what do I need to know about buying a new experimental airplane?

[Dana]

Max, you really need to take a step back and spend some time learning just how much you have to learn. You're focusing on tiny details like what radio models you want when you don't even have a handle on the big picture. It's a common thing, because tiny details are easier to comprehend than the complex big picture. How much flying time do you actually have?

Fact: Airplanes are optimized for their mission. A bush plane isn't going to be a good long distance cruiser, and vice versa. Putting 26" bushwheels (do you have any idea how heavy they are?) doesn't make a plane a bush plane.

IFR/ILS/ATC are not synonymous. You talk to ATC when you're IFR, and sometimes when you're VFR (like when penetrating the ADIZ if you don't want to be greeted by the fast planes with missiles). ILS is just on of many forms of instrument landing. Many airports (most public airports) have one or more instrument approaches, though it may not be an ILS, which (I believe) is the only instrument landing that requires infrastructure at the airport.

Rather than figuring out how to spend your life savings on a plane that's not suitable for your mission except by stretching the manufacturer's advertised specs to the unrealistic hairy limit, spend 1/10 that on a used plane, standard or experimental, and get some experience in just some of your proposed operations. Then you'll have some background to know what you're talking about, and if you still think your grand plan will work, sell the plane and buy one that fits your plan going forward.

I bet you can ship a $20-30K bush plane all the places you want to go for a lot less than $200K.

 

[tmyers]

Ok I feel I have been trolled enough, and have reached the limits of my amusement mode.

I recognize the writing style enough to be reasonably sure who this is, but I don't want to spoil anyone else's fun.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[benyflyguy]

My current plan is to have two 10" Dynon Skyview HDX displays, plus all the Dynon avioncs that backs that up. Actually, I listed the names and part numbers for pretty much all the avionics on the very first message in this thread, so you can go take a gander at that message. Hopefully you can guess from that, and if you want more details on any element, click on the component you want to examine on this page: http://www.dynonavionics.com/skyview-system.php . The display is at the upper left of that page, and all the other components are lower down the page... click on any component to read more detailed information. I'm not the guy to tell you about these avionics, since all the airplanes I ever flew were basically six or eight round dials and a bunch of toggle or rocker switches. Hopefully you can easily learn anything you want to know from that page, or those pages.

I do know the electronics are pretty much all digital now, but I also realize the sensors could be based on just about anything... with a digital interface tacked onto the back end. I think these are fairly up-to-date avionics systems, but who knows, maybe multi-million dollar airplanes have superior sensor systems.

To save you a tiny bit of effort, I copy the list of avionics immediately below:

- 2 * Dynon Skyview HDX displays (SV-HDX1000).
- 1 * Dynon ADAHRS (SV-ADAHRS-200).
- 2 * Dynon communications transceiver with 25.00KHz and 8.33KHz channel spacing (SV-COM-X83).
- 1 * Dynon dual stereo intercom panel (SV-INTEERCOM-2S).
- 1 * Dynon mode-s transponder with ADS-B out (SV-XPNDR-261).
- 1 * Dynon dual band ADS-B in receiver (SV-ADSB-472).
- 2 * Dynon autopilot servos (SV62).
- 1 * Dynon AOA / pitot tube with heater and controller (100667-000).
- 1 * Dynon WAAS enabled GPS receiver and antenna (SV-GPS-2020).
- 2 * Dynon unknown-to-me antennas for above.

Oh, that reminds me. Do I need the com radios with both 25.00KHz and 8.33KHz if I never fly within Europe? I read several articles but came away totally confused about whether these two-scheme switchable com radios are necessary anywhere but Europe. As you see, the autopilot operates the airplane through servos. What is an HSI ???

HSI- horizontal situation indicator or heading indicator. I don’t know enough about the In’s and outs of your particular potential avionics. Of course servos run autopilot. What I mean is where does your autopilot receive its guidance?? . It is important to know what’s running off of what. You need to know these systems in and out. For my 182 I need to know them in and out so when something craps out or starts to fail I can figure that out and see what I have left.

 

[benyflyguy]

Ok I feel I have been trolled enough, and have reached the limits of my amusement mode.

I recognize the writing style enough to be reasonably sure who this is, but I don't want to spoil anyone else's fun.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Ugh. With that I will stop!! Who would take the time to work this hard doing this crap. Ppl that have this kind of time and energy aren’t using it effectively somewhere else, if you know what I mean.

 

[exncsurfer]

Yes, lots of research ahead of me.

