zaitcev.mee.nu

This is going to be even more capsule than usual:

* Just as good as Hyundai Fanbois at TTAC say, but

* The visibility to the left is impaired by the A-pillar even worse than usual, atrocious.

Tags: cars

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 07:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

I called Southwest Aviation because a) everyone says "that FBO that Frank Borman founded is great", and b) for this comment at AirNav:

From Mark Stucky on 26-Oct-2010

* * * * * (5 stars)

When Virgin Galactic asked me to land WhiteKnightTwo with SpaceShipTwo for the dedication of the brand new Spaceport America, there was just one problem -- the infrastructure was not yet in place for refueling. Dan and his crew at SWA came to the rescue and trucked the fuel out there for us. (And it was a looong truck drive!) Awesome service and we literally could not have done it without them. Thanks SWA!

Curiously enough, AirNav does not even list Adventure Aviation. It's possible that the competing FBO closed up long time ago. The airport is even sleepier than Artesia, it seems, and there was absolutely nothing to see. Some "International" it is. They are supposed to experiment with drones there, but I saw nothing.

Here's a picture of a balloon off our wing, to show something:

P.S. KABQ recovered us on rwy 21, which I exited at Charlie. The taxi clearance was to follow Charlie to rwy 30, proceed left on 30, exit left on Echo, proceed to E1 to Cutter. I felt like I landed in New York La Guardia. The odd routing was prompted by Kilo being closed for construction, and a small twin taxiing in the opposite direction on Golf.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 07:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

In case you're wondering what's going on with anime on this blog anymore, I am going to fly out to an anime convention tomorrw, where I am scheduled to run a panel. This is going to be the first time I am using a personal airplane to travel on business. Stakes may be considered high by some, too: a no-show by a panelist results in life-time ban from the convention.

Weather looks good: no ice, no precip, light winds, broken cloud cover up high. See you there.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 07:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

I blogged about GX and about the 150 (twice) as it happened, but IIRC I posted no head-to-head comparison. But indeed, airplanes are naturably comparable, both being basic 100 hp two-seaters. A request by a connection at MyTransponder prompted me to write it all down.

Firstly, the basics of specific airplanes. C150 N2966V weighs 1600 lbs gross, 1128 lbs empty, for 472 lbs useful load. Of that, it drains 5.5 gph. GX N28GX is 1320 lbs gross over 689 lbs (no chute), for 631 lbs useful. The difference in utility is very much pronounced. When I flew C150 with a small instructor (140 lbs), we had to off-load fuel down to 10 gallons! In GX, I can take my wife and a couple of bags, fly XC to an overnight destination. In 150 I can only take her for 1 circuit around the pattern.

Funnily enough, the C150 has a large, easily accessible baggage/cargo area, but GX has an adequate, but poorly accessible baggage hold (must remove seats to get to it). People of 1940s were so small, it was another world. They needed and used all that space.

As far as flying qualities go, GX wins by a mile. It is completely natural, all controls feel just right. It needs a light touch, but not excessively so: flaring for landing is quite easy. In contrast, in C150 you actually have to be a pilot, especially when dragging it in with power, and it is easier to overcook and balloon when flaring. For people with large and current experience in typical basic and advanced singles, there is probably not much difference, but for a low-time pilot it is quite noticeable. Of course, flying GX one must not get too complacent. In particular, you must be able to handle crosswinds.

Speaking of which, touching down with a crab in GX is undesirable, and wheelbarrowing is a strict taboo. I heard its landing gear was not not as sturdy, although I did not prang one yet. Unfortunately the cowl of GX is completely smooth, and also oddly and deceptively shaped. The right way to know the centerline is to extend the line between the rudder pedals up, then reference a part of Dynon display for visual alignment. The C150 is supposed to be more forgiving of harder landings.

Note that the Piper-style direct nosewheel steering requires the rudder to be straightened momentarily when nosewheel comes down at landing. Still, I found this skill easier to master than Cessna's toe brakes. And the bungee cords are a pure nightmare. To this day I taxi N2699V in zig-zags.

I touched upon the visibility before. For some reason I am more comfortable in C150. The visibility for the tall people is poor in both, but in C150 I do not have to fly bent over like a question mark. Also, the ventillation in GX blows at feet. I made a mistake of flying in shorts and sandals once and caught a good cold (I cruise at about 9.5/10.5).

