M016576

Rather than that, I just push the gats jar up into the gascolator, which has the same effect as pulling the ring in the cockpit. Unless we have different makes of gascolator- which is a possibility.

It Doesnt tell you probability, just potential severity. But... like I mentioned in the other thread... you’re talking about Detroit in the winter time. 100% icing risk is the going in assumption.... you should pick an area that’s a little more ambiguous- like Salt Lake City, or Portland, Or... makes for more of a “mind twister.”

Tanking and/or landing on NVG's... can get dicey really quickly

Wow... just wow......

That’s legit. It’s typically not weather alone that drives me to cancel- but a combination of risk factors and weather. Snow storm, plus mountains, plus passengers, etc. and to a well trained IFR pilot, weather alone *shouldnt* kill. Mainly because the risk management decisions (icing, convective activity, etc) should be sound enough to where the pilots skill set can easily support their flight. weather does compound other problems, though.... I launched on a flight into 300’ with rain->FL350 about 12 years ago.. solid imc. After running a couple practice intercepts up at fl400, one of my two generators failed. I knocked off my training at that point and started the 100-ish NM flight back to base. 30NM out, at 9000’, on vectors, I lost my other generator and the battery threw itself into emergency isolate. Lost all my navigation displays, my gps failed, my ins tumbled and lost alignment. I was in a 65 million dollar jet, hard imc, with only a single radio, a wet compass and a standby “peanut” gyro to navigate with. Luckily I was able to get a no-gyro approach back to my base... because there were no other fields within 280NM that we’re reporting anything better than 1000’ with rain... it’s not the weather alone that sucks. It’s dealing with other problems in the weather. But that’s where training helps, too.

This is a gimme- It’s Chicago in the winter time- If there’s a cloud out there, it definitely contains icing!

30,000 pieces of FOD all swirling in unison......

That is awesome! What an amazing opportunity... I would have loved to have stepped into the booth a few months back when my bird was painted!!!! I came down and saw it after etching, and once base coats were applied... but didn’t think to ask about going into the booth for shooting. Man, I wish I’d asked those questions (“hey, mind if I come down and help out?”). I’ve done that with annuals, but never even thought to do it with the paint. Here’s the learning point for me...... always ask the questions, even if I think I already know the answer. The only thing that can really happen is that I’m surprised in a positive way.

Or a turbine

I think you can fit the G5 / GFC500 to a Fiki installation.... its just that you lose the FIKI approval when you do. At least that’s how I understand it. Could be that a certification will be completed in the future, unknown though.

Exactly. And thank you for proving my (previous) point- No longer do we have to visualize our position in relation to the approach/runway... the GTN/IFD... and all our iPad’s... show us exactly where we are, to include the approach plate over-laid on the low or high chart itself. It’s not really the WAAS receiver itself that does this for us, though... it’s the user interface/computing power associated with the individual unit. That’s the true power of these units, I think, at least for GA- they give a pretty decent, simple, modern type user interface to a skill set that used to be somewhat specialized and not all that intuitive to the uninitiated.

Worst case scenario would be a sticky valve

I would actually argue the opposite...they are equally safe, and if anything, with vertical guidance- a mistake could leave you trending lower into terra firma or obstacles...where as with a non-precision approach, or on a mda- you *should* be level, well above potential obstacles/terrain.

Got to hand it to the guy- he’s trying to be honest. the details about the camshaft seeming to be worn irregularly and the lifters showing pitting... the avionics that do and do not turn on under power. 15K? That might actually be more than fair salvage pricing. But I don’t know if I’d want to rebuild the thing.

I don’t think you could even get a ferry permit issued by the FSDO inspector for this plane, it’s in so many pieces.

I am on the fence on this one. On one hand- it’s always best to “practice how you play.” So doing the initial training (with an instructor) with the full capability of what you intend to fly is certainly best. on the other hand- if the cost to attain a WAAS gps would be such that it would impact training dollars- then I’d say it’s better to have additional training, in a non-waas gos equipped airplane. Honestly- the training to learn how to fly a LPV or LNAV is very simple once you understand all the other principles of IFR flight- so upgrading one’s skill set wouldn’t be like having to start entirely over- it’s more like 1-2 flights and a little ground instruction. heres the *real* difference I see between WAAS and non-waas these days... the interface. The IFD and GTN waas units are light years more user friendly than the 530/480/430 of yesteryear. I would not “pay-up” for a 530W or a 430W... if I found a bird with a regular 430/530 that had the bones I was looking for- I’d buy it, then when I had the money to go WAAS- I’d buy an avidyne, replace the antenna, slide the unit in, sell the old gps and be done with it. the biggest upgrade one gets out of these new WAAS gps’s isn’t related to lowering approach minima... it’s about ease of use and simplicity in navigation IMO.

