peter

Quote: flyboy0681 I haven't seen an EFD500 mounted solo, the configurations I see have it side-by-side with an Aspen PFD.

Quote: Cruiser Peter, Do you have any info on how many of these units that are reported malfunctioning in the field end up at the factory warranty department NDF? When is Aspen going to start offering reconditioned units? I hear what Jose is saying but these sound like installation issues not unit failures. What is the current failure rate xx/1000 units? Also, I am curious to know, if these units are effected by EMI, RFI or lightening, with a PFD/MFD combo would both units be subject to the same failure at the same time if in different modes? i.e will DuoSafe protect against this fault?

Quote: Piloto Love it Peter But the fact is that on this thread I have read more on reboots and lock-ups than on engine failures. Can you imagine a new engine in the market with similar problems? I do realize vacuum gyros have their issues but it is not the case for pneumatic airspeed indicators, altimeters, VSI or a whisky compass. Would you replace the control surface push rods for a fly-by-wire system because it is a high tech thing? Jose

So, I'm having some deja vu on this conversation - I think we beat this one to death here: http://www.mooneyspace.com/index.cfm?page=2&mainaction=posts&forumid=1&threadid=1866#post20167 I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree. Obviously, you can always add more redundancy and more disimilarity in your airplane's cockpit to further enhance the aircraft's immunity to rare failure events. At some point the added safety benefits become very small in relationship to the baseline safety of the overall system. Improving a failure event probability from one-in-a-billion to one-in-ten-billion is admirable, but in reality both numbers are very, very small. Ultimately you get to a point where the biggest impact of adding more redundancy is to reduce overall aircraft reliability because now there are more things that can fail. Aspen's approach has been to provide a system and architecture that mitigates the effect of common failure events (vacuum pump, alternator, display failures) so that they are non-events, and to provide a robust design that is tolerant to uncommon environmental events (EMI, HIRF, lightning immunity). We provide the operator with an option to remove older mechanical equipment, but the operator can choose to retain anything they want. Eventually, in a Mooney (and most other GA aircraft) we have all accepted the premise that putting our eggs in one basket is ok, after all, these are single engine, single pilot aircraft.

Duplicate post deleted

Quote: N6784N I like the idea of partnership except 1 problem. What if a partner flew the airplane 200 hours and the other flew say 50 in a given year. ofcourse the 200 hour pilot is putting more wear on the plane so how is that split to make it fair for both and nobody feels cheated?

Quote: Piloto Craig I noticed that you have no barometric airspeed indicator or altimeter on your panel layout. Not that I would not trust the triple redundancy of the Aspen but that of its power source (alternator, battery). I have been hit by lightning at the prop and can tell you that the first thing to go is the alternator and battery relay. Luckily I had vacuum gyros and conventional instruments and was able to continue safe flight but no radios or LORAN. The most important instrument in an airplane is the airspeed indicator. It is essentially your lift indicator. Without it would be very difficult to land specially at night. An airspeed indicator may look old fashion but because of its simplicity and total independence is 1000 times more reliable than any electronic indicator. On an electronic indicator such as Aspen, Garmin or Honeywell the air pressure is conveyed to the pilot via thousands of transistors, lines of code an LCD display that could be corrupted by an electric discharge or an overheat condition. On an ASI the pressure is conveyed via a simple metal diaphragm with a needle attached to it. Don't overlook the simplicity and reliabilty of steam gauges, they will keep you safe. Jose

Quote: laytonl I've been in a M20J partnership for about 4 years. We are set up as co-owners and didn't do the corporation route for the reasons mentioned above. We used AOPA's standard co-ownership agreement as a starting point. We charge ourselves a fixed monthly amount, plus a variable amount for hours flown. We started with a somewhat rigid scheduling calendar and quickly moved to just emailing plans for the next few weeks or a quick email saying we want to use the airplane tomorrow, etc. Our arrangement has worked very well, with practically no conflict. The other owner handles the financials and I'm the maintenance partner. Lee

I just want to know what all that white stuff is on the ground.

My partner and I own the aircraft as co-owners outside an LLC or corp. When we consulted with our attorney when getting our operating agreement drafted (which I'm happy to share - PM me), we learned that the holding the aircraft in a separate entity *might* result in some liability protection, but probably not really. Any smart lawyer will sue the other co-owner for their role as the aircraft operator, and pull you into a lawsuit that way. For example, if I have an accident, my partner will be sued because of his role as the aircraft operator, making him jointly responsible with me for preserving the airworthiness of the aircraft. The smart plaintiff's lawyer will attribute the accident to negligence on the part of the aircraft operator *and* the pilot who was flying at the time of an accident. The best way to protect yourselves is with good insurance, and good mutual indemnification language in your aircraft operating agreement. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, just my personal experience.

