I am still flying and you should, too

2.5 hrs
1.4 IMC with an ILS to 100ft above mins
1.1 Night

All hand flown, since the A/P is on the fritz. Good times.
 
flyersfan31 said:
2.5 hrs
1.4 IMC with an ILS to 100ft above mins
1.1 Night

All hand flown, since the A/P is on the fritz. Good times.
Click to expand...

Good work! I am gonna go pull the 182 out and do three takes offs and landings I think...
 
Got 13 hrs in the 182RG this weekend. Much more enjoyable than the 45 hours of driving it would have taken to accomplish the same things!
 
Got 1.8 hours today. Wife I flew from 19A up to KAJR and had lunch at the Runway Fish House just down the street. Left there and took a run up to KCEU (Clemson, Oconee) and visited for a little bit then climbed back in and headed back home (19A). Nice weather, mid 60's, but a bit breezy.
 
Flew twice (actually three times) today. Once in the AM, currency with my ex-stu in his Archer; fourth approach was marred by the alt light coming on, wouldn't go way with POH procedures, punched down through a hole and landed.

After four hours on the charger, flew to VYS to pick him up, it was pretty nasty and low vizzy (T=-2 aloft, light rime, surface +3); loc approach to VYS and RNAV 18 to 3MY both at night. Am set for currency for another month....

Good to hear, Ben :)
 
Last edited:
Not much above freezing, low clouds, precipitation. I sat today out. Saturday I was still UTI.
 
Well, if my plane were not at the other end of the state, with one cylinder off, and its exhaust system in Wisconsin for overhaul, I'd be... on the ground anyway, since the weather was grunt here today.

Still and all , wish I'd had the choice...
 
Picked up 08R from annual and then made the short hop to KMQS to catch up with Capn' Ron, Clr2tkof (Rob) and his daughter Ally, JimR, M35 (Dave). 08Romeo checked out fine and the late lunch run was great hangar flying as always!
 
Almost 6 hours on a Lifeline Pilot flight (I've got a writeup on the site already). This is shaping up to be my most productive month ever, at over 20 hours so far, and maybe my most productive year, at over 70 hours so far. And that's with almost no training going on!
 
gprellwitz said:
Almost 6 hours on a Lifeline Pilot flight (I've got a writeup on the site already). This is shaping up to be my most productive month ever, at over 20 hours so far, and maybe my most productive year, at over 70 hours so far. And that's with almost no training going on!
Click to expand...
Hmm, this is looking like it will be my least productive year with only 87 hours so far. I had a lot of missed flights for other things going on. I guess it is all perspective.
 
gprellwitz said:
This is shaping up to be my most productive month ever, at over 20 hours so far, and maybe my most productive year, at over 70 hours so far. And that's with almost no training going on!
Click to expand...

smigaldi said:
Hmm, this is looking like it will be my least productive year with only 87 hours so far. I had a lot of missed flights for other things going on. I guess it is all perspective.
Click to expand...

You ain't kiddin' - I have 42.4 hours so far this year, and I think that SUCKS. :mad:

2005: 119.2 :)
2006: 129.4 :D
2007: 168.0 :rollercoaster:
2008: 154.4 :goofy:
2009: 42.4 :(
 
Whoa, I beat out KENT?:eek: (Okay, only for this year, but still...)

I don't think Leslie's quite as high as I am, but "wow!"

Maybe we really should look at buying an airplane!

(BTW, Kent, you should be looking for an airplane too!
 
Maybe I should just buy it and lease it to you! :)

Oh, that would require having money to buy it to start with. Nevermind....
 
LOL Kent, I think I have more time in the Glider than your TT do far :-)
 
gprellwitz said:
Whoa, I beat out KENT?:eek: (Okay, only for this year, but still...)
Click to expand...

Heh... Well, I think to be fair, if you included Leslie's total with yours for the last few years you'd be in the same range as me. :yes:

Maybe we really should look at buying an airplane!
Click to expand...

Ummm... Yeah! :yes: :yes: :yes:

Heck, I love the benefits of being in a club and sharing an airplane with a limited number of people... Having my own (your own) airplane would be heavenly!

(BTW, Kent, you should be looking for an airplane too!
Click to expand...

Oh, I have been, for years! More seriously since 2007 or so, but being unemployed for a year really drained my airplane fund. I paid off my car today though, so there's a bit more $$$ to redirect to the airplane fund. :yes:

Here's my current love interest:

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...HE/1969-PIPER-TURBO-TWIN-COMANCHE/1154467.htm

attachment.php


This is not your average Twin Comanche. :no: It has several modifications which make it into a really amazingly capable bird:

1) Miller Mods:

1a) Miller engine nacelles. These have baggage lockers, giving you more room - Or a place to store oil, tools, etc. without worrying about them getting your baggage greasy.

