Friday Afternoon Smackdown: Bravo vs. Rocket

[230KT]

I thought it was very simple. Rocket is the fastest plane out there under $200K, therefore I wanted a Rocket. However, after reading some Bravo posts and talking to some self-proclaimed Mooney experts, I'm also considering the Bravo. The typical mission is 1-2 persons, little baggage, 400-1200nm flights, get there as fast as possible burning 20 gph or less, and not be afraid of ice in the winter. Here's how this judge's scoresheet looks so far:

1. Rocket seems to be 5-15 knots faster at typical cruise altitudes, and can be honestly said to cruise faster than 200 knots at 12,000 and above. 3 points to Rocket

2. Bravo has a longer cabin. 1 point to Bravo

3. Bravo has FIKI, Rocket only has non-FIKI TKS. 1 point to Bravo

4. Bravo is factory (so hopefully good support), Rocket is after-market. 1 point to Bravo

5. Bravo has newer airframes and often nicer panels. 1 point to Bravo

5. Bravo has 2000-hr TBO ($50K overhaul), Rocket has 1600-hr TBO ($42K overhaul). Tossup

6. Useful loads all seem to hover between 825 and 1000 lb. Tossup

7. Reliability and dispatchability (is that a word?). Tossup

This gives an ever-so-slight edge to the Bravo, but I'm not sure I agree with my own scoring system. I'd like to hear from some of you who have flown both aircraft and can offer some additional deciding factors, or tell me I'm way off regarding my analysis so far.

[AndyFromCB]

Bravo has dual alternators +1

Bravo has a lycoming engine, in my book much better high alitude engine than Continental +1

Bravo has a lycoming engine, eats camshafts potentially -1 (mine did) so the TBO is a wash

Rocket has better glide ratio with engine stopped +1

Rocket climbs better +1

Rockets eats about 4gph less for the same speed +1

Rocket has an 8 point engine mount +1

Real useful load will be better in a Rocket due to lower fuel burn LOP. In real world, both airplanes will take off and cruise with whatever you want to stuff them with, but must watch the landing weight and runway requirements.

[Skywarrior]

Rocket positives:

Rocket has fully featherable prop.

Bravo positives:

Slightly better longitudinal stability. (due to extra length)

[Parker_Woodruff]

Unless you need a FIKI airplane, I would probably prefer a Rocket.

[230KT]

Parker,

The FIKI aspect is about being able to dispatch the aircraft, and hence, revenue. I've decided TKS is a "gotta have" for that reason, but FIKI isn't a requirement, and I don't think it would really improve the bottom line.

So, why would you go for the Rocket instead of the Bravo?

[davidsguerra]

Rocket usually cheaper than a bravo Rocket +many $$

Manly name for your airplane Rocket +4 cool points

fuel payload +1 to the bravo but with extended range tanks on the Rocket it is equal.

no need for Gami injectors usually + 1 to the Rocket.

the Rocket changed the way Mooney made airplanes + 1000.

you could always get a Bravo Rocket and get the best of both worlds. there were about 5 conversions i think

[Parker_Woodruff]

So, why would you go for the Rocket instead of the Bravo?

The engine is more likely to run lean of peak than the Bravo's engine. It's also a more efficient aircraft. And it has more power on takeoff. I wouldn't complain about 305 hp on departure.

Nothing wrong with a Bravo at all...

[KSMooniac]

Parker,

The FIKI aspect is about being able to dispatch the aircraft, and hence, revenue. I've decided TKS is a "gotta have" for that reason, but FIKI isn't a requirement, and I don't think it would really improve the bottom line.

So, why would you go for the Rocket instead of the Bravo?

If you *have* to dispatch year-round for business reasons, I don't see how non-FIKI TKS will help you. You can't legally launch into a winter overcast with an icing airmet without FIKI. I think you're talking yourself into a FIKI Bravo and that is still a fine choice. My only concern would be the possible inability to run LOP in the Bravo.

[fluffysheap]

The non-FIKI TKS on the Rocket has the same ice-protection ability. The FIKI is just a little extra redundancy and paperwork. So, legally, yes, you can't go into known icing with the Rocket, but from an actual safety of flight standpoint, they are virtually identical. Actually, I bet the Rocket is safer, since it has more power.

Overall I'd say go for the Rocket, but either is a good choice. The best choice probably depends on exactly what ice circumstances you expect to find, and how often.

Just as a matter of practicality, I think *any* turbo Mooney is generally adequate in the winter, because there is usually SOME route or altitude you can fly that doesn't have ice. The only time you really need the ice protection is if there's known ice right on top of your origin or destination. And as often as not, going an hour earlier or later will make that go away too. But then, I live in Colorado, not Buffalo...

