AH-1 Cobra Pilot

Yes, I still make the Klixon switch covers. I do not have a CAD file for the ETA switch covers, nor do I have a cover, so I have never made any of those. For the ones I make, the post-processing is a big deal, much more than just the printing. I paint them, then laser engrave the lettering. Right now, I am printing something new and will have pictures posted soon.

I had searched before, but found none. This time, I found some from Amazon, but in a blue tint. Maybe I will try it…

I have actually made some switch covers in Glow-in-the-Dark PLA. You have to occasionally shine a light on them, but they work pretty well. The down side is PLA; they will not likely survive a really hot summer.

$10/each. Also note, I only have Klixon switch covers, not ETAs.

Yes, I have the covers available. In fact, I have run out of a few and need to make some new ones, so if you want anything special, ask now. I have been dealing with a family emergency for the past week+, so I am a little slow in responding.

In order to avoid confusion: This is not correct, even though the units may be the same. Work is a force applied over a distance, while torque is a force applied at a distance. A force/torque can also be applied over a rotational distance to yield work. Also, I think you might try to compare the torque/rpm curves of an O-300 engine with a GO-300 engine. The GO-300 will turn much faster to deliver a similar prop rpm, so the chart may indicate more rapid torque decline towards the higher rpm.

No. Think of it this way: You have your C-152 WOT in a climb at 4000' DA. Then you put it in a dive with WOT at 4000' DA. Will the RPM s be the same? Will the engine power be the same?

No. Power is proportional to velocity cubed. P∝FV, and F∝V2. Since P=Tω, you can use RPM with the torque, but torque can be hard to determine. Turboprops usually have PROP RPM and Torque gauges, making the calculations easy., but on a recip, since you do not have a torque gauge, you need RPM, MP, altitude, temperature, and Fuel Flow to determine approximate power. I once had a CWO trying to tell everyone to "set cruise power as soon as reaching altitude, as that gets you to cruise speed fastest." I pointed out that higher acceleration is produced by higher power, and reducing the RPM from 1900 to 1700 is a greater percentage reduction than the increase in torque it produces. He kept trying to argue that the props "take a bigger bite of the air" at the lower RPM. (Of course, I pointed out, that that bigger bite is reflected in more torque?) He would not believe the Math, and had to test the idea in the aircraft on his next flight before he would believe me.

I take the paper to be an attempt to justify a particular speed as the "least wasteful way of wasting fuel." I think a more valid approach to most flying would be the "least wasteful way of wasting money." Also, that way you could include a term for what your time is worth to make the speed a determined, rather than arbitrary, number.

I am quite sure people who pay for their own fuel do not subscribe to this. Carson ignored the price of fuel, which I see as an important measure as to how fast anyone is willing to burn it, thus impacting the slope of his line determining how much extra fuel to expend to go a little faster. If fuel were $1/gallon, you would not see so many people flying LOP, you would see more, bigger engines, and lots more twins. The price you are willing to pay for each extra knot probably makes perfect sense to you, but is scientifically arbitrary.

Page 7, second paragraph.

I never said that. Reread my post.

In Steady State, a particular airspeed is a known load. P = Tϖ

The discussion the rest of us are engaging concerns power and the resulting airspeeds. Power is determined by RPM, and since you never mention RPM in your post, you are neglecting a most important variable and cannot "throw out the POH tables."

I went through the paper a couple of times, and I conclude the airspeed to be arbitrary. He sets the slope of the previously mentioned line at 45o, (why not 40o, 50o, or 30o?), then does a lot of hand waving to prove that is what it should be. Everyone uses his/her own "best speed" as determined by his/her own estimate as to the factors involved, but to set something for everyone would have to be based on either a derived term or a fundamental constant of nature, which this paper does not. That slope should be much more dependent on the price of fuel, which he neglects entirely. i.e. If AVGAS were $.01/gallon, the appropriate slope of the line would be almost infinity; if the price were $1000/gallon, the slope would approach zero.

I cannot get to that site. Can you post the file?

I still do not see it. What is the slope of the red line and why?

I first heard of this from one of my squadron's 'Academy Boys' who had classes with Carson about the time, (apparently), he published it. It still seems arbitrary and depends on what you think is the cost/benefit relationship, i.e. the slope of the speed vs. fuel burn line. The real purpose of "design" is not just to find the best solution, but to interpret the solution that provides the slightly less best solution that provides more of other benefits and becomes the ultimate solution. When you have 10 variables and 10 equations determining gross weight, highest speed, fuel consumption, lowest landing speed, payload, stability, etc. the best solution is the point at which you still have water when the rest has evaporated from your 10-dimensional lake. The ultimate solution requires you to interpret how far you want to go up the slope from that bottom, (best solution), of any and/or all of the variables to give you better results, (for instance, lots more speed for only a little more fuel burn or reduced payload), again, in 10-dimensions. There is nothing magical about how high up the slope you quit and take that for your ultimate solution. I have not studied Carson's idea since then, so if there are newer data to say why that number is not arbitrary, I welcome enlightenment.

Is it OK to be on a 1-mile final in front of someone on a 3-mile final? On the carrier, we shot for landings 40 seconds apart. So, our separation was less than 2 miles, and with the time to roll back, raise the hook, taxi off the landing zone being just a little less than slowing to exit a taxiway, that should be enough room for people to manage, even if a bit stressful. I do wonder what the toxicology report will find. I suspect the C-340 pilot was impaired. The bottom line for me and my students will be this: If you find yourself in this situation, LAND! 1. Survival is much more likely if you are already on the ground. 2. You cannot guess what some knucklehead behind you will do, and he is just as likely to turn into you as any other direction. 3. Your trainer does not have the power/performance necessary to escape, especially when you are already slow and dirty. 4. If someone behind you is that fast, he cannot land anyway, and will likely end up high over your touchdown point.

I buy mine from the local wholesaler/distributor. In December, I paid $160 for 24 quarts.

I am happy to report I just received another rating: MEI. I did it through Wings of Wyoming, (KCYS), same place I got my CFI-I. I was supposed to have done it in June, but the Baron broke a starter drive assembly right before my Check-ride-rehearsal flight. I was impressed by how hard the owner/DPE/Chief Mechanic/head bottle washer/etc. worked to try to fix the problem, but a new part took several days to arrive. So, I flew the Mooney to Cheyenne, took a quick rehearsal/refresher flight, then took the Checkride and flew back home by dinner time that evening. Again, I cannot recommend WoW enough, even though they do not have any Mooneys.

The shape is very simple; you could cut it from a plastic sheet, rather than 3-D printing it. Paint it, then laser etch the graphics.

For such nice avionics, you sure do have ugly switch covers.

If it were strictly an economic decision, coal would be over 60%, nuclear could be up to 30%. and gas would be most of the remainder. Note by the chart, that a small portion even goes back into reversing hydro power at dams to act as energy storage; a very inefficient battery.

Because electricity prices are tightly regulated. Up until about 1970, more electricity was being produced by coal. In order to cut 'pollution', many plants were converting to oil burners. After the 1973 oil embargo, most were converted back.