Quote: TLSDriver Does the Avidyne play on the Aspen? Did you look at any other traffic systems? Thanks David

Quote: Mitch My partners and I are planning to buy an MX-20 on the used market. We are well aware of the units history and advancing age but feel that for the money it will suit our needs. It will be interfacing to a 430W. The question I pose is about software upgrades over the years. Is there a minimum software level that I should be looking for or are they pretty much the same with the exception of small enhancements here and there?

Quote: N4352H My avionics technician swears by the Apen and says any issues are almost soley installation issues. Just a PFD? the Aspen wins, hands down. PFD/MFD, the gloves are off. I agree Aspen's redundancey with the addition of the MFD is superior. However, I am banking on Garmin's ruthlessness, support and future compatibility issues. I go in for the G500 3/1. Btw, Aspen's SVT is a grand off right now and it looks pretty clever.

Quote: epsalant I have an Aspen in my J. Yes, there are some nuances which can mess you up. I would advise that you do NOT fly in real IFR with the Aspen until you practice a lot with it.

I have a question for all you iPad users: Where do you put the thing? I've tried using an iPad a couple of times now and can't really make it fit. This is using a RAM yoke mount iPad clamp. For instrument work a paper chart on a yoke clip still seems to work best for me. I really like the utility offered by the iPad as an electronic chart case, but I keep getting stuck on where to put it. Suggestions?

Quote: rogerl Santa Fe Aero did the original install - I assume this is the same place that Peter Lyons had his panel done; when mine was in the shop for the install I thought one of the guys had told me that this other Mooney getting a full Aspen complement was John Uczekaj's plane, but on Aspen's website it says John flies a Diamond. At any rate, they've done a pile of them so I assume it was done right (!). 201ZT does have one of those 'fluctuating ammeter' needles that dances around like a drunken clown, but the voltage has always been rock steady at 13.6 to 13.7 (confirmed by Davitron and also the new JPI 730 data stream). None other than Don Maxwell himself said that fluctuating ammeter needle is basically a 201 design flaw, and nothing to worry about (yep, did the master switch replacement - didn't help)

The highest CO level I see in my airplane is 30 ppm, taxing on the ground with the cabin door open. Closing the door and flying reduces the level. In cruise the level is generally below 5 ppm. 30 ppm in cruise and 140 ppm on approach are both higher than I would accept.

Quote: aerobat95 .....do the airports that you keep your planes have a place to wash your planes?

Quote: acronut I've just tied the yoke back and over with the seatbelt...

Log in required. Can you repost the question here?

Are we still talking about EFIS? CAR 3 or part 23 aside, it is part 21 that requires changes to a certified aircraft to be approved. The original certification basis (CAR3, FAR23, etc.) establishes the rules against which changes are evaluated for approval, but don't change the need to obtain an approval for the change. The rules have become more stringent over time, so having a CAR3 basis can make getting an approval "easier." However, for newer technology (like EFIS) where the original rules may not be adequate, the FAA can and does apply later rules and issues special conditions. In the case of the Aspen EFIS, the latest FAR ammendment was applied as the cert basis, even for aircraft originally approved under CAR3. The FAA also applied special conditions for HIRF, and required we meet the latest requirements for direct effects of lightning. So, even for aircraft that are originally approved under CAR 3, the FAA can require that later rules be applied when an aircraft is being modified. For the owner operater working with their A&P or seeking a field approval this probably won't come up as much as it might for a manufacturer seeking an STC for new technologies or equipment.

Quote: Geoff I too have a large temp spread between hottest and coolest cylinders. The hottest cylinders tend to be #5 and #6, the coolest are #1 and #2. In cruise (2500/28 in, cowl flaps closed, 11.7 gph, stock injectors) temp spreads can be 50 deg different. I have a Insight engine monitor so everything is in 25 degree increments, so precision about temps is hard. What engine monitor are you running? Which cylinders are you seeing the biggest differences?

If the camguard affects flash point, wouldn't that show up in the oil analysis? The prior owner for my aircraft used camguard and phillips since overhaul nearly 800 hrs ago. We're now using Aeroshell. All the same, there doesn't seem to be any adverse affects from the Camguard use, and all of the oil analysis performed when Camguard was in use were normal, within specs. Compressions are all still in the 70's. Can you shed any more insight on what specific concerns the FAA might have had for the turbo engines? I'm very interested as my partner and I have not been flying as much as we would like. Thanks! Peter

We have about a 50 deg temperature difference between hottest and coolest cylinders in our 82 231, and I'm trying to figure out if this is "normal" for the notoriously hot running TSIO36-LB engine in this model of Mooney. Last time I had the top cowl off I snapped some photos of some gaps where the aft metal baffling goes around the engine case. The first picture is the aft left side of the engine behine the oil filler neck. The second picture shows the baffling around the case behind the right rear cylinder. Are the gaps in these pictures "normal" or should these have been filled with the same RTV I see elsewhere in the pics? Many thanks, Peter

Quote: carusoam Does the RPM gauge sense an output from each mag?