Mooney confusion: Rocket, Missile

[benpilot]

 

Folks,

 

What the heck is a Rocket conversion or Mooney Missile conversion for a 201J model? I notice some planes cost 2x as much with this.

[mooniac58]

The Rocket is as the name implies.  It is a conversion to a 305HP turbo charged TSIO-520 engine.  I got the pleasure of flying one of these for a friend from Albuquerque to Santa Fe.  Thing was a serious bat out of hell and I smiled all the way, the climb performance and speed made it hard to fly my J model for many months!  This ship will true out at 225-230KTS at altitude.

 

The Missile was the conversion to a normally aspirated 300HP IO-550 engine.  It will cruise at 180-190KTS.

 

Both conversions are discontinued by Rocket Engineering so they hold their value pretty darn well.  Both are a lot more airplane than a standard 201J for sure.

[benpilot]

Wow thats amazing! Almost like Acclaim S performance for way less cash. Now I am interested! My only concern is maintenance costs and overhaul costs.

[RJBrown]

The Missile is a conversion to J/201 aircraft. It removes the 4 cylinder Lycoming and installs a 550 ci Continental normaly aspirated engine. They are comparable to and slightly faster than the Ovation/Eagle. The Rocket is the conversion done to K/231/252 airframes. It uses the power unit as certified in a Cessna 340. It consists of a Continental TSIO 520NB and a full feathering prop. Rocket will do 200 @ 12,000' and 238 @ 24,000' on 20 gal per hour. It is turbocharged uses two inter coolers and an automatic turbo controller. Rocket Engineering is still in business and supports the conversions. Currently they do turbo prop conversions to Malibu and other planes. Performance exceeds the TLS/Bravo and is comparable to the Acclaim. Both conversions are shorter, lighter airframes than the comparable factory offering. They both use an engine mount that connects to the airframe at eight points and is stronger than how Mooney did it. Maintainence is no more than the stock Ovation/Eagle, TLS/Acclaim. Both got a gross weight increase to 3200#. Speed brakes and long range tanks are a very useful addition to both. The Rocket should really have both upgrades.

[carusoam]

Once you fly a Rocket, there is no going back!

Nice descriptions RJ. Rocket Engineering has done some nice work that has stood the test of time very well.

Best regards,

-a-

[benpilot]

 

Cool thanks for the explanation! Now I know what kind of Mooney I want! How reliable are the Rocket and Missile conversions on the K and J models? Are they any more expensive or difficult to maintain? If I end up getting into a Mooney, thats the plane to buy for my budget. Sure if I have an extra 400-500k around, an Ovation or Acclaim would be nice to own but for under 200k, the Rocket or Missile conversions are tough to beat for incredible performance.

[carusoam]

Take a good look at the market...

While looking at a Missile and other Js, I fell into an early Ovation. The Ovation fits a family of four more comfortably.

The plane market became disorganized since 2008 along with the financial markets, exacerbated by the high price of fuel.

Visit All American Aircraft either on line or better in person. They specialize in Mooneys. They are a great source of information. They always have several in their shop for comparison.

Looking doesn't cost a thing, staying too long.....

Good luck,

-a-

[David Mazer]

I can't tell you the comparison, only having a Rocket, but I can tell you that my maintenance costs have been reasonable.  Annuals are under $3,000 except when the engine needed to be rebuilt due to damage from Mooney Mart and Coy Jacobs and isn't a reflection on the airplane.  Performance is exceptional with climbs at 140 kts and 1,000 ft/min alone and 900 ft/min with a passenger.  If I want to go up fast, 1,200 - 1,400 ft/min at 110 kts is easy.  Fuel flows are from 14.5 gph at minimal power settings 25/2300 to 28 gph for a couple min during climb.  I typically fly at 29/2300 with fuel flows in the 18.4 gph range.  Even at low altitudes of 8,000, something ATC demands here in FL all the time, I see about 180 TAS.  Altitude makes a huge difference.  At 18000 ft I would be close to 200 kts and at 25000 ft about 205-210.

