AH-1 Cobra Pilot

Huh. I thought it was supposed to be through his arms.

I had not noticed that until you mentioned it. The one was split; must have been from lasing it, otherwise the paint would have covered the split. I will adjust my process to make sure that does not happen again.

In addition to the ones shown, I will also make rotating beacon, master, and avionics master switches. Is there anything else? There is also the issue of condensing the lettering. What is best? ROT BCN ? AV MSTR or AV MASTER ? MASTER ??? Unless red proves to be essential, all will be off-white with black letters.

Sure. I just have to know what it needs to be. i.e. ROT BCN ?

Only if you think being a lady is an insult.

OK. I think these are as good as they get. Anyone wishing to order a set, PM me.

I recently took a part-time job as a corporate pilot. I have flown in the military, but have never flown for an air carrier. Most corporate and military pilots I know do not fly GA much, and I suspect the same is true for the Part 121 guys. The important thing is that I do find the commercial and military types who also regularly fly GA to be much more similar to us on this forum, and would more likely protect our interests. All that said, from the article it is impossible to tell if Dunkin flies GA much or not, and if he would be a good choice for GA as the administrator or not. Fortunately, he seems to have had some management responsibility and success. I definitely believe he is a much better choice than promoting some bureaucrat from within the organization!

As you probably know, I like to do math. If those 'five households' all did the same thing, it means that each called 5 times every day! As I like to say, hitmen are cheaper than lawyers.

How much do you trust the guy who did the overhaul? The engine is worth exactly that much. It is also true for whomever you might sell it to. Personally, unless there are extenuating circumstances, I do not put much trust in someone who gets rid of previous logs.

Exactly. Total Drag comprises parasite drag, induced drag, etc. Some are greater at high speeds, some greater at lower speeds. Cars have similar/analogous forces acting upon them, too. Forgive me for not previously spelling everything out in the interest of conserving words.

The gear box in a GO-300, for instance is over 90% efficient and weighs about 30 lb., (if memory serves me). It only needs to reduce the rpm from about 3200 to 2400. Those worse figures are probably from turbo props or other high-percentage reduction.

No, just as in aircraft, you have several friction/drag curves and the engine has its own efficiency curve. Where these curves meet, essentially, is the best speed vs. fuel burn.

You would be trading a gearbox for a generator and a motor. I suspect the weight of the two would be more than the weight of the gearbox; plus, the efficiency losses would make it undesirable.

Very interesting. If a hybrid gets better mileage in town than on the highway, this tells you something. The perfect scenario is when an engine's most efficient output is equal to the drag, (combination of friction, aerodynamic drag, etc.), and you are on level ground. All of the engine power is devoted to pushing the vehicle forward; none goes to recharging the battery. A higher speed results in extra power, all devoted to propulsion, not recharge. Since your mileage is better in town, the greater part of energy produced is consumed in aerodynamic drag at the speeds you drive on the highway. An 8 mpg difference is pretty substantial. You must usually drive at least 30 mph above that magic 'best efficiency' speed. This also shows why a hybrid airplane is silly. Most of the distance people normally fly would be at a particular power setting, mostly at or above the point of maximum efficiency, meaning there is no 'waste' power to recharge a large battery bank. The only scenario in which a hybrid might make sense is for a trainer specifically made to stay in the pattern doing T&Gs. Again, using one engine to drive a generator/alternator to drive multiple electric motors can make sense in a quadcopter. It depends on the size of your payload.

The only fuel cells I have seen were used in spacecraft. They were one-shot deals, with the benefit that the water could be drunk in an emergency. (It was a nasty looking brown, but people who tried it said it tasted OK.)

You are right, I did make a mistake. Let us calculate it again. 125 hp * 1 hour * 3600 s/hr * 746 W/hp ÷ 0.8 ÷ 0.875 MJ/kg * 2.205 lb/kg = 1057 lb of battery to equal 6 gallons of gas , and the C-152 replacement would be 11,370 lb. (This is using the maximum energy density for the battery. If you use the low number, multiply by about 2.4.) [BTW, I had the Sparrowhawk conversion.] As for your link, a 17 kWh battery can only power a 85kW motor for 12 minutes at full power, (114 hp). Their rosy picture is of a one hour recharge. How many 'touch and go's can you do in a day with that? Not much of a replacement for your typical trainer aircraft.

They might be doing research, which may be a good expenditure of their time, but I oppose them wasting money, which is worse in that it probably comes from taxes. Ask them what subsidies they are receiving for this nonsense.

Please do the math before you respond like this. To fly for one hour burning 6 gph of AVGAS: 6 gal/hr * 6 lb/gal * .453 kg/lb * 46.4 MJ/kg = 757.7 MJ/hr. That is what a C-152 burns in gasoline at full power for one hour. To determine how much battery you need to supply that energy, a lithium-ion battery has, at best, 0.875 MJ/kg. Thus, 757.7 MJ/hr ÷ 0.875 MJ/kg = 865.9 kg = 1909 lb of batteries just to make a one hour flight. I did not even factor in the conversion efficiency of electric power, which would make it even worse. What percentage of aircraft weight is devoted to fuel? Factor that in, too. So 36 lb of AVGAS vs. 1909 lb of batteries? My old C-152 held 26 gallons, or 156 lb. That equates to 9.3%. Using batteries would make for an airplane weighing over 20,000. That would be one shitty airplane that no one would want to buy, except for people wanting to brag how 'green' they are. As for hybrids, they are lousy on the highway, which is analogous to how we usually fly. They are only good for city driving with lots of starts and stops, with the engine shutting down regularly. Not at all applicable to airplanes. You are far better off to avoid power losses from conversions and use a direct drive for your prop. Train engines are diesel-electric for other reasons, mostly to have one engine drive several motors. This may be applicable to multi-rotor craft, i.e. quad copters, but not airplanes.

My diesel Jetta gets over 50 mpg. (It was even better before the "fix".) Makes the hybrids look pretty crappy, I think.

Electric motors are pretty good, but batteries are the issue. We have covered this on another thread... When batteries have 1/5 the energy density of liquid fuel, then electric aircraft, (and automobile), propulsion will be something other than absolutely stupid.

Caterpillar advertises some of their big, stationary diesels at 0.34. One that fits onto an airplane will not be that good.

The lesson is: Do no get divorced! Never get a divorce! Divorce is Wrong! There is no reason to ever get divorced! Don't you know, hitmen are cheaper than lawyers?

The real smart ass would say: One. Baggage fills the rest.

Go with the Cessna T-210/P-210. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/december/pilot/fly-off-bonanza-vs-centurion

I would hate to pay for the electricity to constantly run two dehumidifiers! Might be as much as your insurance. I have an 800W dehumidifier = 6.6A. If yours are larger, two may overload a 15A breaker. Be sure to check.