David Mazer

"I have never done that and I will not do it again." How can you not do something again that you haven't ever done? The max weight on the Rocket is limited by the gear and the Acclaim has a higher gross because it was beefed up. I'm not sure of the Bravo. You can takeoff at a higher weight than you can land (legally but I don't remember the takeoff weight) but you're taking the risk you won't have to land before you burn of the required fuel (or chuck out some unlucky bag).

There is an IA for JetBlue at SFB that has been doing many of the annuals at my ramp recently. He has done my Rocket twice and another 252 on the field. His rates are reasonable and he is very detail oriented. He has done a very nice job for me and I feel my plane is safer for it. He works half the week at JetBlue and half the week doing this so if it isn't done in the 3 or 4 days he has this week, you wait. However, all in, his time to get things done, and done right, really isn't longer than others I have used. He's getting pretty busy so he may not have time but if your interested, his name is Chris Reilly and his email address is creillysfb@gmail.com. I have flown my plane over to SRQ for work and don't parrticularly like it so the distance may be an issue but I think his work is worth considering it.

I have to echo some of the other comments. The Rocket is a great 1-2 person airplane that will go longer than you can and very fast while carrying plenty of bags. When you get to 3 people, you can still take either luggage or fuel but 3 hours of fuel is still about a 500 mile range. It is a management issue but the ability to carry fuel or people gives you choices. The Rocket should be cheaper than the Acclaim and faster than the Bravo. The 231/252/Ovation, Bravo and Acclaim can have FIKKI while the Rocket can only have inadvertent icing protection. I think the general conesensus is that maintenence cost is about the same on the turbos but availability of parts on the 80s planes can be tough. Pre-80s you can swap equipment to something as good or better. Post-80s planes have part availability that may be a little better. Lots of choices but that is a good thing. Thanks for your service.

It seems the speed of the faster Mooneys is faster than the original design expectations. It is very easy for me to be too fast for the plane Vne when coming into any congested area or any area near hills. Without speedbrakes I would need to request deviations of many miles. I'm not sure how ATC would respond but I'm certain of how the terrain would respond. I've had a couple issues with the speedbrakes but I find them worth the effort.

I spent a ton of money on my KFC-150 when I first got the plane and worried I'd never have a working AP and I should have just swapped it out even though they were telling me not to. In the end, the repair cost was less than a new AP (~2/3 savings) and it has worked perfectly for 5 years. However, I have had plenty of problems with the AI which I swapt for the Aspen unit and that isn't so smooth.

Just like Phil, under promise and over deliver.

Erik, Sometime early on in my Rocket flying, I did a touch and go and didn't correct the trim before applying power. I was certain the yoke or the seat was going to break from the forward force I was applying before I could get the trim down. With all due respect to Ward's greater flying experience, I'm not going to repeat that during an emergency and will keep the trim a little more down then I might otherwise during short final just in case. If the likelihood of an engine failure is higher with full power (greater strain), or even the cumulation of stress from full power events, isn't it safer to avoid that strain with 35/25 power on takeoff as a general rule? The logic was passed on to me by a retired airline pilot who claimed that is some of the logic used by the airlines when they don't use 100% power for takeoff. Right? Wrong? I'm not sure but 35/25 is plenty of power to set up an initial climb of 1,000 ft/min even when it is 95 degrees and I don't really see any longer takeoff roll as a result. If I'm at a shorter field, I still use full power even though, as I said, I don't notice a longer takeoff roll. Finally, I use to reduce power from 38/2650 to 35/25 at 4-500 ft. Now I'm only making one adjustment to the prop rather than two adjustments if indeed adjusting may be a cause of a problem.

Right, I knew that. The real question, even if poorly asked, is the AC vs DC aspect.

Thanks. I didn't realize the AC version would work in a 12 or 24 V DC environment. That would make it easier. The cost for the incandescent vs LED isn't the issue as much as reliability and power consumption. Okay, power consumption isn't an issue either with these little bulbs but reliability is.

