Cessna Horn too quiet

wrote:

I want a gear horn that is soo loud it will make your teeth hurt.

Well...are you sure?

I did my complex checkout recently in an R182. It too has a relatively
quiet horn.

But there are times when it is completely reasonable to have the pressure
down low but the gear still stowed. I don't want my teeth hurting then
grin.

Of course, it could be louder than it is. Why would a marker beacon make
more noise than the gear warning horn?

- Andrew

But there are times when it is completely reasonable to have the pressure
down low but the gear still stowed. I don't want my teeth hurting then
grin.

You can fly it that way, but I try to make it a point to not fly with the
gear horn on for more than a few seconds, if I have to dump the gear
and then pull it back up later I find that preferable to running with the gear horn on.

I realize that some aircraft have very restrictive gear operation speed limits,
and this may not always possible when operating in an ATC driven IFR environment.
Pulling the throttle back to the gear warning point above gear externsion speed probably
cools the engine too quickly and seems to be an indicator of poor descent planning.
Nothing says you can't slow down before you get to where you are going.

Maybe with all the cool new technology we will eventually have a smart GPS driven gear horn,
One that only goes off when less than 1K AGL within 2 miles of an airport.

Until that time I will do my best to never fly with the gear horn is on.


Flame away...

Paul

wrote:

You can fly it that way, but I try to make it a point to not fly with the
gear horn on for more than a few seconds, if I have to dump the gear
and then pull it back up later I find that preferable to running with the
gear horn on.

The Cutlass may differ from the R182 in this respect, but I dislike cycling
the R182's gear any more than necessary. The system is hydraulic with no
backup in case one loses all the fluid.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
The Cutlass may differ from the R182 in this respect, but I dislike
cycling
the R182's gear any more than necessary. The system is hydraulic with no
backup in case one loses all the fluid.

I believe that the 172RG has a similar gear system to the 182RG.

Cycling the gear doesn't use up hydraulic fluid. It's stored back in the
reservoir for use at a later time.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

Cycling the gear doesn't use up hydraulic fluid. It's stored back in the
reservoir for use at a later time.

....assuming nothing is broken.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...
Cycling the gear doesn't use up hydraulic fluid. It's stored back in
the
reservoir for use at a later time.

...assuming nothing is broken.

Lots of bad things can happen to your airplane is something is broken. But
that doesn't mean you should avoid doing otherwise reasonable things with
your airplane, just because it *could* be broken.

Do you avoid extending the flaps, just because the flap motor could fail?
Do you avoid using carb heat, just because the cable could break? Do you
avoid adjusting the mixture, just because the cable could break? Do you
avoid making turns, just because the ailerons could get stuck?

No, of course not. Those are all things that are done as a normal pilot
input during any various part of a flight. Likewise, if there's call to
lower or raise the gear, the pilot should do that, rather than worrying that
the act of using some installed equipment on the plane might break that
equipment.

If you are really that worried that you'll break something on the plane,
then you should rethink whether that plane is one you really ought to be
flying in.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...
Cycling the gear doesn't use up hydraulic fluid. It's stored back
in

snip
Lots of bad things can happen to your airplane is something is broken.
But that doesn't mean you should avoid doing otherwise reasonable
things with your airplane, just because it *could* be broken.



But why not understand that you trouble *single points of failure* as
little as possible.




Do you avoid extending the flaps, just because the flap motor could
fail?

No But I can make a safe no flap landing. The plane is made to fly.


Do you avoid using carb heat, just because the cable could
break?

Do you avoid adjusting the mixture, just because the cable
could break?

No because I can make a safe no power landing. Planes made to fly.


Do you avoid making turns, just because the ailerons
could get stuck?

No because I can still turn the airplane with rudder. Planes made to
fly.


No, of course not. Those are all things that are done as a normal
pilot input during any various part of a flight. Likewise, if there's
call to lower or raise the gear, the pilot should do that, rather than
worrying that the act of using some installed equipment on the plane
might break that equipment.



So with all your examples having pretty well defined backups and
emergency procedures while remaining relatively safe...

Why would I over use a human made and maintained, piece of machinery?
that if fails I have but one option that has me hitting the ground in
the most awkard of positions.


If you are really that worried that you'll break something on the
plane, then you should rethink whether that plane is one you really
ought to be flying in.

Pete


Pete... im worried that everyday Ill crash my truck and its called
caution. Dosen't stop you from doing anything ,it teaches you to
respect the options you have.