All Activity

Needed to get a flight in today to keep my streak going for flying every week. Today was week 49, just three more to go to hit my goal of 52 weeks. Short hop from FUL to POC for some breakfast in between some small cells pushing through the area.

OK, maybe it isn't what you were expecting but it is still accurately described. Glad I was in a car... Coincidentally I took the Piper rental up to Great Barrington, MA today. Great Bearington... Ha....

It would be interesting to see some peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific publications ragarding the science behind these various coating products, ragarless of whether we call them ceramic, polymer, or something else. Cursory search does not really bring up anything but various blogs and websites that try to sell consumer on their products, many containg dubious claims about protective properties of these products, e.g., "ceramic" coating will prevent rock chips and scratches v. polymer coatings will not, etc. (I do not think that either product will prevent the paint from being damaged when you get a rock flying at you at 70mph on the highway). Interestingly, none of the articles that I was able to find expressed any concerns about the underlying paint, except for the common sense preparation of teh surface prior to aplication. What I saw were broad claims that appear to apply to all paints equally, regardless of the many differences between various paint systems used on aircraft and automobiles.. Installer and seller sites typically do not mention anything about the different paints. Do these magical products bond to all paints equally and form an impenetrable shield against elements or are we just being sold a very expensive snake oil? I tried some high-end waxes on my cars in the past, but the differences between wax/polish systems in the $50-100 range and the expensive stuff around $500 or more did not seem to be significant. These "ceramic" coating products have been on the market for a while now. I am curious why do car manufacturers not apply these on factory new cars - if it is such a magic bullet, having that as an option could be worth it.

More flashy pictures of "Destinations". Both former Aviation Safety and IFR (discontinued and "consolidated into" the Flying edition) have been dumbed down to 2 pages each comprised of 3 print columns each when you exclude the pictures. I would say that the articles are becoming more like "a mile wide and an inch deep". Look at the latest August issue: Aviation Safety article - "Diverting From The Plan" - 1/2 page is devoted to "Automation makes this a lot easier" IFR - "Single Engine Risks" - 3 print columns "touches on" night, mountain, IMC, weather, ATC... Key takeaway - "altitude is your best friend (except if you are on fire...)" And the last paragraph "Wrapping Up" is "Consider loading up the right seat with a pilot pal who can constantly scan for suitable areas for putting the aircraft down while you fly."... Duh. But then isn't all of aviation becoming this? More and more data integration and automation like the latest Dynamic Procedures from Garmin and Foreflight. It is all designed to create more "situational awareness". True it does - but it can also make pilots more lazy and dependent upon automation. Why wrack your brain visualizing how everything is laid out or should line up. Why spend much time briefing for a flight any more? These automated/integrated avionics and tablets will deliver everything you need. Just follow the magenta line....

Today coming back from Portland (Troutdale) I was about 202 knots then I increased power and got up to 213 knots. at 11,500' MSL

BAS is parting out Bravo with the newer fiberglass interior, unique opportunity to buy all the parts in one shot, cant hurt to call them to see what is still there

Thank you for saying that. You expressed it much more kindly than I would have.

WAG: the 30 airports are the only 30 airports which need it. The clue for me is that they're using Aspen as the example. If you look at the instrument approaches at Aspen, the MDAs are over 2,000 AGL (not MSL) . There is no vertical guidance for the rest of the way down. And I think this is what these new approach types are an attempt to do - provide some level of visual guidance with target altitudes for a stabilized approach in these situations. I suspect the value will be to those pilots who fly into those types of airports.

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 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? These are different than the visual runway guidance that had been previously available. 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".

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 Ad 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 Ad 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.