WOW 6 Rockets on the Market

[chrisk]

3 hours ago, Rickymooneyflyer said:

Yes, that spreadsheet confirms your comment.

Try this.  Assume a 200 lb pilot,  make the fat right seat person sit in the back, and leave the right seat open.  Add a 100 lb kid to the back seat too.  Then add 9 more gallons for a total of 64.   You will find its in W&B. 

Then if you want to bring another 100lb kid, put them in the front, and take 45 gallons.  Its still in W&B

 

 

[Guitarmaster]

The Rocket has an excellent climb rate and that’s about it. It has a whacky cg envelope and w&b profile. It is a two person airplane and they better be on the slimmer side! Very easy and almost guaranteed to be out of cg with three pax and any meaningful fuel quantity to go anywhere. And those that have long range tanks will most certainly be out of cg with pilot alone and full fuel. It is very easy to operate it out of cg which is not good. As far as units on sale there are about 100 Mooney’s for sale on controller. Excluding Piper there are by far more Mooneys than anything else.

Besides overall weight, how does fuel affect the CG? In my F the fuel is right on the CG.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, chrisk said:

Try this.  Assume a 200 lb pilot,  make the fat right seat person sit in the back, and leave the right seat open.  Add a 100 lb kid to the back seat too.  Then add 9 more gallons for a total of 64.   You will find its in W&B. 

Then if you want to bring another 100lb kid, put them in the front, and take 45 gallons.  Its still in W&B

 

 

That's it.  I have RARELY needed or wanted to take more than 1 person with me.  It suits me.  But I have taken 3 many times, and 4 a very few times...of course that was when my kids were very very light.  Now they are big...and 2 out of 3 moved out.  And rarely do they all want to seem to do the same thing with me at the same time.  But with 3 people, one needs to be very careful of weight and fueling. 

Seems like 3/4 of my flying is solo by the nature of the utility of what I do.  I would be flying solo 3/4 of the time even if I had a A36.

And I used to have a bag full of sand in a big duffel bag I used for ballast which I would use as needed depending on the passenger(s).  Nonetheless I like the space - e.g. last weekend when I went to North Carolina I brought my bike to ride with my son.

And an expensive lightweight prop up front on the nose helps - a lot.

[Yooper Rocketman]

16 hours ago, PTK said:

The Rocket has an excellent climb rate and that’s about it. It has a whacky cg envelope and w&b profile. It is a two person airplane and they better be on the slimmer side! Very easy and almost guaranteed to be out of cg with three pax and any meaningful fuel quantity to go anywhere. And those that have long range tanks will most certainly be out of cg with pilot alone and full fuel. It is very easy to operate it out of cg which is not good. As far as units on sale there are about 100 Mooney’s for sale on controller. Excluding Piper there are by far more Mooneys than anything else.

And you have HOW MUCH ROCKET TIME?

I owned and flew one for 18 years  and just shy of 2,000 hours. 

Take your advice from someone with experience, not just an opinionated uninformed Jealous J owner.  

I have flown many 3 person flights, even a few 4 person flights, NEVER OUT OF CG OR GROSS.  And the comment on extended range tanks, I don’t believe I’ve EVER SEEN  a more misinformed comment.  

PM me personally if you want REAL ownership experience.  I’m not sure I can take this total BS from the above to grace this topic with another post.  

Tom

[carusoam]

As for quirky things that come from the after-market...

Rocket Engineering produces some of the best and most complete STCs... with full testing and full documentation...

Want a big Bore on your mid body Mooney... there are two excellent choices... Missile and Rocket...

If you think after market doesn’t make good Mooneys go O3... the 310hp engine with TopProp started as a Rocket Engineering after market deal... it comes in two forms... Screamin’ Eagle and Standing Ovation...

Mooney bought up the STC So.... the Standing Ovation is just the O3...

To save a bundle... buy one already assembled...

I liked the assembly process selecting the prop that works best for you...

For the Standing O, the MT four blade was not quite available at the time.

So I went with the Acclaim’s TopProp...

