Favorite panel gadget?

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
I thought about a blender, but was worried that if I spilled one it
would ruin the seats, so now I just drink chilled vodka straight up.



Remember, were talking about Anthony's panel here. You could always
get up and walk over to bar to use the blender.


And in your's you could just walk over to the trailer fo another rice
beer. Keerful not to knock the ol cherokee of it's cinder blocks though.


Bertie

Tina wrote in
:

I think a horn might be a good idea. Or turn signals.

In real life a cup holder would be nice.

Got one in the work airplane. Just use sa thermos in the little ones.


Bertie

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...


Must be getting old. I don't understand your post.


All of the other posts are more aligned with MX's needs. Wall clocks, eject
buttons, Undo buttons, etc.

An AOA indicator is simply too useful to belong in this list.

Steve Foley wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

Must be getting old. I don't understand your post.


All of the other posts are more aligned with MX's needs. Wall clocks, eject
buttons, Undo buttons, etc.

An AOA indicator is simply too useful to belong in this list.


Pertinent and politely offered question...........answer given in kind.
Individuals will have to make up their own mind on these issues, but I
see no positive result from adding to the forum's noise level.

For me anyway, if it's a normal post, I'll at least make an attempt to
handle it without nailing the poster. If it's noise, I'll attempt to
pass on it. If it's a troll and the poster attempts to argue with the
answer, I'll consider the argument on it's merit and engage or disengage
as the post warrants.
Either way, the control of how I handle Usenet will rest with me and not
with others :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

On May 14, 8:25*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
If money were not an issue, and you had the opportunity to install a single
new gadget in your instrument panel (without removing anything else--assume
you have the room for something new), which instrument would you install, and
why?

Flush toilet. I am REALLY tired of trying to stand up in a single
engine, pull my pants around my ankles, and take care of business
without totally ending up in some vertical dive-bombing death spiral.
Sticking my crank in a hole in the instrument panel would be
wonderful. Ladies...sorry, I don't know what to suggest.

--Jeff

JB wrote:
Flush toilet. I am REALLY tired of trying to stand up in a single
engine, pull my pants around my ankles, and take care of business
without totally ending up in some vertical dive-bombing death spiral.
Sticking my crank in a hole in the instrument panel would be
wonderful. Ladies...sorry, I don't know what to suggest.

I know this will sound like "mom", but ... don't have coffee before you
leave, and "go" before you saddle up?
;-)

Dudley Henriques writes:

Not a moment's hesitation.......An angle of attack indicator.

I can understand that. Why are angle-of-attack indicators so rare in
aircraft? Is it something that is difficult to measure? I should think it
would be far more useful than trying to figure out what combination of speed,
weight, pitch angle, etc., is likely to produce a stall.

On Wed, 14 May 2008 18:28:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Not a moment's hesitation.......An angle of attack indicator.

Why is this not standard?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

Not a moment's hesitation.......An angle of attack indicator.

I can understand that. Why are angle-of-attack indicators so rare in
aircraft? Is it something that is difficult to measure? I should think it
would be far more useful than trying to figure out what combination of speed,
weight, pitch angle, etc., is likely to produce a stall.

You are absolutely correct. The military for years has used AOA to
determine cruise, climb, descent, and approach speeds. Almost all high
performance aircraft performance charts use AOA to determine performance
criteria.
For example, a T38 is flown on approach at an optimum AOA of .6 units.
This optimizes the aircraft at whatever approach airspeed the GW
dictates. (remaining fuel). The aircraft can also be flown manually on
approach using an IAS of 155kts plus fuel, which is an additional 1kt
for every l00lbs remaining over 1000lbs. You can fly the approach either
way but as you can see, it's a lot easier using AOA.
Some T38's BTW, incorporate an AOA indexer on the glare shield that will
automatically keep you on speed if you fly the airplane in the on speed
green "donut". The top of the indexer is a red chevron pointing downward
to indicate you're too slow on the approach. The bottom is a red chevron
pointing upward showing too high an airspeed. Keeping the airplane right
on speed in the green donut gives you .6 units AOA regardless of the
gross weight of the airplane.
To expand just a bit on the T38, the AOA indicator shows up as arbitrary
"units" ranging from 0 to 1.0 based on the angle range of the AOA vane.
Some other helpful data supplied by the AOA indicator if I remember
right for the Talon is a maximum range at about .2 units, and a maximum
endurance at .3 units. Initial stall buffet is t about .9 units.

In light civilian airplanes, AOA indicators can be quite useful although
the low speeds involved don't necessarily produce the same advantages
found in much higher performance airplanes where the slightest
difference between optimum and off optimum AOA for a specific
configuration can mean big differences in performance.

Personally, I like the idea of basing even light airplane performance on
AOA. If this format is begun at the manufacturer's level and proper
testing on the aircraft done at that point, the end user has a simple
and precise instrument on which to base the aircraft's performance. This
decreases cockpit workload which is a good thing in itself.

It is my understanding after talking to some ATR (ATP) friends of mine
flying for major air carriers that their companies have been engaged
with manufacturers on better ways to use AOA in their aircraft operations.

--
Dudley Henriques

Gezellig wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2008 18:28:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Not a moment's hesitation.......An angle of attack indicator.

Why is this not standard?

I gave up years ago trying to figure out why things that make flying
safer and better are not made standard. :-)))
AOA indication has always as far as I know been considered an option on
light civilian aircraft. There are costs involved as well as performance
testing to determine optimum parameters....another step in the process.
The main reason I believe is the fact that light civilian airplanes fly
in the area of lowest performance where the raw data already existing
using basic instrumentation is sufficient.

--
Dudley Henriques