louisut

1981 Mooney 305 Rocket (M20K Conversion) N1158N $28,000 for 25% share The Plane Hangared at Austin Executive (EDC) with valet service Performance - Fly cheap-ish (economy cruise): 160 KTAS @ 13 gph LOP - Fly fast (recommended cruise): 205 KTAS @ 22 gph ROP - Vy climb: 108 KTAS @ 1650 fpm - Cruise climb: 130 KTAS @ 1450 fpm - Certified ceiling: 24,000 (FL240). Allegedly it'll go higher. Useful load: 810 lbs (measured Apr 2020) Fuel capacity: 100 gal (70 gal mains, 30 gal extended) Airframe 4256 hrs, engine 1322 hrs SMOH (TCM TSIO-520-NB is 1600 hr TBO) Garmin GI 275 x 2 primary instruments Garmin 430W with Flightstream 210 - knobs or touchscreen, up to you Two-axis Century 31 autopilot - coupled approaches capable Insight G1 engine monitor (JPI 900 purchased, but not yet installed) GTX 345 ADS-B In/Out (978 UAT / 1090ES) Tanks resealed Apr 2022 Precise Flight electric speed brakes Four-place ship constant flow O2 or two-place Mountain High pulse-demand The Partnership Hourly rate: $56 / tach hour, dry towards engine reserve Fixed costs, monthly: $534.67 per person, which includes: You (what we're looking for) You're at least a PPL with an instrument rating and 100 hours total time; ideally, you also have retract and/or M20K time. You want to fly fast and far by yourself or with one other person. You’re looking for a Ferrari rather than a family hauler. While your budget isn't limitless, you like flying a modern and well-maintained plane. Backcountry flying or unimproved fields aren’t your thing 1981 Mooney 305 Rocket (M20K Conversion).pdf

They're friction fit only, so they just snap off. You might be able to get a good grip with both hands if you set the switch halfway. Otherwise, I'd just pry on one side with a thin screwdriver. If you have any more to test, I'd be happy to do so. The one I need is for a landing light, but a blank cover would be fine too.

To be clear, the $11k was an estimate to overhaul the truss including engine r&r. Our final total for the in-situ repair of the truss was about $3,600.

It won't work if you have ETA switches. This model is for a Klixon switch cap. If you're looking for these, @AH-1 Cobra Pilot makes a good looking set and I'd get them from him. The Shapeways link was for the ETA cover. One easy way to tell is by the two attachment points on the back. The Klixon switch covers are nubs; the ETA cap are two loops and is where it tends to break. So it seems no one saved the file for the ETA cover? It'd be real shame if it's lost. I purchased one from Shapeways a few years back and it worked really well. The ETA switches are also breakers, so replacing the whole thing is expensive (~$620 from LASAR).

Pretty sure @PJClark has a GFC500 installed in his Rocket. Here's a thread with a pic of his panel:

We just got our plane back from HTS in April (2022). We selected him mainly based on location. Unfortunately our experience has been somewhat mixed. While I think he's a meticulous A&P who knows Mooneys and does a good job, I think he might be taking in more work than he has capacity for. Our reseal job began mid-July 2021 and the reseal, annual, and replacement of two cylinders took nine months, and that's with frequent nagging towards the end. I'm not sure how long Wet Wingologists and Weep-No-More are taking, but it seems like a long time. Most recently, a leak developed in one of our tanks and so the plane is going back. While he guarantees his work with a seven year warranty, I'm hesitant to take it back based on how long it took the last time. OP--if this is your first leak, I'd start by asking your A&P to patch it up. If it leaks again though, I'd schedule the reseal, especially given the lead times. With multiple leaks, it's likely the sealant is brittle; you'll likely end up chasing leaks and in the end pay about as much as doing it right.

We've had this issue on and off. A&P and prop shop have said that a little oil is not a big deal, and to try cycling the prop fully on the ground a couple times to reseat the seal. If it continues to leak heavily, then it may be time to replace the seal.

We purchased an overhauled one from http://www.aircraftspecialties.aero/. The overhaul was $1400 with a $3000 core. This was for a TSIO-520-NB though (642085). It started leaking a little some months later, and while the part repair was warrantied, the labor was not. Our A&P had bad experiences with Niagara and didn't want to work with them, but seems that others have had no issues... YMMV. The R&R was an all-day job. I was concerned about the weight of the Energizer starter so I looked into lighter ones. Eventually I ruled out the lightweights (e.g. Skytec). Anecdotally they seem to be fine for four-cylinders, but struggle with large bore sixes. Hartzell has a line of "midweight" starters (e.g., PM1207) that are supposed to be as durable but ~10 lb lighter, but I had no luck actually sourcing one. I went as far as talking with Hartzell factory directly. In the end, the starter tested ok so we decided to just keep it for the time being.

