AH-1 Cobra Pilot

This is something that will affect us in the very near future. I suspect this cylinder is rather expensive, but the cost will come down, and they can be optimized to work in any particular airplane. https://www.additivemanufacturing.media/blog/post/3d-printing-changes-a-drone-engine-the-cool-parts-show-s2e3

Good news and bad news... I just took my written test to get my CFI-I; got a 100%! So now I am ready to start shipping switch covers. The bad news is that the Innovation Studio, (MakerSpace by another name), is closed for at least two weeks, so I cannot make anything customized until they reopen. (Stupid virus.) I think I have responded to everyone who PMed me before. If I missed you, I apologize.

I finally have lots more Klixon switch covers! I have all the usual letterings, and I can still make custom covers. I have decided to simplify things and charge $10/each, including shipping. Please PM me with your address and which letterings you want.

At Fort Rucker, we had an IP who would tell us to watch out for something. We never knew if it was a tire, a tower, or tar when he would say, "Wahtch eot fer tha' tahr!"

Or go to "Hahvuhd"?

At least you do not say "aluminium", do you?

Cheap!?! Your hangar costs more than my hangar, insurance, and annual, plus 30 hours worth of fuel!

2019 - CFI 2020 - CFI-I and beyond - MEI, SEL ATP, Helo CFI & CFI-I, Helo ATP, SES ATP, MES ATP, Glider... I thank you all for my GI Bill!

In steady state, T = D = 1/2 ρ V2 S CD. Thus, if D is 25% less, (V1)2 / (V2)2 = 3/4, and V2 = 1.155V1. KIAS more speed? +15.5%.

The time to run the program is now quick, but the months to build the equations and analyze the results is still there.

When I was studying for my BS Aero E, (the days before PCs were prevalent), I was told our department used 86% of the total VAX computer user time on campus. That was because the senior design class was given a problem to optimize in 10 variables. Our programs would often run for 24 hours straight. You can easily imagine a 3-dimensional graph with the lowest point being the optimal solution. Now imagine a 10-dimensional graph, and note that the slopes of some of the parameters are much greater than others, (in other words, you get greater change in performance from some variables compared to others). Airfoils are a only subset of these calculations, so you can see how difficult an optimized design really is.

I had mine refurbished a while ago. I wish I would have just stepped up to a G5. The difference in price would be well worth it. I had to replace my DG with a new G5 HSI. It can switch between the two functions, and I love the added capability, not to mention the attitude-indicator backup.

So many posters here keep saying Cirrus outsells Mooney because of the parachute. So, how many do you suppose actually choose the parachute option on the Mako?

Even with all electrical power off, the switch would not stay ON. I removed the switch cover to find the spring misapplied and the hinge pin on the other side missing, putting more tension on the spring. I replaced the pin and reset the spring, and all is now fine. I suspect the pin worked its way out gradually, causing the rest of the malfunction.

I used Sheppard Air for my ATP, FOI, and FIA tests. They have a good methodology for studying for this type of test.

Lately, my landing light switch will not stay in the ON position. It seems to stay ON for my initial taxi, but once the engine RPM comes up, it turns off. (Vibration? Electrical load?) I can hold it ON, but it will not stay ON. Is there a way to fix it, or must I replace it?

Retired military pilot. Started a company to 3-D print a silencer design I patented; waiting for the metal printers to catch up. Started a laser micro-machining business.

It took ours 2 months and $20,000, but probably definitely worth it.

I do have a few covers, and I will get back to everybody. When my computer crashed, it took the CAD files with it. I still have some of the files, but I have to verify if one is the latest/greatest. I will probably get back to the Maker Space with the laser engraver in January/February, so I can finish them then. Please have patience with the process.

I did not realize the series lasted into 1963. Ihad heard Cessna only made 69 of them.. We had serial #1.

We had an auto gas STC on the 1960 Cessna P-172 I co-owned; it had a Continental GO-300 engine. The engine seemed to run just the same as with 100LL, but...We had several exhaust valves stick open after shut-down, and we heard this was a common problem due to the bronze bushings not getting a little lead coating on the exhaust stroke. Newer engine with steel valve guides were not supposed to have the issue. I cannot verify the explanation, but it does sound plausible.

Gasoline engine bsfc = 0.36 lb/hp-hr, diesel engine bsfc = 0.34 lb/hp-hr. That IS a big deal!

Have you ever looked at the old Soviet Soyuz rockets? They have 25 engines. I have watched old movies of launches, and you can see that 3-5 of them will not be functioning! The Soviets always built in plenty of redundancy.

The numbers follow the earlier sets. One of my main points is that what we will see in twenty years is already in development. (Who thinks 3-D printing is new? Only because the market has been flooded with new entrants because the patents recently expired.) Lots of ideas, some work right away, some work once technology catches up, some are just never practical. Battery energy density is still too low to be practical for airplanes, and will be for quite a while, let alone what the FAA will allow and when. Until the density quadruples, electric propulsion for airplanes is a fools errand. A few European companies have made battery powered aircraft, but they can produce max power for a whole 12 minutes! That is not even good for practicing take offs and landings.

1. Turbines are generally great for airplanes except for bfsc. Turbines are roughly .43 lb/hp-hr while gas recips are roughly .36, diesels .34. (Specific fuel consumption) 2. Yes. 3. Check your premises. 4. That does help. 5. Ditto, see #3. The reason it is crap for fixed-wing aircraft is that multiple motors/props results in gross inefficiencies. I already said hybrid propulsion makes perfect sense for multiple lift devices, not propulsive devices. The aircraft that I think can make a big difference was in development by NASA a few years ago. It looks like a high-wing twin except for the tilting wing sections with the motors and props. This way, the whole wing does not rotate, saving structural challenges and keeping the lift close to the CG, as compared to wing-end tilt rotors. Unfortunately, I do not remember the X-number of the plane and could not find a picture.