1b) Miller wet wing additional aux fuel tanks - This, in combination with the existing factory tanks, gives you some insane fuel capacity: 60 gal mains, 30 gal factory aux, 30 gal factory tips, 38 gal Miller aux. You end up with *possibly* enough fuel to make Hawaii from the mainland, though not enough to give the kind of reserve I'd want on a trip like that! (I guess I'll have to get the 40 gal nacelle tanks installed too. ;))

1c) Miller extended nose - This has a baggage compartment as well, though I'd likely not use it except for light items due to W&B issues.

1d) Miller 200hp engine upgrade - Replaces the 160hp IO-320's with 200hp IO-360's. Improves cruise a little bit, improves climb and single-engine service ceiling dramatically.

2) Turbo. Faster cruise on trips long enough to go high. What's "long enough"? According to a spreadsheet I made to figure the most optimum altitudes for a Turbo Twinkie, it seems like 1,000 feet per 18nm results in the fastest trip while 1,000 feet per 20nm results in the most fuel-efficient trip. So, when going to Gaston's (433nm) I'd go to FL220.

3) Robertson STOL. This adds a sizable dorsal fin, stall fences, and flaperons - The ailerons extend with the flaps up through half flaps, and retract as the flaps go to full.

4) Speed brakes. Save some wear and tear on the brakes, steeper approach angle if needed, can fly fast approaches much closer in when ATC needs it.

5) Bonus stuff: These are things I wouldn't bother installing if the plane didn't already have them, but would be nice to have anyway: Color weather radar, radar altimeter, large 1-piece windscreen, speed mods, etc.

All of this stuff gives you some really nice capabilities when compared with the normal Twin Comanche:

1) Speed and efficiency: The Miller engines allow for a better climb rate to the altitudes where the turbos give a nice increase in true airspeed for the same fuel burn. A different airplane with these mods claims 230 KTAS on 18gph at 20,000 feet. Impressive! (I'd be happy with 200 KTAS. ;))

2) Short-field capability: The R/STOL in combination with the Miller engines (for takeoff) and the speed brakes (for landing) gives some amazing short-field capabilities for a bird this speedy. The R/STOL lowers Vmc from 90mph/78 knots to 75mph/65 knots and ground roll for both takeoff and landing is greatly reduced - The other advertised airplane I mentioned above with Miller/Turbo/STOL (yes there's TWO of them for sale! :eek:) claims both takeoff and landing ground rolls of 500 feet, and that one doesn't have the speed brakes!

3) Fuel cost: The real advantage to all the fuel tanks isn't range - Twinkies have great range already, especially with the tip tanks. This bird has close to 10 hours of fuel, allowing you to do some tankering and save yourself from ever having to buy expensive fuel again. :yes:

4) Gross weight increase: MGW goes up to 3800 with the R/STOL mod, and the Miller engines mean you'll still get a better-than-stock climb rate if you lose an engine.

I would also have some test piloting opportunities, just to see how well this rocket ship can really perform:

1) A normal Twinkie's single-engine service ceiling is 7,000 feet. Normally-aspirated Miller mod raises that to 11,000; Turbo non-Miller 17,000 (or 19 on the B model)... Turbo Miller, ??? I would laugh if this bird could maintain FL270 (the highest non-RVSM altitude it'll be able to reach) on one engine. :D

2) A normal Twinkie's accelerate-stop distance at gross is 2560 feet. With the R/STOL, that drops to 1310 feet. With the Miller engines to add to the "accelerate" part and the speed brakes to add to the "stop" part, this one should do even better!

3) A normal Twinkie cruises between 165-175 knots, depending on speed mods. NA Millers, maybe 5-10 knots extra (possibly at higher altitude). Turbo 160hp, ~200 (PA-30C Turbo's max speed is listed as 214). Turbo + Miller... Who knows? As I stated above, at least one owner claims 230 KTAS on 18gph. Impressive.

Plus, it'd be fun to have some actual, tested numbers for climb rates, cruise speeds, and fuel burns at various altitudes to plug into my spreadsheet so I could come up with a method of determining the most efficient altitude for a particular flight. :yes:

Now if I can just talk myself into it and scrape together the down payment before it sells... :frown2:
 

Attachments

  • 80471457.jpg
    80471457.jpg
    162 KB · Views: 148
Last edited:
Okay, that was odd. Edited message to talk about all the test-piloty goodness, and when I went to save the edit it said my message was "too short." I think not... Re-posted.
 