A couple of posts have mentioned bush wheels and weight. How do you plan to get the bush wheels to these small island chains. I would bet the Pipistrel world rounder didn't fly these long legs with bush wheels and their inherent weight and drag. Two 26" would weigh 40 lbs or more, I have no idea how much the drag would affect your cruise speed/fuel burn per hour but I'm sure its substantial over that much time. If you plan to carry them where would they go? Luggage rack on top maybe?

I guess you could ship them somewhere and hope to make it there to pick them up. Yea, never mind, the bushwheels are the least of your problems to solve.

 

[Brad Smith]

I would get more of a kick out of this if it WAS a troll. At least you would have the satisfaction of knowing this was all a joke. Hopefully.

 

[kyleb]

Ok I feel I have been trolled enough, and have reached the limits of my amusement mode.

I recognize the writing style enough to be reasonably sure who this is, but I don't want to spoil anyone else's fun.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Do tell. By PM if you feel the need.

 

[tmyers]

would not want to falsely accuse, I may be completely wrong, but it just doesn't add up to anything else, or as @bradsmith said we can at least hope so.

 

[Stan Cooper]

A helluva rabbit hole here.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Ok I feel I have been trolled enough, and have reached the limits of my amusement mode.

I recognize the writing style enough to be reasonably sure who this is, but I don't want to spoil anyone else's fun.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

For the sake of all involved, I hope you're right. And if you're right, then to the OP I say well done sir. You had me. The hook, the line, the sinker, the boat. part of the dock... I salute you! Well done sir!

 

[max_reason]

Max, you really need to take a step back and spend some time learning just how much you have to learn. You're focusing on tiny details like what radio models you want when you don't even have a handle on the big picture. It's a common thing, because tiny details are easier to comprehend than the complex big picture. How much flying time do you actually have?

That's what I'm trying to do. But I don't see any reason I can't investigate narrower questions at the same time as wider and more general ones. As a practical matter, I can't order the airplane until I know what to order (many of those narrow questions). I have a few hundred hours. Don't remember exactly, and my handbook is buried away in some old box of books somewhere. Yes, I know a few hundred hours "ain't that much" compared to many people.

Fact: Airplanes are optimized for their mission. A bush plane isn't going to be a good long distance cruiser, and vice versa. Putting 26" bushwheels (do you have any idea how heavy they are?) doesn't make a plane a bush plane.

As I explained before, at least twice, what attracted me about this airplane is the unusual fact that this airplane is good at these two very different missions. As you imply, that's uncommon if not rare. Yes, I know the Barringer 26" Tundra wheels/brakes/tires are heavy. Which is why my very first message listed a pair of small, lightweight wheels with fairings as options I would buy, so I can exchange them for different missions. I hope you didn't think I was going to fly across the ocean blue while wearing 26" Tundra tires!

IFR/ILS/ATC are not synonymous. You talk to ATC when you're IFR, and sometimes when you're VFR (like when penetrating the ADIZ if you don't want to be greeted by the fast planes with missiles). ILS is just on of many forms of instrument landing. Many airports (most public airports) have one or more instrument approaches, though it may not be an ILS, which (I believe) is the only instrument landing that requires infrastructure at the airport.

Hahaha... I rather doubt most of those small islands groups have fast planes and missiles. Maybe one or two of them do. AFAIK, ATC are (for example) the guys in the control tower at Monterey airport where I took my training. So yeah, I had to talk to them... and ground control, and approach control sometimes. But they knew I was VFR somehow, probably because I did not self-identify as IFR... though that's just a guess. Or maybe because I would normally be squawking 1200. So yeah, I know what that term means. And I know what the acronym ILS stands for, though I don't know how many variants of instrument approach and landing aids exist, especially not everywhere in the world. And, of course, I know what the acronym IFR means. If you're saying dinky little airports in the middle of nowhere with no tower and not ATC have one or more forms of ILS... that surprises me, I simply assumed that was not the case. That's interesting.

Rather than figuring out how to spend your life savings on a plane that's not suitable for your mission except by stretching the manufacturer's advertised specs to the unrealistic hairy limit, spend 1/10 that on a used plane, standard or experimental, and get some experience in just some of your proposed operations. Then you'll have some background to know what you're talking about, and if you still think your grand plan will work, sell the plane and buy one that fits your plan going forward.

I've already done a lot of bush/backcountry/STOL flying... back when I was flying a lot. Obviously I'm rusty to some extent, and the new airplane won't behave the same as the ones I used to fly anyway, but I suspect those skills will return moderately quickly. I'm sure it won't be like learning to fly all over again.

