Jump to content

FlyingMonkey

Members
  • Content Count

    6,463
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    64

Everything posted by FlyingMonkey

  1. I agree, the /G specifies GNSS nav capability, it doesn't say anything about flying approaches, so I think /G is appropriate. If you wanted to make sure ATC understands you can say "Mode C and non-certified GPS nav".
  2. When I looked at the descriptions, /G was for GNSS (GPS or GLOSNAS) and Mode C, and actual GPS RNAV was a different code. But I'm certainly no expert and can be totally mistaken here.
  3. What AGLyme said, the type code for a Flight Design CT is FDCT. Usually when I pick up flight following, after contact and they give me a squawk I'l say something like: "Squawk 1234...aircraft type identifier is foxtrot delta charlie tango." ATC usually appreciates you telling them the identifier, and if you don't they'll usually ask at some point. For equipment, I think you can use "/G" -- That is GNSS (GPS) and Mode C Transponder. I have never been asked for equipment, and they shouldn't need it for VFR flight without a flight plan filed. If you don't know the codes you can always just say "equipped with Mode C and GPS" and they will figure it out. Nice long cross country route, BTW!
  4. Let's be fair here. This is a *discussion* forum. It's not a "tell me only the info I ask for and otherwise shut the hell up" forum. If somebody honestly thinks you're doing something incorrectly do you NOT want them to tell you? I sure would. I'd feel free to ignore their advice, but if somebody has a legitimate concern about my methods, I want to hear it. That's the only way we get better and correct mistakes. Doing something one way your whole life is no guarantee that you're doing it the right way. We see this in aviation all the time and it sometimes gets people hurt or killed. Look at how many old timers have hand-propping accidents, even though they have "always done it that way"...
  5. Uh oh... https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2019/Aug/Freeflight_ADS-B_issues_ACS.pdf
  6. Well...this is a forum designed around CT pilots and owners, not CEOs and aeronautical engineers. I think there is a lot of good information here, but it's the internet and sometimes you get people that are misinformed and/or you won't get along with. That doesn't make it a bad forum, it just means there are actual human beings involved. I'd love it if there was an official FD forum with news, technical information, and opinion areas on how to fly there fun airplanes. But there's not, and this has been the next best thing for many years. Given the lack of a support forum for CTs, I find it puzzling that FD doesn't have more presence here providing news, dispelling misinformation, etc. Oh well.
  7. I don't think loading will be the only part of the formula, stall speed might be specified as well. Stall speed and wing loading together are probably the two primary component of "LSA-like" docile handling. The speed thing was always weird and makes little sense, it's basically penalizing manufacturers for efficient design.
  8. It's looking like the new LSA regs will have a wing loading formula for determining what is LSA. That means max speed wouldn't be a factor, though lightly loaded airplanes tend not to be the fastest.
  9. I get oil temps up around 245F climbing in hot weather, but never CHT anywhere near 250F. And certainly just just flying the pattern. Something sounds amiss.
  10. I think that's usually what Roger recommends...center all trim wheels, go fly, and then adjust aileron trim to neutralize any roll bias and then the rudder to counter any left over yaw. Glad you got it sorted out!
  11. Good work by the pilot, and landing downhill didn't make it easier.
  12. IIRC, I think the wheelpant problem was to fix an issue with the nosewheel/pant inducing drag that would cause a yaw moment. I know Bill Ince had a yaw problem that he could not trim out until he got the latest redesigned wheelpant from FD. After that the problem vanished This was with tundra gear, and I don't think he ever ran it with no pant -- so I don't know if the problem was entirely the pant shape, or partially the nose gear itself.
  13. Don't you have to remove that super locked in screw inside? I'd want to do that on a bench and not leaned over an engine with a heat gun... It's been a while since I pulled my carbs apart, I can't remember if that screw has to come out to do this.
  14. Luckily my engine is not affected. This looks like an annoying SB to comply with, since you have to pull the carbs off and disassemble them.
  15. IMO, they should do away with the third class medical and the Sport Pilot and Recreational ratings should be closed out to those that don't already hold them. An abbreviated checkride procedure to bring SPs up to PP only testing on the portions of the PP curriculum not included in the SP checkride (radio navigation, night flight, etc) would be welcomed, but I doubt that would happen.
  16. You don't need to remove the pants for grass. I do it all the time, even in pretty high grass with non-tundra wheels the pants are fine. They will need cleaning...
  17. Just as a point of information, the SLSA CTSW I trained in had the pants removed on all wheels, to make for easier and more thorough pre-flight inspections. It flew just fine in that configuration, even if it was not 100% legal. I can't speak to the CTLS or other models.
  18. If existing Sport Pilots need endorsements and additional training, that's fine. If they are going to create a two tier LSA system, where Sport Pilots can't fly all airplanes designated as LSA, I think that will be counterproductive and confusing.
  19. I think it's weird there is talk of not allowing Sport Pilots to fly all of the potential new LSA under the new definition, whatever it turns out to be. The rules are written such that SP rules are built around LSA...to change that would require a rewrite of the whole section defining Sport Pilot privileges. I guess time will tell...
  20. Eric, the "bar within a wheel" is exactly what the servo in my baggage bay looks like.
  21. It's unfortunate that the FAA made this equipment so complicated and confusing for installers and owners. They should have just integrated the in/out portions into a single device spec from the outset, and then manufacturers could build devices to that spec and there'd be no hassles with in vs. out, multiple vendor compatibility, blah blah blah.
  22. I'd totally go liability only if my best quote was over $5k. After all, 1-2 year's premium is a minor incident, ten years premium starts to creep up toward hull value at those rates.
  23. On my CTSW, IIRC the pitch servo is an arm and the roll servo in the baggage bay is a capstan. Obviously that might not apply to your CTLSi.
  24. Remember also that hull insurance is not a requirement. Liability only coverage should be very inexpensive, and you can self-insure on the hull or insure only for not-in-motion. It's a little scary, but I know several owners that operate that way. It would probably make you a safer pilot by making you very conservative about risk taking with your airplane, anyway.
  25. There is some question whether the EchoUAT will require preflight GPS briefing before flights into ADS-B airspace, since it's not TSO'd. We'll have to wait for a clarification from FAA on that...
×
×
  • Create New...