kortopates

Chris just added support for our K's today. You should have gotten an email from Savvy. another model covered. I believe we're now down to M & TN

I have never seen any problem getting TCM or Superior parts. I fly an MB converted SB and although there could be some parts unique to the GB harder to find, I am sure the LB being fully supported is no problem either. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With so many GPS satellites and a couple WAAS correction birds, interference with one or two satellites isn't likely to be an issue. At least I have never experienced a LOI issue, not one that wasn't due to my own equipment. And I am anal too - but not that anal [emoji846] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most or at least many injectors get partial blockages from installing them - piece of o-ring gets nicked or a little debris gets into the line when it's put back in place. This is an operation you want to do with the utmost cleanliness or you can do worse than you started. That said, most injectors do need cleaning eventually, but NA engines shouldn't need it every annual. But turbo injectors are a different story being pressurized with UDP and will require significantly more maintenance just like pressurized mags. As for maintaining them, this is best done by using a data driven approach - not on an arbitrary schedule but when warranted. The Savvy pilot knows their gami spreads and when they see the rankings from to lean to rich change then spots the injector(s) getting leaner; before the spread size changes significantly. I hope the difference is clear. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can't add an additional sender for Monroy's tanks. The better solution might be to move the outboard sender to the Monroy tank but some testing/experimenting would need to be done to verify a re-positioned 2 sender system provided no discontinuities in fuel level between full Monroy tanks and empty. Anyway chasing such changes is a pipe dream. I wrote about the CIES senders and Monroy tanks at the beginning of this thread. Its a huge improvement in fuel level/qty accuracy than with the old OEM senders and not just because the CIES are more accurate.

As I recall, Sandia went many months past their expected ship dates too. In fact luckily for me, as initial units were having problems, I got wind of the L3 ESI-500 and held off. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I covered mine with plastic bags and masking tape before spraying- then removed it the following day. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even better than going by 0 degrees of bank is to recognize its really 1 g level flight or angle of attack. Thus in stabilized approach to landing where you are in a constant descent you don't need to be as concerned about the bank angle because stall speed is reduced from the lower AOA. It's flying the long pattern where one ends up holding back pressure to keep level or getting low and responding with back pressure instead of power (when not already fast) that gets us into trouble - or even worse, the deadly skidding turn from using excessive rudder which leads to pulling back even more elevator. Anyway, it's not just bank but G loading that comes from bank. Vspeeds are unaccelerated 1 G speeds. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I mentioned that in my post on the 8/17, but I didn't realize that JPI had made that a requirement so to speak with the drawing. We just had lots of problems that were suspected to be from grounding issues, so one of the final changes was bringing the ground back to the cockpit which was the best insurance to solve that and got us past an unstable signal.

Yes, its only the IO-360 powered aircraft that make up the cohort, not just the more inclusive aircraft model. It had me very confused as well. But since the automated reporting is based on a cohort, which is the tuple of aircraft model AND engine. Showing the more inclusive aircraft model gets confusing. This will get cleaned up, but I don't know how long to expect. As for throwing out flights, there might be some flights discarded if the cruise flight is never detected, as Chris discussed in the other thread, but for the most part no. We're very limited in ability to delete flights too. They can be deleted but only by the data file name used to upload them. Since a data file could be one flight or many flights; your selectivity to delete all depends on how they were downloaded from the monitor.

I posted this in another thread on the Modern Mooney forum that pretty much kicked this all off leading to the recent new reports but since given this thread I thought I should repost it here too. Since the cohort is confusing, due to some early choices we made in grouping similar models into Savvy Aircraft models I'll try to clear up this up with an example. Here is an example, generating a report card on Bob's E model. When a Vintage Mooney user enters their N number into the drop list, it will display the Savvy Aircraft model that is shown right after the N number below in the report header. However, although the E model, are combined in the Savvy Aircraft Model M20A/B/C/D/E/G, the reports are based on a unique cohort that uses both Aircraft model and Engine model. In this example the aircraft model includes only two engine type i) all O-360 180 HP, and ii) all IO-360 200 HP. You can think of the cohort as the intersection of aircraft models with the specific engine - in this example the IO-360 i only a match for the E model and eliminates everything else. (its not intended to read as all the A/B/C/D/E/G use an io-360!) And in this examples, Bob's E model is being reported on along with 31 other E models. The second cohort, with the O-360 engine, includes all the carbureted models only as expected i.e., M20A/B/C/D/G. I hope that makes sense, and it took me a long time to decipher since I was only reading incorrectly as the union of the models and engine - mistake on my part. We realize the use of our current aircraft models can be confusing but its going to take some time to make some significant changes down the road; meanwhile bear with us that the cohort is the unique tuple of our savvy aircraft model and engine combination. N943RW · M20 (A/B/C/D/E/G) · IO-360 · EDM-930 Includes 33 flights between Sep 05, 2016 and Sep 05, 2017, compared with 693 flights by a cohort of 31 M20 (A/B/C/D/E/G) aircraft. So some of you may be wondering about differences in engine suffixes, like Dual mag versus separate mags and Anthony brings up 20 degree vs 25 timing differences. It gets much worse because we have clients that have installed electronic ignition, other STC engine mods for Merlyn pneumatic wastegates and/or Intercoolers on 231 K models, and STC HP increases on essentially same IO-550-G. It goes on and on. We do track most of this stuff for our clients that we report on, but we haven't yet incorporated these details into our Savvy aircraft model information so its neither available to our reporting software nor is the information even collected with our free account users. But just not yet though. Give us time....

