Spotting Traffic

("Jose" wrote)
Now if we could only get MontJet Inc. to move a few decimal places too...



Did you see the "new improved" updated numbers - from the MontJet thread? I
need to get Williams International to move a few digits ...FJ44 ...FJ33
....and hopefully, a new FJ22 for the MontJet!

MontJet: (415 kts/FL450)
(Range: 1,500+ miles)
Empty Weight ............600 lbs (x6 = S-33)
Fuel (4 hrs)..................600 lbs @ 21.5 gph (7 lbs/gal)
Pilot + stuff .................260 lbs
MTOW .....................1,460 lbs (x5 = S33)

Spectrum 33: (415 kts/FL450)
(Range: 2,000 miles)
Empty Wt. ...............3,620 lbs
MTOW .....................7,300 lbs

BTW, I'm using the same engine as the Spectrum 33:
Engine ................................290 lbs
Williams FJ33-4A [1,568 pound-thrust]

Unless a smaller (less fuel burn) FJ22 becomes available! g

http://www.williams-int.com/high/pro...FJ33Planes.htm
Planes using the FJ33 Engine


Team.Mont.Jet.

Wallace Berry wrote:


For my tastes, most GA aircraft have poor visibility from the cockpit.
Small windows, wings blocking the view above or below and to one side or
the other in turns serve to block out a lot of the sky. Adding to this I
suspect that the relatively high level of noise (engine and radio) and
vibration in GA cockpits causes a sort of "sensory overload" that may
adversely affect the visual scan. The extent of the effect probably
varies quite a lot from person to person, relative levels of
distractions in different aircraft, and level of experience. Quieter
headsets may improve the situation, but I think the "isolation" of
hearing protectors serves as a sort of temporary distraction in it's own
right.

I can't say I agree, especially about the sensory overload.

While my Beech Sundowner (Slowdowner G) dosen't have a bubble canopy,
it has excellent visibility everywhere but straight up, far better than
any single engine Piper or Cessna I've flown. The wing sits farther
back than a PA28, so I have nice visibility to the sides and below.
Since straight up and straight back aren't part of the typical scan, I
don't think I'd be better off with a bubble.

As far as the headset goes, my current ANR set is so comfortable, I can
doze off while my co-owner flies! G

"Montblack" wrote

Did you see the "new improved" updated numbers - from the MontJet thread?
I need to get Williams International to move a few digits ...FJ44 ...FJ33
...and hopefully, a new FJ22 for the MontJet!

Damn, if they keep going at this rate, pretty soon there will be a FJ00, and
it will not burn any fuel at all! g

I'll bet you could keep two of those in your pockets!
--
Jim in NC

"FLAV8R" wrote in message
...

A few years back, before the New Smyrna Beach Airport (KEVB) had a control
tower
we made all our call outs on the CTAF and while on short final we noticed
something odd.
The image before us was hard to make out but as we got closer to the
runway we realized
that it was a twin on takeoff from runway 20.
The problem with that was the fact that we were on the reciprocal end
landing on runway 02.


The reciprocal end of runway 20 is not runway 02, it's runway 2.

"Peter R." wrote:

Paul Tomblin wrote:

Any
suggestions how to reassure her?

Upgrade to a mode-S transponder and then display the TIS information on
your moving map. The entire NY State Thruway corridor, including your home
airport, is covered by the TIS network.

That assumes that this system will be around a while. Seems like it
or something like it is not long for this world so buying equipment to
use it may not be worth it.

Ron Lee

Well, I hope this isn't too far OT, but which of those oft-advertised
portable traffic detectors are good/bad? Any opinions or pilot
reports? I'm tempted every time I read one of the ads, but just
haven't made the leap...yet. Are they truely of any help?

Ron Lee wrote:

That assumes that this system will be around a while. Seems like it
or something like it is not long for this world so buying equipment to
use it may not be worth it.

The authors of _Aviation Consumer_ seem to disagree but no matter; I don't
really expect Paul to take my suggestion seriously anyway.


--
Peter

In a previous article, "Peter R." said:
Ron Lee wrote:
That assumes that this system will be around a while. Seems like it
or something like it is not long for this world so buying equipment to
use it may not be worth it.

The authors of _Aviation Consumer_ seem to disagree but no matter; I don't
really expect Paul to take my suggestion seriously anyway.

Not in a club plane, anyway.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
..... Oh, wait a minute, he already does."

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Mon, 01 May 2006 13:09:28 -0500, Wallace Berry
wrote in
::

I think the "isolation" of hearing protectors serves as a sort of
temporary distraction in it's own right.

Are you sure you're wearing your headset correctly. The cups are
meant to placed over your ears not over your eyes. :-)


Dang! So that's the problem!

On 2006-05-01, Peter Duniho wrote:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
You non-Unix/non-Mac users don't know what you're missing:

You non-Internet users don't know what you're missing:

http://www.google.com/search?q=250+k...+per+6+seconds

Of course, Google runs Linux :-)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de