Getting closer: Mooney 201 versus Rocket

[brettinlj]

I've been a long time lurker here and posted a while back about my purchase thoughts:

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/5834-thinking-about-a-mooney/#entry75385

 

I have narrowed it down and keep coming back to the 201 or a Tiger, but most likely a 201 that I would buy myself outside of partnership. Recently though, new opportunity may have presented itself in the form of joining a 3 way partnership (currently it is 2 way) in a Rocket. I have no illusion about increased fuel burn, but the advantage of splitting fixed costs 3 ways mitigates that somewhat, especially given expensive hangar feeds in the Bay Area. I do have experience in a 252. There is some non-practical fun factor involved in something like a Rocket and flying something with that climb capability, so the equation is not 100% cost-benefit as you can imagine.

 

I would love some advice about questions to ask as I get more information about the partnership and the aircraft (the other two pilots are friends of a friend). Here is what I have come up with so far:

- How often does it fly (worried about corrosion as I was told "it is great because they hardly ever fly it and so the plane would usually be available")

- Modification specifics: Weight and balance, increased 3200lb gross weight?, larger fuel tanks?

- Last annual, compressions, known issues, SMOH

- How is engine overhaul reserve handled? Set aside per hour, factored into buy-in cost?

- Agreements if someone wants to leave the partnership, buy out share, etc

 

I am new to the Rocket and have been reading a lot of threads on here, especially those related to the Rocket versus a 201.  I think I have a handle on the variable cost considerations, so right now I'm looking at advantages I might get from  a well-maintained, known aircraft that would be highly available even if its high fuel burn will cost be a bit more per flight hour. Also, would appreciate perspective about the downsides of Rockets (ex. how bad is turbulence yaw, etc.) It isn't lost on me that the percentage of Rockets for sale versus other M20K's is disproportionate to the percentage of M20K's that have been modified.

 

Thanks in advance!

Brett

[HopePilot]

I almost bought a Rocket, but most of them, that I looked at, had nose gear collapses. I sure would have liked the speed, but most of the time my 201 exceeds the mission anyway.

[PMcClure]

Partnerships can be great. My approach is to keep it simple. If you can afford the plane on your own, then the partnership should be simple to manage. Where I see trouble is if someone cannot carry the weight and the other partners can't either. I had a F model in partnership and we flew it about 300-400 hours per year. Never had a scheduling problem that we couldn't work out. We split fixed expenses evenly and each partner had to put these in an operating account. We also put in $20 per hour for maintenance and the engine replacement. Mostly, the program was self funded and there was rarely assessments outside of these payments. We handled people needing to leave, selling shares etc... on a case by case basis. No written agreements and no problems. But again, the key for me was that the partnership was a convenience, not a necessity. This takes a lot of pressure off. 

[brettinlj]

Partnerships can be great. My approach is to keep it simple. If you can afford the plane on your own, then the partnership should be simple to manage. Where I see trouble is if someone cannot carry the weight and the other partners can't either. I had a F model in partnership and we flew it about 300-400 hours per year. Never had a scheduling problem that we couldn't work out. We split fixed expenses evenly and each partner had to put these in an operating account. We also put in $20 per hour for maintenance and the engine replacement. Mostly, the program was self funded and there was rarely assessments outside of these payments. We handled people needing to leave, selling shares etc... on a case by case basis. No written agreements and no problems. But again, the key for me was that the partnership was a convenience, not a necessity. This takes a lot of pressure off. 

 

Knowing you can afford the plane on you own is a good way of thinking about it. Realistically, I would be just fine if one partner left and it was a two way partnership for a period of time. If both left, I would be straining myself. I would not go bankrupt but would probably decide to sell and get something more simple as a choice. That is why I would definitely want things in writing and define a head of time how we handle partners deciding to leave.

[KSMooniac]

Partnerships are similar to a marriage...choose carefully and you'll have a great experience.  Choose poorly...notsomuch.  

 

That aside, you're comparing two vastly different planes.  What are your typical missions?  I'd agree that the idea of splitting fixed costs (hangar and taxes) out in crazy CA is very appealing since that is just money thrown away and much higher than most of the rest of the country.  I've not yet flown a Rocket but have two local friends with them and think they're vastly under-valued in the market today.  If it fits your mission, then splitting the fixed costs and using the savings to pay for more fuel might be a great trade.  If you're carrying more than 1 pax check the actual W&B and make sure you can legally carry what you want over the distances you think you'll be flying.

[FloridaMan]

Partners looking for someone always say that the plane is always available. Truth be told, they usually are always available. I've flown my plane about 200 hours since I first bought it back in June. In the, say, 36 weeks since I purchased it, I've been completely out of town for a 10 day trip that I knew of months in advance, a week-long trip that was supposed to be a weekend, but the plane (and pilot) needed its IFR currency up to date and I got stuck under weather, and one other planned week-long excursion. Extrapolate that out, and that means I flew it at a rate of close to 300 hours/year and the plane would have been more likely to be unavailable due to weather or maintenance than it being in use. 

 

With that said, I am very happy I own my plane by myself. I'd like to buy a second airplane for tooling around in (a Champ, J3, RV8, Aircam, et cetera) and a partnership would be fine for that. Hangars out here in Tampa Bay are crazy expensive. My hangar is 50 years old and in pretty bad condition and I pay over 500$/mo for it. 

 

The first plane on my list when I started shopping over three years ago was a Grumman Tiger. They're fast, fun, efficient, fixed gear and have excellent visibility. They're not as fast as the Mooney, their handling characteristics are similar in the pushrod controls, they're not as efficient, but you won't land them with your gear up. They're also, as I understand it, nowhere near the IFR platform that the Mooney is due to the wing loading making them less stable. If you damage a wing on a Tiger, you're looking at some serious expense because of the bonded honeycomb wing structure. There was also an issue with bad adhesive used in the manufacture of the earlier AA-5x Grummans. If the price is an issue, you can get a Mooney M20F for less that most Tigers go for. 

