cirrostratus Posted October 24, 2019 Report Share Posted October 24, 2019 Gorgeous panel! Can you share the cost of the new gizmos and the cost of installation?Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kris_adams Posted October 24, 2019 Report Share Posted October 24, 2019 Gorgeous! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted October 24, 2019 Report Share Posted October 24, 2019 Panel envy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooneyspeed Posted October 24, 2019 Report Share Posted October 24, 2019 Big project. Looks pretty nice. What was your reason keeping the JPI vs adding EIS to the Garmin screen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted October 24, 2019 Report Share Posted October 24, 2019 Welcome aboard, Cirro. Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJClark Posted October 27, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 Hey guys, Anyone know for sure if the Fuel Flow is a "primary" engine instrument on the 252 or the Rocket? I would have thought it is...anyone know for sure? Must it be primary if the Ops limits show a fuel flow figure at full power? (252 and Rocket POH both do). Reason I ask is I think in my pic above JPI programmed fuel flow as non-primary! Thx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted October 27, 2019 Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 Your POH has a list of primary (required) gauges... A subtle hint that may be helpful... If you don’t have a FuelP gauge, and there is a FF instrument.... the FF is primary... (Continental’s In Ovations are like this...) The pilot must have an instrument to know if fuel is getting to the engine... the FP is the lower cost device, and it works... If you have both a FF gauge and FuelP instrument... back to the POH... PP thoughts only, not a mechanic... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJClark Posted October 27, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 Thanks. What section of the POH makes it "mandatory"? Is it the Limitations section? Or is it the Systems section? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJClark Posted October 27, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 MooneySpeed: I went with EDM900 instead of EIS for a few reasons: 1. I like to always be able to see the engine temps, and with the new instruments seeing all of them numerically at once, all the time, was a thing I wanted 2. It did not appear that EIS could do that 100% of the time...you have to open the engine page to see them 3. therefore with EIS, to get what I wanted, I'd need an additional 7" G3X. Now, I liked that idea, but it would have cost another $3500 (more than EDM). there was a rumor this summer before Oshkosh that a dual G3x installation might be relieved of the requirment for a G5 backup, and if that had happened I'd have switched--eliminate G5 and EDM and install 7"G3X instead, with EIS. Although I'm not completely certain it would have fit! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted October 27, 2019 Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 30 minutes ago, PJClark said: Thanks. What section of the POH makes it "mandatory"? Is it the Limitations section? Or is it the Systems section? You should have a page a lot like this. It's in "Section IV, Aircraft Limitations and Operations." Expect your list to be different and likely longer than what is shown for my C. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJClark Posted October 27, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 (edited) thanks...but "huh". FAA must've changed prior to 1986. My POH has "limitations" in section II rather than IV. and the "Kinds of Operation" section is a small paragraph that says "this is a normal category airplane approved for VFR/IFR day or night operations when equipped in accordance with FAR 91." No list. Section VII is "Systems" it lists things like "Attitude indicator (if installed)", which would seem to imply "optional", but things like fuel flow, MP, TIT etc do not have an (if installed) annotation. I wonder if that's all I get. I sense I'm going to have an argument with the installer about what should be Primary on the EDM...he's admitted they direct that to JPI based on their reading of the POH--JPI doesn't pick, they program the instrument based on what they're told. To change it they have to send it back to JPI...and I'm supposed to fly out there this Tuesday to bring the airplane home to Ohio next weekend. GRRRRR.... Edited October 27, 2019 by PJClark spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted October 27, 2019 Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 PJ, What POH do you have? Do you have the STC paperwork for your Rocket conversion? Hank’s comes from the 70s... Your K came from the 80s? The newer, the more details get added... Then you got an addendum to that, from Rocket engineering... JPI has good guidance to follow... Rocket engineering has good answers... for your exact situation... The FAA writes the rules... primary instruments that have limitations like yellow ranges and red lines are all in the POH and it’s addendum... find the limitations section... If you can’t find the STC for the Rocket Mod... contact Rocket engineering... There shouldn’t be a need to argue with your installer... he made need the data... you should have the data... If for some reason the data can’t be gathered or made available... and the JPI900/primary gauge can’t be set up properly... you can always fall back to a lesser JPI like the 830... and maintain the old primary gauges that the ship has already... How does that sound for PP thoughts and ideas? For additional answers regarding JPI challenges we have an MSer that deals in JPIs... