kortopates

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.

I just got the Savvy response to your questions from my Savvy colleague Chris that develops the reporting s/w for these reports. Here is his response: First of all, thanks so much for the interest being expressed on the forum in what Savvy is doing with Report Cards and Trend Analysis. I appreciate your questions and suggestions. We want to make our reports as useful as we can. I’ll do my best to answer the questions that were raised. For Report Cards and Trend Analysis reports we include only those flights whose duration exceeds 40 minutes and for which we can detect a cruise segment. The reason we limit the flights is so that we are comparing apples to apples with most of the measures. To identify the cruise segment we use altitude (or OAT as a surrogate for altitude if the engine monitor does not provide altitude) along with stable values of some mix of MAP, FF, RPM, IAS and EGT. After reaching stability we wait 60 seconds before measuring CHT, speed, CHT spread, oil temp and oil pressure. Percent Power requires RPM, MAP and FF. Lean of peak, Percent Power is a function of FF and compression ratio, because while LOP the engine has an excess of air. ROP we do a lookup on the classic sea level chart that plots power as a function of RPM and MAP. The resulting numbers are adjusted for altitude. How do we tell if the engine is running LOP or LOP? I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader! Speed is TAS if available, otherwise we use groundspeed. If the engine monitor does not record groundspeed directly, we calculate it the old fashioned way with time, LAT and LON. This may or may not be the best way to do this because it mixes GS with TAS. Your opinions would be appreciated. Jeff’s question about when we calculate max CHT is a good one. It’s possible that a one-minute delay is not enough for CHT or oil temp to stabilize. Though if the pilot’s workflow is to level off, reduce power, and lean the engine, then waiting a minute after all these activities are completed might be sufficient. Thoughts? There was also a question about oil pressure. I just looked at the Type Certificate Data Sheet for the IO-550 and it specifies the “normal” range as 30-60psi for all the models covered by that TCDS, with a 100psi limit for cold oil. Lycoming has a normal range of 55-95psi. I don’t know if an aircraft manufacture can supersede the Continental spec with their own. That’s a good question for Mike Busch who knows these regs inside and out. But then there’s also the fact that the regs and practice sometimes are not completely aligned ;-) The forum discussion centered on the Report Card. I also encourage you to look at our new Trend Analysis report that expands on the Report Card by plotting individual data points on a time line and looking for trends. Both are available online, on demand. We have a FAQ you might find interesting: https://www.savvyaviation.com/ufaqs/report-card-and-trend-analysis/ I’ll turn my attention to providing support for the other Mooney models as soon as I can. Thanks again for your interest! Chris Wrather Project Manager SavvyAnalysis chris.wrather@savvymx.com

