smccray

I have a conflict on Saturday. Unfortunately I can't be there this year.

All you have to do is put the audio panel on pilot isolate and it will FEEL faster...

It's not that % power isn't relevant, it's just a simple multiplier based on fuel flow. However- how do I decide where to park the throttle? I fly WOT, prop at 2500 RPM, then adjust fuel flow to push as much fuel through the engine as I can while keeping TIT (and other engine temps) in a safe range and outside the red box. More power!!! If I need more range I can pull the prop back to 2300 RPM on possibly lean a little more, but that's looking for efficiency. I watch the fuel range on my flight instruments, and I replaced the fuel senders with digital senders that have proven to be very accurate. I typically fly with excess fuel so range has not been a problem for me. Depending on the flight profile I may use a LOP climb (which is more efficient) or slow down a bit in the name of efficiency, but most of the time I pushing to get to my destination as soon as possible, or to get home in time to see my kids before they go to bed. I accept the higher fuel bill in the name of time. The extra fuel probably doesn't make that much difference to block times, but I'll take it :). My J I flew WOT normally at 8-10K ft looking for cooler temps. Fuel Flow was set based on peak EGT. The K (much of the conversation here)- that's clearly a different game with the throttle setting and one I don't understand since the K isn't flown WOT.

Very cool that Avidyne incorporated that into the IFD. No doubt- makes total sense. My A36 is turbo normalized, so I understand the need to track the engine parameters all the way up. Flying LOP, you know HP based on the fuel flow. I also suspect that you're not using continuously variable settings for RPM and MP. You have your normal SOP for engine operations in each phase of flight. If the CHTs start creeping up in cruise, you lean slightly more (if LOP) to cool off the engine. If TIT is running hotter than normal, adjust settings a bit to cool off the TIT. It's all small tweaks- the actual % HP probably doesn't matter much. I put an 830 in my Mooney. It was a great piece of kit. I considered the 900 in the A36 instead of the EIS for the screen real estate. Ultimately I decided to go all Garmin and the integration that comes with one platform. I see a lot of reasons to stick with the JPI, particularly for a turbo airplane. You can't get a numerical value for TIT on the EIS- it's insane. I don't really understand the % HP factoring into the decision for me. The good news is that both the %HP and the TIT display are on the development path for the G500 txi software. However, I always caution anyone from buying from aviation vendors based on features in development.

What does % hp give you? Add the EIS you get a fuel range ring- engine operating outside the red box and you know if you have enough fuel to make it my looking at the screen. The EIS is far from perfect, but I like the integration with the Garmin systems.

https://savvyanalysis.com/

How do you know you’re LOP? Really- this is where we need to start. You’ve said it a couple times- your fuel flow setting does not (by itself) determine whether or not you’re LOP. If you’re closing the throttle, you could be closer to peak TIT, but at a reduced power setting due to closing the throttle. Depending on the setting, you could be ROP at 10 GPH, but the engine running cool enough (as measured by CHTs) because you reduced the throttle setting. How strong is your ignition system? Mags/leads/plugs in good condition? How do you know?

Turbin drivers or turbo? Assume turbo- How far lean of peak are you at 1630? Check the recording resolution of the JPI (take datapoints more frequently than the default) and post a flight with a lean test. I assume you have a 231 from your username- do you have an inter cooler? Are you wide open throttle?

@Parker_Woodruff is more qualified to answer this than me. What is it parker- insurance is 1.5% of the insured value? Higher insured value leads to a higher premium.

Manual gear system is its own backup, so an electric gear J vs a Manual F has some more complex systems. Get into a later J and you have electric cowl flaps, 205s have inner gear doors. Overall it's close enough that the difference between airplanes is probably more significant than the difference between models, but on average I would have to say the J is probably a little higher. Not enough to affect the decision, the J is likely a little higher. I suspect the only difference is insured value. Liability insurance is cheap, insured value is expensive. So the increased value of the airplane drives a higher insurance cost. That said, the cruise speed of the J is faster, so if we want to rationalize, the insurance cost per mile (more relevant that cost per hour) is similar. It's complete crap when it comes to calculating block times for a particular trip, but who cares- this is aviation logic- we rationalize the conclusion. It's cheaper to rent a compact car and drive, but that's not why we're here :).

Operating cost likely to be very similar. A slightly lower fuel bill- so close you probably don’t notice. Slightly higher maintenance bill for some of the J “enhancements.” I’d take the newer ones plane. The difference is slight- $20-30k, but you get it back when you sell the plane.

I flew with a Mini 5 yesterday. iPad was at 81% at full brightness and connected via bluetooth when I took off. It was a 81% an hour later when I landed while plugged into a 2.4 amp charger. Perfect.

LOL. We flew to Austin for Thanksgiving many years ago. There was an SR22 rental plane sitting on the ramp under the cover at Austin Executive airport with the doors up. We were walking past the plane and my wife exclaimed, "What is that!" clearly attracted to the sexy bird. I told her, "It's $450K." She kept staring but the conversation moved on pretty quickly.

Sit your wife down in a few different types- don’t sit her in anything you don’t want to buy. When she says yes to a plane- focus on that type. Mooneys are great- but a supportive wife is better than a Mooney. The best plane for any mission is one your spouse likes.

