Mooney Rocket..... Houston, we have a problem.

Ectually, it was the OP who first uttered the "B" word by way of the "A" style. He was on the right track, just the wrong prefix.

The only Bo that's gonna come close is the TC version of the V tail, either factory, or STC. It won't do Rocket numbers but it'll do 200Kts up high.

Either way it a two hop trip. Gotta come down around ABQ for just about any of the fast ones. I suppose a Bo with tips and aux tank could do one hop but that's a lot of butt time in a SE plane.
 
What's the diff between the V tails and the A36s? Seems that they are both priced about the same.
 
Henning said:
In general or a 252? The 252 is fast at altitude, fast enough I wonder if you can't get into Vne trouble up high.:dunno: The TSIO 520 NB is the later 340 engine with 310hp, but the add for the 252s say 300, I wonder if they derated it or if it's inaccurate in the ad.:dunno:

I would think you should be able to maintain an efficient 210kt cruise at 17-18gph in the sub flight levels, maybe better.
Click to expand...

Here's the specs for the rocket: http://www.rocketengineering.com/content/mooney-305-rocket

The 252 has 210 HP out of a TSIO360.
 
Unit74 said:
What's the diff between the V tails and the A36s? Seems that they are both priced about the same.
Click to expand...

:confused: different fuselage, it's a 4 seater, and only the nicest, latest models of the 35 are at the same price as the junkiest, earliest of the A-36s. To me the 'best of breed' is the S-35, preferably with a turbo kit.
 
First I'm incredibly impressed that you get 129 kts in an Archer. Second, the Mooneys are fast econimical planes. I'm not ver knowledgeable about anything beyond the G model. I did find a ride in the back seat of Kent's Ovation surprisingly comfortable but did not like the limited view forward from the back seat, but that's just my obsession as a pilot.

As a soon to be family of five however I question whether a Mooney will meet your families needs for more than a couple of years.
 
AdamZ said:
As a soon to be family of five however I question whether a Mooney will meet your families needs for more than a couple of years.
Click to expand...
yup....he's falling in love with the wrong ride.

a Six or a Toga....is more like it till the kids move away.:yes:


or if he has the bling for the "S" class......go for the TN A36.:rofl:
 
jesse said:
I like the m20j but personally think of it as a two person airplane. 1 small kid would be fine. Just not enough room for much more imo.
Click to expand...

That is completely false. I've routinely taken 4 adults on weekend trips of 450-500 NM with ease in my J. It is very doable and comfortable if you don't have a heavy plane with limited useful load. There is quite a bit of room in the backseat of a F or J or later model Mooney once the front seats are occupied and moved forward to the normal position.
 
KSMooniac said:
That is completely false. I've routinely taken 4 adults on weekend trips of 450-500 NM with ease in my J. It is very doable and comfortable if you don't have a heavy plane with limited useful load. There is quite a bit of room in the backseat of a F or J or later model Mooney once the front seats are occupied and moved forward to the normal position.
Click to expand...
let's just say....I'll put those same in the back of my plane....and no skin will touch....or knees knock the back of the front seat....or on anything for that matter.

and I bet those same folks ride just fine in the back of a Yugo too..... :D
 
AdamZ said:
First I'm incredibly impressed that you get 129 kts in an Archer. .
Click to expand...


Firewalled yes, but I usually pull it back to 125. New engine, most of Knotts to you catalog thrown at it. It didn't believe it till I saw it as well.
 
KSMooniac said:
That is completely false. I've routinely taken 4 adults on weekend trips of 450-500 NM with ease in my J. It is very doable and comfortable if you don't have a heavy plane with limited useful load. There is quite a bit of room in the backseat of a F or J or later model Mooney once the front seats are occupied and moved forward to the normal position.
Click to expand...

Of course it can be done. It doesn't mean it can be done as comfortable as it's done in a Bo. We can agree to disagree. I've flown the M20J plenty. Their speed for fuel burn is indeed impressive. That's the end of where I am impressed with them. I don't like how they handle, I don't find them comfortable in any seat, and if I were needing to take 4 people somewhere and had a Bo and a Mooney on the ramp I would take the Bo every time. And yes, I've been in that situation, with both available.

And..as I said above..I sure the hell wouldn't want to have to maintain one. I'd prefer to wrench on a Bo ANY DAY.
 
