Technology is Incredible...

[Jay Honeck]

Only in the 21st century:

Without any effort on my part I just received an aviation video as an
attachment to an email (for our aviation video website) from a guy who
is viewing our hotel's website (which resides on a computer in
California, which, in turn, is owned and operated by a guy in North
Carolina) while sitting comfortably on the bridge of a research vessel
sailing off the coast of Cote D'Iovoire.

He is accessing the internet via the IARSAT satellite.

Nothing that guy and I just did was possible -- or even existed -- when
I was born.

Amazing!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[gatt]

Thanks for posting that. I work in internet telecommunications and, even
so, it is still staggering to think of how much things have changed in the
last decade or two.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Only in the 21st century:
>
> Without any effort on my part I just received an aviation video as an
> attachment to an email (for our aviation video website) from a guy who
> is viewing our hotel's website (which resides on a computer in
> California, which, in turn, is owned and operated by a guy in North
> Carolina) while sitting comfortably on the bridge of a research vessel
> sailing off the coast of Cote D'Iovoire.
>
> He is accessing the internet via the IARSAT satellite.
>
> Nothing that guy and I just did was possible -- or even existed -- when
> I was born.
>
> Amazing!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Only in the 21st century:
>
> Without any effort on my part I just received an aviation video as an
> attachment to an email (for our aviation video website) from a guy who
> is viewing our hotel's website (which resides on a computer in
> California, which, in turn, is owned and operated by a guy in North
> Carolina) while sitting comfortably on the bridge of a research vessel
> sailing off the coast of Cote D'Iovoire.
>
> He is accessing the internet via the IARSAT satellite.
>
> Nothing that guy and I just did was possible -- or even existed -- when
> I was born.
>
> Amazing!

Now compare that to the rate of change in aviation. What can you do
today in a cockpit that couldn't be done when you were born?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

> Mxsmanic asked: >
> > What can you do
> > today in a cockpit that couldn't be done when you were born?
>
>snip John Smith's response<.. lots of stuff.

Including fly the airplane. When I was born, I couldn't do that.
Jim

[john smith]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Now compare that to the rate of change in aviation. What can you do
> today in a cockpit that couldn't be done when you were born?

Glass cockpit, color radar, gps... lots of stuff.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Now compare that to the rate of change in aviation. What can you do
>> today in a cockpit that couldn't be done when you were born?
>
> Glass cockpit, color radar, gps... lots of stuff.

See over the panel?

[gatt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Now compare that to the rate of change in aviation. What can you do
> today in a cockpit that couldn't be done when you were born?


Stare at a GPS display plugged into the cigarette lighter to view my actual
track, groundspeed, ETA, ATA and get other route information along a VFR
airway.

After being in a 20-minute holding pattern in a cloud during my IFR
checkride, and then having the examiner look at his handheld GPS afterward
and say "Let's look at how well you held your racetrack pattern"...
*shudder*

Don't know if they had flight following back in the day, either.

-c

[Jay Honeck]

> Now compare that to the rate of change in aviation. What can you do
> today in a cockpit that couldn't be done when you were born?

You don't have to go back that far. Heck, everything has changed in
flying just since I earned my ticket 12 years ago.

When I first started flying, flight planning was laboriously done with
a sectional chart and a pencil. I would carefully plot my course,
figure out VOR frequencies, plan waypoints where I could triangulate my
position with multiple navaids, and make note of visual checkpoints. It
could take 20 minutes to plan a 1-hour flight. It could take DAYS to
plan a multi-day, truly "cross-country" trip.

Now, unless we're going somewhere far, far away, we hop in the plane,
punch in "Direct to" on our dual GPS's, and we've got more information
at our fingertips about where we are (and where we're going) than we
could possibly use. Every radio frequency, the runway diagrams, the
approaches, the restaurants on (and off) the field, where to spend the
night, phone numbers, the controlling airspace -- even the LIVE weather
-- is all there, for easy viewing. It's absolutely miraculous.

The other thing that has changed dramatically is a revolution that
often goes unnoticed: ANR headsets. When I used to get back from a
long cross country flight, I'd be exhausted, and often had a headache
from all the noise. Now, I arrive fresh as a daisy, even after flying
all day, thanks to my Lightspeed headsets. It's another miracle of the
modern age.

All of this makes it so hard to watch GA gradually withering -- we've
FINALLY got flying to the point where it's really quite safe, simple
and enjoyable to fly cross country, just in time for no one to want to
do it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> You don't have to go back that far. Heck, everything has changed in
> flying just since I earned my ticket 12 years ago.
>
> When I first started flying, flight planning was laboriously done with
> a sectional chart and a pencil. I would carefully plot my course,
> figure out VOR frequencies, plan waypoints where I could triangulate my
> position with multiple navaids, and make note of visual checkpoints. It
> could take 20 minutes to plan a 1-hour flight. It could take DAYS to
> plan a multi-day, truly "cross-country" trip.
>
> Now, unless we're going somewhere far, far away, we hop in the plane,
> punch in "Direct to" on our dual GPS's, and we've got more information
> at our fingertips about where we are (and where we're going) than we
> could possibly use. Every radio frequency, the runway diagrams, the
> approaches, the restaurants on (and off) the field, where to spend the
> night, phone numbers, the controlling airspace -- even the LIVE weather
> -- is all there, for easy viewing. It's absolutely miraculous.

Hell, I've got nearly that with my LORAN... Flight from Houston to
Oshkosh consists of going to Airnav to get a couple of fuel stops and
checking the weather on Intellicast and the Unisys weather sites the day
of the flight... Mainly the Unisys weather site though since it shows
VFR / MVFR / IMC shaded areas and ceilings across the country... If
there is any weather to avoid, I choose one of the Airnav routes that
hopefully will allow me to avoid it...

