I'd like to fly a Rocket 305

[FloridaMan]

I'd like to go for a ride in a Rocket 305 conversion. Does anyone here have one? This is on my short list for my next airplane. 

[N201MKTurbo]

There are two in the shop at KAVQ, if you could get yourself over there you could probably get a ride. A long way from FL.

They are very fast two seaters.

Edited July 6, 2016 by N201MKTurbo

[gsxrpilot]

I'm in the market for a 252 and briefly looked at the Rocket. But the useful load is almost nonexistent.  I was shocked at the couple that I looked at. 

[bonal]

2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'm in the market for a 252 and briefly looked at the Rocket. But the useful load is almost nonexistent.  I was shocked at the couple that I looked at.

I hear the M20C model has a pretty respectable UL you might look into that REALLY nice one out in Texas I hear its up for sale

[Jeff H.]

I have one in Houston, if you happen to find yourself in the area.  

As opposed to the grumpy nay sayers above, I find it to be a damn fine aircraft that does not require constant dieting to stay within W&B restrictions.  :-)

Jeff

Edited July 6, 2016 by Jeff H.

[Yooper Rocketman]

I have yet to have the "useful load" be an issue (15+ years of rocket ownership).  I've flown 4 adults across almost the entire state of Oregon with no issue (and yes, within the legal W&B of 900+ lbs).  I just flew two good sized guys to Minnesota yesterday to purchase a truck, again, with no W&B or Gross issues.  

Anteras,  I will be closing on property in Florida on Friday for winter refuge and should be a regular visitor once your weather cools off.  I will be glad to hook up with you in my Rocket.

Tom

[gsxrpilot]

Do you gentlemen fly with full tanks? If the useful is 900 and the standard tanks are 75 gal, or 450 lbs, that leaves 450 lbs for people and luggage. If I were an FAA standard 170 lbs, it would be fine, but I'm a bit larger.

And most of the Rockets I've seen are more like 800 useful...  I'm actively looking for a 252 and would entertain a Rocket if I could find one with a full 900 or so useful.

[Jeff H.]

56 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

Do you gentlemen fly with full tanks? If the useful is 900 and the standard tanks are 75 gal, or 450 lbs, that leaves 450 lbs for people and luggage. If I were an FAA standard 170 lbs, it would be fine, but I'm a bit larger.

And most of the Rockets I've seen are more like 800 useful...  I'm actively looking for a 252 and would entertain a Rocket if I could find one with a full 900 or so useful.

After recent avionics upgrade:

906.00 lbs useful, 75 gals @ 5.83/gal

437.25 gas

468.75 for cabin contents

My issue is rarely weight, but balance.  Rocket mod left the aircraft CG very forward.  Have 6 sand bags rigged up in varying volumes to maximize baggage compartment weight in order to move the CG aft and, in theory, gain back a few knots when it's just me in the plane. 

[Yooper Rocketman]

I've used 2 1/2 gallon water jugs on the rare occasion it's been an issue.  They can be dumped out anywhere when no longer needing the weight.  I usually just put the heaviest passenger in the back seat.  I have often wondered about drilling a seat latch hole in the farthest aft position of the co-pilot seat (up against the rear seat) as that would give a real advantage in W&B sometimes.

Tom

[N201MKTurbo]

My friend did a field approved modification to add 120 Lbs of lead to the tail. The shop at KAVQ is now doing the mods. The FAA says they will approve all mods. The modification has complete engineering drawings and DER review and approval. 

Compleatly fixes the CG issue, but reduces UL by 120 Lbs.

[Jeff H.]

11 hours ago, Jeff H. said:

After recent avionics upgrade:

906.00 lbs useful, 75 gals @ 5.83/gal

437.25 gas

468.75 for cabin contents

My issue is rarely weight, but balance.  Rocket mod left the aircraft CG very forward.  Have 6 sand bags rigged up in varying volumes to maximize baggage compartment weight in order to move the CG aft and, in theory, gain back a few knots when it's just me in the plane. 

Just to wrap this up - my Rocket is the only one I am aware of that does not have extended range tanks installed, so 75 gallons is the max.  With extended range tanks - 30 gallons with speed brakes - useful load is as below:

906.00 lbs useful

437.25 lbs - main tanks

174.90 lbs - extended tanks

293.85 lbs - cabin contents.