[FoxMike]

Back in 2003 I decided to get back into Mooneys. I was shopping for a Rocket but had an opportunity to test fly a Bravo. I liked the slightly larger cabin, Lycoming (wet head) engine, new radios ( factory original), big O2 bottle and 200TT. The bigger cabin costs some airspeed but is more comfortable. The baggage area is large and removing a seat makes it huge. Years ago I did a dive trip to Roatan in a 231. We also spent a week in Guatemala. By the time the three of us got back to Denver I was real tired. Last year I took two friends and made a lap around the Caribbean (Martinique, Grenada and Panama). We carried dive gear and baggage for a month. I was far more comfortable on this trip although the trip was much longer. The Rocket has a little better performance and low speed handling maybe better but the TLS rides a little better in the bumps. Either one will probably work just fine. Prices of either are low. I would be looking for low time with an up to date autopilot and no damage. I like the TKS, mine is FIKI and works well. I probably have not put 40 gals through it but on occasion have had to sit in continuous ice for 40 minutes or so. The booted airplanes I have owned would have caused me considerable anxiety in those circumstances. Good Luck!

[M016576]

Unless you need a FIKI airplane, I would probably prefer a Rocket.

+1

[M016576]

If you *have* to dispatch year-round for business reasons, I don't see how non-FIKI TKS will help you. You can't legally launch into a winter overcast with an icing airmet without FIKI. I think you're talking yourself into a FIKI Bravo and that is still a fine choice. My only concern would be the possible inability to run LOP in the Bravo.

If you *have* to dispatch year round (icing, hard ifr winter flying in the mountains, etc) for business reasons, you need a TBM, a Pilatus, or a nice suburban, not a mooney!!!

[Steve Dawson]

The non-FIKI TKS on the Rocket has the same ice-protection ability. The FIKI is just a little extra redundancy and paperwork. So, legally, yes, you can't go into known icing with the Rocket, but from an actual safety of flight standpoint, they are virtually identical. Actually, I bet the Rocket is safer, since it has more power.

Overall I'd say go for the Rocket, but either is a good choice. The best choice probably depends on exactly what ice circumstances you expect to find, and how often.

Just as a matter of practicality, I think *any* turbo Mooney is generally adequate in the winter, because there is usually SOME route or altitude you can fly that doesn't have ice. The only time you really need the ice protection is if there's known ice right on top of your origin or destination. And as often as not, going an hour earlier or later will make that go away too. But then, I live in Colorado, not Buffalo...

This isn't very good advice. Learn all you can about what your plane will do and your limits and capabilities before you launch into some known or possible ice. Even planes that have FIKI have crashed. Don't be stupid.

[aviatoreb]

I thought it was very simple. Rocket is the fastest plane out there under $200K, therefore I wanted a Rocket. However, after reading some Bravo posts and talking to some self-proclaimed Mooney experts, I'm also considering the Bravo. The typical mission is 1-2 persons, little baggage, 400-1200nm flights, get there as fast as possible burning 20 gph or less, and not be afraid of ice in the winter. Here's how this judge's scoresheet looks so far:

1. Rocket seems to be 5-15 knots faster at typical cruise altitudes, and can be honestly said to cruise faster than 200 knots at 12,000 and above. 3 points to Rocket

2. Bravo has a longer cabin. 1 point to Bravo

3. Bravo has FIKI, Rocket only has non-FIKI TKS. 1 point to Bravo

4. Bravo is factory (so hopefully good support), Rocket is after-market. 1 point to Bravo

5. Bravo has newer airframes and often nicer panels. 1 point to Bravo

5. Bravo has 2000-hr TBO ($50K overhaul), Rocket has 1600-hr TBO ($42K overhaul). Tossup

6. Useful loads all seem to hover between 825 and 1000 lb. Tossup

7. Reliability and dispatchability (is that a word?). Tossup

This gives an ever-so-slight edge to the Bravo, but I'm not sure I agree with my own scoring system. I'd like to hear from some of you who have flown both aircraft and can offer some additional deciding factors, or tell me I'm way off regarding my analysis so far.

A rocket or bravo would fit your mission. A rocket is highly under valued in the market place for what it is or anyway for how I enjoy it. When I was shopping, I was considering 252's, 231's, Bravo's and Rockets. I was not aware-enough of Missiles and Ovations but they are quite super too and for a lot of flying can handle your mission too.

To your points.

1. I have been in only one bravo - a very nice one with a much cleaner tks install than mine and it was at least 10kts slower - probably closer to your 15 - and as I said mine seems to be a slower than usual rocket.

