• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jeff_S last won the day on October 13 2016

Jeff_S had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

704 Excellent

About Jeff_S

  • Rank
    Won't Leave!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Fernandina Beach, FL (FHB)
  • Reg #
  • Model
    M20R - Ovation 3

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. So, I'd like to 'slip' the conversation to the same topic, but from a different angle. It was pointed out to me in a tactful private message that I confused a forward slip and a side slip. I argued my point, but was shot down by FAA Documentation. I guess officially, a side slip is used on landing and a forward slip is used to reduce speed/altitude etc. But I still think this is bass-akward! I know I won't win my argument, but I lay it out anyway to see if someone can help make sense of it. My reasoning is that a "forward slip" is used to maintain the correct forward direction of the longitudinal axis, as required for landing in a cross wind. Whereas a side slip is one where the longitudinal axis of the plane is shifted to one side or the other of forward direction, thus presenting the "side" of the airplane to the desired path (and creating the drag which in fact provides the desired benefit). In fact, the relevant section of the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook agrees that this is exactly what is happening! (See pages 8-11 and 8-12 of the attachment.) So my explanation seems logical to me, but still, I always have them officially backwards. Can anyone give me a better way to think about why a side slip is named thusly, and also a forward slip? Otherwise I am doomed to just say "I slipped the airplane" and give up trying to distinguish between the two. 10_afh_ch8.pdf
  2. What Anthony said. I would slip my J aggressively to lose altitude and/or speed, but major sideslipping is not a recommended practice in the long body. Speed brakes are your friend. If you’re desperate and at 140 KIAS or below, drop the gear. Forward slips for landing are of course a different animal, and entirely normal.
  3. Thanks Anthony. I have two questions that I haven’t been able to answer yet. The first is exactly which model of Airpath I’ve got. The model number info is all worn off the manufacturers decal. I think it’s the 2400 but if anyone can confirm that I would appreciate it. The second question is how to remove the plastic casing. I can’t find any instructions for doing that on the web or at the Airpath site. Perhaps one you loosened the set screw at the back, the casing screws off the compass unit. So again, if anyone can help there that would be awesome.
  4. Hello all, I had to abort a repositioning flight today due to finding my center-post mounted Airpath whiskey compass dangling from one screw. When I touched it to see what was going on, the bracket gave way entirely and the compass was in my hand. Chalk up another victory for the preflight "heading indicator to compass" check! I could tell that at some point in the past, this bracket had already broken and been repaired with some sort of glue, which finally gave way. I was able to salvage the pieces and am trying some stronger epoxy to see if I can get a temporary fix in place, but I have found on Chief Aircraft what I think is the replacement plastic bracket that should be the permanent fix. My question is, how do you get the bracket off and back on? There is a single screw in the back of the unit that looks like it would be holding on the bracket, but when I loosened that to test it, the plastic didn't seem to come loose at all. Has anybody done this? The bracket is $40, vs. $250 for a whole new compass/bracket combo. All help appreciated. Thanks!
  5. I did Google it, right after I replied to the post. So I got the information. It just seems to me that a bit more context might have helped everyone understand who isn't following TIGHAR religiously. But titillation and obscure information are part of the process, I understand... Personally, having examined all the photographic evidence that is now on display everywhere, I think people are stretching with this one, but you never know. I do think that Nikumaroro is the likeliest spot for them to have ended up based on other evidence. Perhaps Ballard can help validate. Only problem is, what happens to the intrigue-industry if this is ever proved? What is the next mystery to be solved. I know...Ancient Aliens!
  6. My Ovation doesn't have an official nick-name but I affectionately call it my "rocket ship" because I love the way it accelerates off the runway. I've also been known to call it my personal time machine. My first plane, a Warrior, earned the nickname "Jugs" because not long after I bought it we had to pull a cylinder off to repair the studs which had corroded and were causing an exhaust leak. Like any good call sign, the nickname should be earned through behavior or reputation! My buddy has a 1963 Cessna 172 that flies very nicely but clearly looks like it's been around the block a time or two. The call sign ends in "1U" so the plane is named "1 Ugly".
  7. Say what you will about Tom Cruise's personal life weirdness, he has found a niche in playing the the rough and tumble hero in a variety of genres: Missions Impossible, War of the Worlds, The Mummy...and yes, Maverick. The man definitely has a persona of cool and just enough "out there" to buck the system and get the job done. It's always possible that they could screw up the sequel, but frankly I doubt it: they spent plenty of time putting it together, and I think Cruise's innate ability to piece together this kind of story will make it quite enjoyable. And based on this trailer, I expect most of the flight sequences will be real. If he's willing to dangle himself outside of a C5 Galaxy (going from memory there) for numerous takes, I think he'd want to do as many real cat-shots as he could!
  8. So I'm not an expert on avionics software by any stretch, but what I have gleaned is that Garmin and Mooney did the work to certify the G1000/55x combo, utilizing the known specs of the 55x. A lot of the 55x behavior is really driven by the G1000, especially in terms of the VNAV signals sent to the A/P. So that is one source of the conflict with the new 3100, which has its own VNAV algorithms which could conflict with the G1000's. Again, there are potential solutions for this (you can write code for anything), but Genesys has decided to pursue other business opportunities for now.