If you are short though, GX offers excellent creature comforts (sans air conditioning of course). And the instrumentation is thoroughly modern. I suppose, one could plop an Aspen into C150. The cost is going to be more than the whole airplane.

And it's understandable. One thing I do not see mentioned much is how poorly C150 was designed and built. It's horrible. When I see the rudder assembly, I get scared. The flaps are horribly over-engineered for their function and yet require constant attention. It truly was a cheap airplane. To be fair, Cessna worked to improve it during the long production run. They gradually strengthened the tail and doubled up in the areas of worst cracking. I would say, the late-70s Ms are reasonably safe, as long as you have and use a seat stop and generally pay attention.

By contrast, GX is designed and built like a Lexus. Unfortunately, it comes with a price tag to match: $135k for a stripper model. Repairs are costly too. And its durability is unproven. Nonetheless, the owner of N28GX uses it for primary training. I really hope his business plan closes.

P.S. I also compared GX to 162 before, but theoretically.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 10:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 709 words, total size 4 kb.

I was re-reading the manual and suddenly noticed that Arrow is somewhat faster at about 6,000 ft than at my standard cruising altitudes of 9.5/10.5/11.5. Before, I always followed the "airliner" profile: take off, climb at Vy to the boundary of oxigen, cruise high over the mountains and valleys, dive to the destination airport, land. It seemed like the right thing in a trainer Cherokee, where I had to pull back on the throttle to prevent overrevving. The airplane topped at about the same 120 mph indicated, but up high it translated to a better true speed. But Arrow has an constant speed prop, so it can extract all of the available power from the engine, and the power drops off quickly above 8,000 ft.

So, last Saturday I went low, to see how that worked. The manual was right, of course. But more importantly, everything looks so different down below. The terrain in the area is at about 6000, give or take, so I stayed about 1500 above. That low, things really appeared new and strange. The skyline is different, with peaks and ridges noticeably raising from beyond the horizon. This affects the navigation, as I need to recognize different shapes. The flight path has to be adjusted to account for every little hillcock, and obstructions need attention. And there's so much stuff on the ground!

Unfortunately, I am unable to capture the novelty with a camera. It all looks very much the same in pictures.

P.S. Bird strikes are a significant danger down low, but I saw no bird this time.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 10:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

On the last day of vacation, I took an unplanned flight with Mr. Mike Lauro, owner of Tropicbird, who is also an experienced CFI. He took a different view from Jon Pickering. According to Mike, while I have to heed Jon's remarks, my main problem is not in details like flying with the trim. My main problem is simply not flying enough. That, and airplane-whoring. He suggested that I selected one airplane, and become truly proficient at flying it.

I think he has a point. But then, which one?

I'd love to choose Michael's GX every day. It's a fabulous toy and I enjoy flying it. But I'm reluctant to fly far in it. Although I am used to it now, I am cramped inside. I am afraid to prang it and deprive Michael of income. I am afraid that someone would break in if I park it overnight and steal the expensive Garmins. I am not comfortable feeding it 100LL. And let's face it, driving to Santa Fe is no fun.

Bode's C-150 N2966V is the cheapest. It has no other redeeming qualities, but cheap means I can afford to fly more, which is important.

Finally, Del Sol's Arrow is the XC machine with sensible per-mile cost that allows to build complex time. It is the most "grown-up" airplane that's available to me. It is also the most expensive per hour.

Of course, I could also buy a personal airplane too, but that's a serious problem for inevitable relocation.

Decisions, decisions.

UPDATE: Decided to shoot for Arrow.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 10:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

My deep-seated belief that my instructors were too nice for my own good received new food when I went up with Mr. Jon Pickering in a C-172RG of Iolani Air. Jon identified 3 areas that needed urgent improvement:

1. Power (mis-)management. He wants me to climb at full power out of an airport, then transition to cruise by letting the airplane accelerate, and then fly at cruise speeds and the most efficient power setting. Instead, I bump the power down as soon as I can, set 2200 RPMs, and then fly the throttle around 21" of MP. I am so used to be stingy and bump the throttle down as soon as I sense an updraft. But Jon implied that it's not good for engine, but more importantly it triggers other bad habits.
2. Flying the trim. Since I play with power, I have to chase it with trim, and in the end I start flying with the trim. I need to break this and get back to flying with the yoke. It may even help me stay on the desired altitude, which I don't.
3. Staying on the centerline. At the final, I am sloppy getting on the centerline. I enter a slight correction towards it and get roughly on the centerline some 300 ft up, then make finer corrections and line up for touchdown. At Waimea, this just does not work, because it prevents me from sensing changes in deviation immediately. It is too gusty. I should get strictly on the centerline early, and apply corrections promptly. In the event, my corrections grew larger and larger, and I had to call a go-around from 100 ft.

