All Activity

I don't think that's odd. In part, the limitations of your equipment controls. Or A company's operations manual may require green needles on the CDI when flying those approaches. But aside from that, Examiners and check pilots may want a demonstration of flying green needles. That seems to be fairly common for VOR radial interception tasks on instrument check rides. Personally, if I have a pilot fly a VOR approach for an IPC, I insist on green needles on the CDI. My reasoning is, the only time a pilot might ever fly a VOR approach in real life is during a GPS failure. I often see problems with on that task with pilots who are used to flying GPS forgetting that VOR needles don't auto slew. You have to tune, identify, and twist.

Has anyone used these or know anything more about them? It's a $200 premium on top of the normal nav database, and according to this video there are only 30 some airports for which Garmin has developed these "approaches". These are different than the visual runway guidance that had been previously available.

I have available: Used Bendix S6LSC-25P Magneto - Last overhauled 2/13/2020. Installed at 674.15 Tach Time, pulled at 1085.1 Tach Time in good working order. Log entries available upon request - $250. https://photos.app.goo.gl/hWjjWCVEHBecmepT8 Right side PowerUp KA12778 Slick style harness. Brand new - $400. https://photos.app.goo.gl/GLuc9eyx5pvQRfT76 Left side TCM Harness 10-421674-3. Brand new - $350. https://photos.app.goo.gl/SdSoNSXDQka6mBde8 3/4 size plugs. Items were relevant to a TSIO-360-MB2B on an M20K. I'll cover shipping anywhere in the lower 48 US.

Wow...maybe look closer at that add before you start throwing around accusations of degeneracy...I mean as a software engineer, I would expect you to know better. It is clearly a clickbait add that takes the user to one of those 15 page narratives that keeps you going to the next page so that the site owner can rack up clicks. It is not related to porn or sex except for the initial "shock graphic" anyone hoping for more with a click would be sorely disappointed. Agree that the pornification of society is a massive drain...

Yeah, usually a mallet was all you needed

I subscribed to Aviation Consumer in 1984. I kept every issue until a couple of years ago and finally pitched them. I stopped renewing a couple of years ago.

This thread has primarily focused on climb data up until this point. I have had occasion to do a lot of out and back, same day cross county flights this summer. I have been tracking block speeds using ADSB data. This is from first to last ADSB return so initial climb, pattern work and ATC vectoring and restrictions are all included. My average block speed over 11 flights and 4,281nm is 145.1kts. The slowest roundtrip block speed was 137.93kts on a 120nm trip and the fastest was 153.5kts on a 307nm round trip. Which makes sense for obvious reasons. My true airspeeds are typically between 150 and 155kts. What I think would surprise most folks is how little speed penalty I pay for LOP ops at high manifold pressure, which is to say almost none at MP between 26 and 30 inches. I can run >150KTS down low around LOP and ~10.8gph or I can run >150kts at 8,500 at ROP and ~10.5GPH. Fuel burn numbers are interpolated. I don't have a high level of confidence in the precision of my FF numbers yet.

I have to wonder what customer base they are targeting. Someone must still be subscribing, right? I do miss the Belvoir publications.

I have been a contributing editor for FLYING magazine for a little over three years now. In that time for editor-in-chief I have have seen Julie Boatman fired; she was replaced by Randy Bolinger who was subsequently fired. They just replaced him with Jessica Ambats last month. I know they are making some drastic changes over the next few issues. I've submitted a couple of articles and they have been bumped to later issues. Hard to know what is going on.

Oddly I’ve been required to be in “green needles” on many a 135 & 121 ride

I Lucas' defense. their products were easy and cheap to repair.

Even if they don't "look" dirty spray them with a good contact cleaner. I've had great success with DeoxIT D5. https://www.amazon.com/Hosa-D5S-6-DeoxIT-Contact-Cleaner/dp/B00006LVEU/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.WWYV76T4o0F4opwdowjH0wKgBGfkY79pWk4lQF3-MQf21_xYV_duMGSp7YQEkfz-0tvJjLtcZcFP2SZJoLsKiQ7GOJefjYHXqZp6GJwCi0ST9OfM2RgamWwL94C9RhHbhX46_7YffRQGVCkbGq8qNReh76tRwNbrX2U0z4Rvz1ZX1FKXOtsUFD2XpgONIRyM4yzcNmMvTd-dHh67aSPcQyORgI08OMiHO8KIni1YPVueuryLBQaKZzmkDOB-yfthQaGHyfHD_M6QtlOCikZJjKJLfytOGlYrb6ouQPopVho.JhwJhQNH5zyNM_WkvnGVPQGy1LjAIHAUXShDTavPwNc&dib_tag=se&hvadid=694732379514&hvdev=c&hvexpln=67&hvlocphy=9013376&hvnetw=g&hvocijid=993048907826850571--&hvqmt=e&hvrand=993048907826850571&hvtargid=kwd-308864129431&hydadcr=18913_13357727&keywords=deoxit%2Bcontact%2Bcleaner&mcid=aa23b88adeb6365584c80f4f783daaac&qid=1755956909&sr=8-1&th=1

I have used NuFinish on my aircraft a couple of times over 10 years. Original paint. It's hangar kept and I wash it once a year (belly cleaned more often of course). $3000 for a buff job? Yow. Clay bar and beer.