Personally, I'm not so sure that having a GPS that does *everything* for
you is the best design... I prefer it to just be a source of coordinate
information and there to be another device that handles the database and
such... I guess I like a bit more distributed approach to the system...
Let's say that there are providers and displayers of information... One
could have GPS and LORAN both act as a provider and the moving map could
be the displayer... Of course, using this logic, perhaps the database
for the moving map should also be a provider subsystem so that other
subsystems could use it to lookup information...

[Sylvain]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Nothing that guy and I just did was possible -- or even existed -- when
> I was born.

fair enough; but (as I like to remind my dad who is a retired postal
worker), way back then, you could send mail (aka 'snail mail' nowdays),
with a reasonable expectation that it would arrive reliably within a
few days; heck, Roman soldiers posted on the Hadrian's Wall could
exchange snailmail to/from Rome significantly faster and more reliably
than is possible today (including packages)...

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:
....

now of course, way back then, we would never have heard of
Mxsmanic.... every progress comes at a price. :-)

--Sylvain

[Wizard of Draws]

On 10/30/06 2:20 PM, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" > wrote:

>
> Now compare that to the rate of change in aviation. What can you do
> today in a cockpit that couldn't be done when you were born?

Join the Mile High Club.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Wizard of Draws]

On 10/30/06 5:41 PM, in article ,
"Grumman-581" > wrote:

>
> Personally, I'm not so sure that having a GPS that does *everything* for
> you is the best design... I prefer it to just be a source of coordinate
> information and there to be another device that handles the database and
> such... I guess I like a bit more distributed approach to the system...
> Let's say that there are providers and displayers of information... One
> could have GPS and LORAN both act as a provider and the moving map could
> be the displayer... Of course, using this logic, perhaps the database
> for the moving map should also be a provider subsystem so that other
> subsystems could use it to lookup information...

You don't *have* to use all the bells and whistles if you don't want to. But
it's nice to have them at your fingertips if you want...or need.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> Glass cockpit, color radar, gps... lots of stuff.

These aren't things you can do, they are just equipment. What things
can you do with this equipment that you could not do a few decades
ago? Just replacing a real instrument with a picture of an instrument
on a screen doesn't change much of anything, except the potential
failure modes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Stare at a GPS display plugged into the cigarette lighter to view my actual
> track, groundspeed, ETA, ATA and get other route information along a VFR
> airway.

I thought the whole purpose of VFR was to look out the window.

> After being in a 20-minute holding pattern in a cloud during my IFR
> checkride, and then having the examiner look at his handheld GPS afterward
> and say "Let's look at how well you held your racetrack pattern"...
> *shudder*

That's after the flight, though.

My point is that however much computers and some other technologies
have changed or appeared, aviation has stayed very much the same.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> When I first started flying, flight planning was laboriously done with
> a sectional chart and a pencil. I would carefully plot my course,
> figure out VOR frequencies, plan waypoints where I could triangulate my
> position with multiple navaids, and make note of visual checkpoints. It
> could take 20 minutes to plan a 1-hour flight. It could take DAYS to
> plan a multi-day, truly "cross-country" trip.
>
> Now, unless we're going somewhere far, far away, we hop in the plane,
> punch in "Direct to" on our dual GPS's, and we've got more information
> at our fingertips about where we are (and where we're going) than we
> could possibly use. Every radio frequency, the runway diagrams, the
> approaches, the restaurants on (and off) the field, where to spend the
> night, phone numbers, the controlling airspace -- even the LIVE weather
> -- is all there, for easy viewing. It's absolutely miraculous.

How does pressing "direct to" replace a detailed flight plan? What do
you do if the GPS fails?

> The other thing that has changed dramatically is a revolution that
> often goes unnoticed: ANR headsets. When I used to get back from a
> long cross country flight, I'd be exhausted, and often had a headache
> from all the noise. Now, I arrive fresh as a daisy, even after flying
> all day, thanks to my Lightspeed headsets. It's another miracle of the
> modern age.

Perhaps a greater miracle would be a cockpit quiet enough not to
require hearing protection.

> All of this makes it so hard to watch GA gradually withering -- we've
> FINALLY got flying to the point where it's really quite safe, simple
> and enjoyable to fly cross country, just in time for no one to want to
> do it.

It's more expensive and complicated than it has ever been, in many
respects, even if certain aspects of actually flying in the cockpit
have become easier.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Greg B]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> How does pressing "direct to" replace a detailed flight plan? What do
> you do if the GPS fails?

It's a non-issue. If the GPS failed before flight, then plan the flight the
same way we were trained using the charts. If it fails during flight, more
than likely you're heading in the general direction and have some idea where
you are and how far to your next waypoint/airport, just pull out the
chart...

I've had a GPS in my plane the last 4 years. When I sold the plane, the
buyer didn't want my GPS so I took it out. He wanted me to fly the plane to
an airport that I hadn't been to before about 45 miles NE of here. I took
off without the GPS, headed NE and compared the chart to what I was seeing
on the ground. Found the airport without any problems. It would have been
nice to have access to a GPS but we can still fly without one.

> Perhaps a greater miracle would be a cockpit quiet enough not to
> require hearing protection.

Soundproofing a plane is possible but the added weight isn't worth it. A lot
easier/cheaper to install and use (ANR) headsets.

> It's more expensive and complicated than it has ever been, in many
> respects, even if certain aspects of actually flying in the cockpit
> have become easier.

There's planes that fly with only an airspeed indicator, compass, slip/skid
indicator, engine gauges, and an altimeter. They fly fine without all the
radios, GPS, transponder, electrical system, ANR, etc.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Greg B" > wrote in message
...
> Soundproofing a plane is possible but the added weight isn't worth it. A
lot
> easier/cheaper to install and use (ANR) headsets.

Too bad the commercial flights don't issue ANR headphones for the passengers
on some flights... Grace has been flying back and forth to Toronto lately in
a Embraer RJ145 and according to her, they're rather noisy... Noisy enough
that 31 dB earplugs are required in the passenger compartment... Noisy
enough that she had to cup her hands over her earphones so that she could
hear the music from her MP3 player...