There was way more than that. I bounced us off the runway at touchdown in Kona at first. I forgot to raise the gear. I "set" the VOR instad of DG (not the first time it happens to me). My radio work is atrocious. I also flew 500 ft above a helicopter head-on: I knew he was there, but could not acquire him until we were 2/3 mile away. It was kind of fun in a bad way.

Even after all is said, I think I could've circumnavigated the island, or made the right decision to turn back, on a good day like that. But I need to be way more on the ball for the instructor to be able to forego teaching basics and move onto the local weather.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 03:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 2 kb.

On my landing into KABQ, Delta MD-90 was being recovered on runway 3. Everything was routine until the moment they tried to take exit Charlie, which airliners normally take since it's configured as a high-speed exit and leads straight to the air carrier terminal. A burst of braking followed by weaving as they realized that they're not making it. I think we took Delta (it was dark, so I'm not sure, could've rolled all the way down). I was mentally preparing to ask casually "oh hey guys, did you try to make Charlie", but by the time we deplaned, the crew was already gone. Usually Captain or F/O stands at the door to wave us good-bye. Oh well, it's to the best, I guess.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 01:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Today was extremely educational, as I spent the time between 5 and 10 a.m. at the airport, waiting for the weather to improve. By necessity, I had a received a great opportunity to compare the actual weather with reports. The Prog(nostic) Chart won my especial admiration for the concise way it summarizes the picture. Before, I was rather confused about the right way to interpret it. Oh sure, I knew all the symbols. I passed a strict exam about it. But I was rather like Dr. Feynman's Brazilian stundents in this regard.

Yet it's simple like an apple. Click on the current surface analysys. That's clear enough, right? Then... Click on the "next" button `[>]'. It works in the same way as on the Satellite product. Voila. Beautiful.

Because New Mexico's flying weather is so mild, I managed to put in a couple of cross-countries in the 300 nm rage without thinking about weather at all. In the summer it basically comes down to flying direct towards the destination, and going around any thunderstorms. There are no squall lines like in Georgia, no solid overcast like in Ohio. The only problem is wind, which closes mountain passes. In the winter it becomes a bit more interesting. We may even see.. *gasp* ice! Yeah. No wonder that my ability to read Prog Charts never developed.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 06:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.

I am back from taking Bonnie Mauldin's Flight Design CTLS to a practice area. The capsule summary is: a nice airplane except for center console ergonomics. Vizibility is much better than out from Remos GX, thanks to sensible door frames. I do not have to remain bent like a question mark in CT. The lower edge of the dash mushroom is high enough, and the seats are far enough from the ruddger pedals that I can put my feet down naturally.

People always write about the flaps in CT. I do not think they are a problem. The basics are simple: take off and land with flaps down ("15"), fly around an airport with flaps neutral ("0"), and cruise with flaps up ("-6"). That's all there is to it.

The handling is ordinary. The only thing to watch out is how it likes to sink in turns, so bump that power up and pull. The spring-loaded control surfaces feel a bit weird, but on the upside all 3 axii are trimmable. Although, this includes the first snag: ridiculously stiff elevator trim, and the wheel being inadequate. I imagine putting one's thumb to it gets old fast (GX has a convenient electric trim).

The center console in general is where the designers messed up. The throttle lever gives the setup an upscale, airliner look, but I have to put my fist around the stem, or else I cannot set the right power. It's ridiculously inconvenient, especially compared to dual button throttle on GX. In flight, the handle obscures the flap switch. On the ground, I bumped the throttle out of idle every time I reached for the brake lever (which has to be pulled). There's a definite control interference problem. Some of it is intentionally designed in: the fuel shut-off blocks the ignition key. That's going to be an epic fail when the time comes to fumble the key during an engine fire. Oh, an the carb heat is at the top of panel, because an extra challenge during go-arounds is good for you.

BTW, Bonnie's airplane is noticeably faster than Michael's: it goes 100 knots at 4800 RPMs with the two of us. Book values are about the same on both. It may be the prop, or perhaps the flaps.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

According to Phoenix ABC 15, 3 small children were on board of a Twin Commander that smashed into Superstition Mountains yesterday night. There's a YouTube video from a security camera.

