GA is priceless

Mxsmanic wrote:

Steve Foley writes:


I thought you were interested in simulation, not aviation.


They are variations on the same theme.

Hahahahaha....you have NO idea do you ?

....Ken

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ken Chaddock writes:


What, don't want to become a member of the mile high club...even a
simulated member ?


No, I don't. I'm interested in aviation, not sex.

Perhaps, but only in the most theoretical sense...

....Ken

Mxsmanic wrote:

BDS writes:
snip
Those people make it possible for games like MSFS to give you
the smallest possible glimpse at what flying is actually like.

It gives a pretty good glimpse, actually. It's quite a pleasant
activity.

Ah, that would be a big negatory good buddy...being both a pilot AND a
user of MSFS, I can attest from first hand experience of both that MSFS
isn't even *close* to the real thing and unless and until you gain some
really real world experience you cannot even comprehend the
difference...as is painfully obvious from your comments here.

....Ken

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:43:28 -0600
"Montblack" wrote:

What were your observed cruise speed(s) and climb rates? Thanks.

120mph = 2 miles/minute
30 miles takes 15 minutes ...and (~30mpg)

So, 1 gallon every 15 minutes? 4gph?

Were your numbers close?

Yeah, it was pretty close to their claimed specs during that flight.
This was a three blade CT, which I've noticed to be slightly slower than
the 2 blade FlightDesign CT. The plane had about 20 hobbs hours at the
time. The prop is also ground adjustable, so some tweaking could be
done there.

After 650 statute miles, I filled 24 gallons. The round trip was 11.6
hobbs hours for 1300 miles total, with a quick stop to drop off and
pick up a friend/future pilot on each leg (doing my part to promote
aviation -- he really liked the plane and his first XC flight). It was
averaging a bit over 112MPH in flight. The fuel totalizer was
indicating 3-4.5GPH depending on the power setting selected. Usually I
was at 4700 RPM and burning 4.4GPH. I could pull power back and get it
to around 2GPH at around 70 kts indicated, so it would be great on
local flights as well.

Climbs at ~900+ FPM from KSYN (Stanton, MN - 920ft MSL) in the fall
fully fueled with 2 people and bags on board. I took it up to 7500 ft
on the trip and it still climbed very well, surprisingly little
performance loss at altitude. Take-off only takes a couple hundred feet
to break ground on the grass runway, especially with 15 degrees of
flaps.

It also burned no oil during the flight, a refreshing change from the
engines we're familiar with. There is no mixture control with the
altitude compensating dual carbs.

Overall, a very nice plane. It can be extremely efficient for local
flights, yet delivers about the same speeds as a Cessna 172 or Warrior
on cross country flights for about 1/2 the fuel burn. It ran very well
for the entire 1300 mile flight with no hiccups.

The primary drawback is no night flying due to the engine
manufacturer's restrictions on the 912ULS. Apparently you can get it
with the 912S, which seems to be the exact same 100HP engine with more
paperwork and costs more AMUs, and fly at night as a private pilot. The
airframe can be equipped for night flight from the factory, though.

Everything on the plane looks easy to maintain. The ailerons are
controlled by pushrods and the ends are easily accessible, reducing
cable tensioning adjustments. The brakes are via a very effective and
easy to use hydraulic hand brake and the parking brake is a one-way
valve you can set and pump the brake lever to set, so no cables to
stick or parking brake problems. If used as a trainer, you won't likely
have student pilots riding the brakes on a CT, since the brake is
mounted in the center of the console. There are no gyroscopic
instruments to wear out. All the avionics except backup altimeter and
backup airspeed are solid state. Solid state equipment usually dies
during the warranty period or lasts forever. The airframe, built of
carbon fiber and Kevlar (the stuff bullet proof vests are made of),
should be very strong and long lasting. The cowling is easily removed
and everything on the engine is easy to get to. The fuel gauges are
tubes that show actual fuel and are visible in the cockpit, very simple
and effective with no pickups to go bad or anything. Even the position
and beacon lighting is LED based, so solid state and probably never has
to be replaced.

The TS Pictorial Pilot autopilot did GPSS off the GPSMAP 396, including
course intercepts and sequencing based on the programmed route. If it
weren't so fun to hand fly, you could have the autopilot do a whole
trip except the take off and landing.

Steep turns are very easy in the plane and stalls consist of a mushing
and the angle of attack indicator on the EFIS-D100 indicating in the
red area. Stalls are for the most part non-events.