KSMooniac said:
That is completely false. I've routinely taken 4 adults on weekend trips of 450-500 NM with ease in my J. It is very doable and comfortable if you don't have a heavy plane with limited useful load. There is quite a bit of room in the backseat of a F or J or later model Mooney once the front seats are occupied and moved forward to the normal position.
Click to expand...

Relax, Jesse just said it was his opinion that is was a 2 person plane.

Unit74 said:
Firewalled yes, but I usually pull it back to 125. New engine, most of Knotts to you catalog thrown at it. It didn't believe it till I saw it as well.
Click to expand...

Still 125 is great. I haven't seen above 115 in an Archer for many years but I guess that's the price one pays for being a renter.
 
AdamZ said:
Still 125 is great. I haven't seen above 115 in an Archer for many years but I guess that's the price one pays for being a renter.
Click to expand...

I thought that was a good number. Having a flown a 180 cherokee, I never saw much past 112 or so. I thought maybe the archers were slicker.
 
Brian] can vouch for me on the numbers. We flew to Gaston s in it this year.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
let's just say....I'll put those same in the back of my plane....and no skin will touch....or knees knock the back of the front seat....or on anything for that matter.
Click to expand...

That doesn't happen in the back of a mid-body or long-body Mooney either.
 
jesse said:
And..as I said above..I sure the hell wouldn't want to have to maintain one. I'd prefer to wrench on a Bo ANY DAY.
Click to expand...


What's the reason for your opinion there? Are the Mooney's so complex? Built odd? More maintenance required for some reason?

Just curious, it's the first time I've heard someone say that.
 
TheTraveler said:
What's the reason for your opinion there? Are the Mooney's so complex? Built odd? More maintenance required for some reason?

Just curious, it's the first time I've heard someone say that.
Click to expand...

Not the poster, but things are tightly packed in a Mooney. The older versions are worse.
 
Mooneys are efficient because they pack a lot of systems into a small volume, making some maintenance operations more difficult than other planes. I haven't wrenched on a lot of other planes so I don't have a broad basis for comparison. There isn't anything complex, and in fact, it is quite the opposite, with generally simple & robust systems.

For instance, the gear suspension consists of rubber donuts instead of oleos that need servicing. The donuts last ~10 years +/- before they need to be changed. The gear needs a pre-load check every annual with Mooney-specific tools, but it is easy. There are no weird hydraulic parts like Cessna gear, or expensive castings that crack.

The control system consists completely of pushrods and bell cranks, with no pulleys and cables anywhere. Doesn't really need any adjusting, just lubrication on the ball joints and bearings at annual.

Having said that, doing non-routine maintenance like changing mags or prop governor that sit on the back of a Lycoming is difficult due to proximity to the firewall. There is not a lot of extra space when working back there. Otherwise, changing plugs, oil, exhaust, alternator, starter, etc. are similar to any other plane. Working under the panel sucks...probably more so than many other planes. I'm currently doing a lot of that right now with some major mods, and even with the seats out it is a contortionist act. Thankfully it isn't a common activity.

I'd stack it up against any other airplane in the class and doubt you'll find one that is cheaper to run when looking at a per mile metric in terms of total operating cost. That means fuel and maintenance.
 
jesse said:
I like the m20j but personally think of it as a two person airplane. 1 small kid would be fine. Just not enough room for much more imo.
Click to expand...

Brian here is 6' tall 185lbs.

Gotta disagree. Its no A36 but it does 160ktas on 9gph with 950 useful load. There is lots of leg room in the back of a J

The Rocket sounds great.
 

Attachments

  • M20J.jpg
    M20J.jpg
    90.8 KB · Views: 63
So - let's recap:
- Mom & Dad
- 4 year old and a 6 year old
- one on the way...

For an aircraft that will be useable for 10 years or more and travel from Arkansas to SOCAL. Starting to think the Mooney and V-Tail are out.

Question for the gurus: if he were to fly the Archer for a couple of years, will his insurance rate quotes go down for the *36/C210/toga/twin...
 
brian];1601350 said:
So - let's recap:
- Mom & Dad
- 4 year old and a 6 year old
- one on the way...

For an aircraft that will be useable for 10 years or more and travel from Arkansas to SOCAL. Starting to think the Mooney and V-Tail are out.

Question for the gurus: if he were to fly the Archer for a couple of years, will his insurance rate quotes go down for the *36/C210/toga/twin...
Click to expand...

Missed the part where he is about to have 3 kids. Get a PA32R or A36 with club seating in the rear. Mom can sit in the back with the kids and you can sit up front and do the flying.

