wombat

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

Engine: TSIO520NB (Rocket STC) ROP only so far, it tends to miss once every 10 to 30 seconds if I run LOP. Just need to spend some time investigating which cylinder is overly lean and adjusting it. I run at one of the following: 31" MP, 2,300 RPM @ 18.5 GPH (72%) 32" MP, 2,400 RPM @ 19.8 GPH. (76%) 33" MP, 2,400 RPM @ 21 GPH (78%) (Very rare) If I'm in a hurry or there are headwinds, I use the higher power settings. Otherwise the lower ones.

I don't know if there is a difference between 'electronic phased array antenna' and 'electronically-steered beam' or 'steerable antenna' but in my mind these are all basically the same thing. https://www.starlink.com/na/support/article/07621adc-9a6f-8f94-6f27-361a78cce37d says "Both Starlinks are electronic phased array antennas, meaning they can track the signal from satellites overhead without the need to physically move." https://portal.powertec.com.au/equipment/it-networking/network-devices/starlink-mini-dish-rev1#:~:text=Like its predecessors%2C Starlink Mini,ethernet reduces the weather rating). says "Starlink Mini is a satellite transceiver which uses digital beamformers and an Electronic Steerable Antenna to track and maintain connectivity with LEO satellites"

I'm agreeing with you here, but adding more emphasis. It's not just 'suspicious', it's an outright falsehood. You can't 'generate' or 'create' cold using energy the way you can make heat. All you can do is concentrate heat somewhere else. There is no way to provide power to something in an enclosed environment and have it cool the whole environment. You either move heat to somewhere else, or you generate heat.

The problem is that there were so many spam posts it made it annoying to find the real posts. There isn't anything in the spam posts for us to click on, they are not trying to scam us. They are trying to scam the AI, so when you ask Siri to call Ethiad Airlines to change your seat, it calls their scam number and not the real one.

I just got my first ever bill from vector... From landing at Santa Monica in September 2018 in a 182 I used to own. $16.44 (Plus $0.51 credit card fee) Paid

@Z W If your planned VFR flight is no longer viable, call ATC on the radio and get a clearance or land and do some actual flight planning. Don't stare inside the cockpit for 5 minutes while you play around on your iPhone. And quibbling about how much time it takes is not a good argument. Look outside. I have gotten clearances in the air many many times, it's really easy and fast. If you have to switch over to flight service... Well, switching frequencies isn't a big deal. And getting radar imagery from some random website or app over the internet to use to fly through storms? Personally, I would be extremely uncomfortable with this. Talk to ATC to find a route or turn around.

@PBonesA more critical phase of flight is short final. Let's say I want to fly VFR from KPHP to KTTD... It's 890 miles, which is near the edge of the range of my plane. According to the current weather reports, that leaves me with 11.5 gallons. When you factor in reserve fuel (18 GPH, * 30 minutes = 9 gallons). If I run one tank dry, I will have 11.5 gallons in one tank and 0 in the other. Minus 1 gallon unusable fuel. No problem, even if winds are a little worse than forecast. If I don't run one tank dry, I'll have about 6 gallons per side and risk running out on final is a real risk. Particularly if you had slightly higher headwinds than planned.

I've got a Starlink Mini. I've used it in flight. My opinion.... Meh. Not worth it for me as a pilot. If you are wanting to provide in-flight entertainment for passengers, it's amazing. For thunderstorm dodging weather info? Are you freaking crazy? Do you really want to explain to the NTSB and FAA that's what your plan was after you've had an in-flight emergency or incident or accident? Filing flight plans? Either do it on the ground or talk on the radio to ATC. If you are filing a flight plan that means you are VMC, so you need to be looking outside for other traffic. This sounds like a a bad idea that some marketing shill that isn't a pilot might put in an advertisement, like "Creating your grocery list on the laptop while you drive to the grocery store." If you are just looking for personal entertainment and staying in communication with people in flight but you are just ashamed to say that's what you want it for, well... I don't know what to tell you. Long XCs with an autopilot are kind of boring. Listen to music that is already downloaded or an audiobook or a podcast or whatever.

