johncuyle

Supporter
  • Content Count

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

72 Excellent

About johncuyle

  • Rank
    Full Member
  • Birthday 03/14/1979

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Redmond, WA
  • Reg #
    N3991H
  • Model
    231

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hm. I haven't got mine dialed in yet and haven't incorporated it into my flying. If I'm climbing I'm full rich and if I'm in cruise I'm LOP, so I operationally I just use FF as a proxy for HP. My original point was more that if you haven't gone through and made absolutely sure that the %HP is accurate, it may not be accurate. Savvy traces are the only thing that helps when diagnosing an issue.
  2. I think he's referring to the earlier linked comparison article, which inexplicably mentioned TCP and security, which live up in the transport and presentation layers according to the OSI model.
  3. Couple notes: The HP% on engine monitors is generally not too useful. I don't know about the 900, but I think on mine it's calculated using MP and RPM. I agree with everyone else and suspect your GAMI spread is wide. It tends to cause that broad, flat TIT over a wide range of FF due to different cylinders peaking at different times and would account for your inability to run much leaner than 10 GPH. Until you get this sorted, since you're likely running one or two cylinders close to peak, you might want to consider just running a lower power setting to keep TIT lower. Pulling back to something 55-60% (say, ~9.0 GPH, with MP also pulled back to 26-27") will drop your TIT down to something a little farther from the continuous limit.
  4. Agree, you just don't need the kind of throughput ethernet offers for the places where CAN is used, and I can't even come up with an avionics-related application where high throughput would be useful. Was more addressing the previous poster's comment that it was faster and more secure. Faster it is not. I'm not sure how it's more secure either, although it looks like they might have meant reliable/better data integrity rather than more secure in the IT/network administration/network security sense. (I mean, they say the word security but there's no mention of encryption anywhere...) My professional experience is pretty much all video games or web services, so it isn't terribly relevant to avionics. I have only a passing familiarity with CAN due to being an auto enthusiast and (very) infrequent electronics tinkerer.
  5. CAN is generally slower. That comparison uses 10MBPS Ethernet. Nobody's used that for ages. Your home network is most likely all gigabit (mine is, except for a handful of low cost appliance-like devices which only have 100mbps controllers because they don't need any more) and could easily be 10 gigabit if you have a reason to need that much throughput. Also odd, that paper compares TCP running on top of ethernet. TCP seems like an inappropriate protocol for this sort of application. High performance, low latency networking over ethernet generally calls for UDP. CAN seems appropriate for aviation as it was for automotive. Small area, relatively low latency, low throughput is the application. It's a huge improvement over what aviation currently uses. Consider, you have a transponder, ELT, and a couple AP servos in the tail. Conventional aviation engineering requires two ports on your GPS with GPS out, one port each on your XPDR and ELT for GPS in, a third port to feed your AP somehow, three runs of wire, one for each device connected to your GPS (so two runs to the avionics bay) and separate runs from the AP to the servos (so a third/fourth run through the avionics bay) and also more runs to the switches for the ELT, etc. CAN allows one port per device and one run of wire from the panel to the avionics bay. Installation times and costs for additional remote avionics would be dramatically reduced. Volume and complexity of wiring would be dramatically reduced. WEIGHT of wiring would be dramatically reduced. It's amazing that they haven't done this ages ago. Inter-company device communications aren't generally a problem either. I know people think of their car as being made by, say, BMW or Mercedes, but both those manufacturers source lots of electronics from suppliers. You may have a Garett variable geometry turbo, a Bosch fuel injection system, and a Borg Warner transmission, all in the same Mercedes, all talking to each other.
  6. Isn't E-Loran a thing in South Korea thanks to North Korean GPS spoofing/jamming? Maybe the FAA will mandate equipage for Next-Previous-Gen, after everyone has ADS-B and they're looking for something to do. The old Loran-C units will still probably only be useful as paperweights then anyway.
  7. Was talking to my IA the other day while dropping my plane off to have GAMIs installed and have CSB19-01 done. They had a few other Mooneys in the shop, one of which was an MSE. I asked him, "Isn't that the same as a 205? I flew one of those once and instead of the 'Up, don't move, spring-loaded hold to move down' flap switch if had an 'Up, Takeoff, Full" switch. That one like that?" He said, "Yep". I asked him if it was possible to convert mine over, and he said that he didn't know of any legal way to do so. First question: Anyone know of an STC or some other rule which would permit the upgrade. I then asked him if it might be something that could be done under field approval. He said "Maybe. If you can get paperwork from someone else who has done it." Second question: Anyone done this and gotten field approval? Third question: Mind sharing the paperwork? One of the few things I really dislike about my 231 is the design of the flap switch. It seems to have been designed to mimic the function of the hydraulic flaps that the electric flaps replaced without any consideration being paid to improving function. The MSE design is much better. Apparently newer planes went back to the older design for some reason, but I've never found a need for a flap setting between takeoff and full but I've wished for the MSE three position switch every single go-around.
  8. I carry two iPads (CFI: Your iPad has suddenly failed for some reason, what are you going to do! Me: <pulls out spare> Odds of two failing are about zero so I'm just going to turn this one on.) and I have a FlightStream. What I saved on integrated GPS for the both of them (and when I don't buy it again when I buy a 5) is enough to cover the lightly used Stratus 3 I bought, which feeds me GPS and ADS-B.
  9. Looking forward to a review of your install. I filled out their quote form a couple days ago (asking about a 2020 install since I assume they're booked through EOY) and am waiting to hear back. Never used them before, but they come well recommended.
  10. It's cool, your contemplation of the possibility of retiring from your K model to a J-modded E also makes you my spirit guide. You can go first and let me know how much I'll regret doing it. Or not doing it sooner, or something. I nearly bought an E with J mods and I go back and forth between loving the peace and quiet of the high teens and wishing I didn't need so much runway to get off the ground.
  11. I had this kit installed. Worth every penny, completely solves the problem of sticking but... you really do need to have a plan for go around solo without the assistance of electric trim. Those crummy BK trim switches fail from time to time and often with little to no warning. If they give warning it is in the form of periodically not working until the microswitches finish arcing themselves to death. I'm not exactly buff (Q: Do you even lift bruh? A: Do pint glasses count?) and I can hold the plane level at maximum up trim at climb power long enough to use the trim wheel to crank the trim down, so it doesn't require too much strength -- maybe a little more than a pushup. (Had this happen once with a CFI in the plane. His comment, "That looked like a lot of work. Glad you're doing the flying.") Strategy to make this easier: Start running the electric trim as soon as you choose to go around. Make it muscle memory item 1 on go around, before adding power. This gives you a few advantages: Nose down trim ahead of power reduces the maximum arm power necessary to hold it at go around attitude. If your electric trim switch decides to pick that exact moment to fail, you know about it before you jam the throttle forward. Which gives you the option to feed in partial power to arrest the descent, then wheel in a few handfuls of nose down, then adjust the power again. Or if the trees look uncomfortably close, at least you know you're going to need to push hard and wheel in trim fast after applying climb power. Additional: Flap retraction makes the problem worse. Take a beat or two before flipping the switch to make sure everything is working right.
  12. Fourth post. And, 7 pages later...
  13. With the K model and its radio stack hump, what do people do to fit a flat glareshield after redoing their panel like this? Can you just order one for a different model from Mooney that fits or do you just rebuild it from scratch, integrating appropriate lights and wiring and maybe doing a nice leather wrap or something?
  14. Shame about Packard, though. I'd still rather have a '56 Caribbean than a Tesla.