Things that have spoiled you

Henning said:
Yep, the 700 interfaces with 430/530s, I have the 760 hooked to a 430w, sweet setup.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. This is a great tool on long legs.

I have a JPI 700 cabled to a Garmin 296, and it works great at that level, too.

Easy to futz with power, mixture, and altitude to get the reserve fuel I want at my next destination, or know that with the current winds it won't be there and I need a different plan.
 
Henning said:
My exact issue, this is false. Due to the time delay the is NO assurance what so ever that the green you are pointing at a mile in front of you is not now currently red with grapefruit sized hail. Using a XM picture to make tactical decisions in a rapidly changing convective environment.
Click to expand...
Kind of depends on how close you are shaving it I think.

I can't imagine ever trying to use XM to dart in between cells in IMC. But XM does allow you to get a relatively decent big picture view and trend of what is going on ahead and allow you to deviate around the big stuff.
 
jesse said:
In most cases the delay of XM isn't a big deal. In the cases where it is you just need to increase the margins. I use XM to stay on the outside of nasty stuff. I don't try and penetrate to zig-zag my way through with it. Even if you do have radar, they can break, and I don't know many people flying with two of them.
Click to expand...
I have found that depends on which particular XM product you are trying to use. NEXRAD stuff does seem to be fairly up to date. METARS....total crap shoot and depends on the timing of your flight. Seems most of my flights I am looking at nearly hour old METARs as I am approaching my destination. The majority of the time, I end up getting more current weather once I come within radio range of the destination AWOS/ATIS well before I get a recent METAR.
 
I had XM for over a year but finally gave up on it. The receiver I had would de-register itself even though the subscription was up to date. All XM would tell me is that I had to go online and reactivate. I finally had enough and let the subscription expire.

Currently I use the radio more and keep an eye on things. That solution isn't so good at night. I'm hoping that ADS-B is a suitable replacement.

As for toys that spoil me: 2 axis coupled autopilot with altitude hold. The gps is nice but not required. The ANR headset is nearly mandatory. An intact airframe is also a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Kind of depends on how close you are shaving it I think.

I can't imagine ever trying to use XM to dart in between cells in IMC. But XM does allow you to get a relatively decent big picture view and trend of what is going on ahead and allow you to deviate around the big stuff.
Click to expand...

But it assures you of nothing except that you have a line in front of you that you still need to penetrate.outside of that, XM gets you nothing the window doesn't. I can see big cells to avoid them out the window just fine all by myself.
 
Here are some of mine:

IFR: I really like to have a moving map display. Makes situational awareness that much easier.

VFR: A clean windshield.
 
I really, hella miss having a GPS coupled autopilot.
 
Henning said:
But it assures you of nothing except that you have a line in front of you that you still need to penetrate.outside of that, XM gets you nothing the window doesn't. I can see big cells to avoid them out the window just fine all by myself.
Click to expand...
Agreed - I wouldn't want to penetrate a line with it.

I guess where I have found it useful is flying across the southwest during T-storm season and planning/adjusting my route before I am within visual range of the cells.
 
jmp470 said:
Dave,
If you actually flew a Cirrus, you would know that this has been out for about a decade!!! But hey, better late than never... I guess
Click to expand...

I'd rather be dead than red!
 
jmp470 said:
Well if you flew a cirrus, you could be both!!! Dead and burnt :goofy:
Click to expand...

I've flown much more challenging airplanes than a Cirrus, and they are solid airplanes. I'm not a huge fan of their crashworthiness however.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Agreed - I wouldn't want to penetrate a line with it.

I guess where I have found it useful is flying across the southwest during T-storm season and planning/adjusting my route before I am within visual range of the cells.
Click to expand...

I fly in the SE under and around a major convective line I have to penetrate almost every time I fly lol. What do you think it's like crossing the Gulfstream to the Bahamas or heading N out of Fl and you have to go through the inevitable climate zone convergence front? My experience comparing the XM picture and disturbingly the ATC weather advisory all too often have a dangerous suggested course away from clear air behind and "advise turn right 60" right into the black cell they were warning me about. No thanks, if you think you need XM to penetrate a major convective front, you need to stay home on those days, seriously.
 
Bitchin Betty (EI AV-17 Voice Warning Annunciator). Nice not having to constantly scan the panel.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
High wing airplanes without struts, and being able to see the runway when on base :)
Click to expand...
I take it you're a cardinal driver? The 177RG I did my Commercial in will always have a special place in my heart. The 177 is a great plane. If only it had more power.
 
Skylane81E said:
Don't look out the window of your 172 then:wink2:

Only difference is the Cirrus isnt fatiguing
Click to expand...

It takes ALOT of turbulence to make a the wing shake on a 172. There has never been an in flight breakup of a skyhawk as long as it was operating within its limitations - and there are 30k hour skyhawks out there.
 
i can't believe that the wings on a Cirrus really flex THAT much...

 
Oh I know about the lack of failures of 172s but I also know of no break ups in cirrus aircraft that werent grossly opperated out of limits.

I also know that at 17k hrs you are beginning to find more fatigue issues in 'hawks

I can also tell you it takes very little to flex the wings of a 172, they just flex less because if they did, the wings would fall off toot sweet. Composites don't have that problem and there fore can have flex built into them to prevent failures due to brittleness.
 
Skylane81E said:
Oh I know about the lack of failures of 172s but I also know of no break ups in cirrus aircraft that werent grossly opperated out of limits.

I also know that at 17k hrs you are beginning to find more fatigue issues in 'hawks

I can also tell you it takes very little to flex the wings of a 172, they just flex less because if they did, the wings would fall off toot sweet. Composites don't have that problem and there fore can have flex built into them to prevent failures due to brittleness.
Click to expand...

A Cirrus has a design life much less than 17k/hrs

I just put the 3000th hour TTAF on my 172 not a month ago. I've got a ways to go.
 
GCA319 said:
I take it you're a cardinal driver? The 177RG I did my Commercial in will always have a special place in my heart. The 177 is a great plane. If only it had a TURBO.
Click to expand...
FTFY

The 200HP in the 177RG is plenty of power....except when you are dealing with high DA.
 
Skylane81E said:
The 172 has a design life of much less than 17k too so what's the point?
Click to expand...

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/91b98f5d9cf615c586256e54006329e9/$FILE/A00009CH.pdf

Nowhere in my type certificate do I have a life limit.
 
Diamond is on of the safest airplanes on the market IIRC they have only had 3 post crash fires and 2 of those were due to hitting power lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top