2. Longer cabin is purely behind the pilots seats. So enjoyment for the passengers for sure.

4. You gave a point to Bravo for being factory and so easier to find support - actually rocket engineering has been one of THE best aviation companies I have ever had the need to work with. Better than the two airframe manufacturers I have dealt with (for my former Diamond and my current Mooney).

5. I don't think so - comparing an early 1990s Bravo to an mid 1980s Rocket airframe - if the both have original panels then you are looking at some out of date steam gauge on both airplanes. What you find on the airplane you shop will be a function of how much updating has happened since. This is a case by case thing - shop the airplane on the avionics you find and the condition of the 20 or 30 year old airframe and avionics. And paint and interior, and upkeep over all - unless you are looking to by a 3 or 5 year old airplane that still has the new airplane smell - the steady upkeep/upgrade cycle makes some 20 or 30 year airplanes sparkle compared to others and I think that is more important than statements like a rocket will be more or less up to date than a bravo or what not.

I was very close to a Bravo about 3 months before I got this rocket, but the timing was not quite right regarding selling my diamond. I am sure it would have been super. I am very happy with what I got though and I am sure there is very little difference to my utility either way. And my rocket is faster, but I consider that is just for bragging rights because in the real world it makes little difference in the time you arrive if you are going 195kts in one plane and 208kts in another for 2 hours. Do the math and check me out about how few minutes we are talking about when covering say 450mi. (I am a math prof so I am in the habit of assigning homework problems. :-) )

[aviatoreb]

Rocket usually cheaper than a bravo Rocket +many $$

Manly name for your airplane Rocket +4 cool points

fuel payload +1 to the bravo but with extended range tanks on the Rocket it is equal.

no need for Gami injectors usually + 1 to the Rocket.

the Rocket changed the way Mooney made airplanes + 1000.

you could always get a Bravo Rocket and get the best of both worlds. there were about 5 conversions i think

Oh yeah - the LIQUID rocket - there was one for sale recently - did it sell?

I hear it is 10+kts faster than the "common rocket" - it has a 335hp liquid cooled engine on a M20M airframe. Now that's rockin'

[fluffysheap]

This isn't very good advice. Learn all you can about what your plane will do and your limits and capabilities before you launch into some known or possible ice. Even planes that have FIKI have crashed. Don't be stupid.

In actual icing conditions, I would rather have a more powerful aircraft than a record in some logbook that says I can legally be there. What is legal and what is safest are not always the same thing. Rulebooks are paper, they will not cushion a hard landing. There is ZERO difference in actual ice-protection capability between the FIKI and non-FIKI TKS system.

Edit: If what you meant to disagree with is that any turbo Mooney is good enough, it's because areas of icing are very rarely more than 10,000' thick, and no turbo Mooney has a ceiling below 24,000'. That's good enough to find a clear area - or at least an area out of the scope of any icing hazard or airmet boundary - practically anywhere, unless the icing is right on top of your destination or origin.

[Hank]

Fluffy, you're courting disaster here, and encouraging others to do the same.

TKS flow rate may be the same between inadvertent and FIKI systems, but even I know there are significant other differences. Look into the FIKI certification requirements, which start with two alternators and independent electrical systems.

Meantime I'll keep my unprotected, normally aspirated Mooney away from ice, adjusting time or route or canceling as required.

[AndyFromCB]

If you *have* to dispatch year round (icing, hard ifr winter flying in the mountains, etc) for business reasons, you need a TBM, a Pilatus, or a nice suburban, not a mooney!!!

I beg to differ. The climb rates of either TBM or Pilatus are not that much different than a Bravo or a Rocket. I have flown in both, I have access to a Pilatus and if I was stupid enough to launch into frontal icing situation, I'll take TKS over boots any day. Vastly superior deicing system. With TKS as long a you have fluid, there is very little ice including SLD and freezing rain you can't handle. Like I said, if you're stupid enough. I'll deal with all the en route ice you want to throw at me, but not at take off or landing.

TKS also shines where boots fail, at slow speed, during a climb or an approach. The fluid dispersion rate is constant but at slower speeds it leaves the wing surface more slowly. Boots really need speed to shed the ice.

[AndyFromCB]

Fluffy, you're courting disaster here, and encouraging others to do the same.

TKS flow rate may be the same between inadvertent and FIKI systems, but even I know there are significant other differences. Look into the FIKI certification requirements, which start with two alternators and independent electrical systems.

Meantime I'll keep my unprotected, normally aspirated Mooney away from ice, adjusting time or route or canceling as required.