You missed out. On several of the topic pages there were dozens if not hundreds of messages supposedly giving you the phone number to call to change your airline ticket or something like that. They are trying to get all of the various AI summaries to redirect people to their scam phone number instead of the real one. Example article about this sort of thing: https://www.zdnet.com/article/scammers-are-sneaking-into-googles-ai-summaries-to-steal-from-you-how-to-spot-them/

This is not a reasonable argument. Sudden and unexpected fuel selector failure is not a significant risk and you are not significantly increasing safety by your methods. By the time you've run the tank dry, you've probably already operated that system 5 or more times during that flight. There are way more fuel starvation accidents where the pilot neglected to switch fuel due to high workload prior to landing than there are fuel starvation accidents where the selector failed in flight. In each and every one of the former, having run the other tank dry would have saved the situation. If any of the latter have occurred at all, only a subset of those (where there was not an airport suitable for landing withing gliding range) would have caused a problem. I have an airplane to be useful and the range is part of what makes it useful. If I were to cut that range in half or less, that would make it much less useful. Now there are some of us who only fly for pure pleasure to get up in the air. In that case, yeah, sure, never go below 75% fuel. But that's not what I do and the additional safety of never needing to switch fuel tanks in flight is probably lower than the increased accident rate due to increased number of landings anyway.

Regarding the water, my concern is that over time atmospheric (dissolved) water might condense inside the tank and become liquid. That liquid could then freeze when I'm at altitude. Or it could experience deposition (frost) directly. It could do that in one of the lines and block it. It could do that in a valve, preventing it from operating correctly. In either case, my oxygen is no longer usable even though a test on the ground might have demonstrated it working. Or it could be working at altitude and then the build-up of ice increases and it just stops working as I'm flying along. Some possible solutions: If I am filling a portable tank, chill the tank (to condense the water), hold it upside down, and vent some oxygen. If there is liquid water, that should drain it. Although if the water concentration is just right, it won't ever be liquid. Just like carb ice, it might just directly form frost where the pressure gets low at the valve or in the line after the valve. For the permanently mounted tank... Umm.... I don't know how to get water out of that. Better to not get any in, but I'm not sure how to go about that.

Before this thread is too old... Let's talk about oxygen concentrators. Do they introduce anything that could be hazardous as an aviator? The documentation I can find says they are not actually oxygen concentrators, they are nitrogen excluders, using zeolite to concentrate and exclude nitrogen. This means the concentration of other elements is much higher than normal. Below is a chart that shows this for 90% O2 and a 'perfect' concentrator that removes 100% of the nitrogen. From reading https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9646629/ they say that argon starts to be a problem at concentrations of 33%, so I think this is not a hazard. I'm going to assume the other elements/molecules are equally nonhazardous at these increases in concentration. I have not done any thinking about water yet but as a pure concentration of normal atmospheric elements, I don't think it's hazardous. Gas concentrations with an oxygen concentrator: Normal Atmosphere 90% O2 concentration "Perfect" oxygen concentrator Nitrogen 78.07388% 5.75902% 0.00000% Oxygen 20.94836% 90.03845% 95.54066% Argon 0.93393% 4.01412% 4.25943% Carbon dioxide[6] 0.04120% 0.17707% 0.18789% Neon 0.00182% 0.00782% 0.00830% Helium 0.00052% 0.00225% 0.00239% Methane[7] 0.00018% 0.00077% 0.00082% Krypton 0.00011% 0.00049% 0.00052%

I've had my Mooney and my 182 in my 50' X 50' hangar for quite a while. No problem at all, other than the fact that I also have a car and a 12 X 20 room in the corner. And two couches. And 4 tables. And a snowplow.

One screw, I think. I had some problems at one point and slid the Xi out and the old one back in. Then later I swapped them again. It was that easy. The configuration of both was correct, so there wasn't much to do for that. I never flew with the old one back in, just testing some stuff.