Great. Thanks. Any idea if the center contact should be positive or negative? Midget Flanged Based LED, T1-3/4 (5mm) Energy-Saving Miniature Lamp

Does anyone know if there is an LED drop in replacement for the U327 bulb. Mine seem to go out regularly. They're cheap, $0.22 at SkyGeek but they just don't last very long.

Ward, in a Rocket, the problem is if you need to quickly change power settings, like a go around, neutral trim on approach will get you killed. While it makes sense to trim to neutral most of the time, I prefer to keep it trimmed a little down on approach in case I need to go around and won't have time to adjust the trim and can't fly it full power and full up trim.

I'm really interested in the natural gas engine modification. Now that sounds promising. More power, less polution, no lead, much cheaper. The engine modification seems minimal but the gas tank issue could be a challenge.

Erik, I'd be interested in your new IAS over the fence. I used to shoot for 80 kts but that made my roll out very long or required heavy breaking. Solo and 80 gal fuel I was shooting for 75-78. With my new AOA it shows I should be closer to 71-73 kts over the fense. I don't takeoff or do touch and go takeoffs with full power anymore unless it is a short field. Takeoff power is 35" and full prop with 2500 RPM at 400 ft. I find it tough to get the power above 30" on touch and go takeoffs until i'm well off the ground. Otherwise I'm worried about stressing the turbo.

I can tell you from personal experience that you can't hold the nose down with full power and trim with just one hand. You'll have to use the electric trim. I don't use full trim up just for that reason. Been there and done that, once. I was pushing so hard I was worried the yoke or seat would break before I could get the trim down. As far as the Bravo comment, not really so applicable. The extra 10 in gives the elevator a lot more authority. That's the reason the extra room was added.

Not sure about Europe but it wouldn't be legal to swap the prop in the US. I looked into that some time ago and the Rocket STC is specific about the prop. The Rocket is a little CG forward due the engine, for sure. The second battery is so far back just for that reason. I don't ever have much problem either but then I'm usually carrying 40 lbs in the baggage are for my Arctic Air.

Noone seems to be answering the obvious remaining question. In this high cost fuel environment, if the Mooney tail is more efficient, why haven't other manufacturers copied it. If it is a safety benefit (better rudder control at high AOA), why haven't others copied it?

I just went through this. For years. Anyway, the 1987 M20K can't use a different VR that is equal or better like pre-1980 Mooneys. I finally managed to swap out my VR with a refurbished version with Don Maxwell. I'd give him a call.

Appear is the operative word. The Halo's are extremely comfortable and are a little easier for me to insert.

Like 201er, I always keep my hand on the throttle and prop until I put up the gear then back again until flaps up.

I replaced my AI with the EA 100 when my AI failed for a second time and each rebuild was $2,500. I thought the EA 100 would be a reasonable replacement even though it cost $5,000 installed. It has proven to be, as you note, not very smooth. I regularly see a 100 ft variation in altitude for every course correction (after passing a fix, for example, or during a procedure turn. The people that installed it, Sarasota Avionics, claim that is within design standards. I wish my old AI had been more reliable. If you find a good answer, please let me know. Oh, I have a KFC-150.

Also at Pompano, KPMP, where a Goodyear Blimp is based.

I used a winch for several years without any problems or damage. THe winch was cheap and worked great until I needed to put a second plane in the hangar and it wasn't just going straight back. In fact, using the tail hook made it almost impossible to put the plane in wrong and damage the wings on the walls. If all you need is help getting the plane in, I recommend it.

Eric, I agree with you. Continental put out that SB because of a series of failures and the only similarity was the RPM below 2300. However, the SB doesn't cover Lycoming engines and I would go back to 30/2200 if I could. I've modified to 29/2300 as my usual cruise setting using a little more gas per hour still.

I just ordered an AOA made by General Technics called a CYA-100 (Check Your Angle). It uses a vane rather than presure differential sensors, it doesn't require pulling tubes into the plane or the use of an extra box between the pitot and the display. Installation should be much simpler and it is considerably less expensive (400 vs 1300). My experience with headsets has shown me that these independant developers can create a great product at a much better price. I hope this is true for this product also. I'll pirep when it is installed and I've been able to use it. See: http://www.ackemma.com/index.html , for more details.