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJClark Posted October 27, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 (edited) Yep, I have all that and it's properly stashed in the original POH. If need be I'll call Rocket tomorrow and ask them to clarify. Then I guess we'll see if we can get the 900 back to JPI for reprogramming and then back to CO this week in time for re install, test, and ferry back to OH next weekend. I wonder why the installer wouldn't want to confirm with the owner what he planned to have JPI program...before he sent it out. All part of my GA ownership education I guess. Oh, for a 30 year Chief Master Sergeant as a crew chief again... Edited October 27, 2019 by PJClark added info 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted October 27, 2019 Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 Did You get the Cies digital fuel floats with that? There used to be some challenge adding them later... they are capable of both analog and digital output... But it would require sending the JPI back to have it switched... Fortunately, recently... the switch can occur in the field... The Rocket is an awesome ship... sort of a Millenium Falcon of its day... Kind of a steep learning curve of a lot of GA details... Specially with details like installing JPI900s. You get to build a new team around you... this is one is more fun... get a good... Mooney Mechanic -airframe TSIO520(?) guru -engine Avionics tech with Mooney experience Mooney CFII MS presence, visit often and participate The first year is going to be great! Busy... in a great way... PP thinking out loud... not a CFI, mechanic, or avionics guy... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted October 27, 2019 Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, PJClark said: thanks...but "huh". FAA must've changed prior to 1986. My POH has "limitations" in section II rather than IV. and the "Kinds of Operation" section is a small paragraph that says "this is a normal category airplane approved for VFR/IFR day or night operations when equipped in accordance with FAR 91." No list. Section VII is "Systems" it lists things like "Attitude indicator (if installed)", which would seem to imply "optional", but things like fuel flow, MP, TIT etc do not have an (if installed) annotation. I wonder if that's all I get. I sense I'm going to have an argument with the installer about what should be Primary on the EDM...he's admitted they direct that to JPI based on their reading of the POH--JPI doesn't pick, they program the instrument based on what they're told. To change it they have to send it back to JPI...and I'm supposed to fly out there this Tuesday to bring the airplane home to Ohio next weekend. GRRRRR.... Check the table of contents. Mine is in the section "Aircraft Limitations and Operations," but it was put together and approved before the formalization of the POH; it's just an Owners Manual. It's after the obvious limitations--airspeeds (Vne, Vfo, Vfe, Vgo, Vge, Va, etc.), temperatures (oil, CHT), pressures (oil, fuel, etc., max and mins). Edited October 27, 2019 by Hank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJClark Posted October 27, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 Carusoam....this Rocket is a Millenium Falcon for 2019!! I think I'm faster than an Acclaim up to FL190...and even if it's "close" it's "close enough"! "I feel the need..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted October 27, 2019 Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 14 minutes ago, PJClark said: Carusoam....this Rocket is a Millenium Falcon for 2019!! I think I'm faster than an Acclaim up to FL190...and even if it's "close" it's "close enough"! "I feel the need..." That's a really neat chart - where is it from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJClark Posted October 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2019 Somewhere on the Interwebs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted October 28, 2019 Report Share Posted October 28, 2019 4 hours ago, aviatoreb said: That's a really neat chart - where is it from? Are you familiar with time share properties, Erik? Looks like a presentation direct from the factory... Who else would have enough details to compare an Acclaim to an Acclaim Type S..? See if we can get invited to Kerrville for a weekend...? It sure looks pretty hard to get a Rocket Owner to buy an Acclaim... based on performance... Come look at the baggage area... we can fold the rear seat down... and possibly fit most of a whole bicycle back there... Two bikes, Two people, the long body would be perfect for Erik! 900nm easy! PP thoughts only, I didn’t do the real WnB... but it should be close... depending on the selection of SIC... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted October 28, 2019 Report Share Posted October 28, 2019 I question that chart, since when is the 231 10+ knots faster than a J at 1000’? 10 hp doesn’t get you 10% more speed.Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted October 28, 2019 Report Share Posted October 28, 2019 1 hour ago, ArtVandelay said: I question that chart, since when is the 231 10+ knots faster than a J at 1000’? 