[Happy Dog]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> john smith writes:
>
>> Glass cockpit, color radar, gps... lots of stuff.
>
> These aren't things you can do, they are just equipment. What things
> can you do with this equipment that you could not do a few decades
> ago?

Situational awareness, for non-retards, at a glance. Get over the idea that
more dumbed-down data is worse.

m

[Happy Dog]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> gatt writes:
>
>> Stare at a GPS display plugged into the cigarette lighter to view my
>> actual
>> track, groundspeed, ETA, ATA and get other route information along a VFR
>> airway.
>
> I thought the whole purpose of VFR was to look out the window.

Spoken like some idiot who has never flown anything.

VFR is IFR in a clock tick. People who actually fly (especially cargo IFR)
anywhere accept this. You don't understand because you live in a world
where every experience must adhere to some rule. Reality is almost always
unfriendly and wholly non-negotiable.

With few exceptions:

No student prefers ADF to GPS at first glance.

No hopeful airline pilot, newly flying boxes, ten years ago, would turn down
the gift of a new handheld GPS.

No minted IFR flyer, with hobby habits, would turn down a glass panel in
favour of a vintage panel.

I could be wrong, but I'm not.

All it takes is qualified people to post differently.

moo

[Jay Honeck]

> > Glass cockpit, color radar, gps... lots of stuff.
>
> These aren't things you can do, they are just equipment. What things
> can you do with this equipment that you could not do a few decades
> ago? Just replacing a real instrument with a picture of an instrument
> on a screen doesn't change much of anything, except the potential
> failure modes.

True, the physical flying is unchanged.

However, when the pilot is freed from the burdens of navigation, he may
fly more freely. It used to be that I didn't dare wander too far off
my planned flight, cuz that's what I had marked on the charts. In
fact, as a new pilot, if I diverted off my flight path (to look at
something on the ground, for example), I would laboriously fly BACK to
my original flight path, just so I could find all of my landmarks.

Those days are long gone, thanks to moving-map GPS. (Well, and 1500
hours of experience.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> How does pressing "direct to" replace a detailed flight plan? What do
> you do if the GPS fails?

*chuckle*

Then, my boy, we have to NAVIGATE! Every pilot is taught how to do
this, even if we'd rather just push "Direct to" and GO.

GPS has only failed me once, back when I had a Lowrance Airmap 300. I
took off solo from Maquoketa, IA in marginal VFR (after having some
upholstery work done on our old Warrior), and as I climbed to pattern
altitude I noticed that the GPS wasn't updating. It was just staring
at me stupidly, showing me stationary on the ground.

It was/is very unusual for me to fly solo, so I had some "three-handed
flying" to do while I messed around with the stupid thing, trying to
remember how to clear-start it whilst aviating into not the greatest
visibility and ceiling. After a few minutes, I just said "To hell with
it" and took up an approximate heading for home.

Somewhere en route I managed to get the thing to re-boot, and was quite
pleased to discover that I was precisely where I expected to be.
Straight-line navigation isn't all that hard, it's just inconvenient
compared to GPS.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-30, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Only in the 21st century:

There was an article on the PM programme on Radio 4 last year about one
of the last World War 1 vets dying aged something like 105 or 106 years
old.

When he was a child, there were no airplanes. He probably didn't have
electric lights in his house (although they existed). Between being
middle aged and dying, the entire semiconductor went from not existing
at all to the Pentium 4 processor running at over 3 GHz. Aircraft went
from the Wright Flyer to the Boeing 777, and it reached the 777 when he
still had ten years left to live. Entire types of technology were
invented, reached their peak, and then made totally obsolete while
he was a pensioner.

He saw an entire basis for civilization - the Soviet empire - rise and
fall within his lifetime.

He got to see how future predictions were almost entirely wrong all the
time, and technology improved in some directions out of all recognition
while hardly moving in others. In the 50s and 60s, they were all
predicting flying cars - but a mechanic transplanted from 1935 to today
would be pretty much totally at home with the airframe and power plant
of many of today's light GA aircraft. Yet all the futurologists totally
missed the cell phone - we already have better phones than Star Trek
forecast for their communicators.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-30, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Now compare that to the rate of change in aviation. What can you do
> today in a cockpit that couldn't be done when you were born?

Well, it'd be a bit cramped, but that made my dirty mind work overtime
:-)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-30, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> When I first started flying, flight planning was laboriously done with
> a sectional chart and a pencil. I would carefully plot my course,
> figure out VOR frequencies, plan waypoints where I could triangulate my
> position with multiple navaids, and make note of visual checkpoints. It
> could take 20 minutes to plan a 1-hour flight. It could take DAYS to
> plan a multi-day, truly "cross-country" trip.

Even with manual flight planning, the time spent planning is more a
function of experience. I had about 1000 hours when I flew my Cessna 140
coast to coast in the United States. It was all done by hand, and by
looking out the window - the fun of the trip was partly in the
navigating.

It didn't take days to plan - indeed, planning took about as long as
reviewing the charts and drawing a line (which I like to do when using
GPS anyway, so I'm well aware of special use airspace). Also, with
experience, you can divert off track and not have to go back to where
you diverted - being able to match up ground features and map features
becomes vastly easier with practise, as does estimating intercept
courses and estimating ETE.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-31, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> How does pressing "direct to" replace a detailed flight plan? What do
> you do if the GPS fails?

Turn on the backup handheld unit?

If the GPS fails, you aren't lost - you're on course. Anyone with Jay's
experience should just be able to pick up the chart and eyeball it from
thereon in, and perhaps tune in a couple of VORs.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Only in the 21st century:
>

I've been involved in the Internet from the dim times. I wrote
one of the early routers in 1983 or so. Still for a while it
was purely an academic/military thing and while we expected
computer networks to progress we really thought we were going to
get plowed under by the ISO (telephone company centric).

I remember two major turning points.

The first is when I was looking for an IRC relay and the closest
one I could find was in Slovakia (if you told me that I'd be using
the outgrowth of a military network to talk to Slovakia back in
'83 I'd have though you were daft).

