Trogdor

To make a long story short, I'm the last man standing that actually wants to buy something now. Before, I lost the vote. Now, I'm the only vote.

Looking for a M20J preferably with Garmin glass (it's what I fly now) and not a timed out engine. Be amazing if you had the wings sealed too. If you haven't already listed, DM me.

I thought this was only a 210 thing?

Just an observation: I would expect the arms to be the same between the Rocket and a stock 231/252 since the datum didn't move. The CG is however 0.3 more forward and the Rocket is about 200 pounds more. If I do W&B with that in mind, I should have a round idea on where the CG should lie given my weight scenarios (and some Rocket's have had at least 50-100 pounds removed from avionic upgrades). Put simply, after reviewing a lot of doc, I think @donkaye, MCFIsheet is correct. I think the plane in question's useful load/empty weight and CG are both wrong. That's why so many Rocket owners have zero issue with two-three PAX and significant fuel without 120 pounds in the back. God, anyone see what a 177 is like? That's even worse and it can still put two adults in the front with fuel and a little weight in the back.

I do not have the original numbers. The original shop has been called to see if we can get them and if we re-do the math, does the CG make sense.

This one was a '89 252 before Rocket conversion I believe. We may in fact have to reweigh it since the CG is so out of whack nothing works. I mean the plane is barely usable as is if these numbers are to be believed. I did see a thread about this started a few years ago and I suspect his Rocket was weighed wrong as well. Again, the original Rocket STC has the CG forward by 0.3" - that is not a lot. And yeah, the envelop shape is a bit less standard up top than say the 231/252. However, two adults (say 180-190 pounds) with 60 gallons of fuel should be in the envelope if I am to believe like every single Rocket owner I've talked to. No one is scratching their head going how do I fit my CFI for a BFR AFAICT ...

More update: I was right, the load sheet is not right - like at all. Gonna figure it out.

Got a picture of the sheet. Well I can say without a doubt it’s wrong because if I add useful load to empty it doesn’t get near 3200 (like ~165 pounds off?). There is no way with just one person (190 pounds) and full fuel the plane is completely out of CG? Huh? I would have to drop down to under 50 gallons. WHAT!? Are most Rocket drivers simply flying it out of CG? I find that also hard to believe.

Waiting for a picture of the W&B sheet. Was supposed to get it today. Not sure how an all glass Rocket could weigh even close to 2400 pounds like the example plane in @donkaye, MCFIsheet. That is one heavy Rocket. Most of the older ones with stock instruments seem to hover around the 2100 mark. I would assume all glass would bring it down under that - and if I have that, then everything works out on all sheets (maybe drop a little fuel).

@donkaye, MCFISomething is off here based on talking with now three other Rocket owners: All of them have reported back with their own sheets and have no issue staying in the envelope with 72 gallons of fuel with even more weight than the scenarios I described. The original Rocket Engineering document says: The takeoff weight is 3,200 lbs. The conversion adds 208 lbs. to the empty weight, moving the CG forward .3". How can the 252 envelope change that dramatically given those changes (someone posted the stock 252 one above)? Just throwing it out there. The sheet also states the constant data is from an M20F but I assume it has been updated accordingly for 252/Rocket numbers? @Ragsf15e Based on Don's sheet, that seems to be the big difference. MGW is supposed to be near 3200 with an empty around 2068 (2046 is definitely inline with that). https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40368222&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Mooney rocket conversion specs-Master.PDF And that wasn't even with a glass panel which should reduce the empty substantially.

I did do a Google search and came up with one person's sheet which contradicted everything that shop told me - wondering if they were confusing the Rocket with something else?

Not shocking. But it seems like three people all under 200, 72 gallons of fuel, and 50 pounds seems doable.

I don’t know but it didn’t come up the first time. Thanks

I understand that to a degree - but I'm just feeling for if W&B is truly a challenge to fit 2 or even 3 folks in it. I think that is a reasonable ask. Let me rephrase: If you own a Rocket have you flown with 2 adults, how about 3? Do you carry full fuel? Was it a real hassle to get the CG right? Those kinds of things.

I was speaking with a local shop, and they told me they had a Rocket they were doing an annual on and that given its CG, there was no way you could have two heavy adults in the front let alone three adults total. Now, to give you some perspective, I typically fly with two weight configurations: - My family 190 (me), 150 (wife), and my son (60) - wife is in back, son is in front (she won't sit in the front) - I usually fly with just a close friend (230), both of us in front Shop was pretty sure that it just won't work no matter how much fuel we drop or what we throw in the baggage because we will just be too front loaded and out of envelope. Can anyone confirm this to be true? Do all Rocket pilots log just solo time? Like what?