Would appreciate hearing from anyone who can advise
me who I need
to contact to get information to do a 150 hp
conversion on my C-150.
Thanks in advance
Spar

This might be a good place to start... all I did was type "Cessna 150" in my
IE6
http://www.cessna150-152.com/

BT

"spar" > wrote in message
...
> Would appreciate hearing from anyone who can advise
> me who I need
> to contact to get information to do a 150 hp
> conversion on my C-150.
> Thanks in advance
> Spar
>
>

http://www.aeroprice.com/aerolibrary/cessnase_mods.htm

Dear Spar,

We did this conversion several years ago on a 150D we had. We got the
"kit" from A/C conversions in CA, it's on that list of Cessna
conversions. At the time I think it was $5,500 for the kit. There was
a lot of fabricating and blueprints and a lot of labor that scared off
a good many mechanics. We had bought a 150 HP engire reasonably, but
it ended up that there were only certain engine dash numbers that you
could use, and we had the wrong one. It was out of a Super Cub and we
advertised it as a Super Cub engine and made a few bucks on it so that
worked out OK. Then we got the right engine (from a really good guy in
Orlando FL, Dick Waters who deals in engines and is usally our first
place to look, his number is 1-800-366-4746. He's real reasonable and
real honest.) I think the engine was $7,000 and it was real low time.


Then you'll need a different prop. We ended up buying a new one, think
it was $2,300 cause we were going crazy trying to find a used one with
the right numbers. Called a couple of dealers from Trade A Plane and
they said to be real careful. He said he had been buying props that
would check out OK, people would use them a while, and then they
wouldn't check out any more. Like somebody had worked on them and got
it back in tolerance but then just normal use would get it out again.
Scary. So we just bought a new one. We have a grass strip and the
prop is longer than the original prop so it's kind of scary with rocks
and gravel knicks to you have to be more careful.

A instructor did a short field landing on a tar runmay in it and got on
the brakes really hard. The nose dipped down and Tom says the prop
almost hit. He said he closed his eyes cause he was too scared to keep
watching. Probably the air in the nosewheel strut was a little low,
but just keep that in mind. May the extra weight of the engine too
might have added, not sure of the weight difference.

The bigger engine will drink more fuel, so it will cut down on the
amount of hours you can fly. Can't remember the exact numbers but
probably run out in about two hours. Be really great if you could get
the long range tanks, but that used to cost about $4,000 just for the
kit. We never had the money to get the X tra fuel, and you are kind of
limited by weight so if you had more fuel, probably have to fly it solo
legally. So by the time you put all this money into a 150 you could've
probably bought one all done or a different type of airplane.

I usually fly conservatively, so I'd fly at say 50% power instead of
75%. It was so much fun taking off and landing that about all I did
with it. It would climb out at 1,000 to 1,500 FPM at 90 MPH even on
100+ degree days here in Texas. That totally spoiled me. I hate
flying a regular 150 or 152 now. I get out. See if the brakes are
sticking. Carb heat stuck on. How come this thing ain't moving or
climbing. Hope this into has been helpful. Just be careful and
research and make sure you find a good mechanic who can start and
finish the job, we burned out a bunch before we found somebody
competent to do the job. Take care, homesick angel.

In rec.aviation.owning Homesick Angel > wrote:
: The bigger engine will drink more fuel, so it will cut down on the
: amount of hours you can fly. Can't remember the exact numbers but
: probably run out in about two hours.

I don't normally buy this argument. With very few exceptions (planes that are
horribly underpowered to begin with), more HP doesn't buy you appreciably more speed.
Power required goes with the cube of the speed, so normally powered planes aren't much
slower than souped-up ones. Just because you have more power, doesn't mean you need
to use it. (and in most cases it's silly to do so). If you pull the power back on a
bigger engine, it'll burn roughly the same amount of fuel as on a smaller engine.

There are only a few things to counter this...
- reduced efficiency running at really low power settings on a fixed pitch prop (CS
running oversquared would help a lot)
- Added weight of the larger engine (generally not too much anyway)

: I usually fly conservatively, so I'd fly at say 50% power instead of
: 75%. It was so much fun taking off and landing that about all I did

... So they should burn almost the same fuel... It's the same 75HP whether its
75% of 100 or 50% of 150... roughly 5.5gph.

