lcseale53

On take-off just rotate at the correct speed and follow the planned climb profile - adjust pitch as necessary.The C150 and the earlier C172s (and that may have been a function of model number as well) had 40 degrees of flap travel. This caused trouble with inattentive pilots, and the airplanes were very difficult to manage in a cross-wind with full flap extension. The cure was to limit flap travel to 30 degrees on later models.Full 40 degree flap extension on my C206 requires cruise power setting on final to maintain the glide slope. I only use the full 40 if clearing an obstacle into a short field. With power off in that configuration the descent angle is obscene. This is a great short-coming with the Carenado C206 flight model. It's a beautiful model but the behavior is pretty unrealistic from a 'numbers' standpoint.Leon

Absolutely true story. I was working the line fueling airplanes way back in my college days. The student turned downwind and gradually faded away from the airport. After a few minutes and no radio contact, her instructor launched with a spotter. About an hour into this thing she called the office (no cells back in the day) and gave her location - a small, essentially unused airport. Her instructor and the spotter met her to retrieve the airplane. She would not fly back - even with someone else so a car was sent to pick her up. I do recall she resumed flying - once she settled down sometime later. Leon

A very, very astute student of FS, and an instructor keeping you and the aircraft well inside your respective envelopes ... can ... produce a successful outcome. However, the opportunities for disaster - even in a C150/152 - are limitless. Considerations include:Departure stalls - caused by - you-name-it - over-rotating, airspeed mismanagement, turning cross-wind, simple distractions, etc.Losing sight of the runway - I actually observed a student get lost on downwind, on her first solo, and land 40 miles away.Approach stalls - increasing flaps from 30 to 40 degrees on an older C150 will bring your airspeed from 70 indicated to about 40 in a couple of seconds if you don't lower the nose significantly and quickly. Finding yourself behind the power curve - not enough available power with flaps extended to overcome your sink rate - usually associated with an angle-of-attack situation. Without some altitude to trade for energy, you will ride that one to the ground. Overshooting final and increasing your bank angle may well result in a stall-spin event that rarely has a happy ending. Confusing the pitch/power relationship on final will have you porpoising all over the sky, possibly terminating with blown tires and a buckled firewall.These are all things that happen to seasoned pilots (watch the arrivals at Oshkosh or Sun n' Fun some time and you'll see this and much, much more. The point is - given the right circumstances and the right assistance, the exceptional FS pilot will be successful. But its a very long shot that even that individual would pilot the airplane to a successful conclusion alone. Not saying it can't be done - just statistically a bad bet. There's a reason for the 20 hours minimum of dual instruction and 20 hours of solo flight (and usually much more) required prior to a PPL check ride.That being said though, I believe the FS pilot has an unquestionable head-start. And as Michael indicated, the right attitude and frame-of-mind will put you another leg-up on the uninitiated when you begin formal training.Regards,Leon

Bob,Frustrating isn't it?Leon

With respect to the Sport Pilot approach, having lost your medical - you would need to regain it. Depending on your particular disqualification though, you may re-qualify under a special issuance - and you only need to do this once. Most disqualifying conditions are subject to re-approval by following the correct procedures and providing prescribed documentation. From that point on, you only need to maintain a valid driver's license as evidence of your fitness to operate a motor vehicle, and of course take the appropriate biennial flight review. You need not return for any FAA medical examination as long as you remain in the light sport arena. You probably already know all of this, but I though I'd offer some encouragement just the same. Good Luck.Leon

You are welcome Geof. And thanks for the compliment. That photo was taken at Sun n' Fun, and I believe that was the year I picked up the award. We've been fortunate enough to have been the subject of a few feature articles, and the old bird is also the holder of four first and one second place finishes in the Sun n' Fun Sun 60 air race - Class 1A (haven't done that in a while though). That means I out pedaled an 85 hp Taylorcraft several times but couldn't keep up with an 85 hp Swift (I have my suspicions the Swift was a ringer with at least 86 hp).Anyway, thanks for your contributions to the forum. I, and I'm sure everyone else, enjoy all the informative input, and particularly the photos from your travels.Thanks again,Leon

Thanks Geof,That's a big bay, but not big enough when you have to start digging for charts - funny.The link (if it works) should produce a photo I found taken by the 120 group a few years ago. My Dad bought the plane from his F94C RO while stationed at Moody AFB in 1956. That would put me at 3 years old (math hurts).http://www.cessna120-140.org/Photo_Album/L...C120_N76458.htmThe 206 is a wonderful truck and a very comfortable airplane for travel - you just can't be in a hurry. We've had it since 1976, and just kept it when my Dad got out of the aerial photography business.Leon

Boy that brings back a bone chilling quake. I have a family heirloom Cessna 120 in addition to the 206, and a few years ago I majored the engine (with the appropriate IA input of course). With a whopping 4 hours on the engine I let an acquaintance talk me into flying him back to St. Pete from Lakeland (evening naturally). By the time I dropped him off at the FBO and accumulated enough clearances to taxi