The first lesson is obviously the dangers of night VFR. But without removing the blame of the two grown idiots who thought it was a good idea to avoid the hassle of rerouting by dodging rocks in the dark, look at pictures posted to PoA. Dodging Bravo is difficult at the best of times, and rocks made it much worse. Frankly I am quite unimpressed with the "air grab" that is going on around "the nation's busiest airports". But what to do? We have the big airline businesses on the other side.

By the way, for some reason, journalists call the Twin Commander "small". It's not really.

QUICK UPDATE: The menacing floor of Bravo not always made people run into mountains. It was in fact lowered from 8000 to 5000 a few years ago. Here's a quote from AOPA letter, objecting to the "air grab":

East Valley Airspace [proposal] Flawed

AOPA is opposed to lowering the floor of the Class B sector over the East Valley area from the current 8,000-foot floor down to 5,000 feet msl. The TRACON's proposed floor of 5,000 feet extending to 25 nautical miles will not only severely hamper GA's ability to transition the Phoenix airspace to the east but is being proposed to allow PHX arrivals to descend lower on visual approaches to parallel downwinds -- the very scenario that when educating the surrounding Phoenix communities, the FAA claimed would NOT OCCUR.

Between the Superstition Mountains to the east and Falcon Field (FFZ) Class D to the west, there is literally nowhere for GA pilots to transition on the East side of PHX. And just as the TRACON and ATC heard repeatedly in the public airspace meetings and acknowledged during a telcon with AOPA in early May, the lack of GA services available from the Phoenix TRACON makes it impossible to transit within the Class B airspace area. Furthermore, the TRACON's proposal will not permit GA pilots to fly at least 2,000 feet over the Superstition Mountains Wilderness Preserve, which would be against FAA's very own guidance as spelled out in Advisory Circular, AC 91-36. [...]

But the lowering was implemented anyway, because it saves fuel for big airlines. This is how your government kills you.

UPDATE: Rob reposted to Facebook.

UPDATE 2011/11/29: Here's an article by Jim Walsh in Arizona Republic:

Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman, said he cannot comment on specific crashes but said general-aviation pilots can request clearance from control towers to enter the so-called Class Bravo airspace when necessary.

True enough, we can request. But then quite often we hear "Remain clear of Class Bravo". Last time I received that reply, controller added: "I don't have time to deal with you." It was in DEN Bravo, not PHX, but same principle applies.

Mike Huhn, a National Transportation Safety Board investigator, said he is examining the airspace-redesign issue as one of many potential contributing factors in the collision.

"They are all correct statements. Therein lies the fingerpointing,'' Huhn said.

Mr. Huhn is right, and my own post above borders on fingerpointing.

UPDATE: NTSB report for N690SM is WPR12FA046, November 23, 2011.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 02:21 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 4 kb.

Amazon MP3 is the greatest thing since baked bread, since it's DRM-free, but its indexing is just useless for anison and J-pop. It plainly has no clue that such a category even exists. At first, I searched by name, but that was like searching needle in the haystack. No Ayumi Hamasaki, no nuthin. Only the blasted Utada as far as eye can see. Then, it was mostly trawling carefuly through lists and "customer who view this, also..."

One of the most annoying pests is "I Love You! Project", which floods search results with ear-rending instrumental remixes. Their production is the worst... except Anime no Magic. The Kimi To Yakusoku Shita is particularly rad. Typically, there's no artist credit. Who sings? Who plays? Mystery!

Miku Hatsune floods too, thanks to mediocre creators seeking opportunity. Still, genuine hits are represented, such as Sososo's Next Stage, which once reached the top of Oricon in CD single form (true story!). After buying all of Sososo's Miku stuff, it begins to sound about the same, so for the sake of difference, check Biruru's Dou Demo Ii. It may not necesserily be Sososo's fault, Miku's range is not that great. However, creators have a lot of trouble breaking away from her. The best Luka track I found so far is Stay by my side.

KOTOKO: Actually, She Is At Amazon. There's one album, where she only took a part: Disintegration. It's an early one, so I hope for more, in the years ahead.

