I find I hate VFR flying now.
I left the lower mainland yesterday, VFR, heading for northern Alberta. Was scared shitless. Why is it you can spot a plane at your 4 or 8 o-clock position, but not when they are right infront of you? Dodging airspace, listening to 10 different frequencies.... ugggg. Much easier to just get a clearance, and let the guy on the other end of the radio tell you what to do.
But my options were limited that day. The clouds were all icy, and I didn't want to have to climb to 18,000 ft to get over them. It was a beautiful day in the lower mainland, so I elected to do my trip VFR... Clear skies for a couple hundred miles, then 5000-6000ft ceilings through the continental divide into Alberta. Seems acceptable.. Turns out no. Caught in a valley with falling ceilings and vis, I did a 180, went back for clear skies and crossed the rocks way further south, adding about 150 miles to my 400 mile trip...
I hate instrument flying
-
dirtdr
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 6:22 pm
[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=7245.msg19774#msg19774 date=1507646948]
Get a King Air 200.
[/quote]
a 421 would fit my mission nicely. even a 340 - 90% of the time.
But I have (tried) to sit in the front of a 340 and find it too difficult for my fat ass to get into...
Still waiting to get a demo flight in a 414 or 421 to see if thats any better
Get a King Air 200.
[/quote]
a 421 would fit my mission nicely. even a 340 - 90% of the time.
But I have (tried) to sit in the front of a 340 and find it too difficult for my fat ass to get into...
Still waiting to get a demo flight in a 414 or 421 to see if thats any better
-
DeflectionShot
How about a Piper M500....single engine turbine? We have a piston Meridian in our hangar that flies IFR all the time, owner loves it and uses it for business all over the US. I don't know the maintenance costs for a twin piston like the Cessna 421 but you might break even with a single turbine?
-
dirtdr
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 6:22 pm
[quote author=DeflectionShot link=topic=7245.msg19776#msg19776 date=1507648660]
How about a Piper M500....single engine turbine? We have a piston Meridian in our hangar that flies IFR all the time, owner loves it and uses it for business all over the US. I don't know the maintenance costs for a twin piston like the Cessna 421 but you might break even with a single turbine?
[/quote]
I have a buddy about to close on a M500..
I like the idea of a turboprop. but the price!!.. I could buy every 310 on the market for what he is paying for his Meridian
How about a Piper M500....single engine turbine? We have a piston Meridian in our hangar that flies IFR all the time, owner loves it and uses it for business all over the US. I don't know the maintenance costs for a twin piston like the Cessna 421 but you might break even with a single turbine?
[/quote]
I have a buddy about to close on a M500..
I like the idea of a turboprop. but the price!!.. I could buy every 310 on the market for what he is paying for his Meridian
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
340 is over gross with you and full fuel.
RAM engines and VG's help, but ...
You would be amazed how little the
turbine singles can carry.
I like the 421. Flew two different 421B's
for many years. Complex systems but
maintenance was nowhere near as bad
as you hear.
Until a couple of retired airline pilots
started flying the first 421. They
trashed both engines in a year. Spun
the bearings so badly the clamshells
were garbage.
Made me cry. Not sure what that
poor airplane did to deserve two
four bars.
RAM engines and VG's help, but ...
You would be amazed how little the
turbine singles can carry.
I like the 421. Flew two different 421B's
for many years. Complex systems but
maintenance was nowhere near as bad
as you hear.
Until a couple of retired airline pilots
started flying the first 421. They
trashed both engines in a year. Spun
the bearings so badly the clamshells
were garbage.
Made me cry. Not sure what that
poor airplane did to deserve two
four bars.
-
dirtdr
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 6:22 pm
I keep dreaming. But in reality the 310 is way more plane than I ever imagined owning. I guess skud- running and having to turn back (or not go at all) is a small price to pay.
To be honest it has been a stretch to be able to afford to fly, maintain, and upgrade it. I keep thinking the spending is over, but then I want a better autopilot.... Need new props next year... then engine rebuilds in a couple years (hopefully)....
I could keep it outside and that would save a bunch of money. Hangar is about 25% of my total yearly cost. But I like to keep a bunch of stuff with the airplane. And I can use the hangar to keep my car and boat warm and dry in the winter.
For now I will just keep window shopping, trying to find that 200kt airplane, that can take off and land on 2000', uses 10gph, seats 6, and costs under $100k to buy
To be honest it has been a stretch to be able to afford to fly, maintain, and upgrade it. I keep thinking the spending is over, but then I want a better autopilot.... Need new props next year... then engine rebuilds in a couple years (hopefully)....
I could keep it outside and that would save a bunch of money. Hangar is about 25% of my total yearly cost. But I like to keep a bunch of stuff with the airplane. And I can use the hangar to keep my car and boat warm and dry in the winter.
