Common instruments on small aircraft

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

If weather conditions permit. But ideally I'd want to be able to fly
even in poor visibility.

Dayem, here I go again....

I fly in poor viz all the time. Perfectly safe. In fact, safer then my
drive to the airport!

If I had a sectional. Unfortunately, those are expensive, and finding
one for the southwestern U.S. in France would be problematic (and
costly).

Get out of your game and on the net. There is a source to download from if
you look real carefully.

Allen

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

Actually, you are incorrect. MANY airports have museums either on the
field or within walking distance.

The Louvre doesn't.

So?

There are also airports within mountain terrain
(and of course, you don't actually have to land on a mountain to
appreciate it from the sky). And there are even several airports with
Beaches on the field or within easy reach of the airport by walking,
taxi, or public transportation.

I guess if you want to see the specific museums, beaches, or ski
resorts that are right next to airfields, then you're in luck. If you
want to see anything else, though, that's not going to work.

Or, if the place you want to see if 400 miles away, you could fly to the
nearest airport, rent a car for the last 5 miles, and get there in
substantially less time. Many airports even offer crew cars at no cost for
pilots for a few hours' ride in the area.

KACY - Short cab ride to Atlantic City Casinos

Cab rides don't count.

You could also rent a car. At AIY, the cabs used to listen to the CTAF and
be waiting for you when you landed.

There are many pleasurable things to do using aircraft, especially if
you enjoy flying.

Yes. But aircraft for basic transportation are far less practical,
except for the kind of long-distance transportation provided by
commercial airlines.

Nonsense. GA Flying is much more convenient and practical than Airline
transportation for getting to places that are either not near a major
airport, or are anywhere from 150-600 NM away. I will fly this evening to
Winchester, VA from New York. To drive there would take me about 5 hours,
not including stops. To fly there commercially, I would have to fly to the
nearest airport about 90 minutes away, get to my airport 60 minutes before
departure, and fly about 60 minutes, totalling about 3.5 hrs. Flying GA, I
will get there in about 90 minutes (maybe 1:45 because of strong headwinds
tonight). I will land at Winchester Regional airport, where a rental car
will be waiting for me because I called in advance. I will then drive about
5 minutes to my destination. The cost for me to fly myself to Winchester
will be cheaper than a last-minute round trip ticket to Dulles, and the
rental car cost at Winchester is about 60% of the rental car cost at
Dulles. So not only will I save over an hour (or 3 hours if you compare
with driving), I will save money and enjoy the experience.

You have a very narrow perception of reality, because your knowledge and
experience are very limited in this regard. You should avoid making claims
about things that you have no idea about.

A Lieberma writes:

The above verifies based on my own experiences and looking back on one of
my own videos from KJAN to KMBO

Preflight 7 minutes
Startup procedures 1:05 minutes
Ground clearance 10 seconds.
Taxi 3:00 minutes
Runup 1:30 minutes
Clearance for take off 2 seconds (number one for takeoff)

So from opening the door of the plane to take off takes on average 12 1/2
minutes for me.

Where's the flight plan?

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Judah writes:

Actually, you are incorrect. MANY airports have museums either on the
field
or within walking distance.

The Louvre doesn't.

I can't drive to the Louvre. There's a little thing called the Atlantic
Ocean in my way.

I have a better chance of flying my plane to Paris and walking than I do of
driving.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

Makeshift solutions are not something I'd want to depend on.

What makes you say this is makeshift?

If weather conditions permit. But ideally I'd want to be able to fly
even in poor visibility.

Then you would get your Instrument Rating and fly a plane that had the
minimum required equipment. You might also carry some backup instruments like
a handheld GPS and handheld NAV/COM.

If I had a sectional. Unfortunately, those are expensive, and finding
one for the southwestern U.S. in France would be problematic (and
costly).

There are several sites where you can download sectionals at no cost. It was
discussed in an earlier thread. You can google it.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

And if only cross-country travel by car required only "actual driving
time".

They do. You can drive directly from door to door, so total travel
time is essentially the same as driving time.


I see. So you couldn't imagine stopping for gas, traffic lights, traffic
jams, detours, and stretch/bio breaks on a 600 mile cross country trip?

Judah writes:

So?

Unless one is coincidentally interested in the handful of museums
close to airstrips, the fact that a few might be close is not terribly
relevant.

Or, if the place you want to see if 400 miles away, you could fly to the
nearest airport, rent a car for the last 5 miles, and get there in
substantially less time.

And dramatically higher cost, higher even than a commercial flight in
some cases.

Many airports even offer crew cars at no cost for
pilots for a few hours' ride in the area.

Cool.

You could also rent a car.

That doesn't count, either, because you're using a car.

At AIY, the cabs used to listen to the CTAF and
be waiting for you when you landed.

Sounds very convenient? I presume they had enough business to justify
that.

Nonsense. GA Flying is much more convenient and practical than Airline
transportation for getting to places that are either not near a major
airport, or are anywhere from 150-600 NM away. I will fly this evening to
Winchester, VA from New York. To drive there would take me about 5 hours,
not including stops. To fly there commercially, I would have to fly to the
nearest airport about 90 minutes away, get to my airport 60 minutes before
departure, and fly about 60 minutes, totalling about 3.5 hrs. Flying GA, I
will get there in about 90 minutes (maybe 1:45 because of strong headwinds
tonight). I will land at Winchester Regional airport, where a rental car
will be waiting for me because I called in advance. I will then drive about
5 minutes to my destination. The cost for me to fly myself to Winchester
will be cheaper than a last-minute round trip ticket to Dulles, and the
rental car cost at Winchester is about 60% of the rental car cost at
Dulles. So not only will I save over an hour (or 3 hours if you compare
with driving), I will save money and enjoy the experience.

So there are exceptional circumstances in which it might be practical.
I don't know if that makes GA cost-effective overall, however.

You have a very narrow perception of reality, because your knowledge and
experience are very limited in this regard. You should avoid making claims
about things that you have no idea about.

Since you've favored me with irrelevant personal advice, I'll return
the favor: Stick to the subject, as I do.

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

A Lieberma writes:

Get out of your game and on the net. There is a source to download from if
you look real carefully.

I've found some terminal charts but nothing with a wide selection of
sectionals. Navigation data is big business and some things seem to
be jealously guarded.

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Judah writes:

So then how is it that you claim that that is not faster than driving?

Where did I claim that? I said exactly the opposite, in fact.


In an earlier post on this very thread you said...

In practice, I usually just go on flights that are of an acceptable
duration in real time, and then fly them in real time. It's true that
small aircraft take a long time to get anywhere compared to large
jets--but then again they often seem to be much faster than cars (even
though their actual speed over the ground isn't that much greater)."

But I would consider a factor of 2-3 times faster over the ground as
significantly greater.

In article ,
Judah wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

And if only cross-country travel by car required only "actual driving
time".

They do. You can drive directly from door to door, so total travel
time is essentially the same as driving time.


I see. So you couldn't imagine stopping for gas, traffic lights, traffic
jams, detours, and stretch/bio breaks on a 600 mile cross country trip?

What? You don't have a relief tube in your car? :-)