I bet you can ship a $20-30K bush plane all the places you want to go for a lot less than $200K.

Maybe. I am very skeptical that any $30K airplane would interest me very much. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I know I'd enjoy flying an airplane like Trent Palmer... which is some kind of STOL variant of Kitfox... with a Rotax 915iS engine. But I would definitely need to ship that sucker all over the south pacific, because the range sucks (I think). Nothing wrong with the engine... the 915iS is a great engine and fairly fuel efficient too. More because it doesn't hold that much fuel, and isn't especially streamlined (lots of drag). That would be great for flying within many of those island groups, but I very much doubt I could afford shipping the sucker between all the areas I want to explore. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, that's a $200K airplane too... for the kit (not assembled).

 

[max_reason]

A couple of posts have mentioned bush wheels and weight. How do you plan to get the bush wheels to these small island chains. I would bet the Pipistrel world rounder didn't fly these long legs with bush wheels and their inherent weight and drag. Two 26" would weigh 40 lbs or more, I have no idea how much the drag would affect your cruise speed/fuel burn per hour but I'm sure its substantial over that much time. If you plan to carry them where would they go? Luggage rack on top maybe?

I guess you could ship them somewhere and hope to make it there to pick them up. Yea, never mind, the bushwheels are the least of your problems to solve.

I could do that, but an amazing number of these small islands in the south pacific have airstrips. In fact, an amazing number of those airstrips have paved runways (seems like about half from my recollection). To be sure, there are also a fair number of truly dinky little islands that I would not attempt to land on with the small tires, but could with those fairly big 26" Tundra tires. I don't know whether I'd ship them out there or not, but I wouldn't need to in order to visit most islands I want to visit, including even many unpopulated ones. It seems crazy, but there are a small number of unpopulated islands that have paved runways! Crazy! If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say about half the airstrips have hard dirt or hard packed sand runways, and the other half are paved. To be sure, there are areas of sand on some very small islands that the 26" Tundra tires would handle just fine, but I wouldn't attempt with the regular tires because once in a while the sand will end up softer than expected and thus prevent the airplane from being able to pick up enough speed to take-off in the short space available.

My main purpose for the 26" Tundra tires are two-fold... to fly around Utah, Arizona, Nevada, NewMexico, Wyoming and thereabouts for several months before I head south, and then for almost all my flying in the Atacama Andes (northern Chile, southern Peru, southwest Bolivia, northern Argentina). My default plan so far is to fly the small wheels and tires across the south pacific, and probably not take or ship the 26" Tundra tires out to the islands. Though... if I spend several months out in the south pacific, I might regret not shipping them out there. I'll have to think about that. Like you say, not the most pressing question now.

 

[max_reason]

would not want to falsely accuse, I may be completely wrong, but it just doesn't add up to anything else, or as @bradsmith said we can at least hope so.

For the record, I seriously doubt you know who I am. I've lived most of my life like a hermit, and only became well known in niche fields like astronomy, space sciences, optics, telescopes, robotics, computers, software, inorganic consciousness. My contact with aviation was minimal and pretty much I just rented airplanes and flew missions on my own. I already said I got my training in Monterey, California and lived 16 years in Wailea, Maui. That should be plenty for you to confirm you have no idea who I am. Which is the way I like it anyway.

 

[tmyers]

words, too many words

 

[max_reason]

Read the FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook. It has a good section on this. When it happens for real it can be very disorienting. Also, because of the disorientation it can cause, your first response to an instrument failure might be the last you ever make. Only IFR training and experience can train you to immediately recognize what is happening and how to respond to it. All of the computer screens in the world wont' save you.

Spatial disorganization is insidious and can cause loss of aircraft control in seconds. Only the skills and repetition of IFR training and currency can protect you from this killer. An IFR rating is also about training your body and mind to ignore what it is telling you. As soon as you enter reduced visibility for real (not under the hood) your body will start sending disorienting signals to your brain. Your brain will be telling you you've entered a climb, when in fact you are descending. Your brain will tell you that you are absolutely in a steep right bank when you are flying level. If you respond to what your brain is telling you, you may well enter into a loss of control accident so fast there will be no saving the airplane, or you.

What is perplexing to most here is that you claim to have all this flying experience but seem to have little concept of the true reality of flying in reduced visibility conditions. Whether it's night, mist, haze, clouds, rain or a fouled windscreen - the real problem is the transition from VFR to IFR in flight. You have a very few precious seconds to make this transition correctly before you end up in a loss of control situation.