 

Fortunately you don’t have to be an engineer to put these packages together...

Know what you want, and know how to execute...

Then take a look at the other project Rocket Engineering put together... Turbine six seater... aka JetProp...

So... start with an ordinary (?) Mooney... then build on it...

Or buy direct from the factory! 

 

by the way... we are witnessing something interesting going on in the economy... Planes are selling!

Keep in mind the economy has been cyclic in nature... Enjoy the good times while they last...

Keep an eye on inflation, employment, and economic expansion... it helps to understand effects of interest rates...

 

Before buying any plane... know the UL and WnB even if it is a C172.

The most stripped of any extra attributes has a good UL and possibly a great WnB...

Mooneys are great in both departments, compared to other planes that drift out of the back on WnB while flying....

If you are into classic modernist style... start with a 201 and rock out the interior, add some digital WAAS screens and add a splash of color to the exterior... and go MT composite there too...

Expect the limits to be more wallet related, than UL and WnB... 

Don’t get me wrong... I really like my factory built, and slightly modified, Standing O...

Even now, really good Experimentals are factory built, and a few have turbines... get to know your builder...

Best regards,

-a-

[RogueOne]

Peter:  What is wrong with you?  Hello...Are you listening?  What is your major malfunction?  Check that.  Why do you feel it is your duty to slag on a Mooney?  What do you gain with your discourse?  (Rhetorical.  Answer is ZERO). Have you ever owned or flown a Rocket?  If answer is no perhaps you should let those that have/do speak as they will be better informed than a checker tailed J driver?

[M016576]

1 hour ago, RogueOne said:

Peter:  What is wrong with you?  Hello...Are you listening?  What is your major malfunction?  Check that.  Why do you feel it is your duty to slag on a Mooney?  What do you gain with your discourse?  (Rhetorical.  Answer is ZERO). Have you ever owned or flown a Rocket?  If answer is no perhaps you should let those that have/do speak as they will be better informed than a checker tailed J driver?

Hah!  I think you’ve just met the resident dentist, Rogue.... this is not an unusual sort of post from Peter Garmin.

If you think he’s good at irrationally attacking rockets... just ask him his opinion on an Aspen display or Avidyne GPS’s!

[MIm20c]

I don’t understand the hostility. He should be on cloud 9 with the KI300/310 certification this week. 

I’ve seen a lot of rockets with some real hours put on, none of this 30-40 hrs per year stuff. Obviously pilots are finding the rocket provides exceptional utility. 

[Alan Fox]

22 hours ago, PTK said:

Long range tanks on a Rocket are useless. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would put them in a rocket! The ones with them had them prior to the conversion.

A "conversion" does not hold its value as well as a factory Mooney. Also it has to be an exceptional airplane to even consider it over a factory airplane. I'm not certain the Rocket is.

Peter , I have long range tanks on a J , Its barely a two person aircraft with full fuel ……  The Rocket is no different...… That's why I have a Bonanza , 

[PTK]

49 minutes ago, Alan Fox said:

Peter , I have long range tanks on a J , Its barely a two person aircraft with full fuel ……  The Rocket is no different...… That's why I have a Bonanza , 

More useful on a J, useless on a Rocket! The difference is that the J and the Bo are certified. The Rocket would never get certified! 

[PTK]

19 hours ago, chrisk said:

Try this.  Assume a 200 lb pilot,  make the fat right seat person sit in the back, and leave the right seat open.  Add a 100 lb kid to the back seat too.  Then add 9 more gallons for a total of 64.   You will find its in W&B. 

Then if you want to bring another 100lb kid, put them in the front, and take 45 gallons.  Its still in W&B

Assuming this is accurate, this scenario illustrates that long range tanks on a rocket are indeed useless.

[Austintatious]

On 7/19/2019 at 5:24 AM, PTK said:

The Rocket has an excellent climb rate and that’s about it. It has a whacky cg envelope and w&b profile. It is a two person airplane and they better be on the slimmer side! Very easy and almost guaranteed to be out of cg with three pax and any meaningful fuel quantity to go anywhere. And those that have long range tanks will most certainly be out of cg with pilot alone and full fuel. It is very easy to operate it out of cg which is not good. As far as units on sale there are about 100 Mooney’s for sale on controller. Excluding Piper there are by far more Mooneys than anything else.