Man... I saw a good-looking Twinkie for sale last night that was a lot more practical than the one I talked about above... Didn't have any of the spiffy mods, but it did have a Garmin 430 for a VERY reasonable price... And tonight, it's gone. Sigh.

Really, there are some very nicely equipped "normal" Twinkies with asking prices in the 70K-80K range. There's one that's pretty stock except it has de-ice boots for only $49K. That's the sort of thing I *should* be looking at. ;)

Or maybe this:

ad78075a.jpg


Check out the panel! WOW!

ad78075e.jpg


Okay, that's just too much fun to be legal... Right? Unfortunately, this is priced higher than any of the Twinkies I've looked at, and comfort might be a bit of an issue. :(
 
Last edited:
I flew with a student in the 150 on saturday and did 3 flights with Leah in the 2-33. I'm way off my pace of the last few years. Last year I believe I flew something god awful like 650 or 700 hrs. This year I will be lucky to break 125 or 150. Darn "real jobs".
 
SCCutler said:
Well, if my plane were not at the other end of the state, with one cylinder off, and its exhaust system in Wisconsin for overhaul, I'd be... on the ground anyway, since the weather was grunt here today.

Still and all , wish I'd had the choice...
Click to expand...

Spike, That is my exact problem, except my prop gov. is in for overhaul. Plane is 300 miles away. No flying in Nov. or Dec. I hope I remember how when I get to try. Someone said it is like riding a bike. But, hell, I wrecked twice on my bike in one year.:D
 
2009 has been pretty exasperating in regard to flying for me. Engine off for overhaul in March and not back on until late July and then 3 months more waiting for wing tank repairs to be completed. Since late October I've put 15 hrs on the overhauled engine, which is about my normal average. Made an out and back last Friday for a total of 2.5 hrs. December will include a condition inspection so more down time. Hoping 2010 will be better with regard to logged flight time.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Man... I saw a good-looking Twinkie for sale last night that was a lot more practical than the one I talked about above... Didn't have any of the spiffy mods, but it did have a Garmin 430 for a VERY reasonable price... And tonight, it's gone. Sigh.

Really, there are some very nicely equipped "normal" Twinkies with asking prices in the 70K-80K range. There's one that's pretty stock except it has de-ice boots for only $49K. That's the sort of thing I *should* be looking at. ;)
Click to expand...

What about this one?

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_357431_Loaded+Turbo+Twin+Comanche.html
 
This is inspiring. I want to fly more. The economy and other personal problems have made it hard this year. Hope things look up for me soon. And flying is what takes me up! (Forgive the pun)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Oh, I have been, for years! More seriously since 2007 or so, but being unemployed for a year really drained my airplane fund. I paid off my car today though, so there's a bit more $$$ to redirect to the airplane fund. :yes:
Click to expand...

Congrats on paying off the car!

flyingcheesehead said:
Here's my current love interest:

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...HE/1969-PIPER-TURBO-TWIN-COMANCHE/1154467.htm

80471457.jpg


This is not your average Twin Comanche. :no: It has several modifications which make it into a really amazingly capable bird:
Click to expand...

You left off the unique N-number, painted with the Y up and over the top curvature of the fuselage. So when you buzz people :rolleyes: (er, I mean do low passes to chase the geese off the runway) they'll report being buzzed by N2321 instead of N232Y
 
My Tiger is in for its annual inspection or I'd be flying it. Somewhere, anywhere.
 
FlyNE said:
What about this one?

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_357431_Loaded+Turbo+Twin+Comanche.html
Click to expand...

I've been watching that one for quite a while. I first saw it on TAP a bit over a year ago. Asking price then was $68,500 and it dropped to $58,500 around February of this year. It sold in April - And I know it sold because the owner changed and the issue date for the registration is 4/30/2009. Now, with only 10 additional hours on the plane, it's back on the block for $79,950 (what is this, "flip this plane?") and I have to wonder why. Killer annual, owner upside down? Who knows. I would sure be asking a lot of questions!

It certainly bears looking at, but it's missing the Miller stuff and the STOL and while I didn't care before, looking at 232Y has really made me lust after all those additional capabilities (speed, efficiency, short-field performance, etc).

What I really "need" is one that has Turbo-Miller-STOL and de-ice. :D Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible - You'd have to have dual-segment boots on the wings because of the stall fences that are part of the R/STOL kit. That'd be darn near the perfect airplane though. If it was aerobatic. And a taildragger. :rofl:
 
TangoWhiskey said:
You left off the unique N-number, painted with the Y up and over the top curvature of the fuselage. So when you buzz people :rolleyes: (er, I mean do low passes to chase the geese off the runway) they'll report being buzzed by N2321 instead of N232Y
Click to expand...