I will definitely find and read that FAA Instrument Flying Handbook. Thanks for the tip.

I never said I have a huge amount of flying experience. I only have somewhere around 400 hours. Furthermore, I've been totally clear this was all VFR. I also said I stay away from IMC like the plague. I also stated clearly that I only have 2 or 3 hours flying with the IFR helmet on. So where do you get these ideas? Not from me, you don't! I came her asking question precisely because I lack certain experience (including experience owning an airplane, choosing modern avionics, etc), and am here looking for answers. The one aspect of aviation I was damn good at is super-slow, super-steep controlled descents, hitting the tires very close to the exact spot I targeted, and getting the airplane stopped in the shortest distance possible. And then take-off as short as possible too, of course, though that takes a great deal less skill.

I can see that part of the problem is, most people here usually think (and comment) in terms of "general practice"... while I am trying to discuss specific uncommon situations. So we end up talking at cross purposes, which causes this friction we see. I'm trying to explain specific situations and extract information [and yes, opinions too] about those specific situations. What I get back tends to be general advice. In fact, much of what people say here is probably good general advice for average pilots in average circumstances. Which isn't what I'm looking for, and isn't what I need.

Consider this whole long, drawn out conversation about IFR for example. I told my story before. I took my first two hours of flight training "back east" (at the airport in Princeton, NJ in fact)... then decided "if this is what flying is like, I have no interest what-so-freaking-ever". And I explained my primary reasons for that decision were... the haze, the crappy visibility, the fact that most everything on the ground everywhere looked similar to everywhere else... not to mention terminally boring. Even back then at the start, my reason to fly to "sight see", not prepare for a job in aviation or anything remotely like that (for which that training may have been fine). Those two hours were all VFR... supposedly. I wouldn't fly there on a freaking dare... even AFTER getting my private pilot certificate. Too dangerous and too scary for me! I mean that, literally.

But when I was living outside of Monterey, California a couple years later, except for the fog along the coast (especially in summer), the air was about 1000 times clearer and more transparent, the weather was sunny almost every day for 6 to 8 months per year, nearby was gorgeous blue ocean, the Big Sur coastline, Los Padres national forest and wilderness areas, mountains, deserts, the Sierra Nevada mountains a couple hours away... endless places and sights to "sight see". And up at several thousand feet, 200+ miles visibility. And so, I thought, "I can relate to this"... and thus finished my pilot training and started to fly... to "sight see"... for fun. No pilot job, no time pressures, just fun. Weather not perfect? Screw it, I'll fly some other day.

I assume that at least some people here have flown in wildly different places like this example. Those who have know what I'm talking about. The difference is like night and day. No, I take that back, it is more different than night and day! You think I'm kidding? Well then, consider this. I didn't feel I could ever fly VFR back east near that airport... even with an instructor and during a supposedly "clear" day... in daytime. And yet I flew many times on both moonlit and pitch dark nights out west... with no fear whatsoever. How can this be?

Simple. Back east the humidity was so high and the haze so thick that you could see maybe 50 or 100 stars at night... if you really look carefully. But flying at 2, 3, 5, 10 thousand feet on a pitch dark night out west the sky was littered with thousands of stars. I knew exactly where the sky met the ground... because that's where the rich views of stars ended. If there were mountains in sight (there always were), their contours were made obvious by where stars ended. There was no possibility of disorientation. The profile of the horizon and mountains were delineated by the absence of stars. Was I afraid to fly at night out west. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Of course I'm not a moron, so I would not fly when the conditions weren't excellent. A couple times the conditions did change as I got 200 or 300 miles away on a night trip. So I landed rather than take a risk. But even in those situations, the way the weather changed was quite definitive. The was no "the haze just got thicker and thicker" like back east. When I ran into weather, it was obvious. Like opaque clouds. Like lightning bolts dancing around the fringes of big opaque cumulus clouds 50 to 100 miles away. I could SEE bad weather... and had oodles of time to act accordingly.

For anyone to tell me "there is only one kind of flying, one set of conditions, one set of behavior" is simply misguided. Why? Because I experienced different kinds of places in the world myself. They were in no way comparable. But now, let's make the full contrast obvious. I also spent many months in the Atacama Andes of northern Chile. That's where the biggest and best astronomical observatories in the world are, because that's where the clearest, driest most transparent skies in the world are. In some sub-regions scientists estimate rain has not fallen in 10,000 years. The skies are clear 350+ days per year. The typical relative humidity is 5% to 10%. NASA tested their Mars lander there and guess what? It could not detect any signs of life... not even a single bacteria. Why? Life requres H2O. No H2O, no life. That's how dry it is. No H2O, no clouds, no haze. No H2O, clear, clean, transparent skies. Who thinks I need an IFR rating to fly there?