Since the cohort is confusing, due to some early choices we made in grouping similar models into Savvy Aircraft models I'll try to clear up this up with an example. Here is an example, generating a report card on Bob's E model. When a Vintage Mooney user enters their N number into the drop list, it will display the Savvy Aircraft model that is shown right after the N number below in the report header. However, although the E model, are combined in the Savvy Aircraft Model M20A/B/C/D/E/G, the reports are based on a unique cohort that uses both Aircraft model and Engine model. In this example the aircraft model includes only two engine type i) all O-360 180 HP, and ii) all IO-360 200 HP. You can think of the cohort as the intersection of aircraft models with the specific engine - in this example the IO-360 i only a match for the E model and eliminates everything else. (its not intended to read as all the A/B/C/D/E/G use an io-360!) And in this examples, Bob's E model is being reported on along with 31 other E models. The second cohort, with the O-360 engine, includes all the carbureted models only as expected i.e., M20A/B/C/D/G. I hope that makes sense, and it took me a long time to decipher since I was only reading incorrectly as the union of the models and engine - mistake on my part. We realize the use of our current aircraft models can be confusing but its going to take some time to make some significant changes down the road; meanwhile bear with us that the cohort is the unique tuple of our savvy aircraft model and engine combination. N943RW · M20 (A/B/C/D/E/G) · IO-360 · EDM-930 Includes 33 flights between Sep 05, 2016 and Sep 05, 2017, compared with 693 flights by a cohort of 31 M20 (A/B/C/D/E/G) aircraft. So some of you may be wondering about differences in engine suffixes, like Dual mag versus separate mags and Anthony brings up 20 degree vs 25 timing differences. It gets much worse because we have clients that have installed electronic ignition, other STC engine mods for Merlyn pneumatic wastegates and/or Intercoolers on 231 K models, and STC HP increases on essentially same IO-550-G. It goes on and on. We do track most of this stuff for our clients that we report on, but we haven't yet incorporated these details into our Savvy aircraft model information so it neither available to our reporting software nor is the information even collected with our free account users. But just not yet though. Give us time....

Hi @Bob_Belville and our other M20E clients such as @HRM Sorry but good news. Its not at all clear, but E model's reporting cohort is truly only E models. We have one Savvy aircraft model for all Vintage short bodies that includes A,B,C,D,E & G. But we derive 2 different reporting cohorts from it, i) 0-360 180 HP powered and ii) IO-360 200 HP powered. Thus the latter cohort is only E models and the former group is all the A,B,C,D,&G. See a follow on post with an example. Still on the list are the K, M and & TN models. Agreed, if it was my choice, the K's would have been first out!

I see what you mean (running with your N number) , I am checking on that. In other communications I got the below implying a separate cohort so I'll report back after I verify with Chris: M20E / IO-360 M20 (A,B,C,D,E,G) / O-360 M20 (S/R) / IO-550

