Jump to content

jaylw314

Basic Member
  • Posts

    4,488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by jaylw314

  1. For future reference, Carson's article is here (I'm sure it's been posted before) https://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/efficiency/AIAA_1980_1847_BHCarson.pdf Carson's speed is defined as the minimum of 'airspeed / gph', and it is proportional to max L/D by the lift and drag equations. It just happens to always be 3 ^ (1/4) or 1.32 x best glide speed. In that sense it is more 'real' than Vy, which entirely depends on the vagaries of each aircraft, weight and engine. Granted, I'd agree Vy is probably more 'important' than Carson's speed, but neither are arbitrary. Both are specifically defined, even if that doesn't mean you can't choose otherwise.
  2. By that argument, there's nothing magic about Vy, it's just the speed which someone who happened to be interested in climbing fast picked For us poor NA types, Carson's speed IS fast if you're up high. Around 14-15k' MSL it's about as fast as you can go, and only a bit slower than your max groundspeed.
  3. Yikes, was there any poo? I'd also add that ground effect slows down winds in the last 50-100 feet, so if you run out of rudder above, you may still have enough below, but it'd still be pretty sketchy... FWIW 15 kts is okay in a J, but I stopped there because I figured that was enough...
  4. That's funny, my wife pointed it out to me when we watched it, I was too busy watching Jennifer Connelly
  5. It's good for whale watching so you don't bother the big critters as much, or site-seeing low over noise-sensitive areas, but that's about it
  6. I was always told to leave the prop horizontal so you're less likely to get hit by all those students in high-wing Cessnas
  7. Just to clarify, if my transponder is out of 24 months, the plane can still fly VFR, it just can't go into rule airspace with it on, correct? And I assume I would I need to placard it INOP?
  8. FWIW, most people don't update the GNS4xx/5xx obstacle/terrain databases regularly, but it obviously shouldn't hurt. In the GNS 5xx, the Garmin USB card reader for the obstacle/terrain memory card also works for the IFR database memory card if you use the Garmin IFR database. If you use Jeppensen, you need a different USB memory card reader (Skybound) which runs around $70. I think this also applies to the GNS 4xx series. Another small gotcha is that the Garmin IFR database requires an internet connection to a Windows computer. It does not run offline using a download and does not have an Android/iPhone app. The Jeppensen app can run off a download but still requires Windows (although I think there's a kludge workaround for iPads). I'm not sure if those last two points have changed in the recent past, but I'm sure someone will pipe up if they have. I use the Garmin IFR database, which has been $300 annually for the US the past few years. Jeppensen might have a better deal if you fly outside the US regularly (Garmin has North America for $400). I've always used Fltplan Go or Avare for the tablet, they're both free and use the FAA charts, so updates are headache- and money-free. Obviously, if your plan is to use Foreflight, that would probably be a factor in terms of choosing.
  9. CrownAir down in San Diego MYF is a Mooney Service Center, but I think Top Gun and Foothill might be closer?
  10. LED position and anti-collision lights are considered minor modifications as long as the equipment is actually intended for certified aircraft (as opposed to experimental aircraft). So they just need to be installed by an A&P and he needs to sign a logbook entry. No IA's or 337's. Landing lights are different. There are no TSO requirements like with position and strobe lights, so some worry there's no basis for arguing with the FAA they're equivalent (or even better). Worse yet, some came with STC's, which seemed to suggest they did require 337's as major modifications. Conversely, since landing lights have no requirements, some have even argued non-aviation truck LED headlights should be usable. These days, my impression is that most people just have their A&P put it in or do it themselves, and you probably want to check with your regular IA to make sure he'll be ok with it at annual time. Interior lights is the trickiest. Not only is there some debate as to whether a pilot can change interior lights (he probably can even though it's not listed in the allowed preventative maintenance activities), it's technically trickier since LED's don't dim the same way. FWIW, I used Whelen Orion's for position/strobe lighting, and I have a cheapo Aero-Lites landing light. Haven't changed the coffee grinder light yet.
  11. Yes, my DME is not paired to the 530 in terms of frequency tuning. I know it can, and I'll probably do that next time I'm in the avionics shop, but I'm trying to avoid them as long as I can
  12. I like flying approaches with just the radios sometimes, what can I say? I wasn't too clear, sorry, I was specifically referring to an approach where the DME is associated with the ILS frequency. Normally, if you did an ILS approach without programming it in the 530, you'd have a second radio tuned to a different navaid to figure out your fixes. It's not patently obvious that even when you tune the 530 to the ILS-DME, you still need to tune your second radio or DME to the exact same frequency to get your distance for identifying fixes, especially since for a VOR-DME approach, you wouldn't because the 530 does show you the ground distance. Like I said, it's not a showstopper, but it's an inconsistency that can trip up someone not familiar with it. A more annoying situation this can be a problem even if you've programmed the approach in the 530 is if you've gotten vectors-to-final on an ILS-DME and pressed that button, then suddenly ATC asks you if you're past a certain fix. "uhhh....narp?" Again, not a big deal if your nav radio is on the same frequency