Of course climb/hauling is the real (and legitimate) reason to do it.

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Dear Cory,

Any idea How do I get my 182 to cruise along at 5.5 GPH? (without
burning something up cause it's leaned out too much? or falling out of
the sky) It's a 1957 and real light for it's size and got a STOL kit.
Getting hard to afford gas for it, but don't want to give in to my
husband and get one of those old-fashioned taildraggers. He's
rebuilding a Champ right now his 75 HP versus my 230 HP. When I have a
Cub I want to fly fast and I fly the 182 like a Cub, poke along nice
and slow. Guess growing up in the muscle car era brainwashes you. I
figure in a few years I might have to change to sport pilot, but for
now I'll keep the Beast from the East and pray for gas prices to go
down so I can afford a trip to maybe Alaska or the Seaplane fly-in in
Greenville and make it in a day or two instead of a week of two in a
tail dragger (I have still trouble flying a straight course, wind, neat
stuff to side track to, sightseeing and not pin point navigating).
Still prefer the compass and map to my GPS. Just way behind the times
I guess. Well take care. Good luck in your educational endeavors.
Never could get into the book learning thing unless it was something I
was interested in and back in the 1970s girls weren't engineers,
pilots, mechanics, architects, etc which all interested me a lot. So I
had to settle for second and third choices for a while until I just
started to do what I wanted to do, working in a lumber mill running
saws and planers, detailing and auto body work, manning remote
firetowers in the woods of Maine, going out west to fight fires. Now
stuff like that is fun. Right now its mostly farming and keeping our
grass strip mowed (some times the goats are allowed out to graze and as
the price of gas goes up the amount of time the goats will have
possession of the runway will be directly proportion to any price
increases). Until I get one of those electric robotic mowers and
program it to do the job with less pollution and noise. Guess I need
the plans for one of those if somebody's got them?

Hope everybody's enjoying flying. I thought I was a math-head but some
of you people are way out there. Just don't let that stuff distract
you so much that you fly into something or fall out of the sky. Watch
out for all the cell phone towers and other towers out there. Be safe
and God bless. The Homesick Angel, Carol

In rec.aviation.owning Homesick Angel > wrote:
: Dear Cory,

: Any idea How do I get my 182 to cruise along at 5.5 GPH? (without
: burning something up cause it's leaned out too much? or falling out of
: the sky) It's a 1957 and real light for it's size and got a STOL kit.
: Getting hard to afford gas for it, but don't want to give in to my
: husband and get one of those old-fashioned taildraggers.

A 182's pretty heavy, but it'll probably stay aloft on 5.5 gph. Bottom line
is: absolute best fuel economy is flying at best rate (since that's where
induced+parasitic drag is minimized). That's usually too slow for most, and will be
cooking the cylinders due to low airflow and high angle of attack, but strictly
speaking, it's best fuel economy. Usually, (since the drag curve is pretty flat
around best rate), you can increase the speed a fair bit above that without hitting
the parasitic drag wall.

For instance... I run my PA-28-180 at 65% in cruise, leaned to peak EGT, and
run 120mph IAS at 8-8.5gph. For bopping around the local area (in no particular
hurry), about 45% power leaned until it wheezes will give me 100mph IAS at about
5.5-6gph. CHT's stay at 375 or below... life is good.

It also might be worth taking a look at some lean-of-peak information. Bottom
line: below max cruise power, it's impossible to damage your engine with the red knob
alone. Deakin (on avweb) is a big evangelist on this... if you run lower power, lean
it 'till it wheezes and you won't hurt anything. Now, if CHT's get too hot doing
this, it's enother matter. If you wheeze it at too high of power, you'll melt it
quickly. Keep those things in check, and it's clean engine, clean plugs, good fuel
economy, and acceptable speed... might not be the fastest, but it's it all about the
flying anyway? :)

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Homesick Angel wrote:
> Dear Cory,
>
> Any idea How do I get my 182 to cruise along at 5.5 GPH? (without
> burning something up cause it's leaned out too much?

