc.. The total was about 37 and the cost to pull it and replace it was significant. Zephyr is a reputable company and I think they did a good job. Others seem to charge more for the same work. I can't give you a good argument for why other than they can and get away with it. There is another company here in Orlando that was almost the same price and also has a very good reputation.

Huh - I am really impressed. Well, I am 925hrs now and good compressions, 18-20hrs burn per quart, and good enough oil-analysis - so knock on wood I go the distance, but when that time comes....I know whose door I will be knocking on when it is time for a rebuild sooner or later. Zephr is a quality name and 10k less than the competition at that, 10k less than I thought it would be. Wow. 10k here and 10k there, and you are talking about real money! Just kidding...10k is a lot.

Pull and replace is a fixed cost no matter who does the overhaul, and I am sure pull and re-hanging a rocket engine is up there since it is very very tight quarters inside that cowling.

[rainman]

Richard Zephro "Zef" ran the Mooneyland website and was a wealth of information on Mooneys. His e-book on Mooneys may still be available. He used to give it to active duty military for free. He was a great advocate for Mooneys and will be missed. Ray

[bd32322]

Richard Zephro "Zef" ran the Mooneyland website and was a wealth of information on Mooneys. His e-book on Mooneys may still be available. He used to give it to active duty military for free. He was a great advocate for Mooneys and will be missed. Ray

Do you know what his ebook is called?

[RJBrown]

Not quite. The Rocket and straight M20K have differences in their electrical systems. The Rocket has one alternator and two batteries and the straight M20K has one battery and two alternators. The 231 and the 231 Rocket has a 12 V system and manual cowl flaps and the 252 and the 252 Rocket has the 24 V system and electrically operated cowl flaps (that has been a thorn in my side for years now). There are some airframe modifications from the 231 to the 252 that are carried over into the Rocket as well to help increase the aerodynamics. I presume that the Rocket nose gear pucks wear out faster than the straight M20K due to the heavier weight of the engine also but I don't know that for sure. After that, I think the differences in maintenance from straight M20K to Rocket are insignificant.

Dave this is not quite clear. There are 2 different K models the 231 and the 252. The conversion on the 231 Makes 2 changes #1 it adds a second battery and moves both batteries to a new shelf in the tailcone. This change doubles the electrical reserve and counters the additional weight of the larger engine. #2 The Rocket uses a different alternator, the one that comes on the TSIO-520NB. The 231 Rocket remains 12 volt. The 252 does lose the backup alternator, as the TSI520 has no pad for it, but gains the second battery and battery location. The 252 remains 24 volt but uses a different alternator to match the engine. The 231 retains the manual cowl flap upon conversion while the 252 retains the electric version it came with, no changes to either. There are NO aerodynamic changes made to either by Rocket. The speed cleanup Mooney did to the 252 can be added by others. Mod Works added those bits to my Rocket when it was painted.

The Rocket generally is the same in most areas for maintenance and should cost no more than the stock K it came from. The differences I have seen are: Less engine work needed and the engine lasts longer. No turbo work between OH on the larger but slower spinning Rocket turbo. If run on the hot side the Rocket may require exhaust system repair more often than the 231. I know that the Rocket TBO is 1600 while the stock Ks are 1800. In reality a Rocket is much more likely to reach 2000 than a 231 is to reach 1800. The 252 is as likely to reach it's TBO of 1800 as the Rocket is to reach 2000. The reason there is no place for a second alternator is the same reason that there is a fully feathering prop. The engine is a "twin" engine from the Cessna 340. The backup alternator was on the "other" engine.

I have heard that if the avionics were to be all electric and the vacuum system removed an alternator could be added in it's place. If any out there know either way for sure please chime in.

[rocketman]

Let me chime in with my operating temps, techniques and procedures regarding my Rocket I purchased last year. I just had a Victor Black Edition overhaul from their shop in California and am very pleased with the quality of workmanship and experience and especially from John Pava whose been there as long as anyone else. I was using Phillips 20/50 Type M Mineral oil and just switched this weeknd after 15 hours to Exxon Elite with Camguard additive now that there is no oil consumption. CHT in climb at 1200 fpm at maybe 138 knots are 360 - 370, and never have seen 400. Cool running CHT's are critical to cylinder longevity. The large twin intercoolers on the rear of the engine makes this an easy chore for the Rocket. Good baffling is also important.