  13. There are some ILS approaches with waypoints marked by DME distance and no VOR on the field. Thinking of you, KSLE. Normally, if you tune in a VOR for an approach without programming it, you expect to get the ground distance to the VOR in that little window in the GNS530W that you can use in lieu of DME distance. But when you go to tune in ILS without setting it up, doh! Suddenly you realize you have no easy way of figuring where on the localizer you are and if you've passed a fix yet. Obviously there are workarounds, like programming the approach each and every time so you can see the fixes, but it's one of those things that seems like it should work and can catch you out when you realize it doesn't. I don't know if the 750 has the same quirk. It seems like it'd be trivial for Garmin to calculate the ground distance just like with a VOR.
  14. The KFC-150 can certainly fly an RNAV LPV approach in approach mode. What you'll find not cool about the GNS530W is that there is no means to display distance to the ILS. VOR yes, it will display ground distance in the little window under the frequencies, but for an ILS, it will not. You'll need to add up the leg distances or keep a DME on the appropriate frequency
  15. Even if ALT is armed? That is interesting, that must mean there are different ways to install it
  16. On the one hand, the AFMS for those should all apply to your plane, since the equipment in question has to be installed according to the requirements of the installation instructions and the STC. For that matter, I think it's technically not possible for an avionics installer to replace the KAS-297B without knowing that it works or is connected, since if it fails functional testing it would have to be placarded as INOP. On the other hand, installers are human too and have been known to make mistakes. If you're not doing your IFR training in this plane, I'd say you'll definitely want to go over the manuals with a fine-toothed comb, check out the free Garmin 530W simulator app, and have a good chunk of time with an instructor to transition. There are all sorts of 'gotchas' with the interface between the KFC 150, KAS 297B and G530W. For example, on the outbound course of the ILS, do where do you point the arrow on the HSI? How do you fly holds? What happens with a HILPT? The answer for those and many questions is "it depends". You don't want to run into a question you don't know the answer to when you're in the soup. Technically, the KFC-150 is a digital autopilot. I'm not sure about the 200, but it may be analog. Not that there's a practical difference on the pilot's side so I'm just being pedantic
  17. I was going to point out the same thing @N231BN pointed out. I had researched putting in a G5 and came to the conclusion you'd have have an ADI with the flight director in the primary position. The KFC-150 and KAS-297B combo is something you REALLY want to understand the buttonology about before you go flying it. For example, I found out the hard way (fortunately while in VFR) that the combo with my 530W is NOT capable of GPSS, even though some configurations are. Made doing a procedure turn very...interesting. I'm pretty sure the KAS-297B is connected to the AP because if it is not connected, I THINK it shows dashes on the display as an error message. The workflow with the KAS-297B is to set your desired altitude, then set your desired vertical speed, then arm VS and ALT. It will not do anything until you press VS. If you are in HDG or NAV mode but manually pitched for a climb/descent, pressing ALT will capture your desired altitude when you hit it without changing your current climb/descent. You can find the user guides for them online to familiarize yourself, but it's hard to imagine you don't (or shouldn't) have them in your AFMS section in your POH. And not to encourage you to spend more money, but dang, that Bravo panel is really hurting for a primary engine monitor. Those gauges take up SO much space!
  18. Well, I suppose it's actually the whim of the local FSDO that matters, but luckily it would rarely come to that
  19. I'm guessing a significant fraction of us have had an encounter with orange icing
  20. That's probably a more accurate statement, although it's important to account for the fact that the biggest liar is usually the one between your ears
  21. So speaking about bad statistics, that's an example. Not just because the data itself is bad (who the hell is Neel Danesha, why should I trust him, and why does he not provide analysis of the total carbon cost of natural gas grilling?), but because it does not answer the problem you posed, which was cooking on gas stoves vs cooking on charcoal grills. Most bad statistics are not bad because the numbers are wrong (although I suspect there's no shortage of that either), but because people using them asked the wrong question.
  22. Well, Mark Twain was wrong when he talked about "lies, damn lies, and statistics." He should have said "lies, damn lies, and bad statistics." We're all smart enough to take the time and make the effort to evaluate the quality of the information around us
  23. I didn't pay for it, the Harvard School of Public Health did: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.1c08298 --If you really want to reduce pollution from cooking, you ban charcoal grills. As to that question, it all depends on what you mean by "pollution". If we're talking greenhouse gases, then natural gas is significantly worse. I assume you're talking about the other stuff (particulates, odors, CO and other gases). I haven't seen any good data actually comparing the two, but I suspect the differences are trivial since grills account for 0.0003% of the US carbon footprint.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.