M016576

I’m pretty sure the entire engine mount is a custom assembly- it’s not the stock one from either the 252 or the Cessna twin.

They are still wildly profitable without GA- which was the question you asked.. “that you can’t imagine where garmin would be without GA.”. Not whether the CEO would lose his job if they weren’t profitable (i do agree, by the way, if their aviation segment was operating at a loss, the CEO would be forced to “do something”... you can tell they are doing OK though- new products keep hitting the street). youre correct on the second statement- according to their last ER- their gross margin on all aviation products is ridiculously high at 74%. None of the other sectors comes close to that level of gross margin. Their marine division, which accounts for 15% of their operating income, has 59% gross margin... just for comparison. if you look at volumes, though- it’s their wearbles and outdoor products that are really moving the most units. Gross margins are lower on those products- but they have economies of scale working for them. only autos are operating at a loss. edit- on further thought IRT their gross margins on aviation products.. seems like Garmin has a ton of pricing power available.. if they ever wanted to “close the noose” on the other manufacturers- they could drop the prices on their units significantly (30%-ish?) and still be profitable. Makes me wonder if there is some sort of “hidden agreement” between the manufacturers to keep prices where they are... or perhaps all their pricing is derived from % of higher cost hull values and their enterprise customers in part 121/135, and or globally. What’s a new TBM cost these days, 2.5 million? 25K for an avionics upgrade seems like an afterthought in relation to that. Yet we all pay the same price for panel stuff... whether we have a 35K C model, or a 300K acclaim...

The Strava app on my Apple Watch 2 w/gps lasted about 3 hours, 45 minutes while streaming music to my Bluetooth headphones. Sucks to have your tracker run out of battery right at the end of a marathon. I think the poster though was using a different gps watch and just uploading to strava, though

They’d be just fine. GA only accounts for ~8% of their bottom line. Source: their last 10Q

That’s not necessarily entirely true... in a single engine aircraft- when an engine fails, the plane is coming down. Maybe it will land in a field, or on a road, or at a nearby strip. When a twin loses an engine- most of the time, the pilot flys the plane back to the field and lands safely. The engine failure isn’t even required to be reported to anyone... and the statistic doesn’t make the Nall report. A twin has failure modes that need to be corrected immediately or can result in catastrophic loss of the aircraft (blue line speeds/Vmc being a major one).. but so do singles (approach turn stall, etc). The key is this: training. Knowing one’s limits and abilities.. objectively. and continuous preparation and practice for the worst case scenario. The twins do have higher approach speeds- so if they suffer a dual engine failure (fuel starvation)... then that opens the pilot up to a higher risk of fatality on landing than a single- for sure- but a competent, trained twin pilot should be able to handle a single engine failure safely, and without issue. Sadly, the person in the video did not leave himself a safety margin, and/or wasn’t ready or prepared...and the result was catastrophic.

Even F-22 pilots have raised the gear before actually getting airborne... Nobody looks cool skidding down the runway with their gear tucked safely up in the wells.....

At glideslope intercept (or FAF for non-precision) I set half flaps, and 80 knots. If I break out- full flaps to land. Go around? Max power, gear,rotate, 2 positive rates of climb, then flaps. Shouldn’t be more than 100 kias- still trying to max perform the climb on the missed (unless the procedure specified a hold down on the published miss). the main reason I like 80kts- is that I can still get my Missile slowed to onspeed from 80kts if I break out at mins. And I try to always practice how I’ll play.

Thanks Yetti! This is exactly what I was looking for- I’ll shoot the sensor wire.

That was pretty funny, honestly... although the pilots flying during that trans pac didn’t think so at the time! Classic Lock-Mar.

On the panel in my M20J Missile, I installed an EI CGR-30P about 5 years ago, but I left all the original ships gauges (and consequently senders) installed and operating. On my last flight, the ships gauge oil pressure (the one up in the strip gauges), pegged full to the right (full high)- the needle is obviously not reading a pressure- it’s just fully deflected right. The oil pressure on the EI CGR-30P still reads normal. my question is this- does anyone know the failure mode on the ships gauge? If it has open voltage- is it full deflection high or full deflection low? I tried spraying the ground with contact cleaner, and adjusted the ground post. I haven’t messed with the sender input, nor have I stripped the cowling to inspect the sender itself. The oil pressure sender is installed on a T-Fitting with the EI oil pressure sender- so they should technically both read the same thing. I’m trying to figure out if it’s the sender that’s busted, or the gauge itself. I’m kicking myself for this- but I just realized that I Have Not checked the strip oil pressure gauge when the power is on, but the motor is not running... that would at least answer on of my questions! thanks in advance

I guess we don’t... great question! Maybe the answer is purging the assembly’s on a time basis (every X number of years)? I don’t know- just a hunch.