I am very critical to operating temperatures and never take off until oil temp is 130 degrees. Cool down is at least 6 minutes to prevent turbo damage. As far as landing, I try to keep the TIT to 1400 - 1450 to prevent over riching the engine as the MP is pulled back on final. This keeps the engine smooth all the way to landing. I just have to remember to push the mixture in for a missed approach or go around.

A couple of quirks I noticed with the Rocket is the difficulty adjusting the manual cowl flaps on this 1980 K model. At Rocket speeds, the Cowl flaps can be difficult to adjust but in my infinite wisdom to correct this, I noticed that if I removed the left cowl flap spring, it made the cowl flaps much easier to adjust in flight. This is nice to know even though I never see high CHT's even at high power settings.

Let me spend a minute about CORROSION. I hate it! It is the only thing that will take away from the Mooney airframe and will destroy an engine quicker than anything else. I have studied this and have looked at all the ways in the world to prevent engine corrosion. In short, I came up with a unique dehydrator system that I think works well, although I have not tested dew points internally in the engine. Let me explain what are the most critical thinkgs you need to know about preventing engine corrosion.

1. Fly the airplane often - this is the most important thing to do. Thats why car engines last so long and never get corrosion is because your starting your car once or twice a day. Airplane engines need this too. Fly at least once a week, get the oil temps to at least 170 degrees and keep it there for an hour if possible. Simply starting your engine periodically does more harm than good (Sorry David Mazer) and is a practice that, although sounds good, should be condemned. Planes need to be flown, not taxied and should not be in a shop or not flown for any reason for more than a month without pickeling the engine.

2. I like Exxon Slite with Camguard to prevent corrosion. Aviation Consumer did a study on this and made thsis recommendation also although they like the heavier single weights also because of the oil sticking longer to metal surfaces. Flying frequently with multi weight oils will eliminate this problem and will be better for minimizing start up wear during the colder months. And most mechanics will tell you that most engine wear occurs during the first minute after starting the engine, even after your oil pressure guage shows you have oil pressure. Never forget this and keep the RPMs as low as possible during the first few minutes.

3. I like the engine dehydrators or dessicants that you see being sold on the market. Except I never did like the fact that the dessicants are put in pickle jars and use small aquarium pumps to move the air. I figured there had to be a better way. So I made myself an industrial grade engine dehydrator using an air compressor and industrial grade dehydrator with a three stage filter system that takes out ALL the moistrure with the final cannister being a large tank that holds a ton of the silica that dryes the air. The system self drains and needs the silica services very infrequently because of its capacity I have two lines that feed the engine this dryed air, one throught the exhaust pipe which is tunneled through a heat resistent cup to prevent leaking and the other through the dip stick opening. I was able to find an auto oil cap filler top from Auto Zone that fit the Continental engine and drilled a hole through it for the pipe to fit into. After flight I simply replace the dipstick with this oil filler cap. Works perfectly.

The results from my dehydrator so far seems promising, There is no moisture around the dip stick opening which is typically seen after a few days after flight in the wide opening Continental engines. In the future I will try to measure Dew point temps to see how this works.

In any event, I love my Rocket and would recommend it to anyone. My next venture is how to change the oil in the Rocket without having to remove the bottom cowling. I think I have that figured out and will comment on it further in the future.

Ron Dubin

I mounted all this stuff on a small red wagon I purchased from a local hardware store. And the results seems to work. Like I said I never tested the dew points yet but

[John jolly]

I just bought a rocket and do not have pressurized mags. Could other rocket owners let me know if they have pressurized mags and how things are going.

[jetdriven]

My quote from 2010:

ZEPHYR AIRCRAFT ENGINES INC.

