Common instruments on small aircraft

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:51:49 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:23:37 GMT, RK Henry
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:57:24 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

An interesting analogy. Is it more fun to drive the Nissan on city
streets in traffic, following all the rules, or is it more fun to ride
go-karts on a private track where you can go faster and maneuver more
and where there are fewer unpleasant rules?

If we're restricted to those choices, the Nissan would be more fun.
You can go to the beach, the mountains, the movies, the museum, other
interesting places where you can see things and meet other people. And
if you do meet someone, the Nissan has a place for her to sit.

Having driven on an actual race track (Lime Rock Park & Stafford Motor
Speedway), I pick option "C":

Drive on the track, and then take out the lady...

Track vs. street? I'll take the kart on the track, and take the lady
somewhere later! G

But what if the lady is one of the racers?
I've been warned about fast women.
And then there are the ones who fly airplanes...
G

RK Henry

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:57:00 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

RK Henry writes:

If we're restricted to those choices, the Nissan would be more fun.
You can go to the beach, the mountains, the movies, the museum, other
interesting places where you can see things and meet other people. And
if you do meet someone, the Nissan has a place for her to sit.

That part doesn't apply to a plane.

Which parts? Why not?

Same thing for an airplane. An airplane can take you to all sorts of
interesting, educational, entertaining, profitable places.

Using general aviation for transportation is very different from using
for good weather and you can be happy going anywhere. When you use it
it for leisure. When you use it for leisure, you can afford to wait
for transportation, you cannot afford to wait for good weather and you
have to go to specific places.

No it isn't.

General aviation can be used very effectively for both business and
leisure transportation. Unless one lives in a place with almost
perpetually bad weather, VFR weather prevails so much of the time that
the airplane can be a very effective transportation tool. The ability
to go IFR, which is commonplace for many GA pilots and for the GA
fleet, adds a bit more to utility, making an airplane usable under an
even wider range of conditions. Better equipped aircraft can extend
that capability further, but those capabilities only extend the
percentage of flyable conditions by just a few more basis points. Many
kinds of weather conditions are transient, and waits of only a few
minutes to a few hours may be sufficient to bring weather good enough
to make the flight. Most of the time, the skies are clear enough to
fly where you want to go.

While airlines are very well equipped with the latest technology,
there are some kinds of weather that even they won't attempt. There's
really no such thing as an "All-Weather" aircraft.

It's sometimes amusing to observe those weather conditions that you
can fly in a GA airplane when ground transportation is difficult or
impossible. It's also interesting to note that there are weather
conditions that can be legally (if not wisely) flown in a GA aircraft
when the airlines are grounded (in the U.S.).

RK Henry

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:02:49 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Judah writes:

The first plane I trained in was as basic as they get - one radio, one
NAV.
It was adequate as a trainer, and even for renting (although I bought
a
handheld GPS after I started renting more frequently). But they sold
that
flight school and I don't think you can rent those planes anymore.

I think I'd be worried in a plane like that.

Take a look, then, at a photo of the panel of *my* airplane:

http://www.wanttaja.com/hhrad2.JPG

Be afraid. Be very afraid. :-)

Ron Wanttaja


Looks like an IC-T8 ham rig on the panel.

RK Henry writes:

Which parts? Why not?

Beach, mountains, movies, museum, etc. Most of these places don't
have a runway out in front, so they require a car rather than a plane.

General aviation can be used very effectively for both business and
leisure transportation. Unless one lives in a place with almost
perpetually bad weather, VFR weather prevails so much of the time that
the airplane can be a very effective transportation tool. The ability
to go IFR, which is commonplace for many GA pilots and for the GA
fleet, adds a bit more to utility, making an airplane usable under an
even wider range of conditions.

I've consistently heard that if you plan to take trips on a schedule
and with any significant length, you'll need to plan on flying IFR,
which not everyone can do. There are few areas where the weather is
consistently clear and perfect over long distances. Deserts are one
such type of place, but they have disadvantages of their own
(desolation and extreme heat, for example).

Plus you need to be able to handle potential icing issues, just in
case.

If you don't have an IFR rating and the ability to deal with icing,
plus (preferably) an ability to fly at fairly high altitudes over
weather, your prospects for real travel on a schedule are limited.
You cannot say, for example, "let's fly to Portland on Saturday,"
because you don't know if weather will permit it, and your guest
passenger may not be too happy if you cancel things due to weather at
the last minute.

Better equipped aircraft can extend
that capability further, but those capabilities only extend the
percentage of flyable conditions by just a few more basis points. Many
kinds of weather conditions are transient, and waits of only a few
minutes to a few hours may be sufficient to bring weather good enough
to make the flight.

The same time periods might abruptly put you back into bad weather.
And if the flight lasts three hours and covers a substantial distance,
a lot can happen.

