jaylw314

Go-arounds with full flaps and nose-up trim can be done one-handed if you're prepared. It's easier to push than pull against a load. On such go-arounds, I'm usually holding the nose down without trim until I'm past 200' AGL or so. It's only then I start messing with flaps and trim.

That was kind of my estimate, in a 100 knot headwind, you'd maximize you're range by going 200 knots or so. Above that, your fuel use will increase faster than your groundspeed increases. OTOH, if you're headwinds are <50 knots, you're not gonna want to fly around at 100 knots just to maximize your range Granted, your range will still absolutely suck, but it will suck the least around that speed

I recall seeing systems that positions each drone relative to its nearest neighbors via formation lights and sensors, without the benefit of GPS. The idea was to make a system that could be used indoors, like gymnasiums or indoor arenas.

I recall doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations to figure out how fast to fly into a headwind to maximize range, and determined your range increases as you slow down all the way to the point your TAS is twice the headwind, which I thought was a pretty useless conclusion because nobody would ever fly that slow

At 9000' it would be?

I recall hearing that it can be done, but I don't recall hearing about anyone actually doing it. One upside to getting a Lycoming rebuild is that it will come with the roller tappets. I think that's trickier if you're doing a field overhaul

That's precisely what juries do in court cases. They may not call it a statistical analysis, but they get specific instructions on what 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or 'clear and convincing' means conceptually. I remind people in training that a career in health care is a career of continuous, unending and unyielding pressure to make quick and life-changing decisions based on incomplete, inaccurate, apocryphal and wildly misleading information. What I don't tell them is that that probably holds true in most areas in life, but what can I say, I like scaring the residents

The corollary to that is the (real) example of people who claim that physics, biology, pathophysiology, microbiology and western medicine are all lies because none of them have been 'proven', since all of the scientific process is based on correlation and not proof. It's a bunk argument because the scientific process was never designed to 'prove' stuff, but it doesn't stop people who want to control you or sell you something from using that straw man argument. What science is good a doing is disproving causation, and that is where your hypothetical example falls apart. It is a trivial matter to design a study to disprove the hypothesis that yellow fingers cause cancer, and this is a common approach with confounding variables. The only way science 'proves' stuff is if repetitive attempts to disprove a hypothesis fail. This can be continued indefinitely, but practically, there at some point must be a conclusion that the mass of evidence, even if just correlation, is causation. I agree that point is often misinterpreted as being inappropriately low by the lay media and the general public, but to continue to argue that correlation is not causation ad infinitum even with the accumulation of a large body of evidence is simply nihilism (which is again often the tool of people who want to stay in control or sell you something). An analogy is the misconception that you require someone witness a murder to convict someone. You can certainly convict someone of murder without direct evidence, but the quantity and quality of indirect evidence needs to be significantly larger. Getting off topic into philosophy of science, sorry.

True, I was thinking more in terms of losing a whole mag, which admittedly isn't what this is about...

Edit: Sorry, that wasn't nice, I'll try to tone down the snarkiness That is not how science works, sorry.

"Correlation does not mean causation" is only correct most of the time. There has to be a point of sufficient evidence that the strength of correlation does mean causation for all intents and purposes. That's how science works, otherwise, we'd still be banging the rocks together. The tobacco industry had used that argument for decades. In the case of lead causing health problems, that ship had sailed even long before it was used in gasoline with the immense amount of medical data throughout history. Heck, even the makers of TEL called themselves the "Ethyl Corp" because they figured "Lead" in their name would be bad PR. It is documented in all children with lead paint chips. Remember, lead salts taste sweet. You're thinking of the medical condition "pica", I believe. That is associated with but certainly not limited to people with poor nutrition. The corollary that follows is that regardless of how one feels about the threat of 100LL being banned, people are right to be concerned about lead itself.

Wait, what? I've never heard that saying before? We don't have enough of an energy margin to ignore even a loss of 10-20 HP under conditions like that. While the second ignition source is designed for redundancy, it's necessary for safety

That's an awesome story! FYI in DCS there's a free OV-1A mod that is actually quite good, if you're interested in that sort of thing.

When I've flown Angel Flights, my wife accompanied us to assist boarding/disembarking. We used the mini step @201er pictured above, with the flaps down. The passenger would sit in the back and my wife in the co-pilot seat. That way, during boarding and disembarking, we'd be in front of and behind the passenger to help, and my wife could deal with the step. It meant we could only sign up for people travelling alone, not with extra family. I suspect the people we got were a little more mobile, because they weren't travelling with a companion.

That's wild, I have an 830 and never noticed that (I never use Lean Find, though). I've never seen it documented either. I'll have to test that this weekend.

I think that's kind of the point of the data out there--there is no insignificant amount and any amount produces measurable negative impacts (at least in the contamination amounts we've seen throughout the last 100 years). Nowadays, it is at least less frequent and less severe, but still measurable.

In the EDM 700 manual, it specifically states HP% is directly proportional to fuel flow and is intended to be 100% at full rich only. I've never seen it documented on other JPI devices how or if some other calculation is used for HP%, and it's annoying the 900 doesn't specify that. FWIW, in the 700 manual, it uses the same procedure, to use MP and RPM to set 70% power, not because it measures and uses MP/RPM in the HP% calculation, but ostensibly so you don't have to fly level at 100% power. There's not really a setting for that in cruise anyway. I've never gotten a clear answer as to how other JPI devices calculate HP%, but I wouldn't put it past them to simply use what the 700 uses and call it a day

I wish I could think of something useful to say that hasn't been said already. I just went "urk" reading your account and am glad you're back on the ground safe, but horrified at your plight

One of the studies @ilovecornfields listed was specifically regarding aircraft mechanics. The counterargument is that contact exposure is limited in area and can be practically mitigated by hand-washing, protective gear and safety practices. Airborne exposure doesn't have those upsides

I'd say this effect on our generation is probably washed out by the fact that we exposed EVERYONE to higher levels of lead during childhood. It's really only kids in the last 30 years who've had the benefit of lower lead exposure. How often did we complain that only kids could figure out how to program VCR's? Maybe that was the reason!

The number of cases of diagnosed acute radiation syndrome in history numbers only a few thousand, and the number of deaths from it I'm guessing is only a couple hundred, with extremely large variations in quality and quantity of exposure. That is not a sufficient base to draw good conclusions from. The converse of low dose, long-term exposure results in very tiny percentage of consequences, and any time that occurs, it is also very difficult to draw good conclusions about cause and effect. I'm not sure radiation exposure is a terribly good comparison to lead for those reasons.

You're right, I got the anti-servo and balance tabs swapped. I imagine most of the time they'd only be used on stabilator type controls The tapered rear edge of the control surfaces serves to lighten forces. The increase angle at the trailing edge creates extra lift and pulls the airflow in the other direction, helping decrease the control force needed. I have no idea how it compares in magnitude to the control horns, though

Mooney elevators have control horns and tapered rear edges, both which serve the same function as anti-servo tabs (and less complicated)

I think the only time I've told my wife "watch this!" in the plane involved a slip. Getting the expected slam dunk into LAX airspace, I dropped the gear and slipped to lose 4000' in VMC. I pegged out the VSI at 125 KIAS. I also slept on the couch that night

IIRC, Lycoming has no specific limitations for the IO-360 in its operating handbook, and it has separate written guidance about leaning to whatever you want above 5000' MSL or below 75% power (I think those are both unofficially written, though). Most of the Lycoming "insistence" on avoiding LOP comes from stories of interactions with individuals representing the company. Not sure if this is the same situation with the TIO-540?