Search results

Repeated turbulence is not good for an airframe. Airframes used in applications where they experience turbulence often see a decrease in airframe life.

It’s also quite possible you were getting some light detonation. This will certainly affect the lifespan of the engine but would not necessarily be noticeable in the cockpit. I ran a IO360 with 10 to 1 and currently run a 540 with 9.5 to 1. Be very careful! Detonation is a combination of many...

Most engines make decent power regardless of how lean they are. The problem is you might put the engine into a regime where detonation can occur. It’s a factor of air temp, fuel quality, CHT and most important mixture. Detonation can destroy an engine in 30 seconds. Best practice is to never run...

There is a reason high time pilots fly with those types of outfits!

What do the logbooks show? Without that info no one can provide real help.

I suppose a rogue military pilot might do that. Perhaps he might even pop expendables and plug in blower. I mean why not since he is likely flying his last flight in a fighter!

I considered that statement but the military does not use civilians as targets unless they are contractors. I have never noted a contract for a Cessna 182.

That will happen and they now believe you are up to no good. There are defined procedures for what to do if intercepted. Slowing down to shake the intercept is not one of them.

If you were intercepted why would you slow down and try and shake the intercept?

Age of the aircraft and or structural integrity is irrelevant if you choose to fly near thunderstorms. Why pilots continue to challange storms eludes me.

You can select 4000 or 6000 rounds per minute. There is no 3 shot burst.

It’s an interesting project. I suspect you are going to have a more severe CG issue than you think. A custom engine mount bringing the motor as close to the firewall as possible might help. You will also lose that 100 to 120 lbs of useful load. Reduced fuel load could offset that a bit. If you...

Every major airline in the days of piston engine operations believed in LOP.

If someone is trying to sell you a DA-62 I would investigate those numbers before you hand over the check.

I have flown most large airliners both Boeing and Airbus. None had the ability to generate their own weight from the struts or otherwise. I believe it was an option on the MD11 but worked so poorly they stopped using it.

Yes, they would be consistently off! As an example we flew BOM to FRA. We consistently over burned on that flight to the point we had a few diverts. We have the option on a flight that severely over burns or can’t make the planned cruise altitude to request a load audit. Turned out the station...

I have flown a lot of long haul flights were errors in weights show up as increased or decreased fuel burn. Overall the weights are remarkable accurate. Errors generally are not with passengers weights.

If the FBO moved them they are responsible. If the flight school moved them they take the hit.

It’s still not clear to me by what removed means. Did they remove the ropes or somehow cut the actual anchors out of the concrete? Regardless there should be no lawyers involved. The school moved them outside knowing severe weather was coming. End of story.

If the school removed the aircraft from a hangar and left them on a ramp with severe weather forecast there is no question in my mind who is at fault. What exactly do you mean by removed tiedowns? Pulled them out of the concrete or took the ropes away?