 

20 hours ago, PTK said:

Because it’s not a Bravo and it can’t compete with certified airplanes from Mooney.  It’s a two light person airplane. And nothing wrong with that if that’s what you want and understand its limitations.

I get the Fwd W/B issue, but why do you say it is a light 2 person airplane?   The people in the back HELP the CG issues and my rocket has a 1065lb useful load.  That leaves  600 lbs after full fuel.  that is  three 200 lb people.  You could easily do 2 adults and 2 kids with full fuel.  4 adults and you are leaving some fuel behind.

The spreadsheet posted above somehow has a higher empty weight than my Rocket.  The empty CG is also off ( I cannot figure out how to change it)

Also, the CG issue is a non issue if you put your first 2 passengers in the rear seat.  They have more room back there anyway.

 

With 105 gallons that would still leave me 400 lbs to work with.  There are not a lot of GA aircraft that can carry full pax and full fuel and be in limits.

 

it also might be the case that a 5 b weight on the tail might erase all the CG issues. /thinking

Edited July 20, 2019 by Austintatious

[KLRDMD]

2 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

Peter , I have long range tanks on a J , Its barely a two person aircraft with full fuel ……  The Rocket is no different...… That's why I have a Bonanza , 

The major reason I have a Bonanza today is the same. The useful load of my 231 just didn't let me do what I wanted to do. I loved the 231 in all other respects.

[Austintatious]

does anyone know how I can input my EW/ moment into the spreadsheet that was posted?

[Austintatious]

Ok, for those interested in actual Rocket numbers...  I figured  out how to change the numbers to match my aircraft on the Rocket WB spreadsheet.... I don't have the latest info with me but I have some info that is pretty recent ( but is heavier and more forward than current)

 

That being said, the most critical is with full fuel and 2 people up front (seats 50% ) with no baggage.  For instance, a 240 lb pilot and 170 lb co-pilot in that scenario puts you 1 inch forward of CG envelope.  If you add the 24lb charlie weights that puts you .5 inches forward of CG.  It takes 50 lbs in the baggage to get you into CG (with charlie weights).  Or you can have the other person sit in the back and will be in CG with or without the charlie weights/baggage.   This scenario you are under gross by 190 lbs with no charlie weights/baggage with 2nd person in rear seat) or under by 115 lbs with the charlie weight/ baggage and 2nd person in front seat.

If you put anyone in the rear seats you are fine.  If you have 100 lbs of baggage you are fine.

* with the pilot seat at 75% and co pilot at full aft the CG is .2 inches further aft than when both at 50%)

 

Next scenario...  240 lb  pilot, 170 lb co pilot, and 2 x 160 lb passengers, 115 lbs of bags.  You can carry 31 gallons of fuel and still be in CG (WITH charlie weights)  That is enough fuel to go about 1.2 hours with a reserve ( about 190-200 NM) at econ settings (185 knots)  If you don't have the charlie weights you can put on another 4 gallons OR another 24 lbs in the baggage

 

So yea, loading it up with big people definitely limits your range,  but that is the case for most any light weight GA aircraft.

 

I am the 240 lb guy so I will be buying a set of charlie weights and putting all  my crap in teh baggage  from now on rather than the back seat.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Austintatious

[Alan Fox]

5 hours ago, PTK said:

More useful on a J, useless on a Rocket! The difference is that the J and the Bo are certified. The Rocket would never get certified! 

The Rocket is Certified...

 

[PTK]

23 minutes ago, Alan Fox said:

The Rocket is Certified...

 

It would never be certified as in factory built and certified. 

[aviatoreb]

15 minutes ago, PTK said:

It would never be certified as in factory built and certified. 