The seats in the 2006 model were a bit nicer than the 2005. More
padding, better back support, and more comfortable seat belts, and even
more leg room. Visibility is incredible, there is a sunroof right over
the seats, so you can look to see what you're turning into even though
it is a high wing. The windshield wraps around the top of the plane, so
you can lean forward and see straight up there as well. The side
windows are great, with no struts or anything to block your view and
are large enough to easily see out of. The cabin is very roomy, with
lots of head room, leg room and elbow room.

The open and free feeling of the cabin has really helped to get people
interested in the freedom of learning to fly. It also looks "friendly."
People flock to the plane whenever I fly it somewhere. The instrument
panel is well configured without a myriad of cloudy dials to intimidate
prospective pilots.

Oh, and it doesn't leak oil or gas, doesn't have rivets that pop out,
aluminum to crack, or most of the things people have to overlook when
they go to train in a lot of the existing fleet. It feels solid. It
doesn't take a huge leap of faith for people to see themselves flying
in it. Oh, and moving it around on the ground is really easy for even
one person.

I hope that answers your question. ;-) I realize I've been going on
about it for a while now.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

I hope that answers your question. ;-) I realize I've been going on
about it for a while now.

Don't feel bad, Doug -- I did the same thing after my flight in a CT.
It's just a great airplane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:41:37 +0100, Stefan
wrote:

Those fees are only for IFR flights.

And there ae no fees for aircraft under 2 tons MTOW, so most of the
private IFR flights are excluded.

Tobias

Doug Spencer writes:

With 34 gallons to fill the tanks (up to 1000 miles range), you have
about 440lbs capacity remaining. It is impressive when you calculate
that at ~30mpg it is more fuel efficient to fly than drive many cars and
the CT planes will even run on auto fuel or 100LL.

I've flown a CT 650 statute miles and still had a very good reserve.
The one I flew had a full glass panel (EFIS, engine monitor, GPS), 3
axis autopilot coupled to the panel mounted GPSMap 396 with XM weather
with altitude hold. It really is amazing the amount of innovation that
is occurring due to the deregulation in the light sport category.

You can fly 650 or 1000 miles on a Light Sport license? I thought all
the ones other than Private Pilot were distance-limited (?).

The requirement for a medical certificate for a private pilot for
personal flying is absurd considering all the open space when flying in
most areas.

Absurd is a strong word, but I'm not sure I see the need for a strict
medical certificate for anyone who isn't carrying paying passengers.
Even the medicals for people who are are a bit on the extreme side.

The CT, for instance, has no sharp edges in the cockpit, a ballistic parachute,
great visibility to avoid an accident, seat belts with 2 shoulder
straps, carbon fiber and kevlar construction, and a safety cage
construction that prevents the engine from entering the passenger
compartment during a crash.

There isn't any kind of construction that can prevent the engine from
moving in a crash. These features do not harm, I suppose, and they
may help in a narrow range of survivable crashes, but they won't make
any different in a serious accident, or in a very minor accident.

As with cars, safety devices can create a false sense of security and
skewed priorities. The real objective, after all, is to avoid an
accident, not to try to find ways to survive it.

Why would allowing currently certificated planes to be constructed
to similar consensus standards be any worse?

The market isn't always the ideal party to evaluate safety. People
tend to sacrifice safety for price, often more than they realize.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Doug Spencer writes:

The primary drawback is no night flying due to the engine
manufacturer's restrictions on the 912ULS.

What is a 912ULS? How can nighttime be a problem for an engine??
Does it get scared in the dark?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ken Chaddock writes:

Perhaps, but only in the most theoretical sense...

In both a theoretical and practical sense.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ken Chaddock writes:

Ah, that would be a big negatory good buddy...being both a pilot AND a
user of MSFS, I can attest from first hand experience of both that MSFS
isn't even *close* to the real thing and unless and until you gain some
really real world experience you cannot even comprehend the
difference...as is painfully obvious from your comments here.

The real thing isn't close to the real thing, either. Flying a tin
can is not the same as flying big iron, and flying big iron is not the
same as flying a fighter aircraft, and flying a fighter is not the
same as being a bush pilot, and being a bush pilot is not the same as
piloting a helicopter.

Flying a real aircraft is different from flying a simulator, but
flying different aircraft in different situations involve similar
differences, so despite what some pilots with circumscribed experience
may believe, flying one aircraft in one situation doesn't necessarily
say much of anything about flying other aircraft in other situations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.