Search results

Stick and Rudder reminds me of The Elements of Style. Both classics, but also both borderline meme books. The Elements of Style is too over-complicated at points to learn the basics and too simplistic in others to inform high-quality writing.

Interesting. Does that actually make a difference in the water content of the oil? How many hours worth of engine operation water in the crankcase does that equate to?

I am going to make a (completely uneducated) guess that this is an indication error. Judging by the pic the needle is vibrating very quickly (~1/shutter speed of whatever camera you used) and it just does not seem like any component of the vacuum system could cause that rapid a suction change.

Unfortunately the more mechanical problems I have the more I pay them! They didn’t even give me PQP on the purchase… :mad2:

A single source (rather than a list of every book in existence with "detonation" in it) would have sufficed, so long as it's actually accessible to be inspected. Thanks to the magic of the Internet, though, here's a line for 65-12A that appears to be where you're coming from: This book was...

:rollercoaster:

Completely agree. The book will make more sense with some experience and many of the risks they discuss are little more than a distraction to a primary student.

While we’re doing book recommendations, I’ve been extremely pleased with the Jepp Instrument Commercial book. If you plan to do an instrument rating I highly recommend picking up a copy. I got mine used.

I keep a copy on hand (with a $2 bill bookmark for good luck!). There's nothing in it you couldn't learn elsewhere. But as a physical object that reminds you you're not invincible it may have some positive effect and help you stay out of the Mishaps forum. As a piece of technical writing...

Great explanation, thank you!

I agree that's true in a limited sense. The statement "Vne is a function of TAS." is false for two (EDIT: I guess one) reasons: 1. Exactly what Nauga said. Some aircraft are not flutter limited. 2. Vne is a regulatory speed. It is, by regulation, a regulatory speed, set based on flight testing...

Luckily for me I don't have to because I'm asking a question not making a claim. That being said I trust Paul more than you or Magman so he gets a pass without links. :dunno:

Aviation Safety later publised what basically reads as a retraction of that article: https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/vne-revisited/ Also regardless of what airspeed is safe, Vne is a regulatory speed, which by regulation is EAS/IAS for Part 23 aircraft (nit: at spam can altitudes).

The article was written in 2001 and retracted for political reasons. The link is a retrospective. I'd ask if you read beyond the third sentence, but it's literally in the third sentence. o_O

Still waiting for that link about single spark plug causing detonation, btw. :rolleyes:

Indeed, eventually the people who questioned the status quo got the status quo changed. With evidence!

Why waste time providing data when you can just appeal to "authority"?

Got a link? Part 23 would seem to disagree: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2017-title14-vol1/pdf/CFR-2017-title14-vol1-sec23-335.pdf Recall: EAS is basically equivalent to IAS for spam cans.

Maybe you are right, but it’s hard to trust you without data/evidence when other things you’ve said clearly go against what people with far more credibility have said. https://www.advancedpilot.com/articles.php?action=article&articleid=1838 “For optimum service life, Lycoming suggests...

Asking for evidence of claims is not the same as dissing. 1. Make claim, 2. Provide Evidence. Simple.