Certainly a possibility that Avidyne lowers the price and gives Garmin a run for their money, but at this point the allure of the G3X is going to be a problem for Avidyne. The G3X uses the MapMX data format to interface with panel mounted navigators. Even if Avidyne were able to get the paperwork to install IFDs with a G3X, the IFD doesn’t output the MapMX data format. MapMX is a Garmin proprietary format. Dynon displays Avidyne navigators with their equipment. The world is lining up as Dynon/Avidyne vs Garmin.

Looking at the pictures it appears to be right between the batteries.

4) would I rather go to the Alpha Systems HUD to get rid of the black box and cord on the glare shield. I like the idea of the separate ADHARS in the Garmin system- that’s why I went that direction originally. But if I have to put holes in the airframe I don’t love that idea.

And that’s the concern- do I put holes in the airframe for this product, or do I punt and go with a different solution that doesn’t have this problem... and doesn’t require holes in the airframe.

I agree. The fix is straight forward. The issue isn’t the fix, it’s that the limitations aren’t disclosed by Garmin. I want anyone who has a Garmin AOA to know about this limitation. I didn’t know about it, and the warning isn’t included in the manual. I also believe the installation is unsafe as prescribed by Garmin. Garmin says place the static line near the alt static source, not to run a separate static port. We can have differing opinions on the safety of the prescribed installation, but the lack of warning by Garmin is unacceptable. I believe a compliant Garmin AOA could be a contributing factor in a door opening airplane accident. The FAA lowered the approval threshold for nonrequired safety enhancing equipment. An open door is an abnormal flight condition- I understand that- but it’s also common and easily addressed with the install.

I’m the only pilot. I’m going to resolve this issue one way or another- I’m not going to leave it as is, but I agree with you that I would recognize a problem easily after having experienced it once. My wife doesn’t understand why I don’t ground the airplane, but that would be crazy for this issue. I believe the prohibition against connecting the GSU 25 to the static system is the approval. The parts are experimental approved for certified aircraft under NORSEE. The G3X certified uses a GSU 25d as a PMAd part installed under STC. The AOA isn’t STCd. I’ve asked Garmin for the PMAd part and the STC, but that isn’t feasible apparently. NORSEE approved equipment can’t be connected to primary aircraft systems including the static system.

I’m not happy about it, but oh well. The bigger issue is that Garmin doesn’t include any information in the manual about this limitation on the system. It’s non-required equipment and it’s an abnormal flight condition. That’s the argument Garmin will make. I call BS- it’s a common abnormal flight condition that has a history of causing GA accidents. The installation causes additional difficulty due to the way it’s installed. And worse- it’s not disclosed in the manual. The question here isn’t whether or not AOA is valuable. It’s whether this AOA is safe. This was a $1500 part installed with a 6 figure panel job. It’s the only real problem I’ve had with the equipment so I’ll call that a successful install overall. I have an Alpha Systems kit- I may just pull the Garmin AOA altogether.

As part of my panel project, I installed a Garmin AOA in the plane. It seems to work well and I was happy with it, but I experienced a problem on a flight on Tuesday that makes me question the safety of the installation. On take off my door popped open. No big deal- fly the airplane. The issue I have is that the Garmin AOA indicated an imminent stall both on the indicator mounted on the glare shield, and with audio alerts. Wind was crazy, lots of noise, and the AOA made the situation worse. I pulled the breaker, landed, and closed the door. With the door closed, the AOA began working as expected. Investigating the issue, it appears that the GSU 25 uses three connections to determine Angle of Attack. There are two air connections to a dedicated pitot tube, and a third to the static system. The installation manual prohibits connecting the GSU 25 to the static system of the airplane. Instead, the static connection is placed near the alt static source behind the panel in a Bonanza. When the door opened on takeoff, I believe it created a low-pressure condition inside the airplane. The low pressure caused the AOA to mis-read the AOA and to direct the pilot to reduce the angle of attack, even though the wing was flying safely. Given that this indication occurs during a critical phase of flight after a common problem with general aviation aircraft, I believe the Garmin AOA can adversely contribute to safety in this condition. I notified Garmin of this problem yesterday and we're working through the problem. I'm not sure I have any options given the approvals for the system; this failure condition may be a feature rather than a bug. At the very least, pilots should be notified of this potential problem. I believe that the GSU 25 should be connected to the static system of the airplane for this installation to be safe. I’m evaluating options at this point, but my first reaction is to remove the system if it can’t be connected to the static system of the airplane.

Looks like they’ll bring you across SASIE even lower. Keep a sharp eye out for traffic. It can get crazy on the north side. There are a few tall towers up there (well above 1k ft AGL) so keep an eye out for that as well. And instrument flight plan should keep you clear. Controlers are very patient and good to work with. If you’re IFR, hopefully they’ll keep you above the VFR traffic and bring you into the bravo airspace at 4K ft. Probably depends on traffic, but either way ATC will take care of you.

Contact center 50 miles east of BYP (recommended), or regional approach on 124.3 near BYP. IFR traffic will be at 7k ft so keep that in mind when you select an altitude. Approach will bring you across the north side of DFW and then south to FTW. The controllers will keep you out of DFW and DAL traffic- they’re very good and friendly. Keep a sharp eye out for VFR traffic between Denton and airports on the north side, GYI in particular. Keep in mind that the NE quadrant of the DFW airspace is the busiest. They’re used to VFR traffic, but be on your toes. They’ll give you the handoff to the NW approach controller, then to tower. Have a safe flight! I like Texas Jet at FTW if you need an FBO.

Like I’m not going to read it 10 times and drool on the photos.