 

I think all the Rockets have long range tanks and speed brakes and you really need them.  With this over sized engine it is very easy to build up speed very fast and it is a slow process to power down due to the turbo.  Weight management is easy if you manage your fuel.  I usually only fill the mains to 80 gal (about 4 hrs without reserve) and that gives me another 180 lbs of stuff.  I don't go over gross weight but I often fly at gross and I can't even tell the difference.  Hot weather, cold weather, full, empty, the plane jumps off the ground and flies like a bat out of hell.

 

Some have TKS but none have FIKI.  I don't and wish I did.

 

They are traveling machines and not for puttering around the patch, IMHO.  The F or J would be much more reasonable at 8-10 gph for short flights for $100 hamburgers if you could get one for that cheap after starting your engine.

 

Rocket has been very supportive with answers and others have been able to get parts as needed.  Fortunately, in the 6 years I've had her she hasn't needed any from them.

[benpilot]

Thanks David, this is very encouraging. If I like flying the club's local Mooney 252 after my PPL then I will search for a good Mooney Rocket!

[David Mazer]

A 252 is a marvelous airplane.  You might consider it rather than a Rocket.  Some consider it the best compromise of attributes in the Mooney line up.  A little slower and less fuel than the Rocket, A little faster, more fuel, and lots more altitude capable than the non-turbo models.  I would have considered a 252 but my mission at the time better suited a Rocket or Bravo.

[jlunseth]

We have had these discussions (about the Missile and the Rocket) before.  Great planes!  Cannot be equipped for flight into known ice.

[RJBrown]

A thought about speed brakes on a Rocket. 45% is the lowest power setting they want you to run the engine for any extended time. That equals about 70%, or normal cruise, with the original engine. That means you are trying to decend at normal cruise power for a stock 231. Prior to installing speed brakes on my Rocket I flew a maintenance check flight to 26,000' to verify proper power at altitude. 18 minutes from KAPA to BRK vor and 26,000', including center leveling me off twice for traffic. It took twice as long to get back down.

Unless you can use a cruise decent from over 100 miles out it is tough to stay under redline without speed brakes. For decent planning a Rocket is the most critical of all planes. It really is harder to get one down than to get one up.  From high altitudes the decent rate in the thin air to get you up against redline is less. If you can get the flexibility to start a decent from 24K early you can use the altitude to keep your speed up for a long time. As you decend and the air gets thicker the decent rate goes up to maintain the same speed. Over the terrain east of here center is the only impediment to a smooth decent.

 A worst case senario is the LARKS arrival into KAPA. They bring you accross the mountains high and profile your decent as if you were a jet going all the way to Falcon VOR and landing at KDEN. Once center hands you off to approach you are almost to CASSE NDB but 10,000' too high. Can you say slam dunk? At that point you either have speed brakes that allow that quick of a decent or you call the miss early and go around for a stabilized approach. One day I am screaming down at redline in the clear towards a 2000' agl cloud deck.  I am above 9000 on the glideslope in the clear and still doing 220 knots. I called the miss before I even got to the outer marker.

[benpilot]

 

Thanks guys for the tips on the differences between 201, Missile, Rocket and 252. Next step after PPL is to get checked out in the club Mooney.

[Mcxmike]

I've been flying a Rocket for 19 years now. Still a kick #*** unit. No problems, great conversion...!

[TWinter]

Are the TBOs times the same as on our traditional Mooneys? I thought someplace I read they were sooner? I know much more costly.

[Cody Stallings]

Tom, most all of the engines with hair dryers (turbo) have a shorter time between O/H..... I think they take a real beating being forced to breath. I'm not sure but 1800hrs comes to mind when I think of a 340 or 414.

[aaronk25]

Tom, most all of the engines with hair dryers (turbo) have a shorter time between O/H..... I think they take a real beating being forced to breath. I'm not sure but 1800hrs comes to mind when I think of a 340 or 414.

. I say not, if you keep oil temps 200 ish and Cht under 380. Might be surprised the engine makes 3000-4000 hours. The primary things that kill great aircraft engines is HEAT and infrequent operation.

