xftrplt

And, for bonus points, what does the black D at the top of the runway diagram mean?

+1 (on the tach).

DaV8or, Is the issue with the formula or the numbers? Those were only notional numbers. And, of course, it assumes wx, mx, and crew are independent. If they're not, it could be worse. Insert numbers that you think are more appropriate, but even at 95% wx, 95% mx, and 95% crew, you still get only a 74% chance of completing the roundtrip. (.95*.95*.95)^2 = .735 FWIW, according to avbuyer.com, individual aircraft availability is around 85%, and the major airlines are around 95% dispatch reliability (i.e., 90% for a round trip), and that's with spare aircraft/crews, turbine equipment, and long MEL's.

Simply put, in my opinion there is no aircraft that make this scheme economically viable, for the following reasons: Notional door-to-door times: 30 minutes, house to aircraft departure 30 minute flight, block-to-block 30 minutes from aircraft to destination One can drive nearly any mooted trip in 2 hours. So, to save maybe 30 minutes, your passengers would have to: Forego the privacy and convenience of their own car. Lose the flexibility to change plans. Book ahead (with cancellation penalties). Ride the Metro (or cab). Adjust their schedule, both coming and going. Accept the possibility of a delay or cancellation. Endure low-altitude turbulence, heat, cold, and rain. Fly in a (single-pilot?) recip. Pay possibly $100. For important appointments and these short distances, transportation by light aircraft is not sufficiently reliable. For example, take just the probabilities of: Good weather (0.90) No maintenance issue (0.95) No crew problem (0.95) Now multiply them and square the product for the roundtrip reliability. Answer: 66%. Is that good enough for people with money and important appointments?

Ok. I tried, but can't resist. It's a rudder PEDAL, not peddle, which is a verb meaning, roughly, to sell. Thanks. I feel better.

That would be Hampton Roads, BTW.

Seems obvious. A sale at "K"mart.

Interesting thought, on a forum for (generally) amateur pilots. Jiminy Cricket, a very wise Gryllida, gave good advice. Namely, "Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide."

On that subject we're generally soft targets. To wit: Signing in at an F-4 squadron in Madrid, I got "volunteered" for liason duty for a Reforger Exercise. Driving a BMW, my GIB and I reported to the Army campsite somewhere near the Fulga Gap. The Army appeared happy as clams, male-bonding and enjoying the great outdoors in the comfort of their Diesel-fired hot water heaters, air mattresses, etc. We took a quick look around and, with nary an O-club in sight, asked what time they needed us the next day and high-tailed it to the nearest gasthaus. For the next five days we "roughed it" commuting. I recall our liasonees shaking their heads and muttering what, in retrospect, I'm sure were expressions of inter-service endearment.

The first sentence of the OP's OP posed that question. (And another poor dead equine is beaten.)

And since when did the cost of owing a private plane qualify as work-related education for an Army officer? I suppose the infantry should itemize the cost of .22 plinking ammo...and artillery types the cost of pumpkin-tossing trebuchets. Itemizing per se is not the issue; it's what you itemize.

The above advice from N601RX et al. is absolutely wrong as it pertains to military aviators and professional pilots employed by companies that provide the required training. First (and this part is arguable), an Army aviator is not a professional pilot. He is a professional Army officer, whose MOS happens to include flying. Second (and this is unarguable), the Army provides all the training you require to do your job. (Do guys driving Abrams need to go out and buy/rent bulldozers?) Third, this is not the same as, say, a CFI who needs to maintain his training and/or knowledge base by attending seminars or flying at his own expense. Fourth, it's your tax return. I surely won't be at the audit, however unlikely.

Unless the Army REQUIRES you to maintain proficiency at your our expense--the likelihood of which my 20 years of military aviation and 20 years of Part 121 ops tells me is vanishingly small--the answer is no.

Brett, Do you have anything else you wish to tell this forum?

aaronk25 posted: I think its less efficient to compress all the extra air if your not going to put more fuel to the fire vs reduce the MP and keep the mix about 25lop. ---------------------- Your empirical data is interesting, but I disagree with the explanation. Pumping losses of a NA 4-stroke increase as MP decreases and more vacuum is being pulled. Even if just being windmilled, the air compressed on the compression stroke rebounds elastically on the power stroke--returning most of the energy of compression to the crankshaft. Note, Jake brakes work by opening the exhaust valve right after the compression cycle, before the compressed air can rebound on the power stroke.