I've puzzled over the Rocket's peculiar CG for a long time now. I've asked others for comparison, but the numbers are inconsistent from plane to plane. We decided to put the plane on actual scales recently, and measured an empty weight of 2390 lbs and 42.3" CG. Others I've asked are 100-150 lbs lighter but I haven't figured out why. With these numbers, if it's only me in front (140 lbs), then I can carry 60 gals fuel if I also carry 120 lbs in the baggage. With two people in the plane and one person in the back, I can add another 10 gallons. With two up front, I'm limited to something ridiculous like 20 gallons before hitting the forward limit, even with full ballast. Part of this is due to the forward CG of the Rocket, and for me, it's exacerbated by the high empty weight. I can't load much before hitting the top "slope" of the limits. In short, it's a fussy experience. Your setup looks similar to mine. A few additional notes: If you have Monroy tanks, the station is at 71" (about the same as the aft seats). It begins filling once there are about 20 gallons in the main. This is specified in the flight manual supplement. Mine didn't include one, but apparently later ones did. See the pics attached. Remember that the front seats full forward and full aft stations are different--34" and 39", respectively. If you need ballast, a case of oil is about 20 lbs. If you need something more compact, check out the lead weights for wakesurfing boats. I use two 50 lb bags and a case of oil to get 120 lbs. On fixing the issue, someone already mentioned the composite prop. Performance improvements aside, it also takes ~36 lbs off the very front, but last I checked it's about $20k. It's an expensive proposition if you aren't looking for a new prop. The service manual describes how to add up to 19 lbs of counterweight (aka charlie weight) in the tailcone at station 197.5". I'm trying to figure out how to go about adding more. By my estimates, 60-70 lbs there would get the CG into the "meatiest" part of the limits and solve my issue completely. Supposedly there's someone who did just that (which was reported secondhand to MS), but I'm haven't had any luck getting more details. Can you ignore it? As already mentioned, in the Rocket it's primarily an elevator authority issue. If you're landing and the elevator stalls in the roundout, your nose is going to slam down. With the already low prop clearance, you're probably looking at a prop strike. I wouldn't "just fly it". Some may suggest it obliquely, and I suspect many do anyway. Remember that once you're outside limits, you're a test pilot #1. edited for grammar

My mistake. I'm not sure what I was thinking of, but thanks for clarifying.

On the support, I'm not terribly concerned. For one, it's not the current reality. On the contrary, Rocket Engineering provided excellent support, for example when we replaced the exhaust recently and when the engine truss was repaired before that. The engine itself is standard in a Cessna 414 and so it's not going anywhere. The drawings are in the manual for everything else. I'm actually more concerned about Mooney parts in general than Rocket Engineering specifically. Rockets in general are forward CG on account of the big engine, so I'd look for a 252 Rocket conversion. They're more rare but I believe the longer body solves the CG issues of the 231 conversion. Lastly, if you need lots of useful load, then this isn't the plane. Between the bigger engine and the ballast, it's basically a two-seater.

In addition to getting above wx, there is hardly any traffic in the 12-18k range. It's too low for jets and too high for naturally aspirated planes. Depending on your region, this may give you significantly better routing when IFR. If you do a lot of long distance flying, I'd definitely go for the K.

It was an M20K but not a Rocket, as I recall. He sold it recently, but still provides upset and transition training. He was my transition CFI for the Rocket I fly. OP congrats! Definitely get that engine monitor, it will help make that engine last. Also, keep in mind that Rocket Engineering's "economy cruise" setting came before CSB09-11A, which specifies 2300 RPM minimum in cruise (http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/CSB09-11A.pdf).

Right, I've heard that too, but with the CG this far forward, the remaining envelope just isn't useful. With two adults up front (say, for a flight lesson), even with the max 120 lbs in the baggage, the plane exceeds the forward limit with more than 40 gals fuel, i.e. 30 minutes of flight with a minimal reserve. For a two-person trip, my passenger needs to sit in the back. I'm convinced a a mistake was made in a calculation somewhere, but without the old papers, I can't prove it other than with an actual reweigh. Last question--do you have Monroy tanks? If so, have you seen anything in your POH that says they're at a different station than the mains? An A&P (not one I usually work with, but someone familiar with the Monroy tanks) indicated that the LR tanks should be at a different station because they're aft of the spar, but I don't have any supplements that say this.