The weather I experienced "back east" versus "Atacama Desert" is nearly as different as Venus and Mars. That's not much of an exaggeration.

Now hear this. If I was going to become a pilot who was EVER going to fly back east, I would want to get my IFR training before I ever flew solo! Fly solo? Are you kidding me? No freaking way! And that is why I didn't. I stopped my training and... gave up. And you think I'm reckless? As far as I'm concerned, nobody back east should fly without IFR skills. Maybe you think I'm kidding. I'm not.

I think about pilots who have never seen, much less flown in places where the air is clean, clear, dry and transparent. Hell, I completely understand why they think I must have been insane to fly for hours on pitch dark nights in pure VFR... and felt calm, happy, peaceful and without worry. I totally understand that, because those night flights were infinitely easier than flying on supposedly clear afternoons back east! I will also add that flying by full moon out west is vastly safer than flying in the middle of the day back east. Again, I'm not kidding. That's my experience. I can see much more on the ground by full moon out west than I could see in broad daylight back east.

So you see, I understand.

<continued in next message ::: character limit exceeded>

 

[max_reason]

<continued from previous message ::: character limit exceeded>

True, the south-pacific isn't like the Atacama Desert. But the south-pacific isn't like what I experienced "back east" either... namely think haze with maybe 1 or 2 miles visibility in all directions... everywhere. Different places CAN BE extremely different.

As far as I'm concerned, the generic advice I hear here is not nearly conservative enough for flying "back east".

As far as I'm concerned, the generic advice I hear here is vastly too conservative for flying in the Atacama Desert.

So let me ask this question. What if I intend to only fly in the Atacama Desert for the rest of my life? Do I need IFR training? Seriously?

You see, that is my plan... to move to the Atacama Desert and never fly anywhere else for the rest of my life.

Except for that one trip across the south-pacific and back. One trip. After that, the rest of my flying will be like flying on Mars. Who needs IFR on Mars?

So the actual question for me is... do I really need all-out full-bore complete IFR training just to fly that one mission?

#1: Once I live in the Atacama desert, I'll need IFR like a hole in the head.

#2: When I'm in an island group and just flying between nearby islands in the island group, the chances I would have no alternative but get into IMC are exceedingly remote. The weather just doesn't change from "awesome, beautiful, sunny day" to "weather nightmare" during a 15, 30, 60 minute hop between nearby islands.

#3: The few unavoidable long flights between island groups... those 1000km (600 mile) to 3000km (1900 mile) hops with no good places to land between. Do I really need full-bore IFR training and rating and practice... plus several years of learning to understand every weather source on planet earth... before I can fly these relatively long flights... once in each direction? The key word here is... ONCE.

Once flying westward. Once flying eastward. Then no risk of IMC ever again.

That is the only question that is relevant to me. I know nobody here wants to think this way... it is too weird.

I suppose it is. Who else plans to live on Mars? Nobody reading this thread, I'm sure. You all be normal. I'll be weird. I'll move to Mars. You stay on Earth. And you IFR experts, you can live and fly on Venus. You won't catch me on Venus. Or Earth, once I'm done with the south-pacific.

I won't explain all the above again. This final effort was three more than too much. I've learned my lesson. Most people just can't stop themselves. They'll run the same "normal" program endlessly for the rest of eternity, no matter how pointless that is. I have other plans. Not normal ones.

What I need to do as far as IFR/IMC is concerned is... estimate my chances of being able to avoid IMC on this one mission (the long range hops across the pacific and back). Then I need to figure out what training and practice and equipment I need or want to get myself through any IMC conditions that I cannot avoid during these hops with an acceptable small degree of risk.

That's all I need to estimate. I don't need to estimate what normal people need to be normal prudent pilots under normal circumstances for many years.

In these adventures you are planning you will run into reduced visibility conditions. Being IFR rated and capable is the only way to ensure you survive it. Getting an IFR rating isn't about "flying an ILS". Its about having the skills to manage power, energy, airspeed, climbs, descents, turns and navigation solely by reference to your instruments.