AKB48: They sound surprisingly amateurish to me (Sorry, J!). However, I gave them a good try after reading this review:

This is a really creepy and sexist phenomenon. Nevermind the typical soulless music, this industry does everything to make these girls seem as generic as possible so they can easily be replaced, like homogeneous puppets pumped out by some machine. [...] Congrats, Japanese teen idol industry: I'm not politically correct by any means, but you managed to ruin my day. I wish people wouldn't tolerate these kinds of dehumanizing messages in popular media.

My favourite AKB48 track is probably Kimi to Niji to Tayou to. I can just see jamming on the synth for them (even though with the way multi-tracks are recorded in reality, it's a pure illusion).

Stereopony is some kind of real-life ENOZ that found financial backing. They look like they broke out with a couple of singles, Hanbunko and Smilife, to be followed by generic stuff.

Another one-album wonder is Megumi Oukutsu, with Asu Heno Tobira. The poor thing did not even get the lifespan of Stereopony. Frankly, she beats the pants off the collection of singles that Yoko Ishida recorded in the twilight of her career.

I did not find Scandal's work to my liking, with a possible exception of Yumemiru Tsubasa. Also, I suggest sampling Maihime's Hiryu, just for the heck of it. And the final oddball is Go, by Flow: the token anison in the album, and yet sounds more entertaining than the rest. If you want to get depressed, try to find Haruka Kanata. There is even a vocal imitation (and a bad one at that).

UPDATE: J. commented that AKB48's music is "pretty bad". Well, that settles that. Although, he should try that one track that I linked.

Omo reminded to mention a Miku author Supercell (not the other Supercell, a band). As far as critical acclaim and royalties, Sososo is pretty much unbeatable.

J. also added:

Oh, and if you didn't know, AKB48's producer has been in the idol game a long time, having been responsible for the original giant girl group, Onyanko Club, and after inspiring Tsunku to create Morning Musume, he returned to crush them.

Tags: anime

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 03:33 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 622 words, total size 5 kb.

Pictured: another student from our school, demonstrating a crosswind correction in N80866.

I looked at the seat tracks the first thing, and they seemed not any worse than those in Piper. But when I tried to settle in, it turned out that at the seat hitting the rear stops, I cannot reach the controls, despite being unusually tall. No wonder that people kill themselves with unlatched seats in Cessnas, but not in Pipers.

Also, it may be related, but in every other old 4-seat GA airplane two grown Americans push the envelope in the front. In Piper Arrow, I had to use actual ballast! Not in the 172 though: we hit the envelope about 2/3 to the back.

The airplane is very easy to fly. Landings require speed control: don't land fast, don't land slow. Fortunately, it quite easy to keep on the dot (around 70 mph), unlike its older brother C-150. Also, the visibility in turns is better. The only problem that I hit was an excessive sensitivity in the pitch, like what LSAs are roundly reputed to have.

While we were practicing, flaps died on us. It was not the breaker. Either the actuator motor went kaputt, or a wire fell off somewhere. Fortunately, they were retracted when they failed, so we just continued without any drama. Many people dislike electric flaps for the reason of potential failure, but even after today I am not with them. I had flaps on Cherokee unlatch on me with a tremendous slam. Good thing I wasn't landing at a short field at the time!

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 07:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

I cheated by driving in, again. But it's all right, as I'm scheduled to check out in a C-172 later today.

First interesting thing I saw was somebody's Challenger (pictured). It's N-registered, so not a Part 103 aircraft. I am most impressed by the workmanship. The engine installation is extremely clean, compared to what I saw at Tucumcari. Lots of crude materials are used, but with very little machining, but the guy is clearly skilled with a hacksaw and needle.

Behind the Challenger sits a CTSW, N44BZ. If it's representative of CTLS, I think I like it more than GX, from the outside at any rate. They are extremely similar, but the door frames are thinner on CTSW, promising a better visibility. Also, baggage can be accessed without removing the seats and the panel shape promises to be more compatible with my knees. Of course, the airplane is known to be quirky. For one thing, there aren't ouside door handles. Then there are weird fuel vents and negative flaps. But if I can fit better, I think I'd like it more. I should get back to the idea of flying an hour or two with Bonnie Mauldin, as a fit check.

Appropos that, I met two other local instructors: John Loranz and Chester Smith. Mr. Smith is semi-retired these days. He does not teach in his airplane anymore, but continues advanced instruction in customers' airplanes. John does tailwheel instruction and I'm going to give him a call in January.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Capsule review:

* Very nice engine; CVT is nowhere as offensive as whatever is used in Fiesta.