39320 B ave. Zephyrhills, Florida 33542

Toll Free 1-800-204-0735, Phone 813-788-3305, Fax 813-788-4412

39320 B AVE. ZEPHYRHILLS, FL 33542 (813)788-3305 FAX (813)788-4412

TO: April 2, 2010

FROM: PAGES: 1

Ref: N305H Engine overhaul quote for TSIO-520-NB

Thank you for the opportunity to offer our services. We are pleased to quote as follows:

Overhaul of your Continental TSIO-520-NB engine, to factory new tolerances including, new Slick magneto’s, Slick ignition harness, spark plugs, rebuilt starter motor, rebuilt throttle body, manifold fuel valve and fuel pump, oil cooler overhaul, overhauled cylinders and turbo charger overhaul for a flat rate base price of $29,900.00, provided the crankcase and crankshaft are repairable. This price does not include any exhaust. New ECI Titan nickel barrel cylinders are optional for an additional $3,300.00. New ECI Titan steel barrel cylinders are optional for an additional $2,200.00. A new Cam Shaft instead of a re-grind for $800.00 extra. Waste gate O/H for $1250.00 EST, turbo controller $1225.00 EST, pressure relief valve [PRV] $475.00 EST. If wanting alternator overhaul, price very, due to alternator model. Turn time is approximately 4 to 5 weeks. Below is a break down for pricing, just add the options for total pricing. If you have any further questions please feel free to call, or drop an E-mail.

HAVE A GREAT DAY.

Herman

herman@zephyrengines.com

Break down in pricing and options:

Engine overhaul base price. $29,900..00

New ECI Titan nickel barrel cylinders $3,300.00 Extra

New ECI Titan steel barrel cylinders $2,200.00 Extra

New cam shaft $800.00 Extra

Waste gate overhaul $1,250.00 Extra Estimate

Turbo controller overhaul $1,225.00 Extra Estimate

Pressure relief valve [POV] overhaul $475.00 Extra Estimate

 

thats about the same price as a factory OH Lycoming IO-360-A3B6. 

[John jolly]

I have just purchased a rocket with 4,000 total and 1100 on the engine. I had a problem with running rough at altitude. This was corrected by replacing the champion plugs witch where worn with new fine wire plugs. After making this change it seems the fuel flow is down about 2 gallons for all power settings. I have been running 50 rich of peak and getting book numbers. After the change I am getting 2 gal better. I would also like to get some feed back on lean of peak operation and numbers.

I am a new money pilot and can us all the help I can get!

Thanks

[Stefanovm]

This thread both scares me and reminds me......

Exactly why I do not.

[benpilot]

 

This is a good discussion. My questions for you are:

 

1. Would you choose a Rocket over  Bravo for same cost?

2. Which is more reliable: rocket of bravo?

3. Which is more fun to fly?

4. Does the electric trim in the Rocket work well to make it easier to hand fly?

5. Would you take a 252 Rocket over a 231 Rocket?

 

I am impressed with the amazing climb rate of the Rocket that I flew in. Goes like a bat out of hell :-)

[RJBrown]

1yes, market does not see it this way so in reality the Rocket would always be less. 2yes,Rocket 3yes, Rocket. 4when hand flying I always hand trimmed,old habits die hard, so cant say. 5 231 just for cost difference. I would prefer 12v, manual cowl flap and split rear seat.

I have seen 1500fpm @ 26,000', Rockets are AMAZING.

[David Mazer]

Does the electric trim make it easier to hand fly?  I don't know but I use the electric for big changes and by hand for small changes.  It is a nice tool to have.  Which plane in discussion doesn't have electric trim?  My 252 Rocket certainly does.

 

There used to be a significant difference in cost between the 231 and the 252 Rocket but I'm not sure it is worth it or that it continues.  I prefer the 24 v system of the 252 but I prefer the manual cowl flaps of the 231.  I didn't know the rear seat of the 231 was a bench seat.  The ability to take out one or both rear seats has come in handy from time to time.