Good to hear. Do you slide it under from the side, rotating into position or are you somehow still able to bring it in under the prop? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you manage it alone or do you need a helper? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really a conversation for you and your supervising IA that's going to sign off and submit the required 337 which will begin with removing the 430 and installing a 430W. And the first thing he should point out is that he needs a Garmin install manual in order to have the legal basis to install; unless you got a copy of Garmin's installation manual with it or he is a Garmin dealer - since you can't get the doc accept as a Garmin dealer. The install manual will of course detail the changes that@Hank referred to above. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, and by about 2 inches if I recall right. No porpoising for you! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, not yet but considering it for when the day comes. But also concerned about the added challenges with the cowling. I like that I can do it by myself right now. Mooney changed the height of the lower cowling on the long body's to handle the 3 blade props. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great prop, but be aware it adds new challenges to R & R'ing the lower cowling. Erik could give you a first hand account since you'll be in the same predicament with 3 blades. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see @Bob - S50 and I are in similar situations. Frankly, I look at it as if my home base requires an alternate IFR departure airport for any IMC departure. Good risk management is based on recognizing threats of all kinds and developing a mitigation strategy or plan in advance, just as @N201MKTurbo was also suggesting. (I do the same emergency departure brief as I ask my students to do.) My base also has high minimums. Two approaches have minimums at 1000' and 1100' agl. But even if the ceilings are higher than that I still likely won't be heading back to my departure runway unless I can do so VFR. But the decision is based on my departure procedure too since takeoff direction plays a big role in this decision just like it does in the emergency brief for VFR departures when annunciating which runway I will turn back too if I have the required altitude. So depending on direction, my base is only a couple minutes from the FAF of an approach to a near by airport - much closer than to either FAF for my airport. Secondly while both of my approaches begin at 5000' my alternate begins at less than 3000'. With all these considerations, it's very clear I can get down much faster and without needing to climb up all the way up to 5K, nor do the long down wind leg so to speak to get either of my home base FAFs. The nearby airport is a much more realistic option if my emergency is due to partial power as well. These issues are worth considering on unfamiliar destinations as well. But of course these options need to be considered in the flight planning phase which is really the intent of the IFR alternate. The IFR alternate concept is much more valuable than just considering weather minimums. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they are OEM wires then they have a coded label. The code identifies function and numbers make it unique. You can map the code to the Mooney schematic to see exactly what it is and where it goes- if OEM. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Jeff_S & Folks, good questions and happy to respond, but you'll need to give us some time. I have a large queue of aircraft this morning and then the a second half of my day is all flight instructing. We currently have one our data guys out of town so I am doing double duty right now and behind. Soon as I can....

I just corrected my post above, support for @Marauder F is available now combined with the J that is a F/J cohort.

That's for sure!

Indeed Rick, I think that exchange gave it away who was representing and I feel better for you now since as an airworthiness guy, his questions on your pilot quals should have been to just complete his report that was airworthiness based. I assume the report by the tower of a gear issue is what prompted it all. I know a proctoscopic isn't a nice experience regardless of why its being done but hopefully its bit easier to suffer through recognizing it wasn't really about the pilot but aircraft maintenance. At least it sure looks that way. Its also true what you said earlier about compliance; ATC and Tower controllers are require to report all deviations, loss of separation etc They even have software that reviews the radar tapes that will find and report separation deviations even if the controller doesn't at the time. But its also true about their new compliance philosophy that they will try to offer remedial training before violating a pilot for a pilot deviation when they believe the pilot didn't intend too deviate and has a positive attitude. Of course none of that applied to your situation, but your comment about reporting is very true.

You're right Teejay, F/J's are available now, how Chris will provide support for E's as combined with F/J's or some other way. I was presuming a combination and I should not since Chris will do some analysis to decide (and probably some tradeoffs too). I edited the twice correct and clarify too.

Thanks for expanding and clarifying Rick. Unfortunately, "Aviation Safety Inspector - General Aviation Unit" doesn't tell us which of three types he may be. There are Airworthiness ASI's concerned with maintenance, Operations ASI's concerned with Pilots and Avionics ASI's. So your ASI could have been either Airworthiness or Ops based. I expect it would be normal to answer standard questions about pilot qualifications in any report they completed but so often as you know, the process doesn't go beyond a telephone call. And I surely don't know why this ASI needed to write a full report. The FAA does list a directory for their employees that sometime but not always list what kind of ASI they are. I assume you are in St Louis 03 FSDO with the directory being here: Saint Louis, Missouri - Flight Standards District Office - 03 If you browse that, perhaps you'll recognize the name and just maybe it will have his full title as to which kind of ASI he is.

An update. Savvy now does support the "Report Card" reporting on the M20S & M20R as a combined cohort that Jeff brought up with this thread. Next in line with Chris at Savvy is a solution for reporting on the E, either with or without F/J models. (F/J models are supported now)

I remembered that post as well. Now I realize I didn't comment on that after your quoting your post. I see I forgot now, but I was intending to add to your comments that IF that was a problem in this case the OP should find the emergency gear extension will not engage from the brass clutch being chewed up and thus the importance of extending it mechanically after raising it electrically.