Second, was not too long after the web started getting some popularity
I was watching the Indy 500 and at the end of the first commercial for
Valvoline, www.valvoline.com appeared on the screen. I figured it had
finally hit the masses if they expect some couch potato sports fan to
know what a URL was.

[John Clear]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
>I remember two major turning points.
>
>The first is when I was looking for an IRC relay and the closest
>one I could find was in Slovakia (if you told me that I'd be using
>the outgrowth of a military network to talk to Slovakia back in
>'83 I'd have though you were daft).

I remember in 1992 being on a chatline (non-IRC, but same concept)
and talking to people on all seven continents at the same time.
Yes, there was someone on from Antarctica, at McMurdo Station. Not
surprisingly, his handle was 'Coldman'.

The funny thing was a few semesters later having a CS Professor
talk about how the Internet reached six of the seven continents,
and having to correct him.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Mxsmanic]

Happy Dog writes:

> Situational awareness, for non-retards, at a glance. Get over the idea that
> more dumbed-down data is worse.

It's not necessarily worse, but it does encouraged underqualified
people to attempt things that they aren't really equipped to handle in
terms of experience and skill.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> However, when the pilot is freed from the burdens of navigation, he may
> fly more freely.

But when the pilot who knows nothing of navigation and depends on a
computer to fly loses the computer, he dies more quickly.

> It used to be that I didn't dare wander too far off
> my planned flight, cuz that's what I had marked on the charts. In
> fact, as a new pilot, if I diverted off my flight path (to look at
> something on the ground, for example), I would laboriously fly BACK to
> my original flight path, just so I could find all of my landmarks.
>
> Those days are long gone, thanks to moving-map GPS. (Well, and 1500
> hours of experience.)

Surely you could do much the same in the past, albeit with a bit more
effort.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Happy Dog writes:

> VFR is IFR in a clock tick.

If that were true, then there would be no distinction between the two
legally.

Obviously, in many cases VFR never becomes IFR.

> All it takes is qualified people to post differently.

I look forward to it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Greg B writes:

> I've had a GPS in my plane the last 4 years. When I sold the plane, the
> buyer didn't want my GPS so I took it out. He wanted me to fly the plane to
> an airport that I hadn't been to before about 45 miles NE of here. I took
> off without the GPS, headed NE and compared the chart to what I was seeing
> on the ground. Found the airport without any problems. It would have been
> nice to have access to a GPS but we can still fly without one.

Maybe you can fly without one, but is that true for all pilots?

> Soundproofing a plane is possible but the added weight isn't worth it. A lot
> easier/cheaper to install and use (ANR) headsets.

If you stop using props, most of the noise disappears.

> There's planes that fly with only an airspeed indicator, compass, slip/skid
> indicator, engine gauges, and an altimeter. They fly fine without all the
> radios, GPS, transponder, electrical system, ANR, etc.

In certain places, at certain times.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Grumman-581" > writes:

> Too bad the commercial flights don't issue ANR headphones for the passengers
> on some flights... Grace has been flying back and forth to Toronto lately in
> a Embraer RJ145 and according to her, they're rather noisy... Noisy enough
> that 31 dB earplugs are required in the passenger compartment... Noisy
> enough that she had to cup her hands over her earphones so that she could
> hear the music from her MP3 player...

Why is it so noisy?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Then, my boy, we have to NAVIGATE! Every pilot is taught how to do
> this, even if we'd rather just push "Direct to" and GO.

How often do they practice, just in case?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> Turn on the backup handheld unit?

Are there handhelds certified for aviation use?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> He got to see how future predictions were almost entirely wrong all the
> time, and technology improved in some directions out of all recognition
> while hardly moving in others. In the 50s and 60s, they were all
> predicting flying cars - but a mechanic transplanted from 1935 to today
> would be pretty much totally at home with the airframe and power plant
> of many of today's light GA aircraft. Yet all the futurologists totally
> missed the cell phone - we already have better phones than Star Trek
> forecast for their communicators.

The futurists are almost always wrong. They assume that the areas
with high rates of change or low rates of change will continue to have
high rates of change or low rates of change in the future. They
assume that what seems important now will remain important in the
future, and that things that are ignored now will continue to be
ignored in the future. This is rarely the case. Very often the
changes occur where they were least expected, and the domains that are
expected to change mightily end up barely moving at all.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

John Clear writes:

> The funny thing was a few semesters later having a CS Professor
> talk about how the Internet reached six of the seven continents,
> and having to correct him.

The Internet connections to the poles are still quite iffy, if I
remember correctly. There aren't likely to be any fiber connections
any time soon, and satellites over the pole aren't always practical.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> Turn on the backup handheld unit?
>
> Are there handhelds certified for aviation use?
>
Many. Look at the Garmin website, for example.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> "Grumman-581" > writes:
>
>> Too bad the commercial flights don't issue ANR headphones for the
>> passengers
>> on some flights... Grace has been flying back and forth to Toronto lately
>> in
>> a Embraer RJ145 and according to her, they're rather noisy... Noisy
>> enough
>> that 31 dB earplugs are required in the passenger compartment... Noisy
>> enough that she had to cup her hands over her earphones so that she could
>> hear the music from her MP3 player...
>
> Why is it so noisy?
>

Have you ever even seen a real aircraft up close? Jets are loud.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 10/31/06 2:14 PM, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" > wrote:

> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> Turn on the backup handheld unit?
>
> Are there handhelds certified for aviation use?

Duh. Please leave the confines of your parent's basement and take an intro
flight.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Jose[_1_]]

> Are there handhelds certified for aviation use?

That's a question that has pilots bumping heads against one another.
Google similar threads here in the past (hint: search for "tuna
sandwich" and "ham sandwich").

The answer is:

There are =no= handhelds that are certified for =reliance= on under IFR.

=All= handhelds are permitted to be used in aviation.

When flying a certificated airplane (as opposed to an experimental) in
tue US under IFR, one is required to have instrumentation "appropriate
to the navigation system being used". Although there are many wrinkles,
in terms of GPS this generally means that you need to have an "aviation
certified"(*) unit, whose installation is also "aviation certified". No
handhelds fit this category.

