Hangar Flying

Okay, I don't even have my pilot's license yet - so I may catch some flak for even sticking my nose into this conversation...  But before anyone starts yelling at me to sit down, let me just say that I have a few years' experience as an auto-racing mechanic; and I've dealt with both carburetors and fuel-injection systems.

By far, fuel-injection systems require less unscheduled maintenance (at least in auto applications).  And yes, I know the Ellison isn't a "direct" injection system.  But I've had to deal with jetting and float problems and a myriad of other carb issues (some of which matter to airplanes and others don't)...  If you then add icing risks on top of the standard carb issues, I don't see any reason (other than cost) NOT to use injection systems if at all possible.  The increased adaptability and reliability of injection systems just makes sense to this novice.

Carbs have been around a long time and longer than most folks have been flying. It's like any other piece of equipment, you have to know how to use it.

Injection systems are not "new" and have been around for 30+ years.  If a better solution exists, WHY do we have to settle for an inferior one and "know how to use it"?  Especially when that inferior solution involves serious risks like an engine-out condition even when the unit is in good mechanical working condition?  Does this also mean I shouldn't use GPS and rely only on LORAN?  Please understand I'm not sneering at you personally, Jack - but I fail to see the logic in this argument.

If you're comfortable with a carb and want to use one, fine.  The PIC should always be familiar with all of the equipment in the aircraft in order to operate it safely.  But criticizing a solution and implying that older equipment is better just because its been around longer strikes a false chord with me.

Let's debate equipment not based on its age, but rather on its track-record and proven performance specs.  I'm still hoping someone will respond to this thread with some concrete numbers.

The technology and comparison photos to traditional carbs can be seen here:  
http://www.ellison-fluid-systems.com/article/notaposa/notaposa.htm

--Noel

Hi all,

A non-canard-specific question for ya; but I respect the experience and knowledge of the folks here - so I hope no one minds...   :roll:

I'm closing in on beginning my pilot training...  While I'm trying to keep my supplies limited and expenses low, I've heard that listening in on Comms, learning to work a radio, and learning local frequencies can be beneficial.  To that end, I'm thinking about picking up a handheld scanner or transciever.  A scanner might be cheaper - but I think a transciever might be a better long-term investment since I'd be able to use it in the cockpit as an emergency backup.

While I messed with CBs a bit (and HAMs a very tiny bit) in my youth, I admit to being clueless when it comes to quality, brands, or features for aircraft comms.  I'm not looking for anything fancy - basic and inexpensive is the name of the game (ideally something under $250)... as long as the unit will last 3 to 5 years and cover the major frequency band.  

Any thoughts or suggestions on brands, models, buying new vs. used?

Thanks!  Take care,

--Noel

Can't see any files / photos in your Briefcase.  Do you need to do something special to make them viewable by the public?

Thanks, take care,

--Noel

Good Stuff...

Has everyone seen this video?  Its a clip from "One Six Right" - an incredibly cool new documentary on General Aviation at the Van Nuys Airport ( http://www.onesixright.com )

http://www.users.uswest.net/~choice220721678/Aerial_Movie.htm

--Noel

P.S.  There was an earlier version that used some awesome Enya music; but I'm guessing he couldn't get a license for the soundtrack. :-(

Are any of the San Diego area folks going to be around their Hangars between Christmas and New Years?  I had a chance to hang out at Gillespie Field with the EZ Squadron/Trio Avionics gents on a few Saturdays last winter, but moved back to Seattle abruptly for a job in early 2005.  

I'll be down in the area between Dec. 23rd and New Year's Eve and would love to say Hi, and see how everyone is doing.  Will folks be caught up with family and Holiday merriment; or is anyone planning on being at the field that week?

Hope everyone has a great Holidays!
Take care,

--Noel

I'm not a canard owner, but I've had a chance to climb into a few.... Thought I'd pitch in with some comments about the back-seat, since that's where all of my time has been.

I am 6' 1" and weigh just over 200 lbs.  I have only sat in a Long-EZ on the ground; but it was just fine for space.  These planes are small and fit like a glove - so when I say "fine" I mean enough room for my hips, shoulders, knees, etc. to avoid being pinched.  The difference between the Piper I've flown in and the EZ's is like the difference between a Minivan and a Corvette.  OK, so the EZ is probably more comfy than the Corvettes I've been in - but being a licensed race-car driver, I have the experience to make that space-comparison with authority. ;-)

I've flown in a nicely-built VariEze, and it was OK.  The fuselage had been built an inch or two wider than the plans - and that was a GoodThing(tm) for me.  Without that extra inch I would have been squeezed a bit.  As it was, the VariEze had enough room for me to sit in and that's IT.  I wasn't wedged in, but there was no room to shift about or flail my arms.  Of course, I had so much fun with the stick in the back seat that I didn't care; but a long flight would've gotten to me.

The biggest issue for a tall guy like me in the back seat, is the leg-room.  My knees were just rubbing the seat in front of me; and my legs were slightly tucked underneath me because the seatback goes to the floor (thus requiring the tips of my toes to be behind my knees, when viewed from straight above).  On my short 30-minute flight in the VariEze, again I was having so much fun that I could ignore it...  But anything more than about 2 hours of that and I would have been in pain.  I'd say I was at the cut-off for size and weight, for the back-seat of a VariEze.  The Long-EZ was slightly more forgiving, but not by much.

One final note:  I had never flown in a plane as light and small as the 620 lbs. VariEze...  Initially the feedback on the ground from the asphalt, and the wind on the takeoff roll, were somewhat disconcerting (additionally, I was trusting my life to the building-skills of a man I had just met).  If you have a spouse or significant other that you're trying to get to fly with you - prepare them for that and make sure they have confidence in you and the plane; and your first flights will go a lot smoother. ;-)

Just my amateur $0.02...

--Noel

Okay, so this is a bit off-topic; but I thought I'd share it with you, since I find it amazing:

My Cousin up near Seattle owns a 40' Sailboat.  She was built in 1959 as an open-ocean racer, and had much success on the San Diego-to-Hawaii & San-Francisco-to-Acapulco races in the 60's.  She's still raced some in local events and does quite well.  

She's of wood construction, but one of her builders was an early pioneer of Resins & Fiberglass (he made the first fiberglass body-casts for hosiptals).  He made her two 50-gallon Diesel fuel-tanks with polyester resin in 1959.  He didn't want the leakage problems or "breakability" of a glass sight-gauge, so he made one spot on the tank thin, so a light could be shined through to view the fuel-level.

After 45 years of being around saltwater and filled with Diesel fuel, I helped install a mechanical fuel-gauge in a spare filler-cap; and was astounded that these tanks are still going strong with no leaks!  Any doubts in my mind about the long-term viability of fiberglass composites - even as a fuel-tank-material - were erased.

Take care,

--Noel