Can I ask what your empty weight CG is? I'm in an 81 231 Rocket with 19 lb weights in the back too. The empty CG is 42.9" @ 2346 lbs. This doesn't really make any sense; with two people up front and another 50 lbs of ballast in the baggage, I can fill up with 39 gallons before exceeding the forward limit. To get any sort of range, I have to load up the back to the max and put the passenger in the back seat. This seems off, but at the same time there's no recourse because I don't have any of the old CG papers anymore. We're considering a reweigh to sort things out.

The battery chemistry isn't the same as your ship battery. Those are typically lead acid and require venting because they produce hydrogen when they're charged. Batteries for small electronics (like the GI 275) are typically NiMH or Li-ion. Like your phone, they are are sealed and have no venting requirements.

Mooneys are already pretty slippery as-is, so aerodynamic mods will only net you a couple knots here and there. An often overlooked way to increase speed is to reduce weight either from the plane or the meat bags inside. This is doubly beneficial because it also improves useful load for when you need to load to max gross.

It's a reasonable number. Their system only delivers a pulse of O2 on your inhale. In contrast, traditional systems deliver O2 constantly on both the inhale and exhale, and so you end up wasting about half your O2. The only downside I can think of is that it's an electronic device. If it fails or runs out of power, then it won't deliver O2. However, I think that if it fails, it's more noticeable because you won't feel the puff. It requires less active attention than having to constantly check a flowmeter.

Another vote for the Mountain High O2D2 EDS units. It's by far the most efficient--more so than the oxymizer + flowmeters and much more so than the factory constant flow. At ~$100 per O2 fill in your K, it should pay for itself eventually. With the EDS, you don't need a special conserver cannula. Any regular cannula (albeit with the right narrow tube at the end) will work; they cost about $8 from MH directly. To use the EDS with ship O2, you'll also need an appropriate regulator. Here's the kit that includes everything: https://www.mhoxygen.com/product/o2d2-x-str/ The regulator has a Scott fitting inlet on one end and the outlet to the EDS on the other. I also have a USB power cable which powers the EDS unit, so no batteries required. If you're cheap like I am, email MH and ask if they have any refurb units. They have them on occasion and practically speaking they're as good as new. One upside of the portable system is that O2 from welding supply stores is cheaper. There used to be a difference between medical, aviation, and industrial O2, but no longer. This can also save money over getting O2 from the FBO + recurring inspections for your factory O2. If you already have a factory system installed though, might as well use it since you're already taking the hit on weight.

I joined a Rocket partnership last year. Maintenance has been very expensive this year. We've had to repair the engine frame and replace the exhaust. Rocket Engineering still supports the conversions and parts are still available, but they're made to order. We also had to rebuild the turbo. This wasn't done by Rocket Engineering since it's also found on the Cessna 414, but it is specific to the conversion. This was all around 1000 hours SMOH. I'm very glad expenses are split multiple ways. The other maintenance items were general Mooney or airplane items and not specific to the conversion. For the most part, it's still an M20K. Your A&P might complain about working on it, but they won't turn you away.

No, the 210 is only for the GTN and GNS navigators. Separately, another vote here for the FS210. I did my most of my IR training on a 650 and struggled mightily with the knob spinning when I flew with a 430. I still hesitate at times when navigating the menus, but with an FS 210 at least entering flight plans is a cinch--better than the 650 even.

With the latest software update yes, though you lose the heading tape: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/blog/aviation/gi-275-adds-gfc-500-autopilot-compatibility/. It requires the optional OAT sensor though.

81 Rocket here with 854 lbs UL. Typically I don't fill up the extended tanks unless I need to get somewhere fast. The extra gas lets me either skip a fuel stop or use a higher power setting. Full tanks at my normal power setting gets me six hours plus a 30-minute reserve--more than my personal endurance. Reason #2 for not filling the tanks is w&b. I can top off the tanks only if I'm single-pilot with a 50-lb ballast in the baggage compartment. With two in front, I'm limited to 80 gallons because of the ballast. The lightweight MT composite prop is definitely on the shopping list.

Not sure what to say. Remember though that this was in February when the device was very new, and so perhaps their quotes were adjusted to match actual times. Could also be that we asked for different things. I'm not sure if my initial quote included the autopilot integration. I didn't ask further because we abandoned the idea. FL was just a little too far to travel for the upgrade.

Sarasota quoted me $5100 for the ADI and $7489 for the HSI (or $12,589 total). I don't think this quote included the OAT sensor. However, this was back in Feb before COVID. Tom@SarasotaAvionics.com helped me with the quotes.