There are several levels of such certification, including "approach
certified" and "enroute certified". It is not illegal to have, and to
use, other equipment (including the proverbial tuna sandwich used for
navigation), but if you are =relying= on a unit for primary guidance in
a certificated airplane under IFR, it must be a certified unit.

This causes unending discussion, because...

.... it is perfectly legal to =have=, and to =use=, non-certified
equipment, even in a certificated airplane, even under IFR. This
includes handhelds. It also includes the tuna sandwich (it means just
what it sounds like) and tea leaves.

In an emergency of course, you can use anything you have, and disobey
any rule you need to, in order to safely get on the ground. There may
be paperwork later, but it beats bandages and incense.

Jose

(*) unofficial term
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Have you ever even seen a real aircraft up close? Jets are loud.

I've been a passenger in large jets often enough, and I don't find
them particularly loud, although they are louder than I'd prefer.

Propeller-driven aircraft tend to be a lot more noisy for passengers.
In fact, as I recall, NASA's experiments with propellers for
high-speed aircraft were hampered by the fact that the props are so
incredibly loud that they wouldn't be practical in real aviation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wizard of Draws writes:

> Duh. Please leave the confines of your parent's basement and take an intro
> flight.

Is the certification status of handheld GPS units a typical subject of
discussion during intro flights? Do I get one as a gift at the end of
the flight?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> If the GPS fails, you aren't lost - you're on course. Anyone with Jay's
> experience should just be able to pick up the chart and eyeball it from
> thereon in, and perhaps tune in a couple of VORs.

What MX doesn't understand (and, in fairness, it's not something non-
or new pilots often DO understand), is that an experienced pilot of a
well-equipped GA airplane has a plethora of navigational aids at
his/her disposal -- not just GPS.

I know before I flew I often wondered how in the *hell* those fellers
in the sky knew where they were! Now, with dual VORs, DME, two GPS
units on board, charts, experience, and two Mark Five eyeballs, it's
hard to imagine a scenario where I *could* get lost.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> The answer is:
>
> There are =no= handhelds that are certified for =reliance= on under IFR.

Oh. There seems to be some disagreement here, then.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> I know before I flew I often wondered how in the *hell* those fellers
> in the sky knew where they were! Now, with dual VORs, DME, two GPS
> units on board, charts, experience, and two Mark Five eyeballs, it's
> hard to imagine a scenario where I *could* get lost.

Is it difficult to read charts and fly? Somehow I find it hard to
picture flying the aircraft and spreading a chart out on the
right-hand seat and trying to read it. How do pilots manage this? I
find it awkward even in simulation, and I sometimes have to pause the
simulation while I read the chart (if it's the MSFS chart, I have no
choice, since it stops the simulation when you look at the chart).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 10/31/06 10:12 PM, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" > wrote:

> Jose writes:
>
>> The answer is:
>>
>> There are =no= handhelds that are certified for =reliance= on under IFR.
>
> Oh. There seems to be some disagreement here, then.

No disagreement at all.
If you had the reading comprehension above that of a 5 year old, you might
have noticed Jose specified *IFR*. You asked about aviation units, with no
specification beyond that.

A simple Google search will answer your question if you can figure out how
to do one. Perhaps someone here will be kind enough to explain it to you in
monosyllabic terms. We should caution them to type slowly for you, as I've
done here.

Any CFI will personally take the time to answer all of your "questions" and
clear up any confusion you truly have about aviation if you take the time to
ask before, during and after an intro flight.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Greg B]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Is the certification status of handheld GPS units a typical subject of
> discussion during intro flights? Do I get one as a gift at the end of
> the flight?

Yes, if you pay enough for the intro flight...

[Greg B]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Is it difficult to read charts and fly? Somehow I find it hard to
> picture flying the aircraft and spreading a chart out on the
> right-hand seat and trying to read it. How do pilots manage this? I
> find it awkward even in simulation, and I sometimes have to pause the
> simulation while I read the chart (if it's the MSFS chart, I have no
> choice, since it stops the simulation when you look at the chart).

We don't need to open the entire sectional chart at once. We use it refolded
to the area and just looking at the part of interest at the moment. If I'm
flying around here, I don't have my chart open enough to see the layout
around Omaha.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote

> I had about 1000 hours when I flew my Cessna 140
> coast to coast in the United States. It was all done by hand, and by
> looking out the window - the fun of the trip was partly in the
> navigating.
>
> It didn't take days to plan - indeed, planning took about as long as
> reviewing the charts and drawing a line (which I like to do when using
> GPS anyway, so I'm well aware of special use airspace).

How did you decide on stops, and such? Fuel would be nice to have at the
airports where you stop, no? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Those days are long gone, thanks to moving-map GPS. (Well, and 1500
> hours of experience.)

I think LORAN did a pretty good number on it even before your moving map GPS
came along... Even if you don't have a graphical depiction of your area on
your navigation device, just being able to plug in an airport's identifier
and knowing it's bearing and distance (no matter how much you got distracted
by checking out the things on the ground) did a lot to take a lot of the
effort out of navigating... Yeah, I've done my share of paper maps and
mapping my position in relation to VORs, but I've learned to enjoy having my
LORAN and letting it tell me how far I am from the various airports, VORs,
waypoints, etc... Combining that with a handheld GPS or moving map on a
laptop and for my flying, it's plenty of redundacy... Well, that plus my
probably out of date paper maps... <grin>

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> Have you ever even seen a real aircraft up close? Jets are loud.

And since you're closer to the engines, small jets are even louder...

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-31, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> Turn on the backup handheld unit?
>
> Are there handhelds certified for aviation use?

That's completely irrelevant. There are no eyeballs certified for
aviation use either, but that doesn't mean it's illegal to look out the
window to navigate. You can use a motorist's GPS loaded with Rand
McNally road atlas data for VFR navigation if you want, and no one will
care.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-11-01, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is it difficult to read charts and fly? Somehow I find it hard to
> picture flying the aircraft and spreading a chart out on the
> right-hand seat and trying to read it.