I did notice that, though I didn't think of that particular advantage! Good point! :D

Unfortunately, there is no N2321 on the registry. Double-unfortunately, I just looked up N232Y and it has a certificate issue date of... Two weeks ago. :( So, presumably that means it's sold and I'll have to try again some other decade. There can't be a whole lot of Miller+Turbo+STOL Twinkies in the world, and none of those mods are available any more.
 
Kent, how do the Diamond Aire mods (www.diamondaire.com) compare to the Miller mods? What with Miller not being around anymore... I think somebody bought the Miller STCs but hasn't been able to obtain (or just "hasn't", not sure) PMA's to produce parts... is that right? What happens if you have an issue (say damage the nose or lose half the nacelle in flight) with a Miller mod... can your mechanic make a new part legally? Not sure how that works.
 
5 hours or so today in the plane. WV and back.
 
Huntington, the reason for it is in the medical matters section. Great winds on the way down...which of course means crap winds on the way back.
 
flew about .8 on Sunday just for a breakfast hop with Gary. Good time as always and great company.
 
I flew two 737s, a 757, and an Embraer 145 over Thanksgiving weekend, with two medical emergencies.

Ok, maybe I didn't actually fly the planes myself, but there were two medical emergencies. Fortunately, there were doctors on board to help. Never had that happen before, then twice in one weekend!

Haven't seen my plane in a week, but will be doing some flying this weekend. Something around 300 hours this year so far. Flights next weekend and then Christmas weekend should finish me off at close to 350 for the year, and put me at a good point for my 100-hour inspection.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Kent, how do the Diamond Aire mods (www.diamondaire.com) compare to the Miller mods?
Click to expand...

Some look similar - Bigger engines, for example. Others are just speed mods. Both Knots2U and LoPresti make speed mods for the Comanches that are still available. Miller never really did speed mods, though they did go a bit faster with the bigger engines. Miller's mods increased performance (engines), range (tanks), reduced Vmc (dorsal) and increased baggage area (wing lockers and nose). They also did a one-piece windscreen and a nose gear landing light. But, they didn't do anything for drag reduction. Like I said, though, a lot of the mods look the same except they're for the PA23 instead of the PA30/39.

What with Miller not being around anymore... I think somebody bought the Miller STCs but hasn't been able to obtain (or just "hasn't", not sure) PMA's to produce parts... is that right?
Click to expand...

I think so, but I haven't heard much in the way of optimism for such things, and the costs of getting the FAA's blessing and the retrofitting will probably make it somewhat cost-prohibitive. :(

What happens if you have an issue (say damage the nose or lose half the nacelle in flight) with a Miller mod... can your mechanic make a new part legally? Not sure how that works.
Click to expand...

Smaller sheet-metal repairs can be done by any A&P I think. The engines aren't anything special. If you got in a really bad accident you might have to scam some parts from a salvaged plane. But, the tough part is getting that initial STC. Once you have that, the rest can be obtained.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Like I said, though, a lot of the mods look the same except they're for the PA23 instead of the PA30/39.
Click to expand...

Having looked over the DiamondAire products for the PA23, I've not seen anything really worth buying. The one thing I'd think about would be the inflatable door seal, but I found another product that I installed and have been very happy with so far, for far less cost and trouble on install. As far as I can tell, nobody's tried to make any mods that actually improve aerodynamics of the PA23. LoPresti was inquiring as to what Aztec owners wanted a few months back, but it seems they don't believe there's enough of a market to bother.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The one thing I'd think about would be the inflatable door seal, but I found another product that I installed and have been very happy with so far, for far less cost and trouble on install.
Click to expand...

Ahhh.. Did you find the aviation department at the local AutoZone? ;)
 
Had not flown in 2 weeks due to doing other things... I went to the airport yesterday after a long and depressing meeting... Went out to fly and since I had no place to go, decided to do things I have not done in a while... Started with a soft field takeoff and a no flaps landing... Then a reduced power takeoff followed by a full flaps landing (rarely use full flaps on the Apache they give you a windscreen view of the dirt)... Then did a balked landing followed by a T&G, and some direct over the field power cuts with a spiral down... After almost an hour of this I was feeling happier, and I lost count of how many landings I did because they were blended into each other mostly not even reaching pattern altitude (except the power cut spirals from overhead) and some were takeoff and immediately roll over into a short field landing on the crossing runway...
As I was taxi in, the manager got on the radio to inquire if I was done playing and could he file a notam that the airport was now open? (he's a clown)

denny-o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top