jaylw314

I don't have running water either, so I use one of those gallon pesticide spray bottles, the kind with the hand pump on top to pressurize the container. I fill it with water and a couple drops of car wash detergent, and you can get a pretty good spray to get the loose grime off the windshield. A lot easier than a normal spray bottle. For bugs, set it to fine mist, and wet down the windshield. If you wait and come back 5 minutes later, bugs usually wipe off easily. For final cleaning, I use Novus plastic cleaner. Cheaper than Plexus

My $0.02 Throttle 1/4", mixture idle. Crank 5-10 sec. If it sputters but doesn't catch, I'll push the mixture about 1" (around my lean-for-taxi mixture) for a couple seconds then back to idle while still cranking. If all that fails then I flood the engine, wait a minute for the starter to cool, then do a flooded start. Almost got stranded last month because of difficult hot starting. I put fine-wires on the left mag only, and this made a HUGE difference.

All radios have a noise filter (sort of like the intercom "squelch", although I don't think that's what it's called) so you don't have to listen to background static all the time. This also cuts out faint radio signals but it might cut out the VOR broadcast (Morse code and recorded voice) if it is too faint. If you pull to ID, the filter is turned off and you can be guaranteed to hear the VOR broadcast, but you will also hear plenty of background static.

I don't get fuel leaking out at shut down. Is that typical? A leaky fuel drain valve should not be a game stopper, but I echo everyone's sentiment that it makes me question how well the plane has been maintained overall.

There is a tab on the top side of the scoop to make it easier to handle. If you installed the wrong one, that tab would interfere with the open window panel.

With all due respect, you misread me. Bernoulli's Principle is a concept that applies everywhere. Unfortunately, it is not sufficient to describe every situation accurately or even usefully. An analogy is the cause of friction drag at high speeds. Drag from friction is predictably proportional to the square of velocity. However, at low speeds, this predicts drag should be very low, but in fact drag increases on the back side of the glide curve because of increasing induced drag, which is not accounted for in this equation. As your speed decreases, friction goes from being the predominant cause of drag to only a minor cause of drag. Friction still exists but it contributes less and the friction drag equation becomes more and more inaccurate. Working in reverse, the more poorly an equation predicts the result, the less the underlying principle contributes to the observed result. So in this case Bernoulli's principle does still apply to some extent, but because its equation fails, it is clearly not the most important contributing factor to lift.

I stand corrected. I assumed because I saw one side seize up it must have been two separate motors, but I suppose one bell crank could have seized. Thanks for clearing that up!

Hell, that is a damn good idea

That actually makes my point--ALL wing shapes have increased lift with increasing AOA up to stall AOA. What changes with shape is how efficiently they produce lift (the amount of lift per unit of AOA) and what the stall AOA is. But no matter the shape, every wing produces more lift at higher AOA below stall, and every shape has an AOA where they produce no lift. The lower airstream does not remain at atmospheric pressure--it actually increases, which Bernoulli's principle does not predict (see the pressure diagrams in the article). And the speed increase of the upper airflow is lower than predicted by Bernoulli's principle in the textbook example. So yes, Bernoulli's principle does exist and does predict the behavior of air under certain circumstances, but not this one.

My opinion on non-turbo flying: 2 hour flights are a good starting point for weekend trips, especially if wife is not used to flying. 3-4 hour flights are a sweet spot where you actually come out ahead on time vs flying commercial 5+ hour flights are more expensive and slower than flying commercial, but more fun Any farther dictates fuel stops which add to time and expense. Autopilot helps a LOT. I hand flew 4 hours in a Cherokee once and was dead to the world for the next 2 days. I flew 6 hours with an autopilot and felt great, I even made a point of hand flying for about a quarter of the time. +1 on the oxygen. I have a CB portable tank setup with two portable D tank ($80 each), a medical regulator ($50 each), and two Mountain High valve/flow meters ($80 each). Costs $12 to fill each tank at a welding shop, and probably a good 8-10 hours for two people. Search amazon for Travel Johns or other portable unisex toilets. We had to make bladder stops on each leg of our last trip, so we're going to try them out this time. I figure my wife will climb into the back seat so we can do our thing in relative privacy. The day we can do that in front of each other is the day the romance is over

No, since it is easily removable and there are no structural fasteners.