Where in the world do you think you are going to get the information to make go/no go decisions over the Pacific ocean? I can answer this for you - THERE IS NO SUCH SOURCE. It doesn't exist.

Of course there is no single source and no perfect source.

What does exists is dozens of charts, tables, weather balloon data, infra-red images, satellite images, prog. charts and humidity forecasts. Interpreting and understanding weather is a huge part of an IFR rating. It then takes years to learn how to interpret all available weather data in order to make critical go/no go decisions. Who exactly is going to make intelligent go/no go decisions for you?

If this is true, I have to expect that most IFR pilots die in IMC conditions after they get their rating, but before they have had time to "spend years learning how to interpret all available weather data". So I ask you the same question. Who makes the intelligent go/no-go decisions for IFR pilots who just got their rating... but haven't spent those years necessary to learn how to interpret all available information and make good go/no-go decisions? I'm curious to find out. Really. Because it sounds like a completely unworkable, and incredibly dangerous situation for everyone who gets an IFR rating.

In fact, if what you say is true, it is completely obvious to me that me taking the risk of one set of flights west, then one set of flights back east, and then never getting near IMC conditions ever again in my life... has to be VASTLY safer for me than the average pilot who just got his IFR rating, and who will then proceed to fly for years without knowing how to interpret weather information very effectively for years to come... not to mention they regularly fly in vastly worse locations than I am likely to encounter on my one trip.

The way you explain your knowledge and experience, you should clearly understand everything I have just written. Yet you still make statements that getting an IFR rating isn't important for the type of flying you intend to do.

Actually, if I take what you said seriously, you just proved to me that I don't need an IFR rating nearly as much as most VFR pilots do! The reasons for that conclusion are clearly stated earlier in this message.

There is a significant disconnect between (1) your claimed flying experience, (2) your claimed intelligence and (3) your stated ignorance of critical aspects of aviating. In your case 1+1+1 does not equal 3 and I think that is why you are getting such a negative reaction here.

I hope you understand now, after my overly exhaustive attempt to clearly explain my situation, that I am not a normal pilot, do not have normal goals, and am not even remotely interested in flying in what constitute "normal" conditions for many VFR pilots, much less IFR pilots. Once I complete this trip, I will likely never even see IFR conditions ever again, and I certainly won't need or want or bother to fly in them.

When you say 1+1+1 does not equal 3... that is very true of me and my flying plans. Only about 0.0001% of the earth population live in the empty expanses of the Atacama Desert... the driest and clearest desert on earth. So at least some of those integer 1 values aren't literally zero, but they are more like 0.001 than 1 ... like the chances of waking up on a day that isn't VFR in spades!

Funny, I haven't tried to communicate with "normal people" in decades. Now I remember why... in spades. It's hopeless. Normal people just have not even the slightest idea how far removed from "normal" my life has been, and how useless normal advice is for me. Their advice is probably fine for average people doing average things in average circumstances. But normal people can't imagine what kind of life I've lived, or what kind of life I will continue to live. I truly forgot how impossible it is to communicate with "normal people". And obviously "normal people" find it equally impossible to communicate with me. For good reason, I suppose. I might as well be Martian... though even that may be too normal, being from the same solar system and all.

PS: To most people, being called "normal" is a compliment, and being called "weird" is an insult. So I find it strange that some people here say I'm bragging when I my comments expose how "weird" I am. I still don't know what to make of that. Very strange!

PSS: To those who tried to help even though they too think I'm weird and/or crazy... I thank you for your polite and helpful replies.

 

[ateamer]

max, were you ever on a mall security tactical team?
http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Max, I guarantee no one read that entire missive two above this one.

 

[max_reason]

max, were you ever on a mall security tactical team?
http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

You're kidding, right? The answer is no. I have no idea what that's all about, and have no intention to read the whole thing.

 

[max_reason]

Max, I guarantee no one read that entire missive two above this one.

Then they'll never understand why they wasted so much time on this "stupid thread". Which is fine, most of them didn't want to understand anyway. And probably couldn't.

BTW, I type super fast, so big deal. OTOH, I generate typos almost as fast.

 

[Dave Theisen]

My take away is: you are a below average pilot planning to do extraordinary things.

If you were an experienced pilot with good financial resources doing a one-off trip (like the earth rounder guy you keep citing) I’d say, “Wow, that’s kind of cool”. But as a low time guy, admittedly working on a shoestring budget, planning to make these extraordinary trips on a regular basis, I won’t say you are crazy, but at the least, very naive. If you prove me wrong, fantastic, but please don’t kill your self trying.