Wish I had done that!

If only that were the case (that wealth would flee)... then the democratic party would be forced to change its ways eventually. But for some reason, lots of the wealthy and the majority of them *seem* to support their democratic leaders (take a look around the Bay Area, the north east, the coasts of California.) although a large number of “California refugees” are spilling into my beloved state of Idaho... sadly their democratic views are following them. Won’t be long before they consume that host too.. This whole thread reads like an Ayn Rand novel! I had a run in with the “state board of equalization” when I bought my first mooney (In Oregon) and flew it into California. I was able to successfully avoid the 8.5% sales tax (it’s based on the county you are assessed to have flown the plane into) by paying an aviation lawyer to help me build a case as to why my plane was actually based in another state. The cost of the lawyer was not insignificant.... but it was far cheaper than the tax on the plane. Warning to all- carefully read the state laws on buying/selling and flying an aircraft into the state of California *BEFORE* you do so!!!!

Interesting. a friend of mine, who has about Zero aviation background, asked me about the 737max incidents a few months back. My response was something to the effect of this: I can’t believe a company would design an automatic stall margin system that relied on a single AoA probe: that seems like a terrible design- AoA probes- while a very simple mechanical system, are known to fail (bird strikes, icing.. heck- enough bugs that distort the sensor...) so driving flight control inputs based on a single sensor, is not a sound decision. I’ve flown 2 fly by wire jets. The F/A-18 uses four independent flight control computers, running off 2 physical Angle of attack probes and a third, digitally derived (gps+ins) angle of attack input to compute a smoothed, error checked input. The F-35 has multiple computer/ins derived AoA sources, as well. The common point is this: if two inputs disagree, a third is compared to figure out which is most accurate- and that’s the solution. The redundant flight control computers work the same way. If all of them disagree (in the F-18)- the pilot can manually select the what he/she believes is the correct input based on observed flight conditions. In the F-35- the computers do all the deciding for you. But the redundancy still exists. ive seen them. Bent probes, stuck probes, iced over probes. Hell- I’ve seen two AoA probes ripped off the jet by a refueling basket on a dark, turbulent night (it wasn’t me flying, thankfully- that pilot earned his flight pay coming back aboard the ship that night). Boeing knows better- I’m surprised they didn’t have a redundancy built into the system. But the pilots bear some of the blame as well. All those thoughts to say this: any system that can take over control of your aircraft will only ever be as good as the inputs and error checking that occur within. I know absolutely nothing of the garmin or trutrack autopilot safety systems, or what their inputs are- but before I install one- I’ll be diligently researching and understanding all the possible points of failure and the logic that they have programmed.

I think what he’s asking is more related to the instructor certificate vs rating- they are not only separate skill sets, but separate cards. I’d imagine it’s either for your highest rating, or your instructor certification, depending on the circumstances of the flight violation/enforcement. But I’m only guessing.

Still surprised that mooney would go through the trouble of redesigning a system like the flap controls. Do you think they saved weight with the “new” design? The flap system doesn’t seem to be a failure prone area. Maybe the limit sensor... unless there’s something I’m missing (I’m sure I am).

Interesting- I had no idea the MSE had a different switch. Is it a different motor as well, or just the switch? I’d imagine if it’s just the switch, any A&P should be able to swap it out, then document it as a “minor change.” I cant see why that would require a full STC (unless it’s the whole motor and switch that need to be changed)... placarding maybe?

Ouch. i don’t think I’d short their stock, though... their outdoors, wearables, and marine markets all seem to be thriving. of course.... if the G5/GFC500 combo accounts for any significant portion of their aviation business (which is ~17% of their overall revenue stream per their last 10Q), then I think you’re right: they will find a widely accessible solution, and quickly.

What about roll/angle of bank? Is the ESP strictly airspeed driven, or does it use an angle of attack (digitally derived or otherwise?) my hope is it’s angle of attack driven - and corrects for roll and pitch, to avoid accelerated stalls in the weather as well.... Out of all the simulators I’ve watched and students I’ve flown with in IMC that have become disoriented to the point of getting close to stall- I’m struggling to think of a time where the aircraft was wings level. Im sure the autopilot corrects for angle of bank AND pitch- just curious how it derives it’s stall margin data. I bet the test flights for that system were a lot of fun!