Pull the big black knob out :-)

>
>
> : Any idea How do I get my 182 to cruise along at 5.5 GPH? (without
> : burning something up cause it's leaned out too much? or falling out of
> : the sky) It's a 1957 and real light for it's size and got a STOL kit.
> : Getting hard to afford gas for it, but don't want to give in to my
> : husband and get one of those old-fashioned taildraggers.

Don't know what altitude you're talking about but at 7500 and 20 squared
you are looking at 9 gph. At 15 inches and 2000 you will get about 6.5
gph. At this point the nose will be pretty high and you will only be
getting about 95-100 MPH IAS. To get to 5.5 gph wouldn't be any fun at
all. If you have to have 5.5 then sell the plane and get something that
can reasonably do that.


>
> It also might be worth taking a look at some lean-of-peak information. Bottom
> line: below max cruise power, it's impossible to damage your engine with the red knob
> alone.

On the big bore Continentals you need to be below 65% before you try
that. Plus having a carbed engine makes LOP impractical.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> On the big bore Continentals you need to be below 65% before you try that.

No. You don't.

Karl
Gami Serial# 19

In rec.aviation.owning Newps > wrote:
: Don't know what altitude you're talking about but at 7500 and 20 squared
: you are looking at 9 gph. At 15 inches and 2000 you will get about 6.5
: gph. At this point the nose will be pretty high and you will only be
: getting about 95-100 MPH IAS. To get to 5.5 gph wouldn't be any fun at
: all. If you have to have 5.5 then sell the plane and get something that
: can reasonably do that.

He didn't ask how to make it fun... just if it was possible to fly a 182 at
5.5 gph. I answered that it most likely was. Truth be told, if you're after pure
fuel economy, you'd want to run oversquared as much as possible, too.

: On the big bore Continentals you need to be below 65% before you try
: that. Plus having a carbed engine makes LOP impractical.

LOP on a carb'd engine is difficult/unlikely. Running at peak (as long as
your CHT's aren't high) is fine as well... as long as your power is low.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Max Conrad (ferried Pipers all over the world in the 40s and 50s) ran
fully leaned & with full carb heat when he was in his max range mode.
Do you know of any reason not to, assuming a low power setting? It
would improve the mixture distribution, something the O-470s are
notoriously poor at. It would also reduce the inlet air density,
allowing things to operate with less pumping loss.

nrp

In rec.aviation.owning nrp > wrote:
: Max Conrad (ferried Pipers all over the world in the 40s and 50s) ran
: fully leaned & with full carb heat when he was in his max range mode.
: Do you know of any reason not to, assuming a low power setting? It
: would improve the mixture distribution, something the O-470s are
: notoriously poor at. It would also reduce the inlet air density,
: allowing things to operate with less pumping loss.

Unless the CHT's get too high in that configuration (causing poor valve
cooling and cylinder badness), there's not much that says it's bad except:
- No filtration of the air with carb heat. Shouldn't be a big deal in cruise (unless
you have a *really* dirty cowling).
- If flying in cold enough weather, you could get carb ice when normally ice crystals
would flow through unmelted. (I generally don't like to use carb heat until I know
it's necessary)
- Sudden power requirement will cause the engine to falter... get used to a quick red
knob, then throttle.

The real disadvantage of the arrangement on my fixed-pitch plane is 65% is
only obtainable at that mixture up to about 7000-8000'. "Best power" of 50 ROP will
get you 75% or so at that altitude.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:


>
> LOP on a carb'd engine is difficult/unlikely. Running at peak (as long as
> your CHT's aren't high) is fine as well... as long as your power is low.
>

You need to be at 65% or less if you're going to run at peak.

nrp wrote:

> Max Conrad (ferried Pipers all over the world in the 40s and 50s) ran
> fully leaned & with full carb heat when he was in his max range mode.
> Do you know of any reason not to, assuming a low power setting? It
> would improve the mixture distribution, something the O-470s are
> notoriously poor at. It would also reduce the inlet air density,
> allowing things to operate with less pumping loss.