Charts are made out of this really neat bendy stuff called paper. This
invention allows you to fold them into a shape where they fit on your
lap.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Jay Honeck]

> I think LORAN did a pretty good number on it even before your moving map GPS
> came along...

Yep, Loran was the first "great leap forward". The plane I learned
to fly in had a Flybuddy Loran, and it was always a comfort knowing it
was there to double check my position, if needed.

But it was still nothing but a fancy "pointer". Moving map GPS
changed everything about situational awareness, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Have you ever even seen a real aircraft up close? Jets are loud.
>
> I've been a passenger in large jets often enough, and I don't find
> them particularly loud, although they are louder than I'd prefer.
>
> Propeller-driven aircraft tend to be a lot more noisy for passengers.
> In fact, as I recall, NASA's experiments with propellers for
> high-speed aircraft were hampered by the fact that the props are so
> incredibly loud that they wouldn't be practical in real aviation.
>
> --

Yes propellers make noise. But I tell you what. Next time you are in the
states you are more than welcome to come to my hanger which is about 100
yards away from the hanger of Murphy Oil Corp. They have a few Citation biz
jets and a Falcon jet.

There will be several prop airplanes around as well. You can stand there and
tell me which you think is louder.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I think LORAN did a pretty good number on it even before your moving map
>> GPS
>> came along...
>
> Yep, Loran was the first "great leap forward". The plane I learned
> to fly in had a Flybuddy Loran, and it was always a comfort knowing it
> was there to double check my position, if needed.
>
> But it was still nothing but a fancy "pointer". Moving map GPS
> changed everything about situational awareness, IMHO.
> --

I all but missed the use of Lorans. When I started flying (late 70s through
early 80s)they just weren't installed in the GA fleet. At least the fleet I
was flying. In 95 when I got my Helicopter rating in an R22 there was a
Loran as the only nav aid. I figured it out pretty quick though it was a
pain to set up while flying. The only time I really used it was on my solo
x-c and the practice was set it for the first airport, fly there do my three
landings at that towered airport, land over at the edge of the runway set
the next airport, fly and repeat for the homeward flight.

The main thing I noticed was the lack of a CDI I would have preferred a
Nav/Com at the time. A nice uncertified 496 would have been great.

[Jay Honeck]

> It didn't take days to plan - indeed, planning took about as long as
> reviewing the charts and drawing a line

Okay, so maybe "days" was a bit of an exaggeration. However, for my
first "real" cross-country flight ("all the way" from Wisconsin to
Missouri in a rental Cherokee 140, back in '95, for our tenth wedding
anniversary) I do recall having all the charts out on the dining room
table for days before the flight, studying them for best routing, and
looking for good, identifiable landmarks. VORs were, for me, entirely
secondary to pilotage in getting to Branson -- I wanted uniquely-shaped
lakes and rivers!

As for the navigation being "part of the fun", I guess I got over that
a long time ago. Now, I just want to enjoy the flight as safely as
possible, and get there expeditiously. For us, that means GPS direct.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> VORs were, for me, entirely
> secondary to pilotage in getting to Branson -- I wanted uniquely-shaped
> lakes and rivers!

I still do. The fun of VFR flying, especially low level cross country
flying, is visual navigation. The damned GPS takes all the fun out of
it. :)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Yep, Loran was the first "great leap forward". The plane I learned
> to fly in had a Flybuddy Loran, and it was always a comfort knowing it
> was there to double check my position, if needed.
>
> But it was still nothing but a fancy "pointer". Moving map GPS
> changed everything about situational awareness, IMHO.

The same could theoretically be done with LORAN.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Yes propellers make noise. But I tell you what. Next time you are in the
> states you are more than welcome to come to my hanger which is about 100
> yards away from the hanger of Murphy Oil Corp. They have a few Citation biz
> jets and a Falcon jet.
>
> There will be several prop airplanes around as well. You can stand there and
> tell me which you think is louder.

You have to compare like to like. Compare the jets to
propeller-driven aircraft with similar thrust profiles and maximum
speeds.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> I still do. The fun of VFR flying, especially low level cross country
> flying, is visual navigation. The damned GPS takes all the fun out of
> it. :)

I have friends who think the same. To them, there's nothing more fun
than flying simply by following a road, or taking up a heading and
timing it with a clock.

I guess as a brain exercise this kind of thing is good, but as for it
being "fun" straining to see the next landmark emerging from the murk,
I don't get it. I'd much rather load my destination in my GPS, and
divert as desired to look at stuff en route, without the burden of
trying to figure out precisely where I am (and where I now must go) in
3-dimensional space.

To some, I suppose, that makes me lazy. But I don't like to do
accounting on a ledger anymore, either.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[karl gruber[_1_]]

My first real cross country was from Lock Haven to Vancouver in 1966. I
delivered a new Super Cub and had a total of 43 hrs and a brand new private
pilot's certificate.

I did have all the charts, but didn't spend ANY time drawing lines on them.
I do remember looking down from the DC-8 going across the country that it
all of a sudden looked like a kind of long way.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> It didn't take days to plan - indeed, planning took about as long as
>> reviewing the charts and drawing a line
>
> Okay, so maybe "days" was a bit of an exaggeration. However, for my
> first "real" cross-country flight ("all the way" from Wisconsin to
> Missouri in a rental Cherokee 140, back in '95, for our tenth wedding
> anniversary) I do recall having all the charts out on the dining room
> table for days before the flight, studying them for best routing, and
> looking for good, identifiable landmarks. VORs were, for me, entirely
> secondary to pilotage in getting to Branson -- I wanted uniquely-shaped
> lakes and rivers!
>
> As for the navigation being "part of the fun", I guess I got over that
> a long time ago. Now, I just want to enjoy the flight as safely as
> possible, and get there expeditiously. For us, that means GPS direct.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 1 Nov 2006 07:43:53 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > I still do. The fun of VFR flying, especially low level cross country
> > flying, is visual navigation. The damned GPS takes all the fun out of
> > it. :)
>
> I have friends who think the same. To them, there's nothing more fun
> than flying simply by following a road, or taking up a heading and
> timing it with a clock.
>
> I guess as a brain exercise this kind of thing is good, but as for it
> being "fun" straining to see the next landmark emerging from the murk,
> I don't get it. I'd much rather load my destination in my GPS, and
> divert as desired to look at stuff en route, without the burden of
> trying to figure out precisely where I am (and where I now must go) in
> 3-dimensional space.

