Technology is Incredible...

"Jose" wrote

I still do. The fun of VFR flying, especially low level cross country flying,
is visual navigation. The damned GPS takes all the fun out of it.

While in college, a buddy and me used to go out on motorcycles, and take turn
after turn without maps, until we got about an hour away from campus, and good
and lost. Then, the fun was trying to find our way back to campus, all without
maps, of course. Navigation by instinct, I think we called it!

Fun stuff!
--
Jim in NC

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

That's going to be damn hard to do there aren't to many prop planes with
the
same thrust and max speed as your average jet.

NASA has done it, but as I've said, the noise level is so high that it
isn't practical (passengers and crew might well suffer hearing damage
from the noise).

--


Yes NASA has made plenty of very loud things. Did you ever wonder why NASA
was trying to build high speed propeller driven aircraft?

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
The only time I really used it was on my solo x-c and the practice was
set it for the first
airport, fly there do my three landings at that
towered airport, land over at the edge of the
runway set the next airport, fly and repeat for
the homeward flight.

My LORAN has quite a bit more features -- that I never use, of course...
From what I understand, you can set routes that consist of multiple
identifiers (airports, intersections, VORs, etc)... I have never even
bothered to try out this feature... My personal flying style is just to be
interested in wherever my next destination might be and upon arrival
there, use the "direct-to" feature to set it to go to my next
destination...

Oh I'm sure the one in the R22 I trained in had lots of neat features that I
didn't know how to use.





The main thing I noticed was the lack of a CDI I would have preferred a
Nav/Com at the time. A nice uncertified 496 would have been great.

My LORAN does have a CDI-type indicator built into it... Basically a
vertical bar on the screen that indicates your desired course and another
vertical var that indicates your current position in relation to the
desired course... I find it interesting to fly the LORAN CDI indicator and
use StreetAtlas to draw lines between my source and destination airports
and then log my GPS data for plotting over this after the flight... I get
to see all the deviations that I make either from distraction, weather,
traffic, or because I saw something interesting that I wanted to check
out... On trips, I'll take this and add it to my electronic log book of
the flights...


This one had the same thing but it was in a position that was just about
useless in flight and it was kinda small that made it even worse. Since I
wasn't fly that high the best way I found to use it was start with it lined
up and find a ground reference off in the distance and fly to that then when
I got there look for the next ground reference. Pretty much just like you'd
use a compass only this one was only pointing to where I wanted to go.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
That's going to be damn hard to do there aren't to many prop planes with the
same thrust and max speed as your average jet.

Well, I saw a guy over by 1L0 that had put a very small jet engine on a
bicycle, thus creating a thrust powered moped... It was quite a bit
louder than any motorcycle that I've ever heard, much less any moped...

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Yes NASA has made plenty of very loud things. Did you ever wonder why NASA
was trying to build high speed propeller driven aircraft?

Because propeller driven aircraft are more efficient from a fuel economy
standpoint than jet driven ones?

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Yes NASA has made plenty of very loud things. Did you ever wonder why NASA
was trying to build high speed propeller driven aircraft?

No. The agency's explanation, as I recall, was that propellers are
potentially far more efficient than jet exhausts for propulsion, even
into the transonic and perhaps supersonic range, at least in theory.

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

While in college, a buddy and me used to go out on motorcycles, and take turn
after turn without maps, until we got about an hour away from campus, and good
and lost. Then, the fun was trying to find our way back to campus, all without
maps, of course. Navigation by instinct, I think we called it!

Fun stuff!

Hey -- we used to do that in college, too -- except that we'd only stop
at the "Pabst" signs! We always got good and lost, too, but always
found our way home, somehow...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Yes NASA has made plenty of very loud things. Did you ever wonder why
NASA was trying to build high speed propeller driven aircraft?

Because propeller driven aircraft are more efficient from a fuel economy
standpoint than jet driven ones?

Damn it Grumman I wasn't asking you, I was asking Manic.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Yes NASA has made plenty of very loud things. Did you ever wonder why
NASA
was trying to build high speed propeller driven aircraft?

No. The agency's explanation, as I recall, was that propellers are
potentially far more efficient than jet exhausts for propulsion, even
into the transonic and perhaps supersonic range, at least in theory.



So you've answered your own question (though I thing Grumman answered it for
you) as to why we don't all replace props with jet engines.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
So you've answered your own question (though I thing Grumman answered it
for
you) as to why we don't all replace props with jet engines.

As a side note, there is a guy who has put a small turbine engine on a
motorcycle... It drives the rear wheel instead of using thrush pushing
against air... Even on something that light, it only gets around 4-10 mpg...
Of course, you end up with over 300 hp in a 500 lb motorcycle though...