Garmin Pilot missing M20K 252 aircraft type?

[shawnd]

Playing around with Garmin Pilot and it seems that they are missing the M20K 252 aircraft type. Very odd. They have flagged M20K 231 as having serial #s from 25-0001 through 25-2012. What gives? Or is it just my app playing tricks on me?

 

[ArtVandelay]

Probably because it’s still same model (M20K).

[shawnd]

Probably because it’s still same model (M20K).

Yeah true. Unfortunate to not be able to pick 252

[N231BN]

You can rename the profile after you create it.

[Hank]

If it doesn't have the 252, it also won't have an Encore . . . .

[shawnd]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

If it doesn't have the 252, it also won't have an Encore . . . .

Nope it doesn't.  I have sent Garmin a few bug reports that they ended up fixing. I will see if I can pull some strings to get the 252 and encore listed ...

[carusoam]

Signs of a true MSer...

1) Identifies a challenge...
2) Gets support to fine tune the issues...

3) Doesn’t fear communicating the challenge up the line in a proper fashion...

4) Communicates the details back here on MS...

5) We get pretty good support from the vendors this way...

Way to go Shawn!

Best regards,

-a-

[kortopates]

It’s not missing, nor is it related to the 231 profile. You own a rare bird now, not seen as often as any other Mooney Model. But you have the secrets of its performance in your POH. So enter the numbers as you intend to fly it. But just don’t enter the ROP FF as is - those numbers are based on operating it at peak. So here’s your chance to enable GP flight to plan your fuel requirements and speeds with precision. It won’t take you long but it will provide big dividends for you.

Enjoy

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArtVandelay]

I thought 252 had same basic engine as 231, just with intercooler and automatic waste gate? So performance numbers should be pretty close, not like they have to be exact. Most people don’t make book numbers anyway.

[carusoam]

+1 for tailoring your EFB and other electronic devices with your specific data, down to the serial number...

It is helpful to use one found online... initially...

But, they are usually worth Much less than you paid for them...

On the other hand... the POH is incredibly powerful... especially if you have an STC from Rocket Engineering...

But, even these documents require some review... plenty of errors in small places...

Many of the numbers are wishful thinking... or marketing driven...

Expect to build better details before relying on what is in the apps...

They are much better than nothing... but not strong enough to rely upon until you prove them with your plane...

Important ideas for your first years in aviation, and first years with your own plane....

With the warmer weather here... be sure to know how to calculate the effects of DA on your plane’s performance...

Our annual, friend Patrick’s reminder....  

PP thoughts only, not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

[shawnd]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

+1 for tailoring your EFB and other electronic devices with your specific data, down to the serial number...

It is helpful to use one found online... initially...

But, they are usually worth Much less than you paid for them...

On the other hand... the POH is incredibly powerful... especially if you have an STC from Rocket Engineering...

But, even these documents require some review... plenty of errors in small places...

Many of the numbers are wishful thinking... or marketing driven...

Expect to build better details before relying on what is in the apps...

They are much better than nothing... but not strong enough to rely upon until you prove them with your plane...

Important ideas for your first years in aviation, and first years with your own plane....

With the warmer weather here... be sure to know how to calculate the effects of DA on your plane’s performance...

Our annual, friend Patrick’s reminder....  

PP thoughts only, not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

 

Yep couldn't have captured this better. Being absolutely new to the turbo Mooneys, was looking for an initial dataset to start with  and iterate and tune as I fly it more. The POH #s depend on so many factors that it's impossible to replicate most of the time. And on top, the engine isn't exactly in its prime. 100% agree with @kortopates that the performance profile in FF or Garmin should be tailored to one's specific aircraft.

I guess the piece that bothered me the most was not seeing 252 in the list...

[kortopates]

The good thing is that it doesn't take a lot of time to put in some minimal performance data - even it's only 1 altitude. And it's a great learning experience doing it that way.

 

Here is an almost unbelievable example about how the generic profiles get miss used. But you can't make this up! We all saw the video posted here of a departure accident a few years ago where the plane never got airborne enough to clear a 10' berm at the departure end. Two occupants in the front survived but a third rear occupant died. Because the field was short, the pilot claimed he did a weight and balance and reviewed the numbers - and with the precision he reported them to the NTSB I don't think there was any doubt he did. He determined he was close but not over gross. Also by the POH he had enough runway to get off. But here's one of the problems, the weight and balance he used in Foreflight or Garmin Pilot wasn't for his plane but one he "got off the internet". Same model but his planes empty weight was over 100 lbs heavier than the weight & Bal he was using. Gives new meaning to the old adage "Garbage in, Garbage out". Of course there's much more to this story too. But I sure hope nobody out there is actually relying on weight and balance numbers they got off the internet that they think are "close enough". That and a couple of other close enough decisions led to this accident.

Sorry to get off the original topic, but I believe that accident provides several valuable lessons for us all. And in no way is this directed to the op or anyone else in this thread.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsxrpilot]

On 5/24/2020 at 10:57 PM, ArtVandelay said:

I thought 252 had same basic engine as 231, just with intercooler and automatic waste gate? So performance numbers should be pretty close, not like they have to be exact. Most people don’t make book numbers anyway.

"same basic" is very subjective and so we might be in complete agreement . But for some anecdotal evidence...

We did a lot of comparison between my 252 and Brian Lloyds 231 (LB engine with waste gate and intercooler) as he was preparing to fly it around the globe. There was quite a bit of difference in the performance numbers and engine settings. He couldn't run his engine using my numbers and I couldn't run my 252 using his numbers. And no matter what we did, the 231 never could get within 10 knots of the 252's speed.

There seems to be a "surprising amount" (still subjective)  of difference between the 231 (upgraded) and the 252's. 

[shawnd]

@kortopates yep this incident happened in the PNW Sad story. Thanks for drilling home the point. While the aircraft is in the shop I have been going over the AFM back and forth and also starting to create a custom performance profile based on W&B and performance charts in the POH.