If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote: Well, I guess I've been called worse things... You *guess* you have? George Patterson A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you look forward to the trip. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote: Well, in retrospect it's hard to say if we were really over gross, or if that's just how a 150 always performs. You were well over. A typical 150 can carry about 300 pounds with full fuel. For the flight you describe, you need about 10 gallons in the tanks. If that's what you had, you could carry about 365 pounds. You two totalled nearly 100 pounds more than that, and I'd bet those weights you quoted didn't include your flight gear, winter coats, etc.. A typical 150 can get off the ground in well under 1,000' and climb at about 600 fpm at max gross at your elevation. They'll do better at sea level, of course. The '69 model I used to have gave me book performance with 6,000 hours on it and a mid-time engine. George Patterson A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you look forward to the trip. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:K4g0c.1049 "John Gaquin" wrote in message I'll drink to that! I flew a couple of years in a 402 for a commuter on Cape Cod years ago. One day on a busy holiday weekend the fog was in (of course) and I flew 22 approachs in one day, every one of them to or near minimums. Slept the sleep of the just that night. Piston poppers are definitely much more work especially with marginal power envelopes during emergencies. Never had any catastrophic failures(real) in that or any other airplane. Flying the 402 was just going to work. I didn't think I was working particularly hard at the time, until I got into a Boeing. That made the single-pilot 402 look like a labor camp. :-) |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
G.R. Patterson III wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote: Well, in retrospect it's hard to say if we were really over gross, or if that's just how a 150 always performs. You were well over. A typical 150 can carry about 300 pounds with full fuel. For the flight you describe, you need about 10 gallons in the tanks. If that's what you had, you could carry about 365 pounds. You two totalled nearly 100 pounds more than that, and I'd bet those weights you quoted didn't include your flight gear, winter coats, etc.. A typical 150 can get off the ground in well under 1,000' and climb at about 600 fpm at max gross at your elevation. They'll do better at sea level, of course. The '69 model I used to have gave me book performance with 6,000 hours on it and a mid-time engine. I wonder, when the good doctor offered his C150 to the pilot, did he know there would be a second "pilot" along for the return flight? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
G.R. Patterson III wrote:
You don't usually get to handle the controls with a stripper. :-( Which "controls" are you referring to? The tuning knobs, of course. Reminds me of an old Reader's Digest, Campus Comedy tale... A yound coed was having difficulty opening the drawers of her dorm room bureau, so she put in a request for maintenance. A day later, she was in the midst of changing when a knock came at the door. She quickly through on a robe and answered the door. It was the maintence man, who announced, "Hi, I'm here to fix the knobs on your chest." |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
The flight is not really a charter. A doctor donates the use of his airplane
and pilot to fly a mission for a related party. Hardly unusual and certainly well within the limits of part 91. Now, whether the flight violated school sports recruiting standards might be another matter. :-) For what it's worth, one of the side notes of the OSU basketball team King Air 200 crash in Colorado in early 2001 was that the FAA declared it to be a part 135 flight even though the situation was very similar to this (the owner donated the use of the aircraft to the university, and claimed to be operating it under part 91.) In that case as well there was a pilot in the right seat who was not employed by the operator nor trained in the operation of a BE20. I don't recall whether he was multirated or not. As these things always turn on subtleties, the two cases may well not be comparable, but these things are seldom simple. If it walks and quacks like a charter (on-demand ride somewhere in an aircraft not owned or operated by the folks being transported) the FAA may well declare it as such, even if no money changes hands. They get very itchy about this sort of thing. The old adage about the victors writing history comes to mind. Not to rain on Jay's parade; I've got about 30 hours in King Air 200s and they're a real hoot to fly, and well mannered and easy (as long as nothing breaks...) My very first landing was at SFO, much to my terror... BTW, the NTSB ultimately decided that the cause of the OSU crash was a failing AC inverter, which caused much of the instrumentation to die, and a graveyard spiral resulted; as Jay now knows the plane has two and required only a switch flip to bring the second one online, which apparently the pilot failed to do even when faced with a whole lot of warning lights. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
I wonder, when the good doctor offered his C150 to the pilot, did he
know there would be a second "pilot" along for the return flight? Actually the C-150 belongs to our FBO. They let the good doctor use it so that he can reposition his King Air -- which he somehow leases back to them. It's a complicated arrangement, and one I don't fully understand -- but it seems to work well for all concerned. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Katz wrote:
Not to rain on Jay's parade; I've got about 30 hours in King Air 200s and they're a real hoot to fly, and well mannered and easy (as long as nothing breaks...) My very first landing was at SFO, much to my terror... Yes, you might want to mention the 120 knot single engine approach speed. ;-) |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
john smith writes:
Yes, you might want to mention the 120 knot single engine approach speed. ;-) Haven't done a single engine approach, happily, but I did have to do a couple of no-flaps approaches (at night) after the rather odd split-flap avoidance mechanism failed (by refusing to move the flaps at all.) 120 over the fence was kind of fun; luckily the runways were long (VNY and MRY) and reversable props are quite helpful. I believe my quote of the evening was "Yee hah!" ;-) They're just overgrown Barons, really, with better short field performance. ;-) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
In that case as well
there was a pilot in the right seat who was not employed by the operator nor trained in the operation of a BE20. If a King Air 200 is a "BE20," is a King Air 90 a "BE9"? Just want to fill out the logbook correctly, and I didn't think to ask at 12:30 AM... -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I'M GOING TO DIE TODAY. | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | February 4th 04 09:44 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
"Target for Today" & "Thunderbolt" WWII Double Feature at Zeno'sDrive-In | Zeno | Aerobatics | 0 | August 2nd 03 07:31 PM |
"Target for Today" & "Thunderbolt": An Awesome WWII DoubleFeature at Zeno's Drive-In | zeno | Military Aviation | 0 | July 14th 03 07:31 PM |
The Yankee Lady Flew Today | Tom Huxton | Piloting | 0 | July 11th 03 11:57 PM |