afward

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    195
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

afward last won the day on September 3 2019

afward had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

131 Excellent

About afward

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Central Arkansas
  • Reg #
    N3475X
  • Model
    M20F

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The problem with attacking the infrastructure of the malware operators is twofold: 1) Most of it is operated by mafia or nation-states, and 2) A very large percentage of the infrastructure is itself hacked. Choosing to do so anyway opens you up to physical and legal risk beyond what you would otherwise expect. Tread carefully. It is likely that Garmin (or someone employed there) missed a security protocol somewhere. It's equally likely that the malware they were hit with uses an exploit not yet patched by the security or OS vendors (whichever is appropriate). People are fallible, and so is software security. Some non-technical roles are notorious for being the infection vectors... There's also a decent possibility that Garmin was hit with a targeted attack. In that case, while there probably would've been signs in their logs (good luck noticing that in the deluge of real-time data), a determined attacker will get in eventually. All that said, there's also the chance Garmin didn't take security seriously enough. I can't speak to that, as I don't know anyone there. Given the above, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here (as I am with all other companies going through similar problems).
  2. It's been quite some time since I saw it, but the newer research indicates intensity as the controlling factor for protecting night vision. In other words, if deciding between a dim white light and a mildly brighter red light, one should choose the dim white light because it'll be more useful AND will protect night vision better. Of course, don't leave the emitting element in line of sight no matter what tech / hue / color temp; That's guaranteed to do Bad Thingstm to your night vision.
  3. For the love of all things holy, why aren't you running full power?!
  4. No compelling reason. It's a little quieter, and a little smoother. It's also slightly more efficient (MPG) and slightly less tach time for the same distance. Mind you, conditions will easily nullify those last three, so there's that...
  5. Pretty much what everyone above says. I will assume you're asking about cross country flights here and want to get the best performance possible with good efficiency... Extended range legs or local "goofing off" flights will need different settings. I like to climb at 120 IAS, WOT/2700 and cruise at WOT/2400 above 6k MSL. On hotter days with heavier gross weights, climbs need to be at a higher IAS (128 is most efficient anyway, see Carson's Speed). I do use power boost (unfiltered engine induction) when I'm above the highest visible haze layer (min 3k AGL, per the POH) and not around clouds, though not everyone is comfortable with that. I won't argue with someone who recommends against its use. Mixture is much more nuanced. I highly recommend you read about the Red Fin to understand correct mixture settings better. I usually run 15 to 35 LOP at about 63% to 73% power, though I've been known to use other settings (e.g., 75% 120 ROP when leg length isn't a concern).
  6. Probably all of those... "Bored person with money needs new hobby; Thumbing nose at airlines a bonus." As supporting evidence: The Part 135 folks are predicting a rapid recovery with an increase in bookings, even with the economic uncertainty. As long as the economy doesn't bottom out, GA will survive this pandemic stronger than it entered.
  7. For what it's worth, VASAviation's "radar" display is a recreation based on various tracking data websites. He takes audio from LiveATC, grabs the appropriate tracking data for the area & timeframe, and feeds it to a piece of software written specifically for the channel. That software generates the "radar" video. As I understand it, actual controllers helped get the software "close enough" so it looks like the real displays, but it's entirely a recreation based on public information.
  8. I forget where I read it, but the initial parts made for the A-12 program were unusable due to cadmium (causing cracks) and chlorine (causing corrosion) poisoning. Turns out the factory's tooling was cadmium hardened and they were using municipal water to rinse the parts. New non-cadmium tooling and use of distilled water allowed them to make usable parts, though not before a rather substantial quantity of Ti had been "wasted" (er, well, needed to be re-smelted; not something the U.S. could do at the time, if I recall correctly).
  9. Just keep the Cadmium and Chlorine faaar away...
  10. Is the PA31 wing attached the same way as a PA28R? I wanna say I've seen that it's a different design, but if it's the same...
  11. Wait, did I miss something? I thought the ownership was still the same as last year?
  12. Well, remember that NASA had only begrudgingly taken the program on (as DC-XA), AFTER Lockheed-Martin's DC-X project flew several successful test flights (which, BTW, only happened because the USAF agreed to foot the entire bill involved). In short, "Old Space" didn't spend a dime on the possibility, and that NASA dropped it at the first viable opportunity shouldn't surprise anyone. To add further insult to injury, "Old Space" actively (until SpaceX proved them demonstrably wrong) worked to convince everyone that reusable boosters couldn't be done, once they realized what SpaceX was working toward. For what it's worth, they still aren't actively working on it (SLS and Vulcan are both fully-expendable)... I argue the big enabler wasn't private money getting involved, but rather private companies being allowed to treat NASA as a normal launch customer and NASA committing to fund the development and buy the services developed. Keep in mind, SpaceX scraped-together the 4th Falcon 1 test rocket mostly from spare parts, and had it not worked would've closed shop and been barely a footnote to history. That flight working is what got them the first NASA contract. Of course, there certainly was private money involved in the overall development (they did have other launch customers), but the _enabling_ wasn't private money, it was public.
  13. I see that a _lot_ in the software development world. And that really makes sense, when you think about it: By definition, developers create new things constantly. Having any other attitude is just a recipe for not being able to do the job. That's not to say a wise developer won't caution against expensive solutions... In any case, SpaceX is a software company that happens to build rockets and related hardware. And that turns out to work pretty well.
  14. Ever noticed the naming convention for Tesla models? Roadster... Cybertruck... Models S, 3, X, Y... (apparently Ford already trademarked "Model E"). Just sayin'
  15. Honestly, I have no idea, though it was their other droneship (Just Read The Instructions) that caught Starlink 7's booster. If one searches the interwebs carefully enough, one can probably find pictures of both droneships in port this weekend and can compare... Most likely the satellite dish was moved to a better location and its mount "improved" to handle the shock waves and vibration better. And can I just say the naming of the droneships is about the most awesome thing ever? Someone read Banks' Culture series, it would appear...