See what happens when we start a little Timmy thread: we get stuck with a bunch of rules! ahhhh the good old days...

I’ve always thought of “hard ifr” as “I’m IMC from 200’ on climb to 200’ on descent, and all of my divert fields and territory between is likely to be at alternate minimums or lower.” Basically, like you’re crossing a hard line in the sand into imc... and know you won’t be exiting to VMC until shortly before touchdown. Hard as in- Not so much as difficulty- but as in unrelenting. I think it’s interesting that a pilot would alter their training to accommodate a “relaxed ifr standard.” I had never even contemplated that as a possibility... probably because I’m flying IFR every day, and IMC for extended periods during my day job. I certainly don’t agree with that mentality, by the way (that one would only want to train to some watered down standard), because we all know that 800-2 can quickly become 300-1... and having an Instrument rating means in part being ready for that scenario. As does partial panel work. I take all the proficiency tasks and training as a “given”- to published minimums. Now when it comes to actually flying the mooney, though- while I train for the worst- I don’t necessarily have to put myself, or my passengers, in those situations. And a long trip that is solid IMC, with 100’s if miles of imc or fog or mountains within 200-300’ of the cloud bases.. while achievable in a mooney, may not be the most prudent flight planning- as it accepts a new level of risk, should a mechanical issue arise, or should un-forecast (or heavier than forecast) icing occur, or should the weather become convective. I guess what I’m getting at, and I think the point you’re making as well, is- that one’s training should never be sacrificed or watered down- the standard should be to train like it’s the worst case scenario. That way, when a flight goes smoothly- you can be pleasantly surprised. but just because one trains for the worst case scenario, doesn’t mean an instrument rated pilot , in a mooney, should head out and seek those conditions “in real life.” Maybe that’s where this nebulous term “hard ifr” comes from? I don’t know. I agree though: there’s nothing inherently “hard” about ifr flight so long as one is trained. It’s just a different skill set than vfr flight.

The AN-2 Colt is much heavier than a mooney (4-5 times heavier... ~12000lbs) I know, it doesn’t look it- but it is) and tends to fly very slow at a high AoA, and with low wing loading on its biplane type structure- hence it should (and does) have “big” wingtip vortices in relation to that small aircraft that was taking off behind it. A mooney, bonanza or single engine Cessna has nothing close to that size of a wake turbulence profile- even though the wingspans are similar. We just don’t create nearly as much lift, even at what we would consider a “high” angle of attack. as for the propwash (and Jetwash for that matter)- that tends to break up relatively quickly, due to the randomness of the wash itself. Don’t get me wrong- If you fly 3000’-6000’ through a turbojet wash- you’re going to feel it in a big way (probably “life altering” if you’re not ready for it). In relation to a propeller- the size (length) of a prop directly dictates how fast it can spin and still create thrust in an efficient manner. The tips can’t get going any faster than the upper transonic region- as once the prop gets supersonic, the compressibility of air at those speeds becomes a huge factor in prop efficiency. The ability for the prop to output enough thrust to make the power required to drive it worth the weight of the motor becomes increasingly out of balance. This is the main reason why you’ll never see a supersonic prop aircraft (although it may be theoretically possible given a light and powerful enough motor.. that I don’t know... I have never heard or seen one- but that certainly doesn’t mean an airplane like that wasn’t built at one point). supersonic props and the drag/weight associated with a prop led to jet engine design- where great lengths are taken to slow and compress a subsonic (or supersonic) air mass in the inlet->compressor sections... then light that air mass on fire and ride the explosion.... and if you’re really lucky- maybe throw 2-3lbs a second of raw fuel into the exhaust and use the excess bleed air and some igniters to light that on fire too. Then you can really get going quickly!

Wingtip vortices (wake turbulence) severity is directly related to the weight of the aircraft, the aspect ratio of the wing and the angle of attack of the wing. The biggest vortices occur with a very heavy aircraft operating at a high angle of attack (very slow). really, the wingtip vortices are a side effect of generating lift (and the creation of induced drag). The heavier the weight, the higher the AoA, the more lift being generated... the bigger the vortices. In a little, light aircraft, like our mooney’s, or a bonanza, we do have wing tip vortices, but they are very small (pretty much insignificant for another aircraft).

Not only that.... they are expensive, too.

The other option would be to rotate before the 737’s rotation point, then turn away from his flight path. That would keep you clear of the 737’s wake turbulence. obviously, if you’re on an ifr clearance, you might not be able to avoid the 737’s wake turbulence. And 2 minutes is certainly prudent.