For now I will just keep window shopping, trying to find that 200kt airplane, that can take off and land on 2000', uses 10gph, seats 6, and costs under $100k to buy
-
JW Scud
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:44 am
[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=7245.msg19771#msg19771 date=1507639861]
[quote]You are wrong.[/quote]
You are useless and uninformative.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumen ... operations]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumen ... operations[/url]
[quote]In contrast to other operations, CAT III weather minima do not provide sufficient visual references to allow a manual landing to be made. CAT III minima depend on roll-out control and redundancy of the autopilot,[citation needed] because they give only enough time for the pilot to decide whether the aircraft will land in the touchdown zone (basically CAT IIIa) and to ensure safety during rollout (basically CAT IIIb).
[size=12pt][b]Therefore, an automatic landing system is mandatory to perform Category III operations[/b][/size]. Its reliability must be sufficient to control the aircraft to touchdown in CAT IIIa operations and through rollout to a safe taxi speed in CAT IIIb (and CAT IIIc when authorized).
[b]However, special approval has been granted to some operators for hand-flown CAT III approaches using a head-up display[/b] (HUD) guidance which provides the pilot with an image viewed through the windshield with eyes focused at infinity, of necessary electronic guidance to land the airplane with no true outside visual references.[/quote]
[/quote]
Actually, you are the one who is useless based on your erroneous information provided by an IFR instructor. And it is interesting to know that the instructor who says how good he is at it, gets his information to pass to students from Wikipedia. Here is your original quote,
[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=7245.msg19757#msg19757 date=1507592470]
Pardon me if I am wrong, but aren't all CAT II/III approaches
and landings fully automated? The pilots just sit there and
watch the aircraft fly the approach and land, correct?
[/quote]
Sorry but not ALL CAT II/III approaches and landings are fully automated.
This Airbus publication makes several mentions of manual CAT II landings(as confirmed earlier by Eric Jansen):
https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1480.pdf
Ever asked yourself how Horizon Air does CAT IIIA landings in Seattle in the fog on their Dash-8, an aircraft that has never had an autoland system installed. They use a HUD. You can see a European example of a hand-flown CAT III approach here into Munich with a 50 foot decision Altitude:
Do you tell your student going for checkrides to quote Wikipedia to the examiner? Wow, you are the best. So useful and informative. Do you insult your students as well when they tell you that you are wrong.
[quote]You are wrong.[/quote]
You are useless and uninformative.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumen ... operations]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumen ... operations[/url]
[quote]In contrast to other operations, CAT III weather minima do not provide sufficient visual references to allow a manual landing to be made. CAT III minima depend on roll-out control and redundancy of the autopilot,[citation needed] because they give only enough time for the pilot to decide whether the aircraft will land in the touchdown zone (basically CAT IIIa) and to ensure safety during rollout (basically CAT IIIb).
[size=12pt][b]Therefore, an automatic landing system is mandatory to perform Category III operations[/b][/size]. Its reliability must be sufficient to control the aircraft to touchdown in CAT IIIa operations and through rollout to a safe taxi speed in CAT IIIb (and CAT IIIc when authorized).
[b]However, special approval has been granted to some operators for hand-flown CAT III approaches using a head-up display[/b] (HUD) guidance which provides the pilot with an image viewed through the windshield with eyes focused at infinity, of necessary electronic guidance to land the airplane with no true outside visual references.[/quote]
[/quote]
Actually, you are the one who is useless based on your erroneous information provided by an IFR instructor. And it is interesting to know that the instructor who says how good he is at it, gets his information to pass to students from Wikipedia. Here is your original quote,
[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=7245.msg19757#msg19757 date=1507592470]
Pardon me if I am wrong, but aren't all CAT II/III approaches
and landings fully automated? The pilots just sit there and
watch the aircraft fly the approach and land, correct?
[/quote]
Sorry but not ALL CAT II/III approaches and landings are fully automated.
This Airbus publication makes several mentions of manual CAT II landings(as confirmed earlier by Eric Jansen):
https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1480.pdf
Ever asked yourself how Horizon Air does CAT IIIA landings in Seattle in the fog on their Dash-8, an aircraft that has never had an autoland system installed. They use a HUD. You can see a European example of a hand-flown CAT III approach here into Munich with a 50 foot decision Altitude:
Do you tell your student going for checkrides to quote Wikipedia to the examiner? Wow, you are the best. So useful and informative. Do you insult your students as well when they tell you that you are wrong.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Are you now saying that my quote from the wiki was wrong?
You are such a moron.
And, who do you think designed the HUDs that you love so
much? Yup, those stupid fucking engineers that you hate
so much, that you think can't do anything right. According
to your logic, no one should use a HUD because it was
designed by an engineer instead of a brillant four bars
so it can't possibly ever work.
You are such a moron.
And, who do you think designed the HUDs that you love so
much? Yup, those stupid fucking engineers that you hate
so much, that you think can't do anything right. According
to your logic, no one should use a HUD because it was
designed by an engineer instead of a brillant four bars
so it can't possibly ever work.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 12 Replies
- 5200 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 4 Replies
- 1413 Views
-
Last post by vanNostrum