Or just get your rocket and only take guys weekend fishing trips
 
Brian

AOPA insurance told me I'd need 100 hours complex HP before my rate would drop with the carriers.
 
Unit74 said:
Brian



AOPA insurance told me I'd need 100 hours complex HP before my rate would drop with the carriers.
Click to expand...


If you get your instrument rating it drops a lot, I only had 5 hrs in complex, but 150 with
PP and IR
 
brian];1601350 said:
So - let's recap:
- Mom & Dad
- 4 year old and a 6 year old
- one on the way...

For an aircraft that will be useable for 10 years or more and travel from Arkansas to SOCAL. Starting to think the Mooney and V-Tail are out.

Question for the gurus: if he were to fly the Archer for a couple of years, will his insurance rate quotes go down for the *36/C210/toga/twin...
Click to expand...

Depends on TT. If you wait too long to transition to complex airplanes, your initial 100hr hit actually goes up. I assume this is because you are more set in your routines.
 
Unit74 said:
Brian

AOPA insurance told me I'd need 100 hours complex HP before my rate would drop with the carriers.
Click to expand...

Yep, the first hundred hours is always a hit, doesn't matter too much how early you take it.
 
Rockets are fast and fun but burn a LOT of fuel like 18-25gph when cruising at full max cruise and prop clearance is VERY low. Plus you WEAR a Mooney and only have room for 1-2 pax besides yourself. Otherwise a great single or 2 passenger fast aircraft.
 
A Rocket can cruise along quite efficiently when flown LOP too. I flew one on a trip this summer and was using <14 GPH. They can also hold (and more importantly climb quickly) with 4 adults on board due to all of the excess HP.
 
Henning said:
Comfort and control balance is the big thing I notice. The only Mooney I was comfortable in was retrofitted with Reccaro seats. I would get out of my Travelair and into my buddy's M-20D and it felt heavy. Outside of that I thought it was okay. Definitely less work to hand fly IFR. Also Mooneys are more claustrophobic due to the small windows, that's why people think they are so small when they really aren't. The big difference is sitting on the floor though.
Click to expand...

I'm six foot, 195 lbs. the mooney 201 and the super 21 are the only two I've flown....about a total of 400 hours. In neither one was I cramped or uncomfortable nor did I have "special seats" I've owned two porches. I Don't feel cramped in the porsche either. A mooney reminds me of a porsche in the way one sits and interior size wise. I like both car and airplane a lot. It's all about the mission which is true with the porsche as well as the mooney. The back seat of a mooney is ok for a child or some luggage, same as the porsche. They both haul azz and are great fun to fly and drive. Fly a 201 and see what you think. Personally I stay away from turbos. Can become very expensive very quickly.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
I'm six foot, 195 lbs. the mooney 201 and the super 21 are the only two I've flown....about a total of 400 hours. In neither one was I cramped or uncomfortable nor did I have "special seats" I've owned two porches. I Don't feel cramped in the porsche either. A mooney reminds me of a porsche in the way one sits and interior size wise. I like both car and airplane a lot. It's all about the mission which is true with the porsche as well as the mooney. The back seat of a mooney is ok for a child or some luggage, same as the porsche. They both haul azz and are great fun to fly and drive.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that except calling the Mooney, "fun to fly" that is one thing it wasn't for me. It was ok and efficient for traveling, but as far as responsiveness and weight of the controls, I never thought it 'fun'. That is where the Beech shines. However, the same characteristic set makes the Mooney easier to hand fly IFR. Like you said, it's all about mission and what you like.
 
Henning said:
I don't disagree with any of that except calling the Mooney, "fun to fly" that is one thing it wasn't for me. It was ok and efficient for traveling, but as far as responsiveness and weight of the controls, I never thought it 'fun'. That is where the Beech shines. However, the same characteristic set makes the Mooney easier to hand fly IFR. Like you said, it's all about mission and what you like.
Click to expand...

To me the money was great fun. Handles well, fast, climbs well, easy to land short if you follow the rules on final, etc. very versatile. I always picture the mooney as a porsche and the bonanza as a Buick. Both are very nice airplanes.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
To me the money was great fun. Handles well, fast, climbs well, easy to land short if you follow the rules on final, etc. very versatile. I always picture the mooney as a porsche and the bonanza as a Buick. Both are very nice airplanes.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this, have you flown a Bonanza or Baron?
 
Yes I have only flown a bonanza, never any other beech except a sundowner. The bonanza was very nice to fly, stable and so forth. I would personally chose a mooney but that's only my choice. As for maintence, that's not my bag. Was never interested in learning but have always been a big listener around airplane mechanics. My only interest was to find someone adept in keeping it flying and paying them.
 