 

I don't have personal experience in a Bravo but considered selling mine for a TKS Bravo at one point.  When I discussed this with the Daytona Mooney shop they told me I would never be happy in a Bravo after flying the Rocket.  Fact or fiction?  I have no idea but the was this MSC's opinion.

[RJBrown]

231 went from bench to better in 1983 I believe. 79,80,81 were bench I am not sure about 82 but memory says bench. I love the removable seats in my 90MSE. That is a feature I would not want to lose. The 80 Rocket, since sold and sorely missed, had bench seats and when flying 2 people with lots of bags the newer seats would have been nice. Any step "up" from the Rocket that burn gas through 1 engine is a step down in performance. That speed and climb power is addictive and painful to fly without, trust this ex Rocket junkie.

[benpilot]

 

Cool thanks guys. The electric trim makes things nicer for flying any plane. I use it in the C172S I fly right now. Of course the hand trim in the 231 Rocket that I flew was easy to use as well. To decide, I'd have to fly a Bravo and 252 Rocket to compare how these feel to me versus the 231 Rocket. The Mooney offers best speed value for the buck though among single piston singles without a doubt. After my checkride I will join MAPA and do some more research and get checked out in a Mooney. Then I can decide. 

[aviatoreb]

Does the electric trim make it easier to hand fly?  I don't know but I use the electric for big changes and by hand for small changes.  It is a nice tool to have.  Which plane in discussion doesn't have electric trim?  My 252 Rocket certainly does.

 

There used to be a significant difference in cost between the 231 and the 252 Rocket but I'm not sure it is worth it or that it continues.  I prefer the 24 v system of the 252 but I prefer the manual cowl flaps of the 231.  I didn't know the rear seat of the 231 was a bench seat.  The ability to take out one or both rear seats has come in handy from time to time.

 

I don't have personal experience in a Bravo but considered selling mine for a TKS Bravo at one point.  When I discussed this with the Daytona Mooney shop they told me I would never be happy in a Bravo after flying the Rocket.  Fact or fiction?  I have no idea but the was this MSC's opinion.

 

I also make my tiny trim changes by hand and the larger changes by electric.  Its just quicker by electric for the big changes.  And finer by hand.

 

David, there is so much overhead cost with changing airplanes, selling, buying, taxes and then the usual year or two of working out the bugs - since you already own an airplane you love  and have fixed up just so...if you want tks then I would expect at this point for you the cheaper way would be to just have it added.  

 

I know it is generally cheaper to buy with all the features you want already in place, but in your case since you already own, if it were me I would add a no-fiki tks.  

 

I feel completely happy with no-fiki tks (and remember where I live - way north of you - north of even our friends in toronto).  Last winter I ran through exactly 7 gallons of tks fluid and always in a "just in case" basis as I avoid actual known ice.  But that completely changes my confidence and lowers my stress for 8 months of the year.

[aviatoreb]

 

 

Cool thanks guys. The electric trim makes things nicer for flying any plane. I use it in the C172S I fly right now. Of course the hand trim in the 231 Rocket that I flew was easy to use as well. To decide, I'd have to fly a Bravo and 252 Rocket to compare how these feel to me versus the 231 Rocket. The Mooney offers best speed value for the buck though among single piston singles without a doubt. After my checkride I will join MAPA and do some more research and get checked out in a Mooney. Then I can decide. 

 

 

Compared to a C172S, there really is not a huge difference in flight feel between a rocket and a bravo. ...  I have been in a bravo, and of course I own a rocket - I have not been in a 252 but the airframe is the same as the rocket - I really expect in terms of trim feel and so forth it is also very similar and so far different from a 172 (which of course we have all flown!  the greatest training plane), that I bet you may not notice much difference in test flying.  I remember you were significantly out of trim for your previous rocket flight and that makes a huge difference in terms of how it flies.  And well rigged and properly trimmed Mooney in this category is lovely to fly.  

[aviatoreb]

P.S.  Airplanes are just plain expensive!  I enjoy it more not to add up the numbers.  Seriously!  I just close my eyes and pay the bills.  All I actually notice is the pump price.  But I fly as much as my work and kids schedule allows which is roughly 125 hrs per year.

