Jump to content

Jim Meade

Members
  • Content count

    1,586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jim Meade

  • Rank
    Top Gun Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Iowa
  • Gender
    Male
  1. Fuel burn

    I disagree. The FAA exams for the question we are discussing here are for the purpose of you demonstrating that you have the competence to calculate fuel usage. This is totally absent from the "let's round it off at 5 gph, well, shucks, let's make it 5.5" that we see in this discussion.
  2. Fuel burn

    The problem I have with this whole line of thought is there is enough sloppy padding that no one really knows the fuel situation. I will bet a lot of money that airline and charter operations do not do a lot of swag type padding. There is nothing wrong with having a lot of reserve, but let's calculate it and not have it be the product of guessing.
  3. Fuel burn

    I appreciate everyone's opinion. It seems that most would prefer to use a high swag on fuel burn rate rather than know it exactly. That is, they would rather feel any fuel calculation they make is comfortably optimistic rather than know precisely how much fuel they burn. Comfort is a good feeling. None of the FAA knowledge exams take that tack, but after all, one only has to pass each of those once and then can continue to fly with a happy feeling rather than be burdened by exact knowledge, which is boring and bothersome.
  4. Fuel burn

    Why do you estimate 5 gph when your experience is 4.5 ghp at a given rpm? Do you add a buffer factor (e.g. an extra 30 minutes) on top of your generous estimate? I guess my question to all (not just Doug) is why would one estimate on the high side, then pad that a bit, plus include the FAA's 30 minutes VFR, to the point where one won't leave the ground for a 40 minute flight without 3 hours of fuel on board? Why not make the most accurate estimate possible and then deliberately add whatever safety factor is required or one prefers as a separate calculation? I would think the latter course of action would lead to better confidence when it came to planning longer trips.
  5. Another long cross country trip report

    Nice trip report. I've flown Iowa to Florida twice, Denver twice and Dallas twice, as well as all over close to home. I listen to ATC (holdover from my charter days, I guess) but otherwise don't talk unless I need to or it's appropriate and also like long legs. I agree, these LSAs are very practical for long distance flying in certain conditions.
  6. SI-912-016-R8

    That's really good money. Around here, #2 scrap iron (unsorted, unsized) is about $40/T. I don't have a price on sorted and sized junk.
  7. WingX for Android!

    CFI's get Wing-X free for some indeterminate time. See the announcement.
  8. C4 To Be Made In USA

    A number of Cessna's have life limited parts when in commercial service. Q: When is the Supplemental Inspection Document to be released for my aircraft and what inspections will be required on my aircraft? A: As of June 17, 2005; Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) have been issued for the following model airplanes: 310 thru 310D, 310R, T310R, 320-1, 320A, 320B, 320C, 401/402 thru 401B/402B, 402C, 411/411A, 414/414A, and 421 thru 421C. For detailed information refer to Cessna Service Newsletter SNL02-7 Revision 1 Supplemental Inspection Documents. SNL02-7R1 was issued on October 20, 2003. This SNL also provides the part numbers for the Service/Maintenance Manuals that have incorporated the SIDs. Refer to the current manual incorporating the SID for inspections that are required.
  9. SI-912-016-R8

    Roger, in your talking with Rotax folks, did they give any indication as to why they wrote to obey the expiration date but said to ignore it? Who were the Rotax folks? Rotax corporate or some other official Rotax employee, or just someone who has worked with Rotax? Don't you think it is a little two-faced for Rotax to print one thing and speak another? Based on your experience with Rotax folks, how are we customers supposed to know whether to follow their written word or their spoken word?
  10. SI-912-016-R8

    Reread Msg # 52 or para 3.3 of the SB. The basic question is, what do the words mean?
  11. SI-912-016-R8

    Closely read paragraph 6.
  12. Lawsuit is over!

    You'll remember that you measure the specific gravity, and by reference the charge, of a battery with a hydrometer with several colored balls that float at different specific gravities. You'd want one that worked the same in both 100LL and Mogas and even Mogas w/ethanol. The ball would have to be stable and not break down in any of those environments. It would have to not hang up in the tube but not pass out of the tube. It would need to be able to sit for long times, deal with turbulence and everything else one could imagine in flight or on the ground.
  13. SI-912-016-R8

    It is illustrative to read the Shell web site: https://www.shell.com/global/products-services/solutions-for-businesses/aviation/aeroshell/products/piston-engine-oils/sports-plus4.html Here is one extract that would lead one to investigate the other specifications to see which oils fit under there. JASO MA does talk about full synthetic, for example. Meets or Exceeds Highest International Specifications API SL JASO MA VW 502 00 Fully Approved – All ROTAX® 912 &914 Series engines, Rotax Service Instruction SI-912-016/SI-914-019; Selection of suitable operating fluids for ROTAX® engine type 912 & 914 (Series). AeroShell Oil Sport Plus 4 is the world’s first truly specific aviation engine oil developed for light sport and ultralight aircraft engines. This is an oil which is available throughout the world, backed by the proven history and dependability of the AeroShell family, and preferred by the majority of General Aviation pilots and engineers alike.
  14. SI-912-016-R8

    Note this SB is rather equivocal on what oil to use. It seems to say that Shell Aero Sport Plus 4 is the one and only oil, but it spends a lot of time telling a different story. A careful reading of 3.1 implies a number of oils are acceptable. 3.2 is specifically aimed at engines that run AVGAS or leaded gas. 6. talks about when not to use a petroleum based oil and when to use a full synthetic oil, but doesn't list any full synthetic oil. Previous documents included a number of different oils, including full synthetic, but this poorly written document does a poor job of giving specific guidance for some operations, for example, the airplane that consistently operates at high temperatures on mogas should use a full-synthetic, but none is named.
  15. SI-912-016-R8

    From 6 "3. For turbocharged engines ensure an adequate running cool-down period to prevent deposits by coking of oil." Many consider 5 minutes an appropriate cool-down period. Some take that to mean to taxi the airplane to the hangar and let it idle for 5 minutes. Others start timing the cool-down from when the throttle is pulled way back, often on final. For many, that means that after landing, roll out and taxi back to the hangar, the cool down time may already be met. In other words, some say an arbitrary cool-down period in front of the hangar is neither necessary nor indicated, as the cool-down starts with significant throttle reduction and the consequent reduction of engine operating temperature.
×