Part of the problem is your being a flatlander. Pilotage in the Pacific
Northwest, where one navigates by islands, bays, rivers, and volcanos, is a lot
easier. To get to Seattle, all you really have to do is find Mount Rainier:

http://www.wanttaja.com/sunrise.JPG (It's the big bump on the right.) When you
get there, turn north-northwest and fly for ~60 miles.

Though in the case shown in the photo, you'd be back-tracking... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> To some, I suppose, that makes me lazy.

I don't think you're lazy at all.

I like to occasionally completely plan a VFR flight "student-style" with
lines and waypoints (complete with VOR radial crossings w/ DME) on the
chart, e6b & POH calculations, a written step-by-step sheet with ETE/ATA
stuff, all just for fun.

On the other hand, most of the time, I'll generate a VFR navigation plan
with the AOPA or DUATS planner with radio-nav waypoints, and fly it by
GPS w/ VOR/DME backups.

[Jose[_1_]]

> But I don't like to do
> accounting on a ledger anymore, either.

That's the way I do mine. Well, ok that insane tax stuff I leave to
TurboTax but the rest is pencil and paper.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Yes propellers make noise. But I tell you what. Next time you are in the
>> states you are more than welcome to come to my hanger which is about 100
>> yards away from the hanger of Murphy Oil Corp. They have a few Citation
>> biz
>> jets and a Falcon jet.
>>
>> There will be several prop airplanes around as well. You can stand there
>> and
>> tell me which you think is louder.
>
> You have to compare like to like. Compare the jets to
> propeller-driven aircraft with similar thrust profiles and maximum
> speeds.


That's going to be damn hard to do there aren't to many prop planes with the
same thrust and max speed as your average jet.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> That's going to be damn hard to do there aren't to many prop planes with the
> same thrust and max speed as your average jet.

NASA has done it, but as I've said, the noise level is so high that it
isn't practical (passengers and crew might well suffer hearing damage
from the noise).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Yep, Loran was the first "great leap forward". The plane I learned
> to fly in had a Flybuddy Loran, and it was always a comfort knowing it
> was there to double check my position, if needed.
>
> But it was still nothing but a fancy "pointer". Moving map GPS
> changed everything about situational awareness, IMHO.

I've flown across country with my Northstar M1A LORAN... It is great...
I've had a handheld GPS beside it and it agreed to 1/10th of a nm on the
distance to whatever I had for my destination / waypoint... When they
completed the mid-continent chain, it truly made it an acceptable
aviation navigational device... These days, I still use it, but I'm
likely to either have a handheld PDA with GPS running PocketFMS or a
laptop with a non-aviation GPS feeding coordinates to Delorme
StreetAtlas... Of course, if I would write a virtual serial driver that
converted the output from the Northstar to NMEA 0183 GPS data, I could
use the LORAN to drive the Delorme StreetAtlas moving map... Hell, I
might even be able to run PocketFMS on the laptop and thereby have a
1024x768 aviation moving map...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> The only time I really used it was on my solo
> x-c and the practice was set it for the first
> airport, fly there do my three landings at that
> towered airport, land over at the edge of the
> runway set the next airport, fly and repeat for
> the homeward flight.

My LORAN has quite a bit more features -- that I never use, of course...
From what I understand, you can set routes that consist of multiple
identifiers (airports, intersections, VORs, etc)... I have never even
bothered to try out this feature... My personal flying style is just to
be interested in wherever my next destination might be and upon arrival
there, use the "direct-to" feature to set it to go to my next destination...

> The main thing I noticed was the lack of a CDI I would have preferred a
> Nav/Com at the time. A nice uncertified 496 would have been great.

My LORAN does have a CDI-type indicator built into it... Basically a
vertical bar on the screen that indicates your desired course and
another vertical var that indicates your current position in relation to
the desired course... I find it interesting to fly the LORAN CDI
indicator and use StreetAtlas to draw lines between my source and
destination airports and then log my GPS data for plotting over this
after the flight... I get to see all the deviations that I make either
from distraction, weather, traffic, or because I saw something
interesting that I wanted to check out... On trips, I'll take this and
add it to my electronic log book of the flights...

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote

> I still do. The fun of VFR flying, especially low level cross country flying,
> is visual navigation. The damned GPS takes all the fun out of it. :)

While in college, a buddy and me used to go out on motorcycles, and take turn
after turn without maps, until we got about an hour away from campus, and good
and lost. Then, the fun was trying to find our way back to campus, all without
maps, of course. Navigation by instinct, I think we called it!

Fun stuff!
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> That's going to be damn hard to do there aren't to many prop planes with
>> the
>> same thrust and max speed as your average jet.
>
> NASA has done it, but as I've said, the noise level is so high that it
> isn't practical (passengers and crew might well suffer hearing damage
> from the noise).
>
> --


Yes NASA has made plenty of very loud things. Did you ever wonder why NASA
was trying to build high speed propeller driven aircraft?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> The only time I really used it was on my solo x-c and the practice was
>> set it for the first
> > airport, fly there do my three landings at that
> > towered airport, land over at the edge of the
> > runway set the next airport, fly and repeat for
> > the homeward flight.
>
> My LORAN has quite a bit more features -- that I never use, of course...
> From what I understand, you can set routes that consist of multiple
> identifiers (airports, intersections, VORs, etc)... I have never even
> bothered to try out this feature... My personal flying style is just to be
> interested in wherever my next destination might be and upon arrival
> there, use the "direct-to" feature to set it to go to my next
> destination...