It must be amazing to know everything about all things and to be right about all things.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Austintatious said:

Ok, for those interested in actual Rocket numbers...  I figured  out how to change the numbers to match my aircraft on the Rocket WB spreadsheet.... I don't have the latest info with me but I have some info that is pretty recent ( but is heavier and more forward than current)

 

That being said, the most critical is with full fuel and 2 people up front (seats 50% ) with no baggage.  For instance, a 240 lb pilot and 170 lb co-pilot in that scenario puts you 1 inch forward of CG envelope.  If you add the 24lb charlie weights that puts you .5 inches forward of CG.  It takes 50 lbs in the baggage to get you into CG (with charlie weights).  Or you can have the other person sit in the back and will be in CG with or without the charlie weights/baggage.   This scenario you are under gross by 190 lbs with no charlie weights/baggage with 2nd person in rear seat) or under by 115 lbs with the charlie weight/ baggage and 2nd person in front seat.

If you put anyone in the rear seats you are fine.  If you have 100 lbs of baggage you are fine.

* with the pilot seat at 75% and co pilot at full aft the CG is .2 inches further aft than when both at 50%)

 

Next scenario...  240 lb  pilot, 170 lb co pilot, and 2 x 160 lb passengers, 115 lbs of bags.  You can carry 31 gallons of fuel and still be in CG (WITH charlie weights)  That is enough fuel to go about 1.2 hours with a reserve ( about 190-200 NM) at econ settings (185 knots)  If you don't have the charlie weights you can put on another 4 gallons OR another 24 lbs in the baggage

 

So yea, loading it up with big people definitely limits your range,  but that is the case for most any light weight GA aircraft.

 

I am the 240 lb guy so I will be buying a set of charlie weights and putting all  my crap in teh baggage  from now on rather than the back seat.

I’m 215.

loading 1 or two people is easy.  3 you need to be very careful with loading and fuel and 4 you need to be very very careful meaning then fuel load is very restricted but as you just said.. it can be done ... legally of course.

and as I said having some dummy weight for the baggage compartment (my bag of sand) can be useful if the copilot is heavy.

my mt as I said really simplified all that.

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, PTK said:

Assuming this is accurate, this scenario illustrates that long range tanks on a rocket are indeed useless.

Ahaha... so when I flew home from mn two weeks ago... useless.  When I flew home from nc early this week... useless.  I wish you told me then!  Full fuel and well aft of forward cg... but peter declares useless airplane ... big mistake.  Does anyone here want to by my useless airplane.

Edited July 20, 2019 by aviatoreb

[Alan Fox]

25 minutes ago, PTK said:

It would never be certified as in factory built and certified. 

It was , first as an STC by Rocket industries , and then by Mooney and called an M20M genius...

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

It was , first as an STC by Rocket industries , and then by Mooney and called an M20M genius...

The story I heard - second hand so I can’t promise - is that Conrad was furious when Mooney factory essentially copied his concept.  Before him Mooney only did small bore.

an m20m with long range tanks....130 gal and that plane is very very weight are barely single pilot airplanes.

ive seen ironically that an m20tn with factory lr tanks and Tks is at gross with a single mid weight pilot.

useless.  Only a peter approved plane is not useless.  If he would open a consulting service for pre purchase approval for us then only then could we all have not Peter-useless airplanes. An m20j with Garmin, ki300 and no lr.

Edited July 20, 2019 by aviatoreb

[PTK]

2 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

It was , first as an STC by Rocket industries , and then by Mooney and called an M20M genius...

Cut it out Alan! You know the Bravo is not a copy of the Rocket, they are two totally different animals...

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20M Evaluation/m20m_eval.html

Incidentally, I’m not the only crazy one saying this. There are some others. I had discussions on this with the Mooney legend himself, the late Bill Wheat and with Bob Kromer whose signature is in my POH, and Ronnie Kramer of Dugosh who took good care of my Mooney since birth. I remember Bill Wheat was adamant. Not a fan of conversions! They must’ve all been crazy!

[Alan Fox]

They are

[Austintatious]

...

 

Edited July 20, 2019 by Austintatious