10 hp doesn’t get you 10% more speed. Tom During engine break-in... for the first few hours.... using Max FF... somewhere near 20gph... Nobody is going to check your data flying an M20K @1k’.... We only have one video of a pilot flying a J at less than 1k’... Expect that the graph is an artist’s rendition of the actual data... I think the artist wanted to draw your eyes to the upper right hand corner of the chart... If your eyes don’t go there... and compare the speeds in the FLs... and make you think about your second source of O2.... There is probably a chart that doesn’t have TN’d and TC’d birds on them... on the page before... I question the questioner... (just kidding Tom) Let’s pull some data from a couple of POHs... Expect some interesting data to be given for the 1k’ altitudes... for anyone planning a flight that gets stuck there for a bit... the data will get used... it probably isn’t part of Plan A or Plan B for either the J or the K... or Acclaim... Engine Break-in flights for 310hp Os are done at 1k’...FT and full rich...that’s a scream... FF up around 30gph... Go Mooney! Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted October 28, 2019 Report Share Posted October 28, 2019 (edited) 19 hours ago, carusoam said: Are you familiar with time share properties, Erik? Looks like a presentation direct from the factory... Who else would have enough details to compare an Acclaim to an Acclaim Type S..? See if we can get invited to Kerrville for a weekend...? It sure looks pretty hard to get a Rocket Owner to buy an Acclaim... based on performance... Come look at the baggage area... we can fold the rear seat down... and possibly fit most of a whole bicycle back there... Two bikes, Two people, the long body would be perfect for Erik! 900nm easy! PP thoughts only, I didn’t do the real WnB... but it should be close... depending on the selection of SIC... Best regards, -a- ...it DOES look like a time share graph. I am a bit suspicious of the Acclaim TN TAS curve. I see no reason why the curve would be concave up from ~12 through 21k. (The second derivative is positive meaning the derivative is increasing, not only is it getting faster with altitude but the rate at which it is getting faster with altitude is increasing). I would have guessed a flat curve (zero second derivative) until the turbo engine begins to get close to critical altitude and then I would expect a concave down curve - as we see with the bravo, rocket and 231/252 curves. As for the actual speeds - are those curves absolute max power curves or are they cruise speed curves? I actually have seats that don't fold down but they do remove in seconds. I leave one of my rear seats out almost all the time. So if I want to go solo and a bike (like bring a bike on a business trip) no problem I just put it in. Or second seat out its easy to bring two people and two bikes which I do fairly frequently. (Full size bikes but both wheels off, and my big bike seat post off too to make it easier in and out the door - and actually pedals off really helps too - all that is like 3 min to do). But 2 people, 2 bikes, 900nm nonstop - is tough. Solo, 2 bikes, nonstop >1000nm. Sure. Darn W&B. Well anyway I solace myself that I saved many hundreds of thousands of dollars for a still fine machine vs an acclaim tn - which no doubt is the cats meow! Edited October 28, 2019 by aviatoreb 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonMuncy Posted October 28, 2019 Report Share Posted October 28, 2019 22 minutes ago, aviatoreb said: I see no reason why the curve would be concave up from ~12 through 21k. (The second derivative is positive meaning the derivative is increasing, not only is it getting faster with altitude but the rate at which it is getting faster with altitude is increasing). I would have guessed a flat curve (zero second derivative) Analysis of a true mathematician. I'm impressed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJClark Posted October 29, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2019 They gotta all be max power and I think there's a fair amount of whimsy involved in the absolute numbers. But I suspect the relative numbers may be reasonable for comparison. I have seen my Rocket doing 197 KTAS at 14k and 15k in Aug on 65 % power. It might do 205 at that altitude on 75% but I think the balls would have to be to the wall to get on that curve. Meanwhile I think I may see 50 knot tailwinds at 15k this weekend on my way from KGXY to I68, so I look forward to a pic or video of G3X groundspeed up north of 230 knots. That just puts a smile on my face that a Cirrus never woulda! Its all about elegance vs brute force engineering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted October 29, 2019 Report Share Posted October 29, 2019 1 hour ago, PJClark said: They gotta all be max power and I think there's a fair amount of whimsy involved in the absolute numbers. But I suspect the relative numbers may be reasonable for comparison. I have seen my Rocket doing 197 KTAS at 14k and 15k in Aug on 65 % power. It might do 205 at that altitude on 75% but I think the balls would have to be to the wall to get on that curve. Meanwhile I think I may see 50 knot tailwinds at 15k this weekend on my way from KGXY to I68, so I look forward to a pic or video of G3X groundspeed up north of 230 knots. That just puts a smile on my face that a Cirrus never woulda! Its all about elegance vs brute force engineering. ...right and similar here. My tks rocket is a tad slower than yours but not much. I suspect that curve is a full power curve - set your power to 38'' and 2650 at 15k and watch your little rocket move out! I bet you hit that curve easy. Or 230 at FL24 - although I have not tried that full power at that altitude. Its the bragging rights curve. Just like the acclaim curve hits 242 knots which is the bragging rights top speed but not the cruise speed. I do have panel envy with your G3X! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.