MV Aviation

Basic Member
  • Content count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About MV Aviation

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjoqi-BqiN7LYFMxFdtjTJA/featured

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Munich, GERMANY
  • Reg #
    F-B.R.H.A
  • Model
    M20E
  1. Now I see what you guys mean. Yah, the cam was mounted on the rudder. Hence, the camera is moving with the rudder due to its defelction. The bit you see in the bottom middle of the video is the top part of the vertical stab, which is not moving (relative to the aircraft).
  2. I was using my desktop computer at work. The 13Mil. cells were in an order that just works. We do have way bigger high performance cluster at our institute, but they weren't necessary for this project. I was amazed by how quickly the turbulence dissipates behind the cam. It doesn't even reach the trailing edge of the wing. Thus, I suspect that even if the cam was mounted on the horizontal/vertical stabilizer, the effect on the control surfaces would be minimal. The main flow velocity is 50m/s, which is roughly 100kts. By the way, the legend in the video is m/s as well. For comparison, I did the exact same simulation with an angel of attack of 15° to see whether the flow detaches from the wing earlier. This would have come close to traffic pattern operations (low and slow), where stalls and spins end up way more disastrous. But the flow did not detach, not even locally (see attachment). True. But ice forms at least somewhat symmetrically and doesn't influence the flow field massively in the beginning. The cam is mounted to one wing only, which may cause asymmetric phenomena (spins) to occur more easily. I figured that this position (underneath the wing) is the most commonly used and the most influential in regard to the control surfaces downstream. From the results I expect that wherever you mount the cam on your aircraft, the effect will always be local. I'm not exactly sure what you mean. The cam is hanging down from the lower side of the wing. Both wing and cam are "rigid" in the simulation and cannot move. Any movement you see is the air. Thanks for your thoughts, Marco
  3. Hi everyone, during the now quieter time of the year I used some resources of my office to investigate how a GoPro (or any other action cam) that is mounted to a wing, influences the flow field. Many pilots are afraid to mount a cam to their wings or other locations on the fuselage, because it may make the aircraft uncontrollable in some situations. I summed it all up in a short video. Please let me know what experiences you had with outside mounted cams. Thanks
  4. I had a closer look today and it turned out to be not just one issue. 1. Looks like the filament is broken :-( However, power/volts is measurable at the socket. 2. The switches seem to be worn out a little. The landing light switch not so much, but I recognized the nav lights switch to be somewhat unstable in the "on" position. 3. I opened the cowling and one of the cables slipped off the landing light connector. (easy to fix) All together this seems to be a perfect point in time to switch to a LED. Thanks again for your help.
  5. My first action will be to open the cowling and have a look. Maybe it's just a loose cable. Update on the EASA side of things: cs-stan cs-sc31a works, however, it involves a mechanic for the release. He estimated 150-250€ + tax (without installation). And this is exactly what I didn't want. Spending 250€ for a landing light and the same amount for "paperwork". Therefore it would have been nice to make it work with a pilot/owner sign-off, especially since the mechanic is not located in my area.
  6. Thanks. But you cannot sign it off as pilot/owner according to point 6: "This SC is not suitable for release to service by the Pilot-owner."
  7. Matt, thanks for your report. I'll look into that. Carusoam, I believe the problem you're describing, is not the one I have. The switches aren't blocked by the panel. When the AC came out of annual recently, the landing light didn't work. The mechanic opened the cowling and did something I did not observe (unfortunately) and the light was working again. Now, a few weeks later the light is dead again. From looking at the bulb I can't tell with certainty that it is or is not the bulb this time. I'm typically keeping the light on during flight for safety reasons, but I have no experience whether a continuous operation may fry the bulb in this aircraft (it shouldn't, I guess). Anyhow, I just thought before I start doctoring around with the old landing light, I might as well get a LED replacement. Best, Marco
  8. He didn't get specific on that. I assume it has something to do with the aircraft specifications. They for example state that you have options a, b, and c for the breaks and options a and b for alternator and so on. If you buy something that is approved, you can chance it on your own and if it's something else, you'll need a STC and a minor change.
  9. Quick update regarding the EASA part of the question: I just talked to a certified mechanic/inspector. He told me that I can swap it on my own (according to part M annex VIII) and no minor change is necessary if the aircraft manufacturer approved the item in question as replacement part. However, it is highly unlikely that I'll find any LED light that is approved by Mooney. Hence, I can still swap it on my own, but have to go through the certification process. :-(
  10. Hi guys, my landing light keeps bugging me and I was looking for LED replacements online. Do you have any recommendations for the "E" model? Can I change the light on my own or does it come with a whole lot of EASA paperwork (STC, ...)? Thanks! Marco
  11. I dug into the database and found the attached result for my M20E. I do have the Hartzell 3-blade prop, thus the first line applies. Now, this configuration seems to be among the noisiest although HC promises "Dramatically lower noise" (http://hartzellprop.com/products/top-prop/mooney/m20c-g-all/). How could that be and how reliable is that database? Are there any other databases? May it be advisable to invest in an actual measurement? Best regards, Marco
  12. Thanks, I'll have a look into that.
  13. Anyone here with a F-reg Mooney? I was told that a noise certificate is not mandatory for aircraft built prior to 1980 according to the French law. But that doesn't help me in Germany. Does anyone have experience on how to get a noise certificate for a French registered aircraft or any other country? Thanks
  14. Quick update. I bought it. It's getting a fresh annual and a GTX345 transponder upgrade right now. I'm pretty excited. Btw. so far the MSC at LFQB has been very helpful, friendly and not as expensive as I expected. Pricing is very transparent and fair.