On the 470's, in cruise, you give it whatever carb heat gets you a carb
temp of 40-45F. Running at full carb heat makes no sense whatsoever.

Newps wrote:
> On the 470's, in cruise, you give it whatever carb heat gets you a
carb
> temp of 40-45F. Running at full carb heat makes no sense whatsoever.

Why not? Using full carb heat would seem to promote better mixture
distribution. The reduced charge density would allow you to run a
higher manifold pressure for the same mass flow, reducing the pumping
loss for a given power setting.

Obviously aggressive leaning probably to at least peak would be
desirable, although who knows where the non-instrumented cylinders
would be running.

I'd be a little concerned running partial carb heat as there would
possibly be a considerable temperature gradient in the air intake
system, given how the carb heat is crudely modulated with that
humongous flapper valve. In other words, some cyls might get a hot
mixture, and some might get cold mixture.

This is assuming the purpose of all this is to reduce the fuel
consumption to get maximum endurance or range under low power settings.
I don't think cyl temp would be a limiting factor.

I don't normally fly my 172M this way (w carb heat always on), but if
it was a question of making it or not, I'd sure use it.'

Thoughts of others?

Most pilots don't know how to get the absolute maximum range or
endurance out of their aircraft.

wrote:
>
> For instance... I run my PA-28-180 at 65% in cruise, leaned to peak
EGT, and
> run 120mph IAS at 8-8.5gph. For bopping around the local area (in no
particular
> hurry), about 45% power leaned until it wheezes will give me 100mph
IAS at about
> 5.5-6gph. CHT's stay at 375 or below... life is good.
>

That's pretty good! Over the last 15 or so flight hours, I've been
doing similar testing on my Cherokee 180 and I haven't been able to
break the 6 gph barrier. At 2100 rpm @ 7,500 ft and 105 mph I averaged
6.1 gph. At lower power settings the higher angle of attack was
negatively affect my CHT.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

In rec.aviation.owning nrp > wrote:
: Max Conrad (ferried Pipers all over the world in the 40s and 50s) ran
: fully leaned & with full carb heat when he was in his max range mode.
: Do you know of any reason not to, assuming a low power setting? It
: would improve the mixture distribution, something the O-470s are
: notoriously poor at. It would also reduce the inlet air density,
: allowing things to operate with less pumping loss.

I find that I can run my Cherokee's O-360 LOP quite effectively using full
carb heat. Attempts to do so without carb heat lead to unacceptable engine
roughness. With the carb heat on, I can reduce the RPM down several hundred
RPM from peak RPM with good smoothness. Without the carb heat, the RPM
peaks as the mixture gets leaner, then as the RPM begins to drop the engine
gets progressively rougher.

I have not run the engine LOP for any appreciable length of time as I have
no CHT or EGT instrumentation. I have done it for a minute or so to see if
it is possible.
--
Aaron C.

In rec.aviation.owning wrote:
: The real disadvantage of the arrangement on my fixed-pitch plane is 65% is
: only obtainable at that mixture up to about 7000-8000'. "Best power" of 50 ROP will
: get you 75% or so at that altitude.

Cory, this I don't understand. You don't have to run WOT to use LOP. Or, are
you saying that you can't get over 65% LOP above 7000'? The maximum possible
power from a non-turbo engine at 7000' is 75%, perhaps that's what you're
saying?
--
Aaron C.

In rec.aviation.owning Aaron Coolidge > wrote:
: In rec.aviation.owning wrote:
: : The real disadvantage of the arrangement on my fixed-pitch plane is 65% is
: : only obtainable at that mixture up to about 7000-8000'. "Best power" of 50 ROP will
: : get you 75% or so at that altitude.

: Cory, this I don't understand. You don't have to run WOT to use LOP. Or, are
: you saying that you can't get over 65% LOP above 7000'? The maximum possible
: power from a non-turbo engine at 7000' is 75%, perhaps that's what you're
: saying?
: --
: Aaron C.