* Very little to distinguish from Versa. {Update 2012/01/06: Alex L. Dykes had the same idea.}

Tags: cars

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 10:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Look at this, a T-28!

I scheduled a time to check out in a C-172, so keeping in mind the last time, I thought to put a little proficiency/currency hop in. Nothing to report, really, except my ugly patterns. I dialed more and more flap with every landing and it got pretty fun. But now I wish I owned an airplane, with an insurance of off-airport landings. The short field landings and takeoffs are just not as fun when simulated.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 12:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

When writing about the night hop, I omitted how it actually went, and in one word it was bad. The worst part is how easily I slide into complacency, and of course complacency is what kills people the most. I was an Arrow- and Mooney-qualified veteran of 150 hours, and this was the Cherokee in which I took my checkride, so what could go wrong? I mean, you just look at it!

The trouble started right away, when I forgot how to deal with weathervaning on takeoff, and almost departed the upwind side of the runway. Good grief. But that was only the beginning.

On the first landing, I slowed down more than I did back in my student days, because hey, real pilots approach at 1.3 Vs0. You probbaly see where this was going: stalled out of the flare and onto the runway. I was saved by the old habits of floating: the altitude was low, and the nose did not go down enough to impact first. Oooh keey... Taxied back, took off, and then proceeded to bleed the speed almost to the bottom of green arc during the crosswind turn. Oh, and the carb heat was left on. That was taking it too far!

I had to get my shit together or else, so I psyched myself, made a by-the-book approach, crosswind-corrected final and touchdown. But as I started to congratulate myself, something possessed me to examine how well the aerodynamic braking worked, so I started to pull... and popped right off the runway! In crosswind!

Miraclously, I deftly saved the situation with just the right kick of power, but then thought it better to fold up for the night. I clearly wasn't in the right frame of mind. The departure with tail between legs was uneventful, but Albuquerque approach naturally saw fit to sequence me with a Delta jet breathing down my back, and even asked to short-circuit my pattern. I don't know how I managed it. But, here I am.

The outcome is that someone has to take every flight seriously before something bad happens. Also, my upcoming tailwheel work is going to shape like a remedial course.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 04:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

The article itself may be just one of those opinions-opinions variety, but there was an interesting comment by Frederick Stark:

Some years ago I was involved in the development of a single business jet, the Visionaire Vantage. We studied the safety issue in considerable depth and here's some some of what we found. Turboprops have a greater failure rate than turbo fans because of the gear box and propeller. Most of the in-flight failures of the jet engine we selected were because of running out of fuel. The injury and death rate was higher for twin propeller airplanes than for singles because of loss of control and/or higher stall speed. By FAA regulation the stall speed of a single engine jet was 65 kts, the same as for single propeller airplanes. In the event of an engine failure the single engine jet usually glides further than a propeller airplane. The loss of the engine in a single engine jet will result in losing cabin pressure but the bleed off time will allow descent to a safe altitude and is not nearly as dangerous as a window failure. These conclusions were based on independent analysis by safety experts and Department of Transportation data. Our overall conclusion was there is little safety difference between a single or multi-engine jet and the single jet has considerable safety advantages over single turboprops and twin propeller airplanes.

By the way, I also happen to agree that stalling at 65 knots is way too much to be survivable in most terrain, even rather flat. However, BRS may address that concern.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 04:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

I made a night hop tonight, for the night currency per Title 14, Part 61 Federal Regulations:

§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.

(b) Night takeoff and landing experience. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise (...)

The requirement applies only if I were to carry passengers, which is not very likely, but it may happen. Just another excuse to fly, anyway.

Airport is different at night, looking more mysterious. Nightfall is early in October, and traffic around 8 p.m. is still flowing quite well. A Delta jetliner was chasing me down at 3, then cut me off at Charlie. Unfortunately, the vibration did not allow me to snap a decent picture.

UPDATE: But wait, there's more!

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 09:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

I cannot help contrasting what Meg in her review (via, with a broken link) with my impressions of Remos GX. I'm going to skip things that are similar between the two airplanes. But before that, one unique feature of Garmin 300, which I would like to critique irrespectively to GX:

Weight and balance is done via an application of the Garmin 300, a glass panel designed specficially for the Skycatcher.

