SkepticalJohn

When I got mine, stock Rocket setup, I'm not sure how the previous guy was keeping it in CG. Having only two folks (350# total) in the fronts seat, required the full stack of Charlie weights in the tail and 100 pounds in the baggage to be in CG (I found camping water bags worked well for ballast - easy to fill when needed, empty on ramp when not) . I had the plane rebuilt and changed a lot of things - vacuum system delete, prop, avionics, etc... after rebuild I was able to delete all of the lead weights and quit carrying around ballast in the baggage. Most of the change was attributed to the prop, but they all helped a little. You can get an idea of what your change would be by doing a regular W+B and subtracting 37lbs (someone please help confirm the difference in sock vs MT) at the station of the prop. John

Similar smoothness experience here - the mechanic got mine dynamically balanced (ie: installed on a running engine producing 100% power) within .02 ips. Coincidentally, .02 was the same target we used to seek, balancing the props on a King Air 200 I used to fly. The MT 4-blade is literally turboprop-smooth. John

The front of my 4-bladed MT is gray with white stripes, the back (facing the cockpit) is black. I've had no issues with paint.

My situation is similar, I rarely use reverse. But when I do use it, it's either needed or it adds another safety option. If there were a slippery runway, brake failure (one or both), or running out of a runway that should've been long enough - it'd be nice to push a button and get 310 hp of stopping power. As long as someone doesn't use it like some Cirrus folks uses their parachutes, to get somewhere they have no business being, it's a great option to have. Not sure where the 9k or 10k folks are quoting for the MT with reverse. Mine, prop ready for my mech to install, complete with field approval, governor, shipping from Germany, was (going from memory) 32.7k. Maybe a 9k add-on to the regular MT 4 blade composite. John

Thanks, sir. Acorn Welding is indeed the company we used.

MT fixed that flaw years ago. My Mooney's reverse has several lockouts to prevent something like this happening. 3 criteria have to be met before the lock moves and it'll go into beta: Squat switch indicates on the ground, 1400 max engine RPM, 50 knots IAS. When those are met AND you press the reverse button, only then will it go into reverse.

On the jet I fly at work, I'd agree. When it comes to a Mooney Rocket, I couldn't disagree more. Per MT, I have the only Mooney with reverse. My plane will leave the ground on takeoff in ~1,000 ft ground roll. It will not land that short even with my reverse.

Note on the engine mount: there's a Canadian company that has a jig for the Rocket - at least they did have. Their name escapes me, but I can look it up in my receipts if anyone needs it. The way they got a jig... My mount needed some work when I had an engine overhaul completed. I couldn't find anyone with a jig and Rocket was less than helpful. I sent my mount to this Canadian company, had them make a jig from my mount, and repair my mount. It cost me quite a few AMUs to have them create the jig, so I'm assuming they kept it. Also of note: mine was a 252 converted to 305. Being a 1983, yours would've been a 231. I'll make no claim that the 231 conversion has the same mount. The Lord vibration isolation mounts recommended by Mr Stallings (referenced in an above post) have been flawless. John

Turks and Caicos. Anyone flown their Mooney there? Pointers for filing/flying into, places to stay/visit/avoid, gotchas, pointers for filing and return to the states? Also, we're looking to make this trip and staying all of next week. Before it's mentioned... yes the Bahamas are closer, we've been there a bunch(pre-covid), its beautiful, easy and we love it there. We don't like the face mask requirement and are speaking with our wallet while looking to literally expand our horizons. Thank you, John

Just renewed the Rocket insurance, down ~$50 from last year. Same coverage, still similar ratings and ~8k total hours in just over 28 years, obviously a year older @ 43. Hopefully next year is similar.

The changes I've noticed going from the original Rocket 3-blade to 4 was the smoothness, weight loss and reverse thrust. The 3 was smooth but the 4 is like silk. The mechanic balanced it to 0.02 ips - which is similar to turboprop smoothness. The plane lost ~35lbs with the composite 4-blade. Right where it needs weight-loss, on the nose. I haven't found any penalties - except cost. But if you're looking at the same price for each... If I had to do it again, even with the increased cost, I'd still pick the 4-blade MT composite.

Sorry for the long delay. Integrity Aviation in Kissimmee, FL (KISM) took my Rocket almost entirely apart and rebuilt everything. Zero squawks from the first day after assembly. John is super smart, has unshakable integrity and is experienced with the Rocket. I'd highly recommend him.

They gave me the option when i had them build my 4-blade. MT said they could make it with or without FIKI.

Speaking of tugs... in the 444 days it took to the mechanics to rebuild this plane, I built a pretty handy tug I've been planning on doing a writeup on.

One of the aircraft I fly at my military job has reverse - C12 (king air 200). Their (CAE, because flightsafety lost the contract) brief was no reverse below 40 kts, to include no backing up. They said if you DO use it to back up, don't hit the brakes or you'll slam the tail on the ground. That critter sets pretty high on long landing gear. I haven't used the brakes yet, backing up in the Rocket. It sets pretty low to the ground and I think it'd take some aggressive braking to drop the tail. I don't plan on testing that. Mike Patey used his reverse to put his plane, Draco, in the hangar. I'll use my tug and not test that either. If any of y'all are headed to SUN-n-FUN, my Mrs and I plan on being there a couple days and would like to put faces with names.