Oh I'm sure the one in the R22 I trained in had lots of neat features that I
didn't know how to use.




>
>> The main thing I noticed was the lack of a CDI I would have preferred a
>> Nav/Com at the time. A nice uncertified 496 would have been great.
>
> My LORAN does have a CDI-type indicator built into it... Basically a
> vertical bar on the screen that indicates your desired course and another
> vertical var that indicates your current position in relation to the
> desired course... I find it interesting to fly the LORAN CDI indicator and
> use StreetAtlas to draw lines between my source and destination airports
> and then log my GPS data for plotting over this after the flight... I get
> to see all the deviations that I make either from distraction, weather,
> traffic, or because I saw something interesting that I wanted to check
> out... On trips, I'll take this and add it to my electronic log book of
> the flights...


This one had the same thing but it was in a position that was just about
useless in flight and it was kinda small that made it even worse. Since I
wasn't fly that high the best way I found to use it was start with it lined
up and find a ground reference off in the distance and fly to that then when
I got there look for the next ground reference. Pretty much just like you'd
use a compass only this one was only pointing to where I wanted to go.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> That's going to be damn hard to do there aren't to many prop planes with the
> same thrust and max speed as your average jet.

Well, I saw a guy over by 1L0 that had put a very small jet engine on a
bicycle, thus creating a thrust powered moped... It was quite a bit
louder than any motorcycle that I've ever heard, much less any moped...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Yes NASA has made plenty of very loud things. Did you ever wonder why NASA
> was trying to build high speed propeller driven aircraft?

Because propeller driven aircraft are more efficient from a fuel economy
standpoint than jet driven ones?

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Yes NASA has made plenty of very loud things. Did you ever wonder why NASA
> was trying to build high speed propeller driven aircraft?

No. The agency's explanation, as I recall, was that propellers are
potentially far more efficient than jet exhausts for propulsion, even
into the transonic and perhaps supersonic range, at least in theory.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> While in college, a buddy and me used to go out on motorcycles, and take turn
> after turn without maps, until we got about an hour away from campus, and good
> and lost. Then, the fun was trying to find our way back to campus, all without
> maps, of course. Navigation by instinct, I think we called it!
>
> Fun stuff!

Hey -- we used to do that in college, too -- except that we'd only stop
at the "Pabst" signs! We always got good and lost, too, but always
found our way home, somehow...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Yes NASA has made plenty of very loud things. Did you ever wonder why
>> NASA was trying to build high speed propeller driven aircraft?
>
> Because propeller driven aircraft are more efficient from a fuel economy
> standpoint than jet driven ones?

Damn it Grumman I wasn't asking you, I was asking Manic.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Yes NASA has made plenty of very loud things. Did you ever wonder why
>> NASA
>> was trying to build high speed propeller driven aircraft?
>
> No. The agency's explanation, as I recall, was that propellers are
> potentially far more efficient than jet exhausts for propulsion, even
> into the transonic and perhaps supersonic range, at least in theory.
>


So you've answered your own question (though I thing Grumman answered it for
you) as to why we don't all replace props with jet engines.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> So you've answered your own question (though I thing Grumman answered it
for
> you) as to why we don't all replace props with jet engines.

As a side note, there is a guy who has put a small turbine engine on a
motorcycle... It drives the rear wheel instead of using thrush pushing
against air... Even on something that light, it only gets around 4-10 mpg...
Of course, you end up with over 300 hp in a 500 lb motorcycle though...

[Bob Moore]

Grumman-581 wrote

> It drives the rear wheel instead of using thrush pushing
> against air...

A jet engine's thrust doesn't push against air, it pushes
against the engine...Newton.... equal and opposite...

Bob Moore

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Bob Moore wrote:
> A jet engine's thrust doesn't push against air, it pushes
> against the engine...Newton.... equal and opposite...

Yeah, well, you understood what I was trying to say anyway, right?

So, if a turbine powered prop plane is called a turbo-prop, would that
sort of motorcycle be called a turbo-wheel? <grin>

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Damn it Grumman I wasn't asking you, I was asking Manic.

I said essentially the same thing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> So you've answered your own question (though I thing Grumman answered it for
> you) as to why we don't all replace props with jet engines.

I don't think that's the main reason.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Damn it Grumman I wasn't asking you, I was asking Manic.
>
> I said essentially the same thing.
>

Yeah but you said it a little less than two hours after Grumman did.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> So you've answered your own question (though I thing Grumman answered it
>> for
>> you) as to why we don't all replace props with jet engines.
>
> I don't think that's the main reason.
>


So what do you think the reason is then? Do you think there is a huge
conspiracy of prop manufactures keeping jets off of airplanes that would be
more efficient if they had them?

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Yeah but you said it a little less than two hours after Grumman did.

But before I read his post.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> So what do you think the reason is then?

Several. Jet engines are overpriced, for one.

> Do you think there is a huge conspiracy of prop manufactures
> keeping jets off of airplanes that would be more efficient if
> they had them?

Huge? No. But they certainly have an interest in continuing to sell
their 1920s technology in piston engines.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> So what do you think the reason is then?
>
> Several. Jet engines are overpriced, for one.

No, they are more expensive than piston engines in many ways but I wouldn't
call them any more overpriced than anything else you might choose to hang on
an aircraft. Cost of owning and operating tends to have something to do with
effeciency which is what you said jet engines were more of than prop.


>
>> Do you think there is a huge conspiracy of prop manufactures
>> keeping jets off of airplanes that would be more efficient if
>> they had them?
>
> Huge? No. But they certainly have an interest in continuing to sell
> their 1920s technology in piston engines.


Props don't have to be on piston engines and those real loud ones that you
were talking about NASA tested weren't. I think GE, P&W and the other jet
engine makers could pretty much buy and sell the piston aircraft engine
makers with out so much as working up a sweat.