Needs to be replaced in my opinion.

The second digit indicates the connector type. 329 is the Mil-spec cannon type plug.

The first leak was from the actuator. I'm not sure exactly where this one is. I decided to wait until the annual in October to have it fixed. I'm not sure about the fluid line, but you're right, if it's as old as the plane it's time to replace it.

If the Limitations section of the AFMS limits its use, it controls. This is from Revision 8 of the GTN (not Xi) AFMS Limitations, so no such limitation. “2.10. When using the VOR or ADF receiver to fly the final approach segment of a VOR or NDB approach, GPS may be the selected navigation source so long as the VOR or NDB station is operational and the signal is monitored for final approach segment alignment.” OTOH, Rev E for the older GNS W units does in 2.6 “GPS guidance can only be used for approach procedures with GPS or RNAV in the procedure title. When using the Garmin VOR/LOC/GS receivers to fly the final approach segment, VOR/LOC/GS navigation data must be selected and presented on the CDI of the pilot flying.” AFAIK, the GNS limitations were never updated to the newer AIM guidance.

Just musing out loud here... You have a TSIO-360-MB (or GB or LB). You're flying it in cruise at 75% power of your 210 rated HP. Say 28"/2500RPM/13.5 GPH, just for a rough example. At 75% power, no matter how you get there, you're putting out 157.5 horsepower. You take that same engine and reconfigure it to a TSIO-360-SB. The engine internals, to include crankshaft, pistons, connecting rods, and compression ratios, have not changed. But now your takeoff power settings are 39" and 2600 RPM which generates 220 HP. You take off again, and set your engine the same to 28"/2500RPM/13.5 GPH, putting out 157.5 horsepower. You are now at 72% power, with the engine performing exactly the same as before the conversion. Are you taking it any easier on your engine than before? All that to say - why do we focus on % of horsepower for cruise power settings? Wouldn't it be better to choose settings that produce ideal temperatures for CHT, EGT, and TIT? How are you even "taking it easy" on the engine by running it at reduced horsepower? % power isn't even a very good rule of thumb. I didn't do the math to verify what I posted above is 75%, I think it's actually a little less, but it requires a mathematical formula to know, it depends on whether you're ROP or LOP, and the number your engine monitor displays for it can even be wrong. Rules of thumb are supposed to be quick and easy and this is not. What the guys at GAMI say always sticks with me: "It's not how hard you run the engine - It's how you run the engine hard."

You are correct. If you have an older GTN 750 and not the Xi there may be an issue, if the AFMS says you must change to VOR for the FAS, as it doesn't look like Garmin updated their manual. That is not the case with the latest GTN 750 Xi version. See attached. Since both models were certified to TSO C-129 standards, you would think they could both fly the VOR approach similarly. I deliberately left off a Localizer type approach, since the FAS must be flown with the CDI in localizer mode, as there is no way to monitor it with a bearing pointer.

It’s an interesting topic. My immediate thought was that Garmin provides guidance on use of the GTN as primary for a VOR approach on the final approach segment.. I grabbed my GTN manual (screenshot below). Garmin suggests that VLOC mode is “required” and that the pilot “must” switch from GPS to VLOC before the final approach segment. If the AFMS for the navigator requires using the ground-based nav source as primary for the final approach segment, does the AFMS control the decision?

I'd refer you to AC 90-119. PBN, Performance Based Navigation. Read especially Chapter 12. AC_90-119_Coord_Copy.pdf

I believe WAAS also provides more accurate lateral guidance; not just vertical.

https://greenwayscc.com/blogs/articles/polymer-coating-or-ceramic-coating-which-is-right-for-your-car#:~:text=When it comes to durability,months%2C requiring reapplication more frequently.

I’ve actually wondered about this recently so…. I’ll be the dumb guy. Why would WAAS be required when vertical guidance is not consistent with a VOR approach?

The problem wasn’t that Lucas couldn’t make a good system it was the company’s using their product paid minimum pounds for the complete packages so corners had to be cut to remain profitable. Many formula one teams used their injection and ignition systems to great success during the sixties and seventies including one of the most successful engines in the sport the ford Cosworth DFV