Run it at 420cht in the climb with 230 oil temp have fun changing cylinders every 800 hours or sooner.

If a power plant is properly managed the turbo can be used to run farther LOP and keep temps down. Turbo is a great tool but at the hands of a inexperience operator it will kill a engine quick by cooking it to death.

Aaron

[TWinter]

Lots of good planes available for sale and the market is still soft. The Rocket is a great looking option, although the Missile, Rocket and 252 are all on the same playing field, but each offer an individual special feature setting them apart from the other . Being a family of just two of us (sometimes just, one..me) I think the Rocket would be very cool. My only concern was TBO and cost of OH.

 

I do like the fact, if I understand correctly, that the company that does the Rocket conversions is still up and going. I've always been a "Power-Performance" junky..hence my previous toys over the past years, 600 hp Boss Hoss V8 Motorcycle addiction (nothing like a 1200 lb motorcycle), or 408 cubic inch Vengence Racing Corvette Z06 (900 hp).  

 

Both of those toys are long gone in favor of following up on my previously lost passion of flying. So far picking up the passion to fly again has been a blast over the past few years. All the toy $ has been put into my M20 and it is nearly complete (maybe..LOL).

 

Maybe a Rocket would be the next step?...or maybe too big of a step considering my skill level at this point. I do plan to keep the flying passion alive. I like the challenge of improving my flying skills and learning...something the previous hobbies did not do. A Rocket, Missile or 252 would be a handfull of challenge I'm sure  ..A big problem and kind of silly, but I love my regular throttle, not a push-pull, but quad style. I have not seen any of the above in the quad style throttle, all the ones I've seen are push/pull. I'm sure there must be one someplace, but that's one feature I like on my M20. Oh well, not my thread, just thinking out-loud...next

[Cody Stallings]

Garrett Frost in marianna Arkansas has a 252 for sale, it has a fresh engine an a MT composite prop De-ice.Really nice plane..... It's at Frost flying service

[carusoam]

Because of the economy and related low interest rates...

Any long body with 310hp and TopProp (or similar) should be on your list.

Control CHTs and oilT as any other powerplant. Or run flat out at higher expense, the choice is yours.

Best regards,

-a-

[benpilot]

 

I also prefer the lever based quadrant controls over the push/pull controls. One thing that I really like about planes like Piper and Socata is that they have this over the push/pull controls. 

[KSMooniac]

I hope to be changing my quadrant controls later this year for conventional and will be happy to sell them! Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

[Seth]

I owened a 1967 M20F and then upgraded to a 1983 M20J Missile 300.

 

Wow.

 

It is fast. 

 

For my flying, not near the mountains on the east coast, I didn't need the turbo.  I get 175-185 knots regularly depending on what mood I'm in speed and fuel burn wise.  The largest negative is the higher fuel burn, which can dial down if you want to go slower.  However, if you can go fast, it's hard not to use it.  Still an efficient plane, just not as efficient as the M20J or 252.

 

Great speed, great climb - a true hot rod without the turbo of the Rocket.

 

Cost wise, it's just like a J to maintain except for a few parts to watch (exaust, engine management - which could b esaid for the J as well, higher engine reserve) .  Also, the fuel per hour is greater, but so is the distance traveled. 

 

It also is a heavier plane than the F (and J) and thus get the weight increase.  There is a lot of extra weight on that nose.

 

PM me and I'll give you more details.  It is indeed a fast plane.  There's a TKS Missile for sale right now on the board.

 

Take care,

 

-Seth

[Schllc]

Anyone know what the average rocket UL is?

also what would it would cost for a rocket to get the gross weight increase to 3200#?

Is this the same as the encore conversion?

[PJClark]

My Rocket UL is 920#, but thats after removal of almost everything 86 vintage. Started out at 840 or so.

I have seen 231 rocket conversions for sale with ULs at 1050 and 1140 respectively, so 231 based Rockets may somehow have more.

I do not think it's possible to be a Rocket and not have 3200# gw increase. It's a logbook entry there are no parts.