Jump to content

WTB: Rocket with Epoxy Primer


Flow

Recommended Posts

Hello from New Zealand folks,

I am in the market for a Rocket preferably a 1986 on example or one that has had the frame epoxy primed as part of a repaint.

It doesn't have to be too fancy just an honest, well maintained, regularly flying example with good engine data is what I am looking for.

An owner that was up for an adventure flying it to New Zealand and having a holiday on us flying it around here before handing over would be the match made in heaven.

https://skyvector.com/?ll=6.891525890546765,-127.79296875192452&chart=302&zoom=16&fpl=N0175F180 KSMX PHTO PLCH NSTU NZAA

image.thumb.png.c980fdb9fcc17cf29b458cab10424b46.png

Morning mists in our valley

1326387921_MorningMists.thumb.png.da54f12ee7da852eb0e0f9363ceef587.png

 

980462852_JT.png.396e6ba59c16ce1bfbada634ab29a672.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Flow said:

Hello from New Zealand folks,

I am in the market for a Rocket preferably a 1986 on example or one that has had the frame epoxy primed as part of a repaint.

It doesn't have to be too fancy just an honest, well maintained, regularly flying example with good engine data is what I am looking for.

An owner that was up for an adventure flying it to New Zealand and having a holiday on us flying it around here before handing over would be the match made in heaven.

https://skyvector.com/?ll=6.891525890546765,-127.79296875192452&chart=302&zoom=16&fpl=N0175F180 KSMX PHTO PLCH NSTU NZAA

image.thumb.png.c980fdb9fcc17cf29b458cab10424b46.png

Morning mists in our valley

1326387921_MorningMists.thumb.png.da54f12ee7da852eb0e0f9363ceef587.png

 

980462852_JT.png.396e6ba59c16ce1bfbada634ab29a672.png

 

Make sure your pilot relief tube is in working order for the trip:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Gagarin said:

Make sure your pilot relief tube is in working order for the trip:)

Indeed... Glider pilot... ;)

28 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

You’ll need ferry tanks added for that - but wow that looks like fun.

Im keeping mine but I bet you’ll love yours when you get one!

e

I knew that foward CoG would be good for something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Flow said:

Indeed... Glider pilot... ;)

I knew that foward CoG would be good for something.

Btw - forward Cg can be completely fixed.  I got the 4 blade mt composite prop that is 35lb lighter than the McCauley that is standard on a rocket.  Now it’s a much more balanced plane.  It was fine before but now it is even better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw - forward Cg can be completely fixed.  I got the 4 blade mt composite prop that is 35lb lighter than the McCauley that is standard on a rocket.  Now it’s a much more balanced plane.  It was fine before but now it is even better.

That’s one way - but a much cheaper and easier way is to put in a heavier Charlie weight in the tail. Just say’in.
Although I personally like your way better :)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, kortopates said:


That’s one way - but a much cheaper and easier way is to put in a heavier Charlie weight in the tail. Just say’in.
Although I personally like your way better :)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True but you can only put 19lbs and that still leaves a heavy nose (legally in envelope but forward Cg) but then after the prop change the plane is light in pitch like an m20j.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

True but you can only put 19lbs and that still leaves a heavy nose (legally in envelope but forward Cg) but then after the prop change the plane is light in pitch like an m20j.

@aviatoreb I have 19 lbs of charlie weights. My CG before the avionics upgrades got rid of the whole KFC200 stuff in the avionics bay was 48 inches. After avionics upgrades:  47.25".  Basically right on top of the fuel station and right in the middle of the CG envelope.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, PJClark said:

@aviatoreb I have 19 lbs of charlie weights. My CG before the avionics upgrades got rid of the whole KFC200 stuff in the avionics bay was 48 inches. After avionics upgrades:  47.25".  Basically right on top of the fuel station and right in the middle of the CG envelope.

Interesting!  Maybe I need an avionics upgrade too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Interesting!  Maybe I need an avionics upgrade too!

Absolutely, I recommend it!

Seriously though.  I see Rockets (231 conversions) for sale with 1133 and 1040 ULs, but with 42" CGs, and my UL is barely 920 with 48" CG.  And that's my UL AFTER the avionics removed almost 70 lbs! And Jimmy Garrison has anoher 86 252 Rocket for sale at the same time as mine and it had a UL of 960. At the time that was 110 lbs lighter than my airplane.  I wonder:  can a 231 conversion really weigh between 120 lbs and 213 lbs less than my 252?  I seriously doubt it, although I would love to hear otherwise.  Thus I have a fair degree of skepticism as to whether any the weights are correct and thus the same for the CGs.

But it does fly.  FAST  :-)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

I am intrigued by the routing though, that is an AWFUL lot of water to fly over, SEP.  Is going Eastbound not better?

It is! And not to be sniffed at. It is a proper adventure and you need to be well prepared.

If you limit to Part 91 and exclude helicopters... from NTSB data.
73% of ferry pilots that ditch survive the splash down and the sea survival.
87% of ditchings result in all souls saved.
93% of forced landings on land result in no fatalities though injuries including burns are a lot higher.

This is Paul Bertorelli on ditchings

http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm

 

While in Australia I tracked down Ray Clamback to talk about his 300 or so deliveries from the US to Australia and New Zealand and his two open water ditchings

http://www.equipped.com/1199ditch.htm

That route is a probably the most typical avgas route to NZ though I think some are avoiding Cassidy these days as you have to position fuel there in advance. East is way, way harder from a handling, not getting shot down, mugged, ripped off, sold barrels of avgas full of water etc. perspective and a lot more expensive. You can go North and through Russia and Asia if range is limited but the water is much colder and land is not that much safer to land on in an engine out scenario.