Basically, I'm talking about two slight variations on the general rule is that
max power possible in a non-turbo plane is 75% at 8000'. The first is that I'm
running a fixed-pitch prop, so I don't have independent control over the prop speed.
The second is that the 75%@8000' number is at best power mixture setting... 50 ROP.
At peak/LOP, box the torque from the engine decreases (less power per bang), *and* the
propeller slows down (less bangs/time). I'd say probably about 5% each for both
issues... so I can't run 65% at above 7000-8000'. The corollary to that is that above
7000-8000', I can do *anything* to the red knob and not hurt anything.

I flew back from Ohio awhile back on a great VFR day with a tailwind.
Climbed up to 10000', pulled back to about 50% power (110mph IAS) and flew for 2 hours
with about 110kt GS. I couldn't put more than 11 gal of cargas in the tank when I got
there, and I got to enjoy a great flight.

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

In rec.aviation.owning > wrote:
: That's pretty good! Over the last 15 or so flight hours, I've been
: doing similar testing on my Cherokee 180 and I haven't been able to
: break the 6 gph barrier. At 2100 rpm @ 7,500 ft and 105 mph I averaged
: 6.1 gph. At lower power settings the higher angle of attack was
: negatively affect my CHT.

: John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

As Aaron said, some/all carb heat can help. Also, at high enough altitude to
run WOT, I'll pull about 1/4" MP back to cock the throttle plate a bit. (Yes, we have
a MP gauge in a fixed-pitch plane). Both of those will even out the EGTs and allow a
leaner mixture.

Just as an addendum to my 65% 7000'-8000' post... running carb heat reduces
that altitude even more.... :)

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:
: Basically, I'm talking about two slight variations on the general rule is that
: max power possible in a non-turbo plane is 75% at 8000'. The first is that I'm
: running a fixed-pitch prop, so I don't have independent control over the prop speed.
: The second is that the 75%@8000' number is at best power mixture setting... 50 ROP.
: At peak/LOP, box the torque from the engine decreases (less power per bang), *and* the
: propeller slows down (less bangs/time). I'd say probably about 5% each for both
: issues... so I can't run 65% at above 7000-8000'. The corollary to that is that above
: 7000-8000', I can do *anything* to the red knob and not hurt anything.

OK, I see now. I agree that once over 7500' you need WOT and peak power EGT
to get any useful power out of the engine. At lower altitudes you can use LOP
techniques because its possible to add MP back to minimize the power losses
caused by LOP operations. With a turbo, presumably it is possible to add back
MP up to a much higher altitude, which is what Deakin is always talking about.

I almost always fly at 70% power when it is available, leaned to "a little
richer than shaking". Without EGT/CHT instruments, it's the best that I can
do. I use 9.5 GPH with my technique, so I am running a bit richer than I
should be for 70% power. I get the grey dust on the bottom of the plane
behind the exhaust stacks, so I am close to the optimum mixture anyway.
--
Aaron C.

Dear Gang,

Guess I'd better wait til my hubby finishes his 75 HP Champ project
before I try flying at 5.5 GPM. Thanks for all the advice, though.
Although a lot of if is over my head.

The best pilot I've even known couldn't read or write. never used a
POH, used a check list, and flew planes with little or no instruments.
But he was born and brought up with it and just had a feel for it. The
first few planes I flew in J3s, J5s, PA 11s, 13s, 15s had little for
instruments and the two or three-page POH wasn't much help either.
Even my '57 182 is missing about half of the contents of a newer Cessna
in the POH. So if you want to take a check ride, take it in an older
airplane and when the examiner asks you something. You can say I don't
know. He or she will say it's in the POH, and you can hand it to him
or her, and shock the heck out of him or her.


With these old airplanes I don't trust much of anything except that the
engine outta keep running and the wings should've fall off as long I
stay straight and level.

Had about two feet of rain here in Texas in the past three weeks, so
pushing the Beast from the East onto the runway here at Bangs
International and taking off probably isn't a good idea at all. Seen
far too many airplanes versus mud with the the mud winning. Had some
friends with a 172 in Maine and the instructor convinced them it would
be just fine in the mud, just have to use some more power. Well after
he got gone rototilling the runway with the plane...... That's the
trouble with a grass runway. If someone would like to donate 2,000
feet of asphalt have them E mail me ASAP.