Jeremy,I own a 1967 206 with a 300 hp Continental IO520, but I have nowhere near the fuel burn as you. At 8,000 feet I'll true out around 150 mph burning about 11 gph. Some years ago we used the plane for mapping photography and at 12,000-14,000' we saw typically 9-10 gph. You are absolutely correct about the utility of the 206. Mine has an empty weight of 1,900 pounds which leaves 1,700 pounds for payload, and with 84 gallons of fuel on board I can still load 1,200 pounds in the cabin. We have a private grass strip a few hours from Lakeland, and one of the approaches is over an 80 foot tree-line at the edge of the runway. At 95 degrees and a density altitude of probably 3-4,000' I'm over the trees, on the ground and stopped in 1500 ft. Take-off roll with full fuel, baggage and two on board is about 450'. It's an older plane but its rock solid and will haul just about anything you can shut the doors on - and stay within the weight and balance envelope.All that said, though - on those rare occasions when blessed with a substantial tailwind (50 knots or so), a real appreciation for those 185 knot speeds develops rather quickly. Good luck with your decision.Leon

There are two - and only two - forces competing here, which are very simply thrust (rapidly spinning propeller in this case) and drag (wheel bearing and surface contact friction). We assume lift exceeds weight because it is, after all, an airplane.If the thrust generated by the prop overcomes the aforementioned friction, the airplane accelerates to flying speed.If the wheel bearing friction is greater than the generated thrust, the airplane is either stationary or moves backward with the conveyor/treadmill. Those are the only two considerations (obviously discounting gale force winds, etc.) period.Given reasonable maintenance we can expect a wheel bearing to function continuously at speeds in excess of - say - 100 knots, so a conveyor moving at that same 100 knots would not stop the airplane from accelerating to flying speed...but it might speed up luggage handling at some of the airports I've been through. Leon

Standing in our office parking lot watching the tragedy unfold. A co-worker was taking pictures and continued through most of the sequence. Your gut knows what's happening but your heart is arguing in desperation. Leon

Had the elevator freeze going into the flare on landing. A very forceful pull resulted in something tearing beneath the panel and a flare just in time. Turned out a section of old ventilation hose moved and bound a portion of the yolk shaft assembly, and the hard pull ripped the CAT (not SCAT) hose apart. Installed a new hose everywhere I found an old one.Another exciting event involved two engine failures and two restarts less than a minute apart on the way home from a nearby paint shop. Some debris had gotten in the fuel cap vent on one tank while repainting the airplane and eventually stopped the fuel flow. After the second failure and a fuel tank switch everything was fine. I did, however install fuel caps with a better vent system. One other attention-getter was blowing a muffler apart in the air - very noisy.The less exciting failures include magnetos and plugs, and if you fly the same plane long enough you will experience these more than once.The most exciting event, though, was the sudden appearance of more than a dozen wasps in the cabin right after take-off - that was a sight/flight/fight to behold. I was not stung a single time but a ferocious fight ensued - my only weapon was my cap, and a good one it was. Turns out a large nest was built during the two week period between flights in the wing root vent completely out of sight. Leon

Curious that the Lycoming publication advises against ever using auto fuels in an aircraft engine while telling one how to keep their faltering engine running on avgas.I've been running 87 - 89 grade auto fuel in my continental C85 for twenty years - with the proper STC of course. Cleaning the plugs now occurs on an annual basis rather than monthly. A little Marvel Mystery oil keeps the top lubed in the absence of lead...but the STC does require a tank of avgas every 60 hours.I also have a continental IO520 (no STC available for injected engines) running strictly on avgas. I keep a spare set of plugs that I rotate out every couple of months for cleaning. Generally easing the mixture out a little during run-up will clear the plugs.Regards,Leon

Here's one for ya, Our community's own Jan Visser (MAAM-Sim) played bass guitar as a member of the great

Think in market terms - ready to fly, certified, easier to finance, less to insure, easy transition, no medical required (subject to the LSA regs.)Then think resale - all the same reasons.By the way, I feed two Continentals; one at 85 horses and the other at 300. Guess which one sees more air time. $4.50 -$5.00 avgas at 15-16 gph vs 4-5 gph of autogas has its value too.And if the feds have their way with user fees and other taxes, light and simple offers more value still.Leon

Hi Bill,I need to do that one day soon. Or if you get a chance KLAL is an easy trip. Our hangar bunch (24 of us) is an owner/occupant group located in an isolated wooded area on the northwest corner of the field. It's like a big sandbox where we all gather and play nicely. There's usually a grill going somewhere and refrigerators are filled with whatever satisfies your thirst. Be glad to have you.Best regards,Leon

Okay, I'll have to swell my chest a little. Was asked to pick up my 9 year old granddaughter at a birthday party recently and the host asked me which one was my daughter. Ahh, the little pleasures - pun intended.Leon