Sea survival, temps, sea state, shipping movements, inReach PLBs and ground crews, tropical CBs, limited approach nav aids, Hobbits and real life Dragons you have to contend with Westbound. Believe it of not SEP can actually be safer then MEP when so tanked up that one engine will not keep you in the air even in ground effect for the first 1/4 of the leg.

Lots to think about, and a real achievement to get done safely, even with GPS.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See if you can find examples of MSers that have crossed oceans... they have used onboard devices that leave bread crumbs in real time... on the inter-web...

You may have MSers watching your progress... at various times of the day and night...

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/18/2020 at 5:54 PM, aviatoreb said:

Btw - forward Cg can be completely fixed.  I got the 4 blade mt composite prop that is 35lb lighter than the McCauley that is standard on a rocket.  Now it’s a much more balanced plane.  It was fine before but now it is even better.

It would be awesome if you could make a windy post about the differences the MT prop has made.  I am curious to know the difference in climb, cruise, noise, vibration, maintenance ECT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full thread creep but hey it's bumping the topic! :)

From what I have gathered from MSers. As you can see it resolves a number of issues peculiar to the Rocket at the cost of engine out glide angle ie, range and energy required to flare.


  - ~34lbs lighter on the nose = CoG and payload improvements. Small improvement here have large percentage gain for the Rockets. Handling, trim drag, payload, stall speed, weight on nose wheel etc, etc.
  - Pumps more air through the cowling for better climb cooling due to airfoil shape at root.
  - Noticeably better air brake allowing faster approach speeds if needed for ATC separation, even steeper descents if needed, better short field landing performance due to better float control. Anyone been able to pull off a + 7 degrees landing flap field approval? (Dreaming)
  - Better climb and take off performance
  - Slightly improved high altitude cruise performance
  - Slightly reduced low altitude cruise performance
  - Meaningful negative impact on engine out glide performance. The Cirrus guys talk about going from 9.6:1 to < 8:1 which of course they don't care about but has a meaningful impact on landing options for that particular emergency in an aircraft without a parachute. I have spoken to MT and they will do a feathering hub for an extra 12lbs but this (re-)introduces another potential emergency on take off with the prop governor failure mode being to feather rather than go to fine pitch.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flow,

How is the search going so far?

Have you been to the All American Site yet?

If you get the opportunity to visit AAA in TX... they have many Mooneys to see all at one time...
 

https://www.allamericanaircraft.com/default.htm

Rockets are special... there just aren’t that many to go around...

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Austintatious said:

It would be awesome if you could make a windy post about the differences the MT prop has made.  I am curious to know the difference in climb, cruise, noise, vibration, maintenance ECT.

I'm sorry but believe it or not I did not take before and after numbers.

I did post extensive reviews several times on here as the the specific changes of the prop change, and they are essentially all positive other than the glide no longer being full feather.

Flow just made a pretty good list of the changes but I will add

-much better ground clearance.

-much smoother in cruise

-sounds great.

-looks great and I get compliments on it almost everywhere I go.

-glide - still seems pretty good but clearly less than the full feather version, but as flow mentioned - I had the choice and I decided not to go full feather when I learned that full feather adds an extra failure mode which is if the governor fails the prop is designed to go to full feather - designed for twin use - which in a single is a disaster since then your engine is running but you are making zero thrust and possibly this at low altitude.  So no free lunch after all - I decided that is worse than the possibility of less glide at altitude since there may be more time and more choices at altitude.  No free lunch and knock on wood.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I'm sorry but believe it or not I did not take before and after numbers.

I did post extensive reviews several times on here as the the specific changes of the prop change, and they are essentially all positive other than the glide no longer being full feather.

Flow just made a pretty good list of the changes but I will add

-much better ground clearance.

-much smoother in cruise

-sounds great.

-looks great and I get compliments on it almost everywhere I go.

-glide - still seems pretty good but clearly less than the full feather version, but as flow mentioned - I had the choice and I decided not to go full feather when I learned that full feather adds an extra failure mode which is if the governor fails the prop is designed to go to full feather - designed for twin use - which in a single is a disaster since then your engine is running but you are making zero thrust and possibly this at low altitude.  So no free lunch after all - I decided that is worse than the possibility of less glide at altitude since there may be more time and more choices at altitude.  No free lunch and knock on wood.

Thanks..

I have thought long and hard about full feather being a positive or negative, and I have decided full feather is the lesser of 2 evils.  That could make an interesting thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Austintatious said:

Thanks..

I have thought long and hard about full feather being a positive or negative, and I have decided full feather is the lesser of 2 evils.  That could make an interesting thread.

It is quite a legit choice.  I was on the knifes edge trying to decide myself but as you see I decided no full feather in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about this really hard... until...

I had a gov failure that I didn’t even contemplate... didn’t know to consider... never heard of the failure mode...

The shaft seal let go on T/O, and the prop went into full failure mode... beyond max rpm in my M20C... 

The oil pressure needed to adjust the prop, leaks back into the crankcase...

 

If I only owned half a Rocket.... I would own the back half...  the front half is so complex...   :)

 

be really familiar with the failure modes for the prop.... one type is bad, the other is worse....  overspeed vs. underspeed / no power

So I am typing this for one reason.... when doing the run-up make sure the gov is working... (I could have done better)

A lot depends on what is at the end of the runway... if you use a short runway... over speed is way better than no power.... :)

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.