  9. Hello Everyone, I had a nice conversation with Barry this morning. He called me up to let me know that due to a lack of perceived demand (only 8 confirmed POs according to Barry) they have decided to push off the Mooney STC indefinitely. He went through the count of interested parties as he knew it, and said that of the original 22 POs that came in, many of these have dwindled off due to airplane sale, selecting Garmin instead, death of owner, etc. Genesys has determined that with bigger demand from other airframes in their pipeline, they have to focus on those instead. As a software business person, I can't argue that point. Most of my time was spent working with Genesys on the G1000 interface elements, and this is problematic for those of us with the G1000/55x combo. The short form of the story is that Genesys could implement many of the 3100 features on the G1000, but two areas were problematic. The first was getting annunciation from the 3100 to the G1000, and given all the new modes in the 3100 that the 55x didn't have, they pretty much decided to NOT annunciate any modes on the G1000. That was probably a livable solution. However, the (potential) inability to utilize altitude preselect from the G1000 to drive 3100 behavior has proven to be a much stickier wicket. My comments to them were that if G1000 couldn't drive altitude behavior in the A/P, for manual preselect as well as the programmed altitudes in the approaches, then this would be an unacceptable user interface and I would not pursue installation. I think they agreed. And the time/cost of further exploring this solution is one of the reasons they decided to hold off for now. Barry did say there may still be light on the horizon vis a vis the G1000. The exercise they've gone through so far has furthered their general knowledge of the G1000 interfaces, and they have other groups (including one training firm that has 50+ Pipers with G1000/55x) that they are still talking with. There may still be a solution, but for now it is on the back burner. Barry asked that I share this with the group, so I have discharged that duty. I am somewhat disappointed with the current resolution, but on the other hand, the 55x still works well and Barry said they expect to be supporting it for 20+ years. In the meantime, none of this impacts the ability of my beautiful Conti IO-550 from aggressively purring through the sky! Cheers, Jeff
  10. I appreciate everyone’s comments. I’ve learned a lot in my investigation, especially the difference between CAT-CEET-SCAT-SCEET! I hadn’t realized there are four different types of this stuff. From studying the damaged duct I’ve determined it is CAT tubing, where CEET (or SCEET) may be preferable with double lining to prevent the wires from being exposed to moisture. I had hoped I could use some good old fashioned duct tape for a temporary repair whilst waiting for something permanent, but in attempting this I caused the very brittle material to break all the way in two. Time to spend a bit of money!
  11. I wanted to start a new thread focused on the issues interfacing the S-TEC 3100 with the G1000, for those 100+ Mooneys that are still flying around with the 55x. There's no doubt that the 3100 would add significant new features over the 55x and it would be a nice replacement. And Genesys's offer of the $9995 upgrade is quite reasonable. However, there are challenges with getting it to interface with the G1000 that are not adequately described in recent posts on this topic, so I'm trying to get a more complete story out there. I apologize if this is somewhat lengthy...I'll try to summarize as best I can. Contrary to what has been written recently, Genesys has NOT gotten the 3100 to work with the G1000 in any airplane model. I know this because I spoke directly with one of the lead engineers on the project. I won't mention his name, but I will say that he is very forthright and not afraid to "tell it like it is". He also really wants to get this working as best they can, so perhaps as a group we can help. The problem presented by the G1000 is the tight level of integration between it and the A/P at several layers of the software stack. Unlike other avionics components, which are generally designed with a singular set of common interfaces, the G1000 evolved to support different hardware elements before Garmin finally standardized around their own components. So when you are setting up the G1000, config settings tell it whether it is interfaced with a Garmin A/P (the GFC700), the 55x, or w/o any autopilot. This config setting drives other behavior throughout the user interface. So the overall behavior of the G1000 is heavily influenced by these settings and not something that is easily modified. One conflict is the types of information that can pass between the G1000 and the 3100. Aside from the main flight control data, which is used for navigation purposes, the G1000 also manages altitude preselect. The 55x does not know its merely takes instruction from the G1000 to either climb or descend to the altitude selected in the G1000. But the vertical speed is selected at the 55x, and it passes this info to the G1000. So the G1000 knows the current VS as set on the 55x, but as you climb or descend to reach the desired altitude, the G1000 sends instructions to the 55x to gradually decrease the VS vector and level off at the new altitude. In contrast, the 3100 does know its actual altitude, and it has a built-in capture mode and algorithm for modifying the VS vector as the desired altitude is reached to smooth the arrival. This is where one conflict arises. Which method should be used? The G1000 isn't designed to capture this mode output from the 3100, so if the 3100 is driving the behavior it won’t (can’t) send the target altitude to display on the G1000. But the G1000 method for altitude preselect uses a different algorithm and may create conflict when deployed on the 3100. This also points