Its not just you Adrian - the default J3 is unduly touchy. I have better than a thousand hours in conventional gear aircraft, including the J3, Citabria, Cessna 120/140, and a few others. And while any taildragger can bite you good if lose focus, most are well behaved if due respect and attention are given.We've been through the reason for conventional gear groundhandling difficulties in previous posts (and torque is only a part of it) so I won't address that here - suffice it to say there is indeed a problem with the default J3.Regards,Leon

Mark,Try dumping about half the fuel and adjust the pax loading. That will bring the deck angle down to a manageable level.Regards,Leon

You are 100% correct Bob, and military pilots routinely engage in aerobatic flight. The problem we've all witnessed and lost friends to, though, is the urge to attempt aerobatics with only a familiarization ride. Couple that with a low-time pilot that probably doesn't fully understand controlled flight in the first place and we're back to the previous sentence.My father, a retired fighter pilot, hammered me with the concept of coordinated flight using the old standards like lazy-eights and chandelles. We thoroughly explored approach, departure, and accelerated stall recognition and recovery, spin recognition and recovery, and why pilots die turning from base to final.My aerobatic jaunts are limited to an occasional ride with a well trained pilot in the right airplane - but - I have no doubt that I could recover from any intended or unintended unusual attitude, as long as the airplane survived whatever placed it there initially.I have a number of friends who are competitive aerobatic pilots, and they are better at aerobatics than I am, but they are not better pilots than I am. I guess I'm a little sensitive to the issue as a couple of very good friends of mine are no longer alive. Now don't misunderstand - I love watching aerobatics more than rasslin'; in fact I'm based in Lakeland, Florida, home of Sun n' Fun and all around airplane nirvana. As a child at military airshows I've watched my dad roll down the runway right on the deck, pull to the vertical, light the afterburner, and roll out of sight (or as nearly out of sight as an F-94C would go). That'll put a mud-eatin grin on a kid's face. My contention though, or maybe expectation, is that proper primary training and subsequent experience 'should' equip a pilot with the tools necessary to correct an immediate or imminent flight or equipment problem. For what its worth, and with respectful regards,Leon

From my limited aerobatic experience,A little aerobatic work can be great exposure to very unusual attitudes, but reaction to attitudes you will most likely encounter in routine controlled flight should be pretty well instilled through basic flight training. I will agree that an introduction to aerobatic flight can be a good thing, but it can be a deadly thing as well. My partner stalled his Pitts at the top of his first loop and basically flat spun nearly a thousand feet before recovering. He'd had a few hours of introductory work in an S-2 but not enough formal aerobatic training to go off on his own. He eventually became very proficient but only after a great deal of work.Many instructors will not fully stall an airplane, but teach the student to recognize an imminent stall and effect the recovery at recognition. Stall/spin accidents are still happening and I believe the typical approach and departure stall series should be practiced (through full stall) until recovery comes quickly and naturally. However, seeing green up near the cabin vent does not often bring a controlled and proper reaction from any but those with formal training and sufficient practice to stay somewhat current. My first aileron roll was in a Thorpe T-18 with an F-16 pilot. After a couple of demonstrations it was my turn. No problemo - I'd had my ticket for years, was a competitive pattern R/C pilot - I know all about this stuff...not! At the inverted point I was apparently overwhelmed at the view/attitude/meaning of life, etc. (as I later read most people are), and just relaxed on the stick and flew a very nice inverted arc. My friend woke me up and I finished the roll, which now took about a 3-g pullout.About a half dozen rolls later I could finally concentrate on flying through the maneuver with some degree of precision. I guess my point is that unless we plan to actively pursue aerobatics (not saying an occasional excursion over the top is not a terrific thing), I think we really ought to concentrate on honing our skills and flying precision within our aircraft, and our personal, limitations. Works for me anyway.Regards,Leon

I never got a pin either - or a hat. I got the bag though.Leon

Scoob,Thank's for the offer and I would have appreciated the help - however, as you've probably seen below, Bill Grabowski is going to update his panel - and that's what we really want!If you have any experience with his ERJ panel you know his artistry as well as his gauge creation and programming skills. We are fortunate indeed.Thanks again,Leon

If Bill approves it for release I'm in the midst of a complete rework of his older 120 panel. Because of some incompatibilities between FS2000 and later FS versions I'm using some of the Kingair gauges which, in my opinion, don't terribly detract from the Brazilia ambiance. Some gauge frames were removed in support of the changes but shading adds back the depth. I've also used a couple of more pop-up panels to include all the original had to offer.If anyone's interested I'm probably 2-3 weeks from completion, and I need to check with Bill as well.Regards,Leon

Thanks Michael,When we moved to Florida we thought we'd left the tornados behind, but as we've seen over the last decade or so even here we're at risk. Ironically, a few years back we took a hit from a smaller one here in Lakeland that peeled about half of our shingles off and carried the kid's trampoline a few yards down. It was time for a roof anyway.Welcome back, by the way. I haven't seen you post in a while.Regards,Leon