• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

270 Excellent

About Austintatious

  • Rank
    Lives Here

Profile Information

  • Reg #
  • Model
    305 Rocket

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Well, perhaps I misunderstand, but I though liquid cooling was less drag than air cooling and possibly more effective precisely because you can Make a MASSIVE internal radiator that is fed with a well designed scoop. Someone also said there there would only be a 90degree delta... MY CHT's run at 350-380 degrees F... 400 Max... With a pressurized cooling system you can have super heated water and a quite high Delta T at the radiator. If the coolant heading to the heat exchange was 400 degrees, that would be a 300 degree delta even on a 100 degree day. Yes I know, now you have a potential bomb should that system depressurize! So if you limit the water temp to the exchanger was 200 degrees you still have a 100 degree delta. Im just saying that if they can put a sufficiently sized radiator into the front of a 700 HP corvette, it seems to me it should be possible for an aircraft.
  2. It was a tongue in cheek comment... Of course it is... but for some reason, a LOT of mooneys have had prop strikes.
  3. Ohh absolutely a 2 stroke would be awesome... TBH, I am surprised it has not been done. The only issue I see is that you need a super reliable way to get the oil into the fuel. If that oil delivery system fails, that is BAAAD! In the 2 stroke boating world the saying goes "Pre-mix or be TOAD" I have a 1983 90 HP mercury that runs like a top STILL! Tower of power all the way! It would be interesting to see just the bare engine weight on that motor. It would need to be less than 500 LBS to make sense. I like the idea of no Ignition to fail. Perhaps some versions of a 2 stroke Diesel is the ultimate in simplicity and reliability.
  4. Probably, although the amount of Moonies that have had prop strikes is staggering. One would think it is difficult to keep the nose up on landing!
  5. Here is a couple of pennies.... When the gear is aft, you do not want to be increasing your pitch as you touch, this drives the gear downwards and makes for a harder touch. In the Gulfstreams this is VERY pronounced. In fact, in lots of jets a very smooth touch can be achieved by pushing the nose down at the last second, when you think the gear is about 1 foot from the ground... This lowering of pitch results in the air frame descending, but the main gear is going " up" in relation to the air frame and DOWN very slowly to the ground. DO NOT DO THIS IN THE MOONEY. During the round out, I am very slowly and smoothly reducing power to idle. I find my smoothest touches are when I hold my attitude constant... Not increasing attitude as I touch down. I cant always do that of course, especially when it is gusty, but when I can she greases on.
  6. Check this out 338 HP diesel that delivers max torque in the range our props operate in... The weight is high, but keep in mind that includes the lower end of the outboard. Those weight a LOT so I suspect the weight of the engine alone is 150+ lbs lighter than that. it is COMPACT for its power.... Someone get on getting it certified! Should be a shoe it since it would be running well below the 3000 RPM redline. EDIT: looks like it would need a gearbox to drive a prop and deliver the full HP.
  7. I think a turbo diesel is the way to go.... You get to buy cheaper fuel that is more energy dense and the turbo diesel itself is more efficient! This means you would instantly increase range in just about any aircraft you converted. Also, Ignition systems not needed!
  8. Ohh, it looks square to me... Where are you seeing that it is a 4:3 ratio? I believe you and at the same time I am surprised at the area difference square vs 4:3 makes with a 3.5" diagonal. I just cant find where Garmin states the ratio... they just say 3.5 inch diagonal. If that be the case, my apologies.
  9. So to avoid a little dremel tool work they make a round unit with a smaller screen that cost 1500 dollars more? I looked up the manual, to do vertical, you can egg out each hole by 1/8th inch. That isn't much. probably 30 min with a dremel. That FITS in my book.
  10. Yeap, and if you buy them all it is 20,000 USD. It may very well be that they do not intend to sell all of them for one cockpit and that they are piece mill solutions.
  11. I see what you are saying. These will check some boxes that others will not at this price point... For me, I look at the big picture. Checking boxes for the sake of checking boxes isn't good enough for me in aviation. I have too many thoughts on this to post but I will say that the small size is just a deal breaker for me. I have 20/10 vision and I feel like these are going to be uncomfortably small now, let alone when I have aged a few more years and end up at 20/20. I do not want to be straining to see my attitude indicator AS and ALT while on approach in bumpy weather. That just isn't safe. How small are they? The GI 275 has a 2.7 inch round screen...that equates to 5.73 square inches (less actually) of screen area The G5 for a comparison is 12.25 square inches of screen area.... So these are less than HALF the screen size and attempt to put much much more info onto them than on the G5. I see that as a real problem. What also perplexes me is this whole notion of square peg, round hole... AFAIK, you could put 6 g5's into a 6 pack panel... they would not be flush mount, but would not interfere with one another. I just dont see how anyone was adverse to the square instruments with round bodies that fit into the existing panel holes. It was a brilliant thing IMHO.
  12. more I think about this the more perplexed I get. On the page they show an aircraft with 4 of these installed. Not only does it look like an outdated panel compared to todays standards, but can we acknowledge for a second that 4 of these units will cost $16,000.00 usd before install. Yea, you can use it for your legacy AP.... however you could, for roughly the same price, purchase a two g5 + GFC500 setup for about the same price + a bit more for installation of the AP. So it begs the question Why would anyone choose 4 GI 275's over 2 G5s and a digital autopilot? The only feature I find compelling is the synthetic vision aspect. But I have to wonder how well it can be seen on such a small display. Meanwhile, if you wanted to go Dynon, you can get a 10 inch display that displays ADI, moving map, synthetic vision and engine instruments with a new autopilot for $20,000 usd.... So to me, there is no reason to go down Garmins hole. Even if you are keeping your legacy AP, it is foolish, because when you go to replace it you are looking at another 10k + install cost to get a new garmin AP. that puts you 26 K + install into a bunch of tiny Garmin screens. Keep in mind at that point, the install cost will be roughly the same as both installs include engine data and autopilot installation. At the end of 1 road you have a cluttered panel with a bunch of tiny round guages and a new AP. At the end of the other you have a 10 inch screen with engine monitoring, a new AP, and 6000 more dollars in your pocket that you could use to have TWO 10inch Dynon displays! Which cockpit looks more advanced to you? They will cost you about the same in the end.
  13. wow, is there really a demand for a ROUND gauge? That has to be the second stupidest decision I have seen gamin make. Round is antiquated and it waste space. The only benefit is flush mount in existing panels instead of intruding like a G5 would. One of my aircraft has a KI256 with a G5 below. If this was square like the g5, I would sign up today. RN, I will only consider this if my KI256 takes a dump... even then I might just decide to go nuts with a big flat SQUARE screen. The other aircraft has Dual flush mounted G5's.... There is no FD function on the top G5. Again, had this been square, I'd sign up today. Being that it is round, it is going to destroy the look of the panel. This one I will have to think about.