If you add in the CG field modification as described above (120 lbs) I would be left with dieting requirements to fly the aircraft.

Regardless, still happy with the aircraft.  True 200kts long range cruise.  That's hard to beat at the available prices . . . 

[aviatoreb]

I had the MT 4-blade prop added to my rocket mostly for balance reasons, but the weight improvement was nice too.  (From memory) I think it was 36lbs off the nose which moved the balance to near the center of the M20K envelope and left me a very harmonized airplane with zero balance issues and light to the touch and easy in flare.  My weight is ~930lbs (memory) and I have tks even.

[Steve Dawson]

20 hours ago, Jeff H. said:

Just to wrap this up - my Rocket is the only one I am aware of that does not have extended range tanks installed, so 75 gallons is the max.  With extended range tanks - 30 gallons with speed brakes - useful load is as below:

906.00 lbs useful

437.25 lbs - main tanks

174.90 lbs - extended tanks

293.85 lbs - cabin contents.

If you add in the CG field modification as described above (120 lbs) I would be left with dieting requirements to fly the aircraft.

Regardless, still happy with the aircraft.  True 200kts long range cruise.  That's hard to beat at the available prices . . . 

Just Curious Jeff, but at 200 KTS what are you getting for fuel flow and at what altitude? LOP?

[chrisk]

23 hours ago, Jeff H. said:

Just to wrap this up - my Rocket is the only one I am aware of that does not have extended range tanks installed, so 75 gallons is the max.  With extended range tanks - 30 gallons with speed brakes - useful load is as below:

906.00 lbs useful

437.25 lbs - main tanks

174.90 lbs - extended tanks

293.85 lbs - cabin contents.

If you add in the CG field modification as described above (120 lbs) I would be left with dieting requirements to fly the aircraft.

Regardless, still happy with the aircraft.  True 200kts long range cruise.  That's hard to beat at the available prices . . . 

For me, full extended range tanks would make the useful load too low.  I'm 185, my wife is maybe 150.  Add 20 lbs each for for basic luggage and a flight bag.   I'd be 75lbs over gross.  That said, putting only 100lbs in the extend tanks would solve the problem and still increase the range over standard tanks. 

So, my questions comes down to: What scenarios does it make sense to have a rocket?  The speed difference only becomes significant for longer flights, but if I am weight restricted and have to make more fuel stops, it could remove all of the speed benefits.  --Assuming I have to carry 450 lbs in the cabin, you would roughly have 75 gal of fuel for a trip.   Assume a 600 mile trip with a 45 minute reserve.  Does a Rocket with 75 gallons make sense?  Is it reasonable to assume 200kts and 15 gph? 

 

As for bad/low W&B, the worst I have seen was a 252 with long range tanks and a useful load of about 800 lbs.  With full fuel it would have been a single place  plane, if I didn't take luggage.

[Jeff H.]

3 hours ago, Steve Dawson said:

Just Curious Jeff, but at 200 KTS what are you getting for fuel flow and at what altitude? LOP?

Between 15.5k and 17.5k, 200kts true at 14gph.  Not setup for LOP operations on my plane, so this is 1500 degrees TIT, ~150 ROP.  (DO NOT want to start a LOP/ROP war - bought the aircraft from a NASA shuttle pilot/Chief Test Pilot for F-15E program and from engine data this is how he flew it.  As a new aircraft owner and pilot, emulating his engine management approach seemed like a reasonable place to start.)

At 3k, 200kts = 20+gph - only done this once when I really needed to get somewhere on time.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Jeff H.

[chrisk]

6 minutes ago, Jeff H. said:

Between 15.5k and 17.5k, 200kts true at 14gph.  Not setup for LOP operations on my plane, so this is 1500 degrees TIT, ~150 ROP.  (DO NOT want to start a LOP/ROP war - bought the aircraft from a NASA shuttle pilot/Chief Test Pilot for F-15E program and from engine data this is how he flew it.  As a new aircraft owner and pilot, emulating his engine management approach seemed like a reasonable place to start.)

At 3k, 200kts = 20+gph - only done this once when I really needed to get somewhere on time.

One more questions.  For climb, what do you use for fuel flow, feet per minute, and speed.  I'd guess 1000 fpm, 150 kts, 25 gph?  --So, about 7 to 10  gallons and 40 miles to get to 17,500 (including start up, taxi and take off)?

[Jeff H.]