If it doesn't stop raining soon quess I'll have to go finish covering
that Champ myself. Tom's (my husband) gone down to the new Taylorcraft
factory in LaGrange Texas and covering their airplanes so our little
Champ sits here about 75% done. Everybody check out their website at
Taylorcraft.com and if you know somebody looking to buy a plane they
should start flying out door any time now. Really wanted to fly down
Friday, dazzle them with a high-speed fly-by, but I guess the weather
is going to cooperate. Sure wish I could afford those floats a fellow
is selling in Maine, but there aren't enough lakes out here to warrant
floats.

Our first plane that we restored to near perfection, we put on floats.
That was such a blast. We had it on a little tiny pond in Maine less
than 0.5 mile across. Only one good approach...out through the
cattails. The rest of the pond was camps and trees, so we'd taxi down
towards the cattails, turn back around and then start a high speed
taxi/power turn, gain speed in a circular pattern and take off out over
the cattails. That was such a rush. Guess I should've said Tom, I
wasn't doing much of anything except praying. We had other friends
with float planes and invited them to land on White's Pond, but they
said no way. Yep Tom sure is a good pilot.

Guess I'll tell you about the second best pilot I've ever known. His
name is Major Jay T. Aubin. My stepson. There's all kinds of stuff
about him on the inernet. He had been flying Chinook helicopters for
the Maines. He was one of the first pilots we lost in Iraq. There
were 4 Americans and 8 British aboard. God bless them all. He was one
of my dear stepsons, and I miss so much. He had been in Japan for
eight years flying choppers. Twice the Maines went there to try to get
him to fly the President in Marine One. He said he had signed up for a
few other committments but then he could do it. When the war broke out
he was in Yuma AZ. We saw him the summer before and he said he was
going to school in Yuma. I said "Jay you've been flying those things
for years and you're still going to school?" He just laughed and
grinned and said yeah guess I'll get it figured out one of these days."
He didn't tell us he was going to be an instructor for Chinooks for the
"top gun type school" for Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactical Squadron
One. Wasn't til we went to Yuma for his memorial service that we found
out he was a top gun instructor. When I catch up with him one of these
days in the clouds, that "boy" has got a lot of explaining to do!!!

We always used to fight about rotors versus real wings. We had both
started flying at the same time. Well actually he used to sit on Tom's
lap and help him fly Cubs. He knew more by the time he was 5 about
airplanes than I'll probably ever know. Jay joined the Maines and Tom
and I were married at about the same time. So we would talk about
airplanes and he could explain any book knowledge that I just wasn't
getting. Good thing those planes will fly even if I don't understand
all the engineering and science behind it. But Jay had a way of
explaining things so even I could understand them. I was hoping he'd
come to Texas when he retired in a few years and help us build Champs
and Cubs, and I'd get my A&P license. I'm not one for books, would
much rather do it than read about it. After I do it, then the reading
seems to make more sense. But for now I guess I'll forget about the
A&P and just concentrate on having a plane or two and maybe getting up
the ambition to try to tame a tail dragger.

QUESTION OF THE DAY.
Maybe somebody knows the answer to this one? When you've got full
flaps on I've heard you're not supposed to slip an airplane. The only
reason I've heard is that for some reason enough air won't get over the
tail with the flaps on and you won't be able to control it. when I've
been good and high (and slow) I've put the flaps on, and tried slipping
to a (mild degree) and it everything seems to respond right. Didn't
get real radical with the slip and don't want anybody trying anything
crazy, but I just wanted to know if anything real radical was going
occur in case I had to slip sometime with the flaps on like in an
emergency and end up losing control close to the gound.