There is no difference between FIKI and non FIKI system other than an extra pump and possibly heated stall vane. I have dual alternators, I have a heated stall vane, I have a single pump. No Mooney has a truly dual power system like Cirrus or Columbia. It is still a single bus airplane. Plus a little something most people don't know but look at your Bravo electrical system diagram if you have the manual. Even with dual batteries and dual alternators, you're picking up voltage sense for the regulator from a single point, your announciator panel circuit breaker for both sides of the voltage regulator. Two wires heading to the same breaker. That circuit breaker pops, there go both your alternators. How is that for redundancy? Your batteries as well have fuses in the back of the airplane. I've blown one of them before. Even in a Bravo you can find yourself without power.

Yes, I've rewired mine so it won't happen ;-)

And the second pump is overrated. The way TKS works, by the time you realize you're first pump failed, you'll have ice accumulated on your leading edges. Then welcome to 10 more minutes of ice accumulation before you hit the switch and the second pump sheds the existing ice. Most likely you'll land by then.

You guys always make it sound like ice is an instance death sentence. Other than frontal conditions, you can sit there in a good old 172 or an Arrow, take on an inch during an approach, fly your final 20knots faster, look out of a side window and land just fine. Been there, done that, didn't use any flaps.

Other than frontal conditions, areas of icing are almost always at most 3000 feet thick.

Frontal conditions are different but then we're talking SLD and freezing drizzle/rain. Neither exists much above 12K unless in the mountains. This is where I adjust and just wait things out on the ground.

[AndyFromCB]

A rocket or bravo would fit your mission. A rocket is highly under valued in the market place for what it is or anyway for how I enjoy it. When I was shopping, I was considering 252's, 231's, Bravo's and Rockets. I was not aware-enough of Missiles and Ovations but they are quite super too and for a lot of flying can handle your mission too.

To your points.

1. I have been in only one bravo - a very nice one with a much cleaner tks install than mine and it was at least 10kts slower - probably closer to your 15 - and as I said mine seems to be a slower than usual rocket.

2. Longer cabin is purely behind the pilots seats. So enjoyment for the passengers for sure.

4. You gave a point to Bravo for being factory and so easier to find support - actually rocket engineering has been one of THE best aviation companies I have ever had the need to work with. Better than the two airframe manufacturers I have dealt with (for my former Diamond and my current Mooney).

5. I don't think so - comparing an early 1990s Bravo to an mid 1980s Rocket airframe - if the both have original panels then you are looking at some out of date steam gauge on both airplanes. What you find on the airplane you shop will be a function of how much updating has happened since. This is a case by case thing - shop the airplane on the avionics you find and the condition of the 20 or 30 year old airframe and avionics. And paint and interior, and upkeep over all - unless you are looking to by a 3 or 5 year old airplane that still has the new airplane smell - the steady upkeep/upgrade cycle makes some 20 or 30 year airplanes sparkle compared to others and I think that is more important than statements like a rocket will be more or less up to date than a bravo or what not.

I was very close to a Bravo about 3 months before I got this rocket, but the timing was not quite right regarding selling my diamond. I am sure it would have been super. I am very happy with what I got though and I am sure there is very little difference to my utility either way. And my rocket is faster, but I consider that is just for bragging rights because in the real world it makes little difference in the time you arrive if you are going 195kts in one plane and 208kts in another for 2 hours. Do the math and check me out about how few minutes we are talking about when covering say 450mi. (I am a math prof so I am in the habit of assigning homework problems. :-) )

Bravo back leg room is purely theoretical. You can't put adults in the back seats of a TKS Bravo and ever expect to be under the landing weight with any reasonable amount of reserve fuel. Where the back room shines is skis and fishing poles. It's a wonderful 2 adult aircraft with room for everything plus the kitchen sink.

I don't know if the speed difference is that much between to airplanes, but Bravo will burn fuel. The airplane will simply run LOP without loosing 10 to 15 knots.

[M016576]

I beg to differ. The climb rates of either TBM or Pilatus are not that much different than a Bravo or a Rocket. I have flown in both, I have access to a Pilatus and if I was stupid enough to launch into frontal icing situation, I'll take TKS over boots any day. Vastly superior deicing system. With TKS as long a you have fluid, there is very little ice including SLD and freezing rain you can't handle. Like I said, if you're stupid enough. I'll deal with all the en route ice you want to throw at me, but not at take off or landing.

TKS also shines where boots fail, at slow speed, during a climb or an approach. The fluid dispersion rate is constant but at slower speeds it leaves the wing surface more slowly. Boots really need speed to shed the ice.

Turbine engine.