 

I suspect that other than fuel cost difference that roughly a rocket, 231, or 252 cost roughly the same to operate because they are the same firewall back. Plus overhaul costs are roughly the same.  All the repairs that are not engine related are of course 231/252 repairs.  Same cost.  The fuel costs more on a rocket.  If you have the patience to slow down (and why would you!) a rocket can burn very close to the same fuel as a 231 at the same 175kts.

 

Bravo I of course have less experience in costs.

[David Mazer]

David, there is so much overhead cost with changing airplanes, selling, buying, taxes and then the usual year or two of working out the bugs - since you already own an airplane you love  and have fixed up just so...if you want tks then I would expect at this point for you the cheaper way would be to just have it added.  

 

I know it is generally cheaper to buy with all the features you want already in place, but in your case since you already own, if it were me I would add a no-fiki tks. 

As you already know, I didn't end up making the change from Rocket to Bravo.  Ultimately, it didn't make sense.  The cost of non-FIKI TKS is about $40,000 after all is said and done so it is waiting until it makes sense for me to install and take the hits on money, useful load, and performance.  We keep toying with the idea of a place in Utah and I've told my wife she needs to include the price of the TKS upgrade in any price for the real estate!

[benpilot]

 

@David, makes sense if you have a Rocket unless you'd need the TKS, would agree with you that the cost to upgrade to a Bravo would not be worth it. 

[aviatoreb]

As you already know, I didn't end up making the change from Rocket to Bravo.  Ultimately, it didn't make sense.  The cost of non-FIKI TKS is about $40,000 after all is said and done so it is waiting until it makes sense for me to install and take the hits on money, useful load, and performance.  We keep toying with the idea of a place in Utah and I've told my wife she needs to include the price of the TKS upgrade in any price for the real estate!

 

That's a long trip even in a Rocket if it would be on a regular basis.  How about an Eclipse jet?

 

I thought nonFiki was $32k?

 

Its so much cost, emotional energy and a good year or two to bring a new purchase airplane to standard - and you have such a nice panel as well - yes indeed I know you did not change from rocket to bravo.  Was that a decision to just eschew tks?  Or just for now wait and see.

[David Mazer]

It is a long trip but it wouldn't be too often.  If I'm lucky, a couple times a year.  TKS would be useful and the quote I received was closer to $35 but that doesn't include other stuff like moving the plane back and forth for installation and the commercial flights and hotels.  You know, stuff.  So, I figure closer to $40.

 

The decision not to change was made before I did most of the upgrades in paint, interior, and panel.  Living in FL, TKS is always something that would be nice occasionally but not really a big deal (unless I'm flying back and forth to UT).  A guy right across from me makes the trip back and forth to UT all the time (4-6 x a year)  he does it in a Cirrus SR22 with TKS so surely I could occasionally.

[aviatoreb]

It is a long trip but it wouldn't be too often.  If I'm lucky, a couple times a year.  TKS would be useful and the quote I received was closer to $35 but that doesn't include other stuff like moving the plane back and forth for installation and the commercial flights and hotels.  You know, stuff.  So, I figure closer to $40.

 

The decision not to change was made before I did most of the upgrades in paint, interior, and panel.  Living in FL, TKS is always something that would be nice occasionally but not really a big deal (unless I'm flying back and forth to UT).  A guy right across from me makes the trip back and forth to UT all the time (4-6 x a year)  he does it in a Cirrus SR22 with TKS so surely I could occasionally.

 

Hi David,

 

Very smart of you - I sometimes neglect to round up like that, and I am often disappointed when I see the bill.  That said the shop called me and told me the AOA install came in under budget!  How often do you hear that in airplanes?

 

4-6 times a year trip to Utah in a rocket is an adventure and getting there is half the fun!  If it was twice a month or something - then it would just be a slog-fest too far.

 

If I had your gorgeous panel and pain and interior and low time engine that you have been running since new - I would definitely just add tks rather than trade planes for tks but inherit a bunch of other problems to fix.