Usually the 40 degrees of flaps is bad enough so that if you cut way
down on the power you can drop the nose so bad it feels like all the
stuff in the backseat is going to come hit you in the head causing
you're standing on your nose so bad. Tom loves slipping an airplane,
the early planes didn't have flaps, so now I've become a little
accoustomed to losing 1000 to 1500 FPM and looking down the wing out
the side window at the runway. I'm sure he's give some flight
instructors heart failure. Guess everybody's got their own approaches
to flying and to things in life. Well ya' all take care and enjoy
those nice tarred runways, I'm envious of them right now.

Flying on one engine, Carol, The Homesick Angel. God bless and pray
for our troops.

Dear Ron,
Thought of climbing real high, pulling the red knob til it quits, and
gliding (best glide 85 estimated because my ) and see how far I get,
and then restarting and trying it again. Still haven't gotten enough
courage up to try that one yet, and hopefully never will. Some day when
I head out for Alaska I might have to try that stunt to come up with
enough gas to make it.

Even though I know a taildragger pilot who would kill the engine and
then get it into a dive and hopefully get it windmilling fast enough to
restart. Beats getting out and propping it I guess.

Also went down to the hangar and checked. Didn't think there was a
black knob. Throttle is white, mixture red and black, and prop is
gray. Been flying a plane for a couple of hours, then a couple of
hours in something else. Not sure where anything is on anything
anymore. The last was a Taylorcraft and I think the knobs were silver
and white knobs on that that would hit you in the knees when you pulld
them out.

Husband keeps swapping, modifying his airplanes, I just leave my alone.
It if ain't broke leave it alone. Have had to threaten him and our
mechanics with severe bodily harm and/or mutilation if they mess with
my airplane. Wanted to do a 300 HP wren conversion (not legal for my
year), wanted to rebuild engine cause it used a little oil. Just had
been sitting and after using it some it's all better.

According to the POH 2000 PRM MPs of 16 at 5000 and 7500 feet are 6.8
and 7.0 gal/hr. If you believe in books. The only book I believe in
100% is the Bible. Husband has a bad heart and I asked his heart doctor
he said don't go much over 7 or 8,000 feet, didn't say density
alititude or what. The gound here is 1,500 to 2,000 except for the
occasional little tiny mountain you might encounter so I just stay high
enough to clear the tallest obstruction in that quadrangle on the chart
plus some cause I have a way of getting sucked into every tower out
there.

Aslo I have written here my empty weight is 1616.1. At first this was
such a beast cause all I had were 150s and cubs, T-crafts, champs,
defenders, vagabonds. Did have a cherokee for a whole two hours of
instruction once. Thought that was so big. The windshield was so far
away. Could barely reach anything. We go down the runway and ways and
they'd say pull back, I was pulling really hard and it wouldn't come
off, though my arms were going to break? Maybe the trim needed to be
reset or adjusted. Guess I just like something with a pretty big high
lift wing.

I never really bothered with the trim much until this 182 then I had to
learn that or go on steroids to build up my arms. Flies like a Cub
now. Even though I'm the only one in the family that does like yellow,
I think about putting a Cub paint job on my 182, yellow with that black
stripe, and I'd just love to hear people calling it a Cub. Yep a
4-seat Cub with a nosewheel, 1 strut, a starter, landing, tip lights,
etc. I bet I'd fool a few people. Good thing I don't like yellow.
It's OK on a Cub, but rather have blue. Not a good color for
visibility though. Well take care, guess I'll have to settle for 6.8
or 7 which ain't too bad. Usually run it 19 19, 20 20. At least you
guys have got me reading the POH again.

Had a POH for my first 150 2525J. Was learing in Eastport Maine right
at sea level. never could match their climb numbers. After a while
they sent a supplement that we were supposed to put on top of those
original numbers because they were way too oppomistic. This 182 POH
has numbers for 20,000 feet. I've showed instructors and examiners
that it's in the book so the airplane can do it, but they seem
skeptical. So at 20,000 feet MP of 12, 89 MPH at 7.2 GPH with a slight
case of anoxic brain damage (not enough air for the pilot). Guess I'll
have to borrow some O2 or save up for an oxygen system next. 20,000
glide ratio of X(not in POH) = distance of Y. 4-5miles x glide = ?
not enough to even get out of Texas. See ya.

