Dropped the new bird at the avionics shop Friday!

Didn't they have to update your books to reflect the new empty weight?
Some really want to know how many pounds she lost (gained??) :wink2:
 
Last edited:
Look at the fine print on the avionics shop invoice.....If he wants to view the new W&B,...... he has to pay another 11,450.00.....:eek::mad2:
 
olasek said:
Didn't they have to update your books to reflect the new empty weight?
Some really want to know how many pounds she lost (gained??) :wink2:
Click to expand...

Weight is 36.88 lbs less! That's 5.5 gallons of fuel or my wife's pocketbook! :dunno:
 
he, he, thanks, what a precision with two decimal points!
 
Last edited:
N747JB said:
Damn, you're pretty close! 36.88 lbs, about $2500.00 per lb, same as Jenny Craig!!:D
Click to expand...

I laughed really hard at comedian John Pinette's bit about not being able to buy more points at Weight Watchers. "But I have money! Sell me more points! You want money, right?!"
 
denverpilot said:
I laughed really hard at comedian John Pinette's bit about not being able to buy more points at Weight Watchers. "But I have money! Sell me more points! You want money, right?!"
Click to expand...

He is hilarious! I love when he sings about the Wizard of Oz buffet at the MGM!:lol:
 
N801BH said:
Is the right engine a little thirstier then the left one ??? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I just went out to the airport and looked at the fuel totalizers, 233 lbs and 239 lbs for the trip down on Thursday. :D I also looked at the flight logs, it appears that split is pretty normal for this airplane, at least for the last couple years.:dunno:
 
N747JB said:
I just went out to the airport and looked at the fuel totalizers, 233 lbs and 239 lbs for the trip down on Thursday. :D I also looked at the flight logs, it appears that split is pretty normal for this airplane, at least for the last couple years.:dunno:
Click to expand...

That is damn close....:yes::yes:.

All I looked at was the gauges shown in your pic......

Keep in mind I spend years and hundreds of hours running a dyno so my mind picks up even the smallest details gauges show.... You should see the looks I get from people riding in my plane when they see THREE water temperature gauges..:eek::rolleyes::D
 

Attachments

  • Picture_095-760x570.jpg
    Picture_095-760x570.jpg
    96.5 KB · Views: 35
Do you check the amount pumped into each tank?

N747JB said:
I just went out to the airport and looked at the fuel totalizers, 233 lbs and 239 lbs for the trip down on Thursday. :D I also looked at the flight logs, it appears that split is pretty normal for this airplane, at least for the last couple years.:dunno:
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Do you check the amount pumped into each tank?
Click to expand...

No, I didn't top it off, but I always add equal amounts to each side, so any real difference should show up in a few hours of use.:D If it's 2-3 gallons per hour, I can always crossed for 5 minutes once a month! :D
 
Understood, most don't for the same good reasons. But if you're curious about whether it's burning more or just indicating more, a couple of top-offs will tell you for sure.

N747JB said:
No, I didn't top it off, but I always add equal amounts to each side, so any real difference should show up in a few hours of use.:D If it's 2-3 gallons per hour, I can always crossed for 5 minutes once a month! :D
Click to expand...
 
Flew home from Destin about 11:00 this morning, avionics were a lot easier today, still not 100% comfortable, but no issues. Well, one small issue, I couldn't get the XM radio to play, it showed on the displays, channel, antenna was fine, but no sound. I fiddled with it for 10-15 minutes off and on after I leveled off. Apparently the switch on the center panel, in front of the throttles marked XM needs to be switched ON :mad2::mad2::mad2: :D
Fuel burn was 256/268 so about 2 gallons difference, no real big deal.
78 gallons burned at $5.30, $413.00. Charlene burned 60-65 gallons on the same trip at $6.50 per gallon, $390-420.00 for the same trip. The fuel burn is definitely higher, but the speed and price of fuel helps to offset it.:D That's my story and I'm sticking to it! :yes:
 
I had a similar observation in the Cheyenne when we flew it to Newfoundland. At FL250 sipping 400 pph combined with an 80 kt tailwind, the fuel tab for the PA-Newfoundland leg was only slightly higher than what I had paid a few months earlier in the Aztec for the Maine-Newfoundland leg, and definitely lower than total Aztec fuel cost. Of course, up there Jet is $8/gallon vs $12/gallon for AvGas.
 
The fuel flow was 420 PPH at FL190, 245 knots TAS, about what I expected, I think FL 230 is the sweet spot on fuel burn and speed, I'm looking forward to trying it soon.:D

Ted DuPuis said:
I had a similar observation in the Cheyenne when we flew it to Newfoundland. At FL250 sipping 400 pph combined with an 80 kt tailwind, the fuel tab for the PA-Newfoundland leg was only slightly higher than what I had paid a few months earlier in the Aztec for the Maine-Newfoundland leg, and definitely lower than total Aztec fuel cost. Of course, up there Jet is $8/gallon vs $12/gallon for AvGas.
Click to expand...
 
I think the Cheyenne I flew was remarkably inefficient. I don't know if it was that version of the PT-6, or if those particular engines were just bad. The engines were definitely not aged evenly, and the engine gauges verified that. The panel was great, though.
 
