Flaps on take-off and landing

You could probably mount a transducer on the windows, but speakers
designed for the purpose would probably work better.

mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:


I'd really like a source or two for that statement.


Why do you need a source? If you know how ANR works, it's obvious
that it could be done with windows (although it's equally obvious that
it might not be worth doing).

I know how ANR works and I think it is obvious that it could not be done
with windows.

Matt

Beech has it in the King Air.


"mike regish" wrote in message
...
| Some small bizjets do have active ANR installed in the
cabins.
|
| mike
|
| "Mxsmanic" wrote in message
| ...
| Thomas Borchert writes:
|
| So now you're showing your cluelessness in the next
field?
|
| No, I was being facetious. Some people don't pick up on
it.
|
| How would ANR windows work, genius?
|
| While technically possible, I don't think they'd be
practical or
| useful. It's much easier to build ANR headphones, just
as it's easier
| to wear shoes than it is to cover the ground with
leather.
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
|
|

"Margy Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gee, I was thinking following roads was too boring, just straight and
level. Following streams and creeks is much more fun. My primary
instructor took me out in a tail-dragger to "learn what a rudder is for"
by following rivers and creeks.

Following rivers is fun if you set a goal of attempting to stay within the
banks of the river and if you do it down low... Flying from one place to
another by following a river (at least where I'm at) is a good way to triple
the distance that you will travel... Relatively flat land, so the rivers
tend to meander all over everywhere... I like to fly the Brazos down toward
the coast... It's wide enough that you can stay between the banks and more
importantly, even stay between the trees if you get down low enough...
Flying it at around 100 kts will get you some *very* steep banked turns...

"mike regish" wrote in message
...
The wheels shouldn't touch until the plane stops flying.

Sure about that? What about wheel landings on taildraggers?

Only when you need the extra control authority, e.g. heavy crosswinds. I
only have about 6 or 7 hours in tailwheel and I never did wheel landings.
Even then, you really only want enough speed to keep the tail flying, no?

I suppose you could also count carrier landings, if you want to pick nits.

mike

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
"mike regish" wrote in message
...
The wheels shouldn't touch until the plane stops flying.

Sure about that? What about wheel landings on taildraggers?

I've never heard it about a helicopter......and I'm rated. But I suppose it
could be since everything is weird about helicopter aerodynamics.

"Coffin corner" refers to the narrow band of airspeed between stall and mach
buffet in a jet.

The corporate jet most affected is the older Lear Jet. The problem comes at
high altitude and encountering wind shear. If you lower the nose just
slightly the airplane goes into mach buffet. If the nose is raised slightly
it stalls. Neither is good. In a Lear the only option, if it gets severe, is
to lower the landing gear.

In the early days of the Lear, pilots would sometimes pull the mach buffet
warning horn circuit breaker. Several airplanes were lost due to upset.

Karl
ATP
BE30 LRJet CE500 DA50


"mike regish" wrote in message
...
I've only heard of the "coffin corner" in reference to helicopter flight.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

By envelope I mean the area of safety between two extremes, e.g., the
"coffin corner" of some aircraft represents a very tiny envelope,
since more than a slight movement in any direction may result in
irrecoverable instability.

Mike,

You could probably mount a transducer on the windows, but speakers
designed for the purpose would probably work better.


The point is: How would you get the right interference at the ear
independently of ear location relative to the ANR noise source?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Margy,

We
responded with "because we can". That seemed to make sense to them.


Do they own dogs? ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro writes:

In the SF Bay area here are the web sites of two FBO's at PAO where
you can rent wet (fuel included):

http:\\www.shorelineflyingclub.com
http:\\www.wvfc.org

At Shoreline, the lowest rates are a hundred times higher than those
for a car (which you can rent by the day, not by the hour, for about
the same prices). Plus you have to factor in (or amortize) the $9000
cost of your license and all the overhead expenses.

It looks like an extremely costly hobby, and an even more costly form
of transportation. I'm not happy about that, but there's no denying
it.


Your calculations are defective.

The IRS allows 47.5 cents/mile as the cost to operate a car if its use is
tax deductible. That number factors in gas, oil, tires, insurance, etc.
and is pretty close to the number Hertz calculates for its fleet average
cost per mile. If you are going to compare the costs of flying with the
costs of driving, you have to include ALL the costs of driving.

The rates at Shoreline are all inclusive. It includes gas, oil, tires,
insurance, etc. The hourly rate is for engine hours, not clock time. You
only pay for the time the engine is running, not while the airplane sits on
the ground at your destination. Yes, you do have minimums to consider, but
I've only had one time in almost 20 years where that came into play, and
that was only for 15 minutes.

Take a 3 day weekend trip from PAO (where Shoreline is located) to Las
Vegas. According to Microsoft's MapPoint, the fastest route is 543 miles
and will take 8 1/2 hours by car. (I used speeds slightly above the posted
speed limits to get this time, and excluded any possible traffic delays.)
The IRS says this will cost $257.93 to drive. Using the AOPA flight
planning software, this is now a trip of only 392 miles (flying in a
straight line) and will take 3 hours. At $100/hour, this costs $300. For
the extra $42.07, I save at least 5 1/2 hours enroute (more likely 7 hours
figuring the car stops at least once and 8 to 9 hours if there are any
traffic delays).

At 8 1/2 hours one way, most people will probably stop somewhere enroute to
buy gas, use the rest room, and probably grab a bite to eat, so the trip
will be more like 9 1/2 to 10 hours. By small plane, this is a non-stop
flight. So, the time difference is even larger. And by flying, I didn't
risk a speeding ticket.

For a 3 day holiday weekend, I'm flying 6 hours round trip, which meets the
2 hour daily minimum on aircraft rental. I only pay for 6 hours, even
though I had the airplane for 3 days. And I have at least 1/2 day more
time at my destination. Given the time needed to go through commercial
airports and the security screening, the little plane beats the airlines on
this trip as far as time goes, but the costs are lower by airline.
Southwest quotes a fully refundable fare of $139.30 ($129 + taxes and fees)
from San Jose to Las Vegas and 1 hour 20 minutes flying time. If you have
2 people going on this trip, the airline costs about the same as the little
plane.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Peter Duniho writes:

Not enough distinguishing features to make them useful landmarks.

But they are more likely to lead somewhere, aren't they? If you know
that you're above Interstate X, you could just follow it to wherever X
leads.

Though, that said, they can still be quite useful if you are in an
area with only a few roads, or you already have a pretty good idea of
where you are, or you cross-reference a road or railroad or similar
feature with some more distinctive feature.

How do you look out the window? It seems that the instrument panel is
pretty imposing in most aircraft, and often the nose of the plane
extends well beyond it, so it doesn't look like you'd be able to see
the ground straight ahead. Do you just glance out the side windows,
or what?


No more so than the hood of a car extends beyond the front window. You
can't see the ground immediately in front of you, but you can see the
ground in front of you. The instrument panel is only imposing when you are
not a pilot. After a while, it is no more imposing than the "instrument
panel" in your car. Even when you are on an IFR flight, if the weather
conditions are VMC, you've got to look out of the window. You also have to
be able to see in front of you to taxi to the runway. And unless you, the
aircraft, and the runway are all CAT III rated, you've got to be able to
see in front of you to land.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)