I've got about 1200 hrs in a PC-12. I've got another 100 or so hours flying a different aircraft with a PT-6A powering it. I cannot think of a single instance where i'd rather be flying in icing in a piston aircraft over a turbine. And yes, I've been in severe icing in the PC-12 with the boots on. They worked well for me. I'd prefer to never see icing again. But my point is that I'd more expect the power plant to go (if its piston powered) in those situations than the de-icing system.

I'd check your numbers again... This time for a similar load. I'm fairly certain you'll find the PC-12 a better aircraft (albeit much more expensive).

[230KT]

If you *have* to dispatch year-round for business reasons, I don't see how non-FIKI TKS will help you. You can't legally launch into a winter overcast with an icing airmet without FIKI.

There's an icing discussion available (see link below), but the latest FAA interpretation that I'm aware of is that it is the "composite" information, not an icing airmet alone, that would constitute grounds for an FAA enforcement action.

See the following discussion and scroll down till you get to the post about the FAA's 2009 interpretation of "known icing":

http://mooneyspace.c...s-non-fiki-tks/

Here's a link to the FAA Chief Counsel's letter of interpretation:

Click here for full text: .../interps/2009/Bell.pdf

Understand I'm talking about being legal here, not being safe.

[aviatoreb]

Bravo back leg room is purely theoretical. You can't put adults in the back seats of a TKS Bravo and ever expect to be under the landing weight with any reasonable amount of reserve fuel. Where the back room shines is skis and fishing poles. It's a wonderful 2 adult aircraft with room for everything plus the kitchen sink.

I don't know if the speed difference is that much between to airplanes, but Bravo will burn fuel. The airplane will simply run LOP without loosing 10 to 15 knots.

Rockets can burn a lot of fuel too.

I often carry two people and full size 29'er MTn bikes and fishing poles w my son who loves "fly fishing" - he picks a northeast destination w fishing nearish to an airport - we fly there and ride bikes maybe 10 mi to a fishing spot.

I have also carries skis - even my Xc skis which are 207cms. Although they go into the hat rack. All the way to almost to between front seats. All the big stuff and I need rear seats down. It's pretty big that way - not as big as an m20 m maybe but still big.

Maybe I can take from what fluffy said about turbo and ice... The approved thing to do w ice is to get out of ice ASAP. With of without tks - and a powerful turbo engine facilitates that. My take on what was said.

As far as dual alternators on the m20m - that's great - but remember the rocket mod includes something unusual And special which is two 35amp batteries - that is a huge electrical reserve - but I do not know how long it will run tks pumps - anyone here know ? I suspect close to the amount of time you have fluid to run

[jetdriven]

Turbo horsepower and climbing out of the ice can be an even better solution than an airplane such as an M20J with TKS that can only climb 500 FPM or less. However, if I am planning to fly in visible moisture below 5C, and there arent thousands of feet of clear air under me as an option, or the airplane is K-ICE, I am not going. Icing is a trap.

I would make an exception for a TKS Rocket or similar if it was clear VMC above.

[AndyFromCB]

Turbine engine.

I've got about 1200 hrs in a PC-12. I've got another 100 or so hours flying a different aircraft with a PT-6A powering it. I cannot think of a single instance where i'd rather be flying in icing in a piston aircraft over a turbine. And yes, I've been in severe icing in the PC-12 with the boots on. They worked well for me. I'd prefer to never see icing again. But my point is that I'd more expect the power plant to go (if its piston powered) in those situations than the de-icing system.

I'd check your numbers again... This time for a similar load. I'm fairly certain you'll find the PC-12 a better aircraft (albeit much more expensive).

No doubt that PC-12 is a better aircraft and the turbine aircraft is more reliable overall. I'm just making a point that the PC12 climb rate is not that spectacular when fully loaded. In both cases, Mooney with TKS or Pilatus/TBM, I'd be doing a zoom climb thru a layer. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have no desire to ever again take off or land into a frontal weather system. I use my TKS to climb or descent thru a known layer of less than 3000 to 5000 feet to VFR on top. I'll cross a front up high, at 90 degree angle where my exposure is less than 15 minutes or so with TKS. But I will not attempt to climb thru one. Where the TKS shines is the overall coverage of the entire airframe. Nothing but wing tips and landing lights gets covered.

I personally still think a TKS Mooney would not have bit the dust the way that TBM did last year in NJ. I wouldn't have taken off in anything less than a hot wing jet into that weather but I'm just saying. I've never seen my TKS even remotely close to being overwhelmed.

PC-12 climb rate is about 1600fpm last time I looked, Bravo will do 1300fpm. Like I said, not that much of a difference when it comes to ice. Neither is an EPIC or Lancair Evo where 4000fpm makes deicing equipment a moot point.