Chris has added support for the M20E model now too - go for it @Bob_Belville

No problem, this one: http://www.triconsprayers.com/product/tri-con-atomized-sprayer-o-1800-1/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just recently did mine using ACF 50 and a Tricon sprayer. I went with the Tricon made for this because they also provide 5-6 foot wands that mist perfectly with their sprayer. Very affordable too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am of the opinion that the slide rule E6b can stay in the Smithsonian. It has no practical real world value anymore than slide rules do - its is a circular slide rule after all. What's really ironic in my opinion if there is problem in what is being taught, lack of basic like this is not the problem, pilots need to be able to use all their available equipment and despite the popularity of GPS in the cockpit, there are lots of pilots out there that barely know how to use theirs. To me that's where the emphasis should be. New VFR students certainly need to know how to flight plan a cross country flight manually. By manually, I don't mean using a sectional and a slide rule E6B. An electronic e6b is fine. Its not about punching in numbers anymore than it is about turn wheels. Its all about looking up performance data in your POH for all the phases of flight and adding up time fuel required and to a lesser extent accounting for winds manually. Its primarily about being able to apply the POH performance data for the aircraft they fly to figuring time and fuel. But these days students more commonly use Skyvector.com to map out their flight plan on the PC rather than sectionals and then get magnetic headings and nm between waypoints. From their they'll need to do at least the rest of the fuel and time calculations manually with a digital E6b utility or calculator. They are still taking these into the written exams but even there, with the recent changes in the ACS the need for them is dwindling since they are getting away from problems that need interpolation. Secondly, any new VFR pilot needs to be able to divert and estimate time required and fuel required in the air. You didn't need an E6B to get in the ball bark back in the day, but you could sure do a better job turning the wheels on the e6B. But now, our panel GPS is going to solve this problem even better. And if all the electrons have really quit flowing, if we covered this in the flight planning using POH data, they should be able to ball park in the air as well. To put this all another way, let's focus on the skills they need to learn, not the technology they use. Flight planning and diversion requirements are skills previously done with e6b. The real skill of flight planning is learned pre-flight, they really need to learn this without a fully automated solution, but in the cockpit they should learn how to leverage all their available resources - that's being a better resourceful pilot.

Me too! Didn't realize there were actually three places it's covered. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually ground speed is not that far off. Mike did a webinar where he talked about "Big Data" and a study Chris did on this very topic. They looked at Groundspeed vs TAS and showed that groundspeed was a bit slower on average from TAS because as I am sure you understand headwinds and tail winds don't average out or cancel each other out, Then they showed on average to wind that for any heading to the relative wind, about 200+ degrees out of the 360 is actually a headwind leaving only less than 160 degrees in the headwind component. They also covered some other interesting aspects. But in the end on average over lost of flights groundspeed was proportionately related to TAS i.e., It all averages out with lots of flight data. Yes, the GTN750 accepts airdata input and will calculate the the wind vector, density alt, TAS etc for you using sensor airdata (and of course manually too). Airdata includes much more than OAT and baro, also requires pitot-static data. I don't know if there is provisions to pass airdata from the Aspen to the GTN - good question. However, recognize EDM relies on a specific fuel interface to talk to the GPS's as @teejayevans was saying. The fuel interface was engineered to allow the GPS to do fuel planning and allow the EDM to display fuel remaining at your destination (or next waypoint) that's the main reason why groundspeed is going back to the EDM. The Garmin serial port configuration may be setup incorrectly or to what the EDM is configured to expect for the GTN to EDM fuel interface. The JPI web site explains the specifics of what the settings are and might help you correct the ground speed issue you're experiencing on the EDM data. It was the fuel interface that was so handy in allowing pilots to climb to altitude and then just lean till they had the desired range at their destination to increase range safely for long cross countries - assuming you had a good handle on how much fuel you really had in the tanks.

There is nothing on the chart to tell you how to turn on the lights, just what kind of approach lighting. There is another whole document that includes that information and I am sure you remember what it is look there under "service". Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct, old legacy FF gauges only measured fuel pressure, not flow at all. And these days we would never bring a fuel pressure line into the cockpit, nor an oil pressure line. Instead, using fuel pressure for an example, you'd take the hose coming off the fuel divider and take back to the firewall where there is less vibration and mount a pressure transducer on the end of the hose and just route the electrical wires through the firewall - the advantages of modern electrical instrumentation over your OEM analog gauges. The STC FF documentation will tell you exactly where to install the FF. I haven't seen any that weren't installed inline between the fuel pump and the servo. But refer to your documentation. Mooney also provided drawings for the J model when they were installing them so it might be worthwhile to check a J IPC to see how Mooney physically installed them since your setup should be pretty similar, but main requirement is no bends in the line close to the fuel flow transducer. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some of the engine analyzers interface to the GPS includes TAS in addition to groundspeed. G1000 is probably the most common one that does that but some of the experimental ones too. EDM is not one of them unfortunately but groundspeed gets the job done. Not sure I get the connection between temperature probe and IAS. All the air related parameters are coming from air data, the digital air data sensors utilized by glass panels to show you IAS, TAS, Winds aloft, Baro including ALTmsl, VS, OAT, and etc in the G1000/500/600 & Aspen etc. We can get Altitude from airdata and more commonly from GPS (with ground speed, and lat/long).

It's just that the WAAS cards have something like triple or quadruple the storage capacity because of the vnav features. I recall they're $200 from Jepp. Don't recall Garmin even selling them. But yes, $ per GB of capacity is crazy, but they don't make that many either. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And Chris was quick and true to his word, Savvy now supports the O-360 powered A,B,C,D,G cohort. Still to come are the E, K, M and TN.