I do want to point out an inconsistency. You responded to one of my posts that you had “several hundreds of hours flying on moonless nights”, but reading your latest post, I don’t think you’ve done several hundred of anything in an airplane.

 

[max_reason]

My take away is: you are a below average pilot planning to do extraordinary things.

If you were an experienced pilot with good financial resources doing a one-off trip (like the earth rounder guy you keep citing) I’d say, “Wow, that’s kind of cool”. But as a low time guy, admittedly working on a shoestring budget, planning to make these extraordinary trips on a regular basis, I won’t say you are crazy, but at the least, very naive. If you prove me wrong, fantastic, but please don’t kill your self trying.

I do want to point out an inconsistency. You responded to one of my posts that you had “several hundreds of hours flying on moonless nights”, but reading your latest post, I don’t think you’ve done several hundred of anything in an airplane.

I'll see if I can find where I say that. I don't have several hundred hours flying on moonless nights. I have several hundred hours flying (about 400 hours), which includes several long night flights. That's several night flights, not several hundred. I'll be surprised if I made that mistake, but I type exceedingly fast and my brain is typically several words ahead of my fingers, and errors like that do happen on occasion. Sorry for that mistake, if I really did do that.

As compensation, please accept this photo of a relatively cloudy day in the Atacama desert. IFR required?

And another, if it fits, of what the Milky Way actually looks like with naked eyes in the Atacama. IFR required?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

And another, if it fits, of what the Milky Way actually looks like with naked eyes in the Atacama. IFR required?

I am 100% sure that shot is NOT what you can see with the naked eye. I have spent a lot of time above 30,000 feet at night and have never seen anything like that other than in pictures.

And that is not a cloudy day, relative or otherwise, by any stretch of the imagination In the other picture.

 

[max_reason]

I am 100% sure that shot is NOT what you can see with the naked eye. I have spent a lot of time above 30,000 feet at night and have never seen anything like that other than in pictures.

And that is not a cloudy day, relative or otherwise, by any stretch of the imagination.

For the Atacama, that's a relatively cloudy day. Of course that's half joking, because actual cloudy days are rare in the Atacama.

I spent months in the Atacama, and I can assure you, that is approximately what the sky looks like. Portions of the Milky Way are so bright you see it in color. When I held my arm between the Milky Way and my black jacket, the Milky Way cast an obvious shadow on my black jacket. That's the way it is.

I have to assume the sky is clear at 30,000 feet too, but I also have to assume your eyes can't get as dark adapted due to instrument lights. Plus, not sure how much loss from the windshield. But I assure you, that is approximately what it looks like at night in the Atacama when the Milky Way is rising. When I did some work at the observatory on Mauna Kea on the Big Island of Hawaii, they always bragged about how that was the best observatory site on earth. Then I went to Chile, and found that even at low altitudes, the sky in the Atacama desert is vastly superior.

I do have excellent night vision, maybe because I've spent thousands of nights outside at telescopes over the decades. But I don't think that would explain the kind of difference you imply. Go take a trip and check it out for yourself. Why do you think I'm moving there? Well, okay, I have to admit, I also love extreme boonies, deserts, clean, clear, dry air, awesome climates (-18 to -24 degrees latitude), gorgeous mountains, awesome geology, and... well, you get the point.

Actually, my main reason to post that photo (and this not-quite-as-impressive but similar wallpaper version) is to ask people whether they would really be afraid to fly at night when the sky looks like this? I mean, a VFR pilot would no more get disoriented during this kind of night flying than during daytime flying.

It seems like pretty much nobody believes anything I say, so I figured maybe some "show and tell" might help. But probably not... they'll just say it is special effects or a cartoon or who knows what?

Oh, wait. I found a photo on what really is a cloudy day in the Atacama. I'll add that photo too.

 

[WannFly]

View attachment 69410

For the Atacama, that's a relatively cloudy day. Of course that's half joking, because actual cloudy days are rare in the Atacama.

I spent months in the Atacama, and I can assure you, that is approximately what the sky looks like. Portions of the Milky Way are so bright you see it in color. When I held my arm between the Milky Way and my black jacket, the Milky Way cast an obvious shadow on my black jacket. That's the way it is.

I have to assume the sky is clear at 30,000 feet too, but I also have to assume your eyes can't get as dark adapted due to instrument lights. Plus, not sure how much loss from the windshield. But I assure you, that is approximately what it looks like at night in the Atacama when the Milky Way is rising. When I did some work at the observatory on Mauna Kea on the Big Island of Hawaii, they always bragged about how that was the best observatory site on earth. Then I went to Chile, and found that even at low altitudes, the sky in the Atacama desert is vastly superior.