N747JB said:
Flew home from Destin about 11:00 this morning, avionics were a lot easier today, still not 100% comfortable, but no issues.
Click to expand...
I would still check with Garmin about this lack of FD in synthetic mode, this would bug me because it doesn't make any sense, is it per design like this (whatever the reason) or something is amiss. Or perhaps it is a luxury option .. pay another $8995 and you get it :rolleyes:
 
olasek said:
I would still check with Garmin about this lack of FD in synthetic mode, this would bug me because it doesn't make any sense, is it per design like this (whatever the reason) or something is amiss. Or perhaps it is a luxury option .. pay another $8995 and you get it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I talked to the shop they seem to think it's simply changing a setting, we'll see, I have to take it back for the dead instrument air gauge and I noticed the turn coordinator wasn't working on the copilots side as well.:dunno:
 
Dropped her off this morning to fix the instrument air gauge, move the XM music switch, see if we can get the synthetic vision to work with the flight director and check the turn coordinator, I think it's dying!:yikes:
Picked up my 182 that they swapped the 430W that I traded in, for the 530W that was the Conquest, it was fine. I am hoping to pick the Conquest up tomorrow and be done with the avionics shop for a while! :D
 
Your whole experience is solidifying my desire to never have to do another avionics upgrade. Next time I'll just buy a new plane. ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Your whole experience is solidifying my desire to never have to do another avionics upgrade. Next time I'll just buy a new plane. ;)
Click to expand...

I know the feeling, this is the biggest avionics upgrade I have ever done, not the most expensive, just the biggest. I had to have the Citation RVSM certified, added TAWS and swapped the 430 for a 530 and it was a big bill, $125K IIRC :yikes: At least with this one I get all shiny new boxes!:yes:
 
N747JB said:
I know the feeling, this is the biggest avionics upgrade I have ever done, not the most expensive, just the biggest. I had to have the Citation RVSM certified, added TAWS and swapped the 430 for a 530 and it was a big bill, $125K IIRC :yikes: At least with this one I get all shiny new boxes!:yes:
Click to expand...

The jet world just adds a whole new dimension of ridiculous costs. Did the turboprop/pressurized realm add much to the cost here, or just the large amount of work and shiny boxes?

The interesting thing to me is that for the number of people I see doing upgrades, it seems a large number of the planes listed for sale have panels with very old equipment. The number of /U 421s out there is surprising.

sferguson524 said:
I think the operative word duncan was using was have.. as in gift. :)
Click to expand...

And the operative word I was using was cash... As in cash. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The jet world just adds a whole new dimension of ridiculous costs. Did the turboprop/pressurized realm add much to the cost here, or just the large amount of work and shiny boxes?

The interesting thing to me is that for the number of people I see doing upgrades, it seems a large number of the planes listed for sale have panels with very old equipment. The number of /U 421s out there is surprising.



And the operative word I was using was cash... As in cash. :)
Click to expand...

I think part of the expense was the pressurization factor, they had a DER do the antenna installations and removal, not sure that is required on a non-pressurized hull. :dunno: I also got a complete set of engineering drawings for the installation, I'm not sure I could do much with them, but the mechanical types seem to like them.;) One of my gotchas was the headliner, I ended up replacing the two outer panels and kept the center section, so that was a $$ surprise.
I think there are more labor hours dealing with the pressure vessel, maybe 5% or so, the autopilot is a little unique as it's a Sperry vs the more common Cessna, that didn't help cost wise. But the boxes were by far the biggest portion of the expense.
Lots of older twins and quite a few jets have original type avionics, hard to think it's worth updating some of them? :dunno:
 
N747JB said:
Lots of older twins and quite a few jets have original type avionics, hard to think it's worth updating some of them? :dunno:
Click to expand...

That's what surprises me, especially on the owner-flown planes. On the other hand, in 15 years or so the Aspen and 530W/430W in the 310 will probably look old and dated.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's what surprises me, especially on the owner-flown planes. On the other hand, in 15 years or so the Aspen and 530W/430W in the 310 will probably look old and dated.
Click to expand...

Yep, it will be like today's KLN 90B's and KX155's! ;)
 
Hey John, it was nice talking to you on the radio this evening!
 
Yep, and many of which are still happily soldiering on for owners who still have their money in their pocket.:D

N747JB said:
Yep, it will be like today's KLN 90B's and KX155's! ;)
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Yep, and many of which are still happily soldiering on for owners who still have their money in their pocket.:D
Click to expand...

Unlike the LORAN that got pulled out of the 310. Its last words were "NO SIGNAL WHATSOEVER."
 
Got the new units registered with iflygarmin today, I am going to get my one free update tomorrow so it will be good for the next month before I have to start paying. It was fairly simple once I figured out what the website was asking for. :dunno: They want the system ID not the serial number, so I called Garmin support and they told me how to find the system ID's on all three units, so I should be good to go tomorrow for an update. They support guy even offered to give me a free one time update for the G600 so the database subscriptions would all expire at the same time. :D The big test it whether or not I can get all the updates right the first time. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top