Last edited:
I can vouch for the Rocket. I've owned 5 Mooney's, of which the most recent is a 1980 Rocket. I love it! I was back and forth between the Rocket and a Bravo, but think I made the right decision. The engine runs amazingly cool, it's smooth, the engineering of the conversion never ceases to amaze and it's a blast to fly! I've seen ground speeds as high as 300 Knots (love to get up high and catch a tail wind). Took it out one day, set it at 35/25, pointed it at the sky and climbed to 12k at 1500 fpm. Climb and cruise are awesome. Regularly see 200 KTAS at altitude with a burn of 20 gph or less (I don't run LOP).

I hope that helps.
 
skynewbie said:
Rockets are fast and fun but burn a LOT of fuel like 18-25gph when cruising at full max cruise and prop clearance is VERY low. Plus you WEAR a Mooney and only have room for 1-2 pax besides yourself. Otherwise a great single or 2 passenger fast aircraft.
Click to expand...

Rockets burn lots of fuel ROP, less fuel LOP, but they convert it to groundspeed very rapidly. I've seen Rockets go ~180 knots on ~12 gph when lean.

My C is somewhat cramped in the back, and it's correctly called a short body. An hour or two is about the nice travel limit for 4 adults, but I've known some to go 3-4 hours that way.

Rockets are built using mid-length Mooneys. The F / G / J / K have extra back seat leg room and additional baggage space compared to my C. I've ridden in the back of an F, it's rather like the back seat of a 182.

Starting with the L, they are called long bodies, and are two feet longer than the mid-bodies. Additional cowl for the two extra cylinders, additional back seat space, additional baggage space.

I've flown an A36. Speed is addictive, climb rates are great. My problems with Bonanzas are simple:

- acquisition cost
- fuel burn (50% more fuel for 25% more speed; outrageous takeoff flow)
- parts prices from Beech. What will they be from Cessna?

Sure, Bo's have larger side windows, and you sit on top of the spar not in front of it, which puts you higher off the floor. And the long gear puts you higher off the ground. Mooneys have 10" prop clearance, enough for me to visit grass strips and taxi to GAC at Sun-n-Fun. There is no oleo on the nose wheel to collapse and put the prop closer to the ground, just three solid rubber pucks. Missiles have heavy engines, so those $300 worth of pucks will probably need to be replace in 8-10 years, while mine should last 15 or more.

Lots of inaccurate rumors passed by people with little or no direct experience here. Visit Mooneyspace and see what Rocket owners say about them.
 
Hank S said:
Rockets burn lots of fuel ROP, less fuel LOP, but they convert it to groundspeed very rapidly. I've seen Rockets go ~180 knots on ~12 gph when lean.

My C is somewhat cramped in the back, and it's correctly called a short body. An hour or two is about the nice travel limit for 4 adults, but I've known some to go 3-4 hours that way.

Rockets are built using mid-length Mooneys. The F / G / J / K have extra back seat leg room and additional baggage space compared to my C. I've ridden in the back of an F, it's rather like the back seat of a 182.

Starting with the L, they are called long bodies, and are two feet longer than the mid-bodies. Additional cowl for the two extra cylinders, additional back seat space, additional baggage space.

I've flown an A36. Speed is addictive, climb rates are great. My problems with Bonanzas are simple:

- acquisition cost
- fuel burn (50% more fuel for 25% more speed; outrageous takeoff flow)
- parts prices from Beech. What will they be from Cessna?

Sure, Bo's have larger side windows, and you sit on top of the spar not in front of it, which puts you higher off the floor. And the long gear puts you higher off the ground. Mooneys have 10" prop clearance, enough for me to visit grass strips and taxi to GAC at Sun-n-Fun. There is no oleo on the nose wheel to collapse and put the prop closer to the ground, just three solid rubber pucks. Missiles have heavy engines, so those $300 worth of pucks will probably need to be replace in 8-10 years, while mine should last 15 or more.

Lots of inaccurate rumors passed by people with little or no direct experience here. Visit Mooneyspace and see what Rocket owners say about them.
Click to expand...

Beech and Cessna parts have been equally expensive and comparable with Piper and Mooney parts. I have yet to see an aircraft manufacturer with cheap parts. However, the amount of parts I have had to buy from a manufacture parts supply I could count on one hand for 4 planes over 25 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top