out the issue of what data the G1000 could even display. With the 55x, the G1000 displays the mode annunciations and the VS as displayed on the 55x. But the 3100 has several new modes that are not in the 55x interface (IAS climb, straight & level, altitude capture, VNAV). And while certain versions of the G1000 do have these annunciations as part of the GFC700 interface, it is highly unlikely that Genesys would be able to use them for the 3100--at least not without some programming help from Garmin. One option is to force the pilot to use the annunciators on the 3100 itself and not show them at all on the G1000. But this would be a significant human-factors change from current operations and could cause confusion among pilots…not a good thing when relying on such a significant tool as the A/P. As one example, suppose the decision is for all mode programming to be made and shown only on the A/P and not on the G1000. Now take a busy pilot in the soup who is used to the old method of operations—me, for example! If I’m in the clag and given the instruction to descend and maintain 4000’, I would have to enter this into two different boxes for everything to work. If I only enter the altitude into the G1000 and then the VS in the A/P (the current procedure), then the A/P will not stop at that target altitude and I'll bust my instruction. Or if I enter it only on the A/P, then the plane will descend and stop correctly but my SVT highway in the sky boxes will start getting smaller and higher in the screen, and the G1000 may even start beeping at me as I pass the 200’ mark because I’m not holding its programmed altitude. (Unless that feature is deactivated in the G1000 and the aural alert is provided by the 3100…another possibility, but further increasing the complexity.) This is just one example of the potential for confusion that can develop if the two devices are not allowed to communicate, at least to the same level that the G1000 and 55x can talk today. But it points out why the integration effort for the G1000 is significantly more complex than with other devices. Even what seems to be the simplest solution, i.e. replicating the existing functionality with the 55x on both units, and forcing the 3100 to handle and annunciate the rest, means that now pilots have different places to see and manage the functions of the A/P. This would require documentation and a learning curve. (And since the 3100 outputs only in digital format, it would require a digital-analog converter to output the same signals to the G1000 that the 55x currently does. This alone may be doable, but does it provide the best user experience?) Let’s get to the crux of the matter, which is that the Genesys sales representative has recently stated that they need 8-10 more “non-reversible” purchase orders to satisfy the business case internally for the STC to continue. While I understand the business rationale of balancing the costs of development with the potential revenue, as I stated to the Genesys engineer, there is no way I (or any reasonable G1000 owner) can commit to paying for this upgrade without a firm understanding of what the bare minimum integration will be and deciding whether or not that is satisfactory. The engineer understands and agrees with this point. So he has said that Genesys will study this issue in more detail and provide a better description of what the integration effort can provide. There should be a set of baseline integration features they can commit to, and then a list of others that might be possible as they pursue development. Then we can make an informed decision about an actual purchase order. Here is where we can all help. Any “customer input” that we can use to prod Garmin into working with Genesys on this project may help promote deeper integration. At the moment, Garmin has provided limited support, even though they don’t seem to be pursuing a competitive retro-fit option. Myself and @Deb would like to compile a list of similar G1000-55x owners and use this to lobby with Garmin for the project. We will do the best we can with the FAA registry, but if you would like to be on this list please drop me a PM and we’ll add you. In the meantime, any non-G1000 users who are considering the 3100, please keep your interest known to Genesys and heck, go ahead and make that deposit! You won’t face the same integration issues, and this may give Genesys enough of a demand forecast that they will proceed regardless. That is good for the entire Mooney fleet. I haven’t relayed all the details that I’ve learned about this, so if you want to ask me other questions I’m happy to tell you what I know. Thanks!
  12. @mike_elliottThanks Mike. I'm happy to support the factory as well and if it's really only $50 it would probably cost that much in my time and effort to get one fabricated. I did my normal MSC and they were the ones who suggested that any scat tubing would work, but again, the total cost seems like it would be close to the same. I'll give Don a call.
  13. Thanks GEE-BEE. I'll send a PM to continue the dialogue.
  14. Hello all. This is in an Ovation but it's really a general Mooney question so I'll post here rather than in the Modern forum. Today I noticed an unusually strong breeze coming through my knees on takeoff, and traced the source to the scat tube that comes in off the right-side vent behind the firewall. One of the metal ribs has completely escaped, putting a rupture in the tube, and there are several other holes. I've attached the photo below. So the quick question is, can I just get the appropriate tubing from Aircraft Spruce and replace this, or do I need an official Mooney part? The tubing has special treatment on both ends, but I don't know how important that is. I actually tried to remove it myself but while I could undo the clamps, the tubing itself seemed to be stuck on there in some way and I didn't want to force it and break something else. I appreciate your thoughts. The photo is difficult to put into perspective, but you can tell on the right it's coming in from the sidewall and then connecting to a junction box up under the panel. The main rupture is closer to the junction can see the wire the busted out of the tube if you zoom in. Thanks! Jeff