To have the W&B in the cockpit is an extremely bad idea, because, unlike an airliner, W&B in a light airplane must impart the decision-making well before boarding. It plays no role when avionics are turned on. If any parameters are outside the envelope, having already boarded the airplane places an undue pressure on PIC to continue.

I was in a situation when the computation demonstrated the airplane being outside its W&B envelope. In one case, we were able to procure ballast (jugs of water). In other case, we switched the airplane to one more permissive. Both cases were helped by making decisions ahead of time so that the schedule was impaired minimally.

Meg missed this important point, instead focusing on students losing habit of calculating W&B by hand — as if they do not use iPad and 'droid apps to do it already.

{Update: Note that it is next to impossible to get a side-by-side 2-seater out of balance, as long as the design co-locates people with the projection of CG. Placing fuel in wings helps. However, my point still stands: W&B calculations must be done well ahead of the flight.}

And with that out of the way, points of comparison.

"We bought the Skycatcher specifically for training,” Cunneen said. "We looked at other light-sport aircraft, but they didn’t look like they would hold up in a training environment. The Skycatcher is all metal. It is built by Cessna, a company that has built a lot of training airplanes and knows how to do it. They went beyond the ASTM industry standards when they built it, so I think it is a really good training platform.”

Michael teaches PP and SP in the GX he lets me rent, and Dr. Shuch uses an all-metal Evektor SportStar, which seems holding fine for a few years now. But sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Getting into the Skycatcher involves bending over and lifting up a knee to your chest. This can be a challenge for some people, said Cunneen.

To board GX, which has a broadly similar layout, one plops the fanny into the seat first, then draws the limbs in. The technique is not difficult, and may be adopted to Skycatcher. It is clear that neither airplane offers a challenge of Piper Cub.

"There is no insulation in this airplane, no plastic, no cloth, no nothing,” said Cunneen. // Skycatcher is louder than the other Cessnas I routinely fly.

GX is reasonably quiet. In fact, Michael flies with a jet headset. I'm sure that it is not overloaded with insulation and it uses its plastic sandwich construction to an advantage.

Like most LSAs, the Skycatcher is easy on fuel consumption, averaging between five and six gallons per hour.

GX is noticeably more frugal than that. Cruising at 5000 rpm at level 95/105, it burns 3.8 gph. It will not hit 6 gph even at full power at sea level. Rotax 912 is simply a superior engine in every respect (for example, aside from a better fuel economy, its installation weighs less despite heavy coolant).

Although the Skycatcher is limited to daytime VFR flight only, the G300 comes equipped with synthetic vision and pre-loaded with VFR and IFR charts.

Since GX is used by private pilots in Europe, it is capable of night VFR, and I used it for my night currency. A stripper version exists that omits panel lighting, but fortunately it is not the only configuration.

Skycatcher does not have back-up instruments.

GX has steam-gauge airspeed, altimeter, and compass in all available specifications.

The flaps are actuated by a Johnson bar located between the seats.

Having trained in Piper Cherokee, mechanical flaps is actually something I would not mind in GX, which features a Cessna-like electrical switch. Of should I say "formerly Cessna-like"? It is unclear to me what design would be lighter, especially in a high-wing airplane.

Skycatcher has toe brakes [...] The Skycatcher also has a castering nosewheel.

Although toe brakes offer advantages to skilled pilots, they have to be mastered. GX is set up like an earlier Cherokee: center lever and rigid steering connection. It is extremely easy to steer, but now that I have flown airplanes with temperamental brakes, I feel like I may be outgrowing that arrangement. Mind, I do not have a tailwheel endorsement yet.

The elevator and ailerons are actuated by a stick that feels and moves like it should be connected to the floor between the pilot’s legs, but instead is inserted under the panel.

GX has a conventional stick, but I am not sure it's better than Skycatcher's arrangement. Meg's gripe misses that if one removes the "joystick" and bolts a yoke there, Skycatcher's hand control is a yoke! But it is better than a traditional yoke, because it provides a better knee clearance.

One thing Meg did not mention is restraints. GX has a 4-point harness, which is great for safety, but also added personal difficulties for me: my left shoulder strap keeps sliding off, and I have to struggle with the belly pack.

Another is that BRS is standard in Skycatcher, but optional in GX (Michael's plane is specced without). This is a matter of discussion, as LSAs are badly weight-constrained. Flying withou BRS allows to take that much more baggage or fuel, a point that residents of western states appreciate.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 05:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 968 words, total size 6 kb.