18 minutes ago, chrisk said:

One more questions.  For climb, what do you use for fuel flow, feet per minute, and speed.  I'd guess 1000 fpm, 150 kts, 25 gph?  --So, about 7 to 10  gallons and 40 miles to get to 17,500 (including start up, taxi and take off)?

That's correct - with the exception of ~140kts for climb.  (Search for "Vz" speeds, if you haven't already.  Apparently the most efficient climb rate.)

When does a Rocket make sense?

- Common cross-country trips at the outer edge of range. (No fuel stops.)
- Willing to fly using oxygen. (Pretty sure my FBO thinks I'm doing something weird with the O2 given my frequent service requests.)
- Price difference between cheaper Rockets and more expensive factory options is appealing.

As stated before - happy with the plane, works for me.  Would like to have some icing protection, pressurization and Erik's 4 bladed MT prop*.  Aspirational goals for next aircraft purchase . . 

*Note that with the big propeller on the Rockets, ground clearance is an issue for uneven aprons, grass field ops (big Nope!) and the dreaded landing bounce.  

While I always fly within the W&B restrictions, the real world rumor and hypothetical situation is that a Rocket will perform a drama free take off and climb with whatever you can stuff in the cabin.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Jeff H.

[Yooper Rocketman]

19 hours ago, chrisk said:

For me, full extended range tanks would make the useful load too low.  I'm 185, my wife is maybe 150.  Add 20 lbs each for for basic luggage and a flight bag.   I'd be 75lbs over gross.  That said, putting only 100lbs in the extend tanks would solve the problem and still increase the range over standard tanks. 

So, my questions comes down to: What scenarios does it make sense to have a rocket?  The speed difference only becomes significant for longer flights, but if I am weight restricted and have to make more fuel stops, it could remove all of the speed benefits.  --Assuming I have to carry 450 lbs in the cabin, you would roughly have 75 gal of fuel for a trip.   Assume a 600 mile trip with a 45 minute reserve.  Does a Rocket with 75 gallons make sense?  Is it reasonable to assume 200kts and 15 gph? 

 

As for bad/low W&B, the worst I have seen was a 252 with long range tanks and a useful load of about 800 lbs.  With full fuel it would have been a single place  plane, if I didn't take luggage.

You are aware of the increased Gross with the Rocket conversion?

My trips to Florida would require 2 fuel stops in my F model.  I do them routinely with one fuel stop now.  I COULD do them non-stop, at times, but will not fly longer than 3 1/2 hours without stopping.  Have done that a few times and the fun of flying (especially for the wife) goes away really fast.  As far as the extended range tanks, fuel goes in them based on mission, so absence of fuel, they pose no weight penalty.  When flying alone (185 lbs) or with my wife (115 lbs) I really maximize utility of the fuel capacity on long trips by fueling less at high cost FBO's and filling completely at low priced fuel stops.  I've had times I've saved well north of $100 in my trips to Florida from the U.P. of Michigan with that management technique.

Tom

[aviatoreb]

23 hours ago, Jeff H. said:

That's correct - with the exception of ~140kts for climb.  (Search for "Vz" speeds, if you haven't already.  Apparently the most efficient climb rate.)

When does a Rocket make sense?

- Common cross-country trips at the outer edge of range. (No fuel stops.)
- Willing to fly using oxygen. (Pretty sure my FBO thinks I'm doing something weird with the O2 given my frequent service requests.)
- Price difference between cheaper Rockets and more expensive factory options is appealing.

As stated before - happy with the plane, works for me.  Would like to have some icing protection, pressurization and Erik's 4 bladed MT prop*.  Aspirational goals for next aircraft purchase . . 

*Note that with the big propeller on the Rockets, ground clearance is an issue for uneven aprons, grass field ops (big Nope!) and the dreaded landing bounce.  

While I always fly within the W&B restrictions, the real world rumor and hypothetical situation is that a Rocket will perform a drama free take off and climb with whatever you can stuff in the cabin.

There is one more reason for a rocket.  It is a real hot rod, and it is just fun to have and own a kick in the pants, fast climbing, fast cruising, roaring machine. That is not a practical reason, but it is a reason nonetheless.

The MT prop by the way also helps a good bit with ground clearance.  I forgot the numbers, but it brings the ground clearance back to what it was with the original 252-tsio-360 prop size/clearance.