Lately, every time I try to fly around KSEA (in a sim--but the sim
picks up real-world weather in real time), it's IFR. Yesterday it was
so bad that I couldn't see the runway even from 100 feet away; that
flight ended tragically.

While airlines are very well equipped with the latest technology,
there are some kinds of weather that even they won't attempt. There's
really no such thing as an "All-Weather" aircraft.

Certainly, but airliners are so well equipped that there are few
situations that truly ground them or require diversions. Sometimes
they get overconfident.

It's sometimes amusing to observe those weather conditions that you
can fly in a GA airplane when ground transportation is difficult or
impossible.

Point taken. Certainly there is no way to drive a car with zero
visibility. And aircraft are not bothered by snow on the ground. I'm
not sure how rain affects GA aircraft (?). I don't know much about
the risks of extreme heat or cold in GA, either (?).

It's also interesting to note that there are weather
conditions that can be legally (if not wisely) flown in a GA aircraft
when the airlines are grounded (in the U.S.).

Hmm ... which ones?

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

Judah writes:

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

The first plane I trained in was as basic as they get - one radio, one
NAV. It was adequate as a trainer, and even for renting (although I
bought a handheld GPS after I started renting more frequently). But
they sold that flight school and I don't think you can rent those
planes anymore.

I think I'd be worried in a plane like that.

Worried about what, exactly?

A lack of redundancy. Also, to determine your position exactly with
navaids, you either need two of them or some sort of distance
information, e.g., 1 VOR+DME, or 2 VORs.

Yes, I know that you might be flying routinely in VMC and might be
able to just look out the window, but I like to have reliable backup
for my own, highly subjective determinations of where I am.

I tried flying from Phoenix to KSAN not long ago by following the
interstates, but I didn't realize until I saw Palm Springs below that
I was following the wrong interstate. Granted, this was simulation,
and you might say that real life provides a clearer picture on the
ground than simulation, but I think all interstates look very similar,
and I might well make the same mistake in real life (essentially just
one of following I-10 instead of whatever leads to San Diego).

Worried about what, exactly?

Failure of insufficiently tested all-in-one avionics. It's best to
minmize the number of tools or instruments that have
interdependencies.

I have to say, they are nice. I enjoy the club planes very much. Great
planes with a great pricetag.

How do they afford it? Somebody must have paid for all that gear up
front at some point. Who owns the aircraft?

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

Ron Wanttaja writes:

Take a look, then, at a photo of the panel of *my* airplane:

http://www.wanttaja.com/hhrad2.JPG

Be afraid. Be very afraid. :-)

Where are the cabin pressure controls and the FMCs?

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

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:53:24 -0400, "Morgans" wrote:


"Ron Wanttaja" wrote

Take a look, then, at a photo of the panel of *my* airplane:

http://www.wanttaja.com/hhrad2.JPG

I can't help but notice that your "fun" meter is pegged, even while it is
sitting on the ground. You really need to get that thing worked on. It should
not move off the bottom peg at least until you start the engine, and not peg
until you get airborn.

It's a *recording* fun meter, like a G-Meter. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Kev writes:

I'm sure they're nice people in person, but you really couldn't tell
from their harsh and really unfunny replies.

USENET is like alcohol, in that it causes people to reveal their real
personalities.

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

Morgans writes:

"I" would say you are way out of line, comparing somone who gets annoyed at
"him", to a person that loses their temper and hits a kid, or kills someone in
their plane, when they lose their temper over the least little thing.

WAY over the line, out of line.

In fact, you are demonstrating his point, both with your attitude
above and with your three-page post on a question of personality
rather than the topic under discussion.

People who get angry or flustered over a simple text exchange on
USENET can be a lot more dangerous in real life. The same personality
dynamics are at work in both cases. The person who can't tolerate
disagreement in a simple online exchange may not wish to agree with
established rules of flight or instruments, either, and may feel
inclined to hit people who disagree with him and are within arm's
reach.

People who are immune to this do not engage in personal attacks, and
write posts on the subject at hand, not long essays on the people they
dislike. These personality characteristics, both positive and
negative, carry over into life outside cyberspace.

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

Judah writes:

I could be wrong, but I believe the Cruising Speed of a Baron is about 175 -
185Kts, or about 200-215MPH.

I get a ground speed of about 195-200 kts in many cases, which would
be as much as 230 mph.

The speed limit on most US Highways is 65-75MPH.
In no-wind conditions, if both vehicles are travelling in a straight line
(rare for IFR aircraft, but even rarer for vehicles on the ground) the Baron
is faster by nearly a factor of 3. Perhaps you are not flying the Baron
properly to achieve maximum performance.

It's not a race, and there are many parts of the flight that are not
performed at maximum speeds. The route is usually close to being a
straight line, but not exactly.

I should be able to take a commercial flight from KPHX to KSAN and be
there in about 40 minutes. In fact, it takes several hours.

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