I’ll add Astoria to that list- their ILS only goes 1 way- but the LPV can be had if the winds favor RWY8. Also subject to coastal wx, despite being a little inland.

That backcourse at MFR sucks. During the day, VMC it sucks. Night or imc- geez... those mountains always seemed a lot closer in my mind than they are, when on that thing....

I think what the other poster meant was that with an ILS- you aren’t supposed to fly it below the DH, legally, whereas with a LPV you can, assuming you have the runway environment in sight. personally- I don’t know if this is accurate/true- but that’s what I believe the other poster was saying. i do know that the ILS signal does not “disappear” right at DH- it continues all the way to the antennas.

As an engineer, perhaps you’d like to try your hand at a little “test piloting” to find the curves for your airframe yourself. Take your Mooney up at a known gross weight, find the stall point at level flight. Note the nose high attitude (ie- separation of the whiskey line to the actual horizon). Then work your way back up the curve from there, documenting your attitude in relation to the horizon to find the critical angle of attack. The POH has some documentation that can help you determine where Cl vs Cd max is from an airspeed/power perspective- establish yourself there, stabilized, and note the attitude again. To verify that you are actually at the top of Cl/Cd max curve, note that additional attitude won’t allow for a climb on the backside (only power will, which you may or may not have)... but attitude will allow for a climb on the front side of the power curve. Could be a fun afternoon!

Not sure- but they are only spec’d to the feather- so probably about 2-3x less than a low vor? Just guessing

Laser JDAM (gbu-54) is for Moving targets. It’s a replacement for the aging LMAV (AGm-65), which we were using to great success against technicals across Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria , etc. I did Op Test on this weapon in 2008 when I living in the desert. I was skeptical at first.... until we hit a towed buggy going 60 down a dirt road.... if it’s a fixed target, though- the preferred solution is a regular JDAM- more flexible fuzing options (airbursts, etc). The GBU-54 seeker takes the place of where you’d install a DSU-33 nose prox. fuse- all you get is a single tail fuse in the LJDAM- and no nose plug (so penetrating reinforced structures isn’t really on the table.)

Ok, I’ll bite for the sake of argument. But I’m not a millennial— just want to get that out there. 1: the JDAM reached IOC back in ‘97. In my experience dropping laser guided bombs (beam riders) vs gps guided bombs (JDAMs)- the GPS guided bombs are more accurate. subjective- yes- but a data point. 2: if a truck drives through the ILS critical area (or a plane taxis in front of the antennas), your ILS signal will either drop entirely, or bounce... which (and I have seen this before) will cause your needles to display inaccurate glideslope or localizer. Also, if you are high or right/left enough of the station, or if there is enough terrain nearby- it is possible to get a bad signal too, which appears to be accurate. You have no way of knowing this via the instrument alone. with a WAAS receiver- the unit is continually performing error checking and RAIM calculations. If the receiver detects an error- it notifies the pilot and downgrades the approach for you- basically- the units are required to detect if they can’t meet precision accuracy, and then automatically revert to a non-precision profile while telling the pilot. That’s a pretty nice safety feature IMO. 3: I paid a TON of money for this fancy panel mount WAAS gps. I have to continue to pay a TON of money for nav data... the ONLY thing this panel mounted waas gps gives me over a hand held(+infinitely cheaper basic panel gps) is the ability to shoot these waas approaches... I can get gps airways navigation from a bunch of cheaper sources...... so... I’m using the LPV approaches that I paid for!

I normally fly the LPV (in the Mooney)- but only because I pay so much frickin money to Jeppeson for nav data that I feel like I need to get my moneys worth. as was mentioned above- minimums are sometimes lower for an ILS... but the 100-200’ difference between the two is kind of irrelevant for me- I don’t relish shooting approaches down to 200’ or 300’ unless it’s a low, stable layer and VFR on top. either way- the approaches are TERPsed for a safe approach at the minimums on the plate... the difference? Sensitivity as you get close to the ILS ground antennas changes, whereas with the WAAS approach- sensitivity on the needles remains constant (it’s linearly scaled) throughout the final portion of the approach.

Yep... 14ers...