Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:

If actual pilots here need advice they'll get it from pilots.

Since a lot of actual pilots ignore any advice that doesn't agree with their
own beliefs, it doesn't really matter where it comes from.


Take a poll, there, Chairborne. The difference between everybody else
here and you is that we have successfully and repeatedly flown actual
aircraft.

Not everybody here is a bad or inexperienced pilot. There are some here
who are quite highly and demonstrably accomplished and, ...funny...
they continue to make it quite clear that you're a clueless idiot also.

You might as well try teaching sharks to fish. Flying is what we do. You
just sit in your chair and play with yourself. That's your extend of
understanding of weight, balance and the performance of an aircraft.


-C
CP-ASEL-IA

gatt wrote in
news:k8qdnUincNZ5_pPVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@integraonlin e:

Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:

If actual pilots here need advice they'll get it from pilots.

Since a lot of actual pilots ignore any advice that doesn't agree
with their own beliefs, it doesn't really matter where it comes from.


Take a poll, there, Chairborne. The difference between everybody else
here and you is that we have successfully and repeatedly flown actual
aircraft.

Not everybody here is a bad or inexperienced pilot. There are some
here who are quite highly and demonstrably accomplished and,
...funny... they continue to make it quite clear that you're a
clueless idiot also.

You might as well try teaching sharks to fish. Flying is what we do.
You just sit in your chair and play with yourself. That's your extend
of understanding of weight, balance and the performance of an
aircraft.


-C
CP-ASEL-IA


Anthony SIMULATES playing with himself.

gatt writes:

Take a poll, there, Chairborne. The difference between everybody else
here and you is that we have successfully and repeatedly flown actual
aircraft.

There are other differences. My judgement is not clouded by testosterone, for
example, nor do I suffer from insecurity or a bloated ego.

Not everybody here is a bad or inexperienced pilot.

Agreed, but some of the loudest mouths are also some of the worst pilots, if
I'm to judge by the mistakes they make here.

There are some here
who are quite highly and demonstrably accomplished and, ...funny...
they continue to make it quite clear that you're a clueless idiot also.

People who are highly accomplished don't need to resort to personal attacks.
Those who engage in personal attacks always have issues.

You might as well try teaching sharks to fish. Flying is what we do.

Some people here don't do it very well. They dismiss risks that could easily
get them killed. I guess being studly is important enough to them that they
are willing to die for it.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

gatt writes:

If actual pilots here need advice they'll get it from pilots.

Since a lot of actual pilots ignore any advice that doesn't agree with
their own beliefs, it doesn't really matter where it comes from.


Nope, wrong again, fjukkwit.


Bertie

Tman,

That's with
a C172 filled to the tabs -- leaving exactly 1 hour of reserve,


One little trick I use in all aircraft, even those with a "BOTH"
setting on the tank selector: I don't set it there. I conciously fly
from either the left or the right tank, switching regularly to avoid
imbalance. The reason do it: When the tanks get emptier, I can keep a
known amount of fuel in one side while flying the other down to (near)
empty. Much better than having everything empty at the same rate, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
Tman,

That's with
a C172 filled to the tabs -- leaving exactly 1 hour of reserve,


One little trick I use in all aircraft, even those with a "BOTH"
setting on the tank selector: I don't set it there. I conciously fly
from either the left or the right tank, switching regularly to avoid
imbalance. The reason do it: When the tanks get emptier, I can keep a
known amount of fuel in one side while flying the other down to (near)
empty. Much better than having everything empty at the same rate, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


C-172 checklist, tanks both for takeoff and landing....

Blueskies,

C-172 checklist, tanks both for takeoff and landing....


So?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Apr 22, 10:16*am, tman inv@lid wrote:
tman wrote:

, and also the day turned out to be +20F hotter than I thought
it would. *I've experienced that heat not only hurts the planes
performance, but the pilots too. *Oh yeah, a slightly gusty xwind too.
Pretty happy I planned on leaving one pax behind.

If you look very closely at the take off performance data of a 172
( which I have) you will find that higher temperature actually
improves performance, for the same air density. Now I know that
contradicts what we get taught in flight school, and while it is
generally true that when temperature is lower the air will be more
dense , the atmosphere is a dyanmic system and pressure and
temperature can vary independantly. So it is possible to have the
same air density , or density altitude at 2 different temperature and
the day with the higher temperature wil give you better performance.
It is related to engine performance and the best explanation I have
got is that at the same density on a higher temperature day, the
pressure will also be higher ( since density = PM/RT where M is
molecular wt, R is gas constant, P and T press and temp), and the
higher pressure provides a greater driving force to suck air into the
engine. If you do the same analysis on the landing distance you see
no such temperature effect because landing distance is not power
related , only lift related.
In the next few days I will get around to providing a link to this
data, but you can easily prove it yourself if you have the Cessna
takeoff distance tables..
Terry
PPL Downunder

terry wrote in news:303fdf2b-7e83-4b08-aaf8-
:

On Apr 22, 10:16*am, tman inv@lid wrote:
tman wrote:

, and also the day turned out to be +20F hotter than I thought
it would. *I've experienced that heat not only hurts the planes
performance, but the pilots too. *Oh yeah, a slightly gusty xwind
too.
Pretty happy I planned on leaving one pax behind.

If you look very closely at the take off performance data of a 172
( which I have) you will find that higher temperature actually
improves performance, for the same air density. Now I know that
contradicts what we get taught in flight school, and while it is
generally true that when temperature is lower the air will be more
dense , the atmosphere is a dyanmic system and pressure and
temperature can vary independantly. So it is possible to have the
same air density , or density altitude at 2 different temperature and
the day with the higher temperature wil give you better performance.
It is related to engine performance and the best explanation I have
got is that at the same density on a higher temperature day, the
pressure will also be higher ( since density = PM/RT where M is
molecular wt, R is gas constant, P and T press and temp), and the
higher pressure provides a greater driving force to suck air into the
engine. If you do the same analysis on the landing distance you see
no such temperature effect because landing distance is not power
related , only lift related.
In the next few days I will get around to providing a link to this
data, but you can easily prove it yourself if you have the Cessna
takeoff distance tables..
Terry

Yeah, you'll get about 1% per 5 deg C on a typical normally aspirated
lightplane engine under those circumstances.

Bertie

On Apr 24, 9:31 am, terry wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:16 am, tman inv@lid wrote: tman wrote:

, and also the day turned out to be +20F hotter than I thought it would. I've experienced that heat not only hurts the planes
performance, but the pilots too. Oh yeah, a slightly gusty xwind too.
Pretty happy I planned on leaving one pax behind.

If you look very closely at the take off performance data of a 172
( which I have) you will find that higher temperature actually
improves performance, for the same air density. Now I know that
contradicts what we get taught in flight school, and while it is
generally true that when temperature is lower the air will be more
dense , the atmosphere is a dyanmic system and pressure and
temperature can vary independantly. So it is possible to have the
same air density , or density altitude at 2 different temperature and
the day with the higher temperature wil give you better performance.
It is related to engine performance and the best explanation I have
got is that at the same density on a higher temperature day, the
pressure will also be higher ( since density = PM/RT where M is
molecular wt, R is gas constant, P and T press and temp), and the
higher pressure provides a greater driving force to suck air into the
engine. If you do the same analysis on the landing distance you see
no such temperature effect because landing distance is not power
related , only lift related.
In the next few days I will get around to providing a link to this
data, but you can easily prove it yourself if you have the Cessna
takeoff distance tables..
Terry
PPL Downunder

You can play with your C172 N weight and balance here
http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/alph/wb172N.html