Just to be clear, the myths that need to be debunked are these. They are all seductive because they are partly true: Wings create lift because of the airfoil shape. The airfoil shape makes air flow over the top faster since it is a longer distance than the air over the bottom Bernoulli's principle creates lower pressure over the top since it is moving faster. The lower pressure over the top created by Bernoulli's principle creates a net force upwards The problems with these arguments are: Wings usually are but do NOT need to be airfoil shaped. We all understand the barn door analogy, and planes CAN fly inverted. In fact, if you look at the airfoil shape with the flat bottom in most textbooks, you'll see that the average chord line of the airfoil actually has a positive AOA. It's AOA that predicts lift, which is why barn doors and upside down planes can fly. In fact, the airfoil shape is simply cambered, and any cambered shape is more stall resistant in one direction. The more camber, the lower the stall speed. You can do that by lowering flaps or by making the wing asymmetric in cross-section. A plane with a traditional airfoil shaped wing will have a higher stall speed inverted than right-side up. The airfoil shape IS a longer distance over the top, but that has nothing to do with why air moves faster over the top. In fact, if you fly a symmetric wing or a barn door with positive AOA, air also moves faster over the top. The reason is that forward stagnation line can be behind the leading edge, which is why your stall warning vane works. The rear stagnation line is ALWAYS at the trailing edge, though, as long as the trailing edge is relatively sharp. This creates net circulation which moves air over the top faster for a wing for ANY shape. Essentially, it is the sharp trailing edge that makes the air flow faster over the top. Bernoulli's equation does predict lower pressure in faster moving air. However, Bernoulli's equation is only accurate when applied along a single airstream that changes pressure along its path such as in the airstream into and out of a venturi. It is NOT intended to apply to two separate airstreams of different pressures, such as over and under a wing. There IS lower pressure over the top of the wing, but there is also net airflow downwards at the trailing edge. They both are caused by faster airflow over the top (net circulation) and result in the same thing, lift. So those two explanations are equivalent. The important part to know is that Bernoulli's equation is NOT the reason for the lower pressure over the wing. Here's the section with pictures: https://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-airfoils

Cessna flaps do have separate motors, and I had that very thing happen on preflight in a 150 early in my training.

Not sure about the ovation. On the J there are two screw caps under the glareshield and panel rheostats that cover the two fuses. They are Bussman GMW-5 fuses. They are sold at Newark for about $5 each. Shipping is about $5, so if you do, buy a few of them.

Yes, left for the left window.

Works pretty good, but better on a hot day with one of those evaporative cooling towels around your neck. It's a significant blast of air, so If the air blows into your mic, it can also mess up your audio panel squelch, so you might have to tilt your head away from it

This was the online book 20 years ago that got me fascinated by aerodynamics and flying: https://www.av8n.com/how/ Yes it's overkill, but it is the clearest explanation I've seen about how wings generate lift, and how Bernoulli may (or may not) have been wrong. The Cliffnotes version: The classic Bernoulli explanation in textbooks is wrong. Wings create lift by moving air down, and that downwash is created by net "circulation" around the wing while moving forward, identical to the Magnus effect that creates lift on spinning ping-pong balls. And light is neither wave or particle. If you look carefully, it is actually a herd of fuzzy cats

When I said "stabilized approach", I mean one where no major configuration changes are made (or necessary) until the transition to level flight When I said "unstable approach", I mean one where you are not where you want to be or at the speed you want (flailing around). If I"m where I want to be and as fast as I want to be, but making major configuration changes, that's neither.

The part I wasn't sure of is if the reference to the A3B6D was intended to include the A3B6 (or if the writers were too lazy to specifically say not), since it seems like the TCDS implies this in a few other places. Color me paranoid. I might just ask my A&P to retime my magnetos while wearing someone else's glasses, so I end up with 22 BTC...

I think I read somewhere that radials and/or full-feathering prop hubs do have a huge internal volume of oil compared to normal prop hubs, and so they might require the full 3 cycles. That may be where the routine came from.

Yup

I'm confused, too. Welcome to the club. I'm not sure where you think I said "shock cooling is not a problem at all." My read on the article was that it might not be as large a problem as we think it is, but that we need more information that we don't have. I tested it out this afternoon. On short final, my CHT's were already between 310-320. After opening the cowl flaps, they came down to 270-290 on landing. Fastest cooling rate was -43 degF/min. With the cowl flaps closed, they came down to 285-295, with the fastest cooling rate -36 degF/min. Both are within Lycoming's -60 degF/min suggested max cooling rate. granted, it was a hot day out (95 degF), but unless your CHT's are in the 400's right when I pop open the cowl flaps and reduce power, I just can't see it being faster than -60 degF/min.

Yes, like slowing down from 100 KIAS after an instrument approach on short final so that we don't turn into another Mooney runway overrun statistic? Why the sarcasm about "unstable approaches are bad"?

I'm paraphrasing some of Mike Busch's webinar's through EAA. Can't remember which ones, but he commented on that a few times. There's also this article

As to the GoPro shutting off, how long is your trip? I think most action cams have a "Cyclic Record" option (or words to that effect) that has to be on, otherwise the recording stops at the max file size (or less if you changed the setting for that). Most (or all) action cams use the FAT32 format, so the max filesize is 4 GB, which is about 1:15 at 720P.