In rec.aviation.owning Homesick Angel > wrote:
: Dear Ron,
: Thought of climbing real high, pulling the red knob til it quits, and
: gliding (best glide 85 estimated because my ) and see how far I get,
: and then restarting and trying it again. Still haven't gotten enough
: courage up to try that one yet, and hopefully never will. Some day when
: I head out for Alaska I might have to try that stunt to come up with
: enough gas to make it.

My original flight instructor for my PPL had me do that on about my 5th
flight. Climbed high over the airport, he killed the mixture, and had me pull it up
into almost a stall to get the prop to stop. This was to prove that it won't come out
of the air if the engine quits. Free flying time too, he pointed out, since the Hobbs
meter stopped running. Eerily quiet.

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Cory,
And how many times did you punch or elbow him??? Not enough room in a
65 150 to get a good swing at some one but the elbow works good. That
metal knee board across the forehead works pretty good too. On my
check ride for private pilot the examiner pulled the throttle back when
in the pattern on downwind. "You just lost your engine". I pushed it
back in and looked at him. "No I didn't" The third time I finally
realized. "Oh make believe I lost the engine". My husband had told me
the used to turn the plane off on you, but too many bad things had
happened so they stopped doing that. Always been flying my own plane
so I usually try to be careful. Any tricky stuff we'd better be in the
instructor's plane if he feels brave. Don't know if it's the
adrenaline but I've been known to pull knobs completely off, can break
plastic stuff real easy, so I try to be real gentle and easy. Had a
red neck ex-biker friend who would horse his little Piper Colt around
and get close to the runway eight or 10 feet above and do a hard flare
and come bouncing in. That convinced me easier is betterer.

The Ayuhtaollah of Aviation (my last instructor so far) got up to 6,000
feet one day over a little lake a couple of miles away from Coleman Tx,
KCOL I think, (just mostly go by the big pictures on the map), and we
throtlled back to an idle. We got to the airport with 2 or 3,000 feet
to spare and had to spiral down to the runway. That was the first time
he had ever made it. That little 150/150 with the STOL kit would float
real good. First similuated engine out on downwind, I went into a
little dive got to 120 MPH. What are you doing? He asked. Best glide
120 I said. On that glide trip from Hordes Creek Lake I experiented
and the best glide was what was published in the POH. Above or below
you'd gain rate of descent. That kind of made me a believer.

First flight in my 182 the Ayuhtalloah wanted me to do a tight turn.
Instead of cutting the throttle I just pulled the nose back til I got
to 85 knots cause I thought that was a good number and did a perfect 2
minute turn. We gained 3,000 feet with him pinned back in his seat
looking out all the windows with a real startled look on his face!!
First time that ever happened to him. Surprised the FBI or FAA has
been out here cause I've been calling him the Ayuhtollah since before
911. Every time I'd say "Oh God". He'd say "Yes". I'd say "You ain't
God, I already got one of those, but you can be the Ayuhtalloah of
Aviation".

He's a retired Air Froce flight engineer. Guess he's been replaced by
an E-6 type little hand held unit. Saves a lot of weight.

We'd be flying along and he'd make some weird noise and you were
supposed to think something was happeneing to the plane. first time he
did it I looked oevr at him with his mouth all scrunched up. "What the
heck are you doing?" First time he had ever got caught. Says he's
done it for years and people will sit up and look around. "What's that
noise?" "What noise?" What a bozo. If I can't enjoy myself flying, I
won't do it. You do have to pay attention of course. I usually fly
out in stix so there isn't much traffic. Most Military traffic here in
Brownwood MOA and hawks and buzzards dive bombing you if they're above
you.

Well take care. Foggy and rainy again. Probably be a month before I
can even think about flying. Have to go get the Doping manual out and
start working on that Champ project after I get some work done. I'm at
at-home medical transciptionist, everybody thinks it's great. Been
doing it 20+ years and it's still way too challenging, but seeing as
how I'm still learning on this job but have enough time left to learn a
new occupation. The only good part is I get to type for a hospital in
Alaska which if I try real hard I can envision myself there instead of
being in Texas when it's 118 degrees. Take care, God bless.