[brettinlj]

Partnerships are similar to a marriage...choose carefully and you'll have a great experience.  Choose poorly...notsomuch.  

 

That aside, you're comparing two vastly different planes.  What are your typical missions?  I'd agree that the idea of splitting fixed costs (hangar and taxes) out in crazy CA is very appealing since that is just money thrown away and much higher than most of the rest of the country.  I've not yet flown a Rocket but have two local friends with them and think they're vastly under-valued in the market today.  If it fits your mission, then splitting the fixed costs and using the savings to pay for more fuel might be a great trade.  If you're carrying more than 1 pax check the actual W&B and make sure you can legally carry what you want over the distances you think you'll be flying.

 

It is true that my typical mission does fit better with a 201, though I will still be doing trips with 1 pax and light bags in the 400 - 1000 nm range. Many trips will be short <200nm day trip cross countries with 2 pax and no bags, more often than flying locally and landing at the departure airport. Aside from local flights, the Rocket speed is an advantage, though not necessarily efficient. The total cost of ownership may be only slightly higher though, given the difference between a 3-way partnership and owning outright. I really want to find out everything I can about Rockets and about the partnership itself.

[carusoam]

Can you rent some time prior to buying in?

If you were to purchase a block of time, say 10 hours at $200/ hr or so, dry. This would give you a good fealing of the airplane and cover the costs of the use of the plane...

The old partners will get a feeling for you as well.

If it doesn't work well, you can go in your own direction, no harm, no foul...

Make sure your insurance is in proper condition.

Best regards,

-a-

[M016576]

For a 300nm flight, a M20J will do it in 1.8 (~155KTS), a rocket will do it in 1.5 (205KTS) at 12,000 ft. The rocket will burn more fuel and cost more to maintain and you'll be there about 15-20 minutes faster. I think if my mission regularly took me over 300NM, I'd start thinking about a rocket. If your mission is less than that, though, the J is pretty darned close, performance wise. The one thing the rocket has over the J, though, is that turbo, which will help you climb to higher altitudes, and very quickly, if you don't mind the O2. For a Bay Area flier, though, that is looking at a majority of <200 nm trips, it's hard to beat your own J model, vs fighting for a 1/3 share in a rocket! (The hangar cost splitting, though, is probably pretty enticing around ther. I heard hangar rent is upwards of $600 there, is that true?)

[bd32322]

I'd put less emphasis on speed and more on your need to outclimb conditions such as summer haze and buildups, inadvertent icing etc. I have been unable to outclimb some summer buildups over the teeny tiny east coast mountain ranges in the J and that made for a rough ride. And once in the haze one always worries about what thunderstorm cell is growing in there.

For a part of the country with mostly fair weather and 300 nm trips you cant beat a J.

Then again not everything is a numbers game. If you really want a rocket for just owning one of the fastest singles out there - go for it! I am trying to find one myself

[Smiles201]

I was in partnership with two others in a 201. Worked out great. There are partnership agreements available online, through AOPA. Having one partner is enough, takes the biggest bite out of the costs. If I could get in on a Rocket partnership, I would not think twice, even if I didn't really need the performance, especially if there was a good buy out clause, or if I lived in a area where there would be other interested partners to sell my share to. Remember, even though there are two other very agreeable owners, and the plane looks nice, need to do a pre-buy and consider negotiating the price a bit.

[brettinlj]

Great responses and ideas. I may take the advice of proposing to buy a block of time while we get a feel for each other and I get a feel for the airplane.  Here in the bay area hangar costs are well north of $600, often closer to $1000/mo and there are a few time I have wanted to go places like Mammoth and Tahoe but didn't have access to the right aircraft for it in the club that weekend. I do have access to a 252 to rent, so that does factor into my equation if I could justify keeping my club membership while also owning an aircraft.

 

It may be a week or two before I even see the plane for the first time due to my schedule, but I will keep you all posted. Thanks for the input.

[Hank]

If you can rent a 252 when needed, buy the J!! Then you'll have them both.

 

Boy, I like spending other people's money.   But you did ask.

[Bennett]

Having been in partnerships, flying clubs, and mostly individual ownership, I vote for personal ownership. As I once saw in an an advertisement: "The best part is just having the keys in your pocket". I've owned a Trophy 261 conversion (essentially a 231 converted to a 252 plus some speed modes) for about 16 years, and now a 201 for about 2 and a half years. I bought each of them with a different purpose in mind. The 261, with long range tanks (115 gallons) was the perfect machine for long flights from San Carlos,CA to FL, and then the British West Indies. I generally flew eastward well into the flight levels to get into the lower levels of the jet stream, and several winter trips were remarkable for their ground speed. I paid the price in fuel burn,

mostly in the climbs to altitude, cold cockpits, dry nose and mouth from the continual use of oxygen, and sore bottoms (sometimes seven hours at a stretch), and I was at gross at takeoff with just me, my survival gear, and full fuel. Yet she was a great aircraft for its purpose. Returning to CA almost always was flown at 14,000 - 16,000', or less, to avoid the same strong winds that were helpful eastbound. My 201 was purchased for fairly local pleasure flying, with some 600 to 1000 mile trips, and has proved to be perfect for that sort of flying. I can keep below oxygen altitudes all the way to Texas, and further east, by using the southern routes, for example: KSQL,OSI, SNS, PMD, Soggy, PSP, BLH.......... All in all, the 201 does everything I want, at lower costs (fuel and maintenance) than the 261, and as a fun aircraft, well Mooney had it right with this airplane.