afward

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About afward

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    KSUZ
  • Model
    We'll see

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @nels I've always used Android devices for my personal smartphones and am a big fan of the Pixel line (I still use a 1st-gen Pixel). They don't run Foreflight (it's developed by Apple snobs), but Garmin Pilot is nearly as good and there are several other options that have their own strengths & weaknesses (I've used DroidEFB and tried Avare). The downside is that Android "feels" different enough from iOS that a switch will take you some time to get used to. You might also find you don't like it. I happen to like the Android approach to things, but I'm a control-freak software developer, so YMMV... May I recommend that you consider an iPad Mini for flying apps and a "not flagship level" phone as your personal comm device / camera (iPhone SE, Pixel 2, Galaxy S8, etc.)?
  2. It's not. The mobile-side chips to support 5G won't be mature for another year or so, leading to reduced battery life and higher acquisition costs for anything released before mid-2020 (at the earliest). Very similar to the first-generation LTE devices.
  3. That's a fantastic attitude to have, and one I think most aviation vendors could stand to learn / learn better. No doubt that is correct. Doesn't mean one should jump on a public forum to vent said frustration in a "don't buy [Company X]'s products" way. Present the facts, let the reader decide. It might turn out that one's experience is truly in the minority, in which case no harm will be done by presenting the facts. On the other hand, "bashing" the company may not turn out so well, for either side... Those are illustrative. The GTN issue is of course infamous, but the JPI squelch issue is a new one on me (admittedly a pretty low bar to reach). They did ultimately fix it (sorta), so there's that. That said, I'm sure more communication would've gone a long way.
  4. I'm not letting anyone off the hook. I am, however, drawing a line between "rational discourse" and "irrational hating*". The whole point is that bashing is always an emotional, needlessly harmful, and otherwise pointless endeavor. Instead, present the facts and let the reader decide. * I really dislike "hating" here, but can't think of a better word offhand. It conveys the idea well enough, so I'm keeping it.
  5. I wise person once told me, "In business, perception is reality." Most people expect a $20k purchase to be handled with more care than a $20 purchase, so for most purposes there certainly is a difference. Of course, that's the customer side. On the vendor side, it's completely different and I agree with you: There should be no difference in the care given, regardless of the price point.
  6. It's one thing to talk about an issue with a vendor's product and the challenges of getting it resolved. it is another thing entirely to declare said vendor undeserving of our business. The former is factual discussion, the latter is just bashing*. At least I think that's what @carusoam was getting at. * For argument's sake let's assume the vendor in question is at least trying to be a good vendor.
  7. afward

    SureFly Certified

    I think that's what most of the bolt-on solutions do: Just stay on the conservative side. Auto EI systems do actually retard timing based on detonation margins (or direct detection?)... At least I know Honda's system did back in the 2000 Civic Si. Of course, if you really look into automotive EFII tunings, you'll find that most of them are tuned incredibly conservatively at default settings, optimizing driveability, efficiency, and emissions (not always in that order). They also do some really "interesting" tricks (e.g., cycling between rich & lean during cruise to ensure the 3-way cat is getting enough carbon[?] & oxygen). Of course, we just need something that can be optimized at cruise to produce the best power or BSFC possible for the given power settings and available cooling, so maybe we really don't even need detonation detection in an EI system?
  8. afward

    SureFly Certified

    As I understand it, bolt-on EI systems cannot detect detonation margins effectively enough to dynamically pull back timing when needed... Basically, there's too much vibration going on. Supposedly, Lycoming figured out how to do it on a TIO-540 (see: iE2 engine), but I'll be shocked if the only change being they replaced the mechanical FI and magneto systems with a FADEC system.
  9. D'oh! I never knew the Monroy STC holder was a member here. So that makes more sense now. I thought you were talking about some unpublished concept you'd come up with and gotten 337'ed somehow. Mea culpa!
  10. Ha, if you say so. I'm not quite educated enough on the intricacies of the timing of each "extra range" STC and your solution to really determine for myself who gets priority on that. I do know aviators and manufacturers have been trying to figure out various clever tricks to get more range since flying distances became a thing, so "do it on a Mooney" may not be a very good qualifier with which to declare it "novel" or "a new concept". Maybe it is, in which case I think most of us would highly appreciate if you posted a copy of the documentation so we can learn from such a "visionary" idea. Edit: You edited your statement from an objective statement (mine is "first") to a potentially subjective statement ("achievable, elegant"). My above paragraph doesn't really apply to the new text. What are your criteria for "achievable" and "elegant" that qualify your solution but not the existing STC solutions? Not cool changing the text like that. It breaks the flow of the conversation and can lead to large misunderstandings.
  11. Jose, what is novel about your solution? And what new concepts are you proffering to us mere mortals? Seems like you're just re-treading ground the manufacturers have looked at 1000's of times and arrived at the same general set of solutions. In other words, are you sure of your various solutions' superiority because they are visionary, or because of hubris?
  12. afward

    Demo flight & Your thoughts on a C?

    @moodychief I'll have to see if we can arrange for that sometime. I don't have any idea when, though.
  13. afward

    Demo flight & Your thoughts on a C?

    It may be a mistake, or it may not. Since I'm not actively in the market to purchase, it's probably not worth arguing with her right now. That said, I do have one question: Is the footwell the same on a mid-body as it is on a short-body?
  14. afward

    Demo flight & Your thoughts on a C?

    @carusoam that's a good point. Once I'm back to looking I'll give that option some serious thought. Thanks!
  15. afward

    Demo flight & Your thoughts on a C?

    Yeah, I saw that on the other thread... Can't bring myself to listen to it.