I do have excellent night vision, maybe because I've spent thousands of nights outside at telescopes over the decades. But I don't think that would explain the kind of difference you imply. Go take a trip and check it out for yourself. Why do you think I'm moving there? Well, okay, I have to admit, I also love extreme boonies, deserts, clean, clear, dry air, awesome climates (-18 to -24 degrees latitude), gorgeous mountains, awesome geology, and... well, you get the point.

Actually, my main reason to post that photo (and this not-quite-as-impressive but similar wallpaper version) is to ask people whether they would really be afraid to fly at night when the sky looks like this? I mean, a VFR pilot would no more get disoriented during this kind of night flying than during daytime flying.

It seems like pretty much nobody believes anything I say, so I figured maybe some "show and tell" might help. But probably not... they'll just say it is special effects or a cartoon or who knows what?

That picture in your post is a wallpaper picture meant for 1920x1200 resolution ... guessing you didn’t take it, ha

 

[max_reason]

That picture in your post is a wallpaper picture meant for 1920x1200 resolution ... guessing you didn’t take it, ha

That's correct, I didn't take that one.

I didn't take this one either along the nearby coast. Or did I ???

Not even a blade of grass... right down to the pacific ocean.

Of course there's no point looking at any of these photos unless you read those two long messages from a couple hours ago. Your losses, not mine.

 

[James331]

“He died doing what he loved”

That’s what they’ll say, but hey, lots worse ways to go I guess

Second thought, we should help him, it’s like POAs version of launching a chimp into space

 

[max_reason]

“He died doing what he loved”

That’s what they’ll say, but hey, lots worse ways to go I guess

Yes, I actually believe that. You know what I figure? When people die, it ain't pleasant. Whether a heart attack or just about anything else, I figure that probably most people are terrified and in a panic when they die. And so, if you're gonna hate to die anyway, might as well take a few risks that will be great fun if you don't die, and no worse than feeling yourself die from a heart attack or cancer or something else if you lose. Hey, the waters in most areas of the south pacific are warm, right?

That's why I've done several things already that could have gotten me killed. Not recklessly, IMHO, but potentially. I don't care that other people dislike this attitude. I believe in "live and let live". I have lived some. I'm gonna live some more. The rest of you decide for yourselves.

 

[Bill Watson]

Max, I guarantee no one read that entire missive two above this one.

Well, I did. Nothing personal but it’s a lot more interesting than 90% of what appears here normally.

Enjoying the pics and the writing. Carry on Max-Reason.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Max, some people around here are very quick to label someone a troll when they think that individual is not making much sense or ignoring what other people are saying. I am not one to do that. There are always reasons to think one is a legitimate poster. I have given you the benefit of the doubt. A lot of your posts seem like legitimate posts. But occasionally you throw in a post that makes me scratch my head. You have asked questions that a reasonably competent Private Pilot should know the answer to. Or at least know where to look to find them. I have rolled with that flow. I actually enjoy the debate.

But I have reached my limit. Like others, I think you are trolling us. Or me. No matter what I say, or anyone else, for that matter, you have a contrarian response, or an answer that demonstrates your supposed superior knowledge on a particular subject. I am not taking the bait anymore. To be sure, I will still look at the thread, but I think I am done responding to your posts.

Have a great life. I wish you luck on your endeavors. And if you really are serious about hopping the Pacific, make damned sure you have done your homework. And enjoy the trip.

I bid you adieu.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Max, some people around here are very quick to label someone a troll when they think that individual is not making much sense or ignoring what other people are saying. I am not one to do that. There are always reasons to think one is a legitimate poster. I have given you the benefit of the doubt. A lot of your posts seem like legitimate posts. But occasionally you throw in a post that makes me scratch my head. You have asked questions that a reasonably competent Private Pilot should know the answer to. Or at least know where to look to find them. I have rolled with that flow. I actually enjoy the debate.

But I have reached my limit. Like others, I think you are trolling us. Or me. No matter what I say, or anyone else, for that matter, you have a contrarian response, or an answer that demonstrates your supposed superior knowledge on a particular subject. I am not taking the bait anymore. To be sure, I will still look at the thread, but I think I am done responding to your posts.

Have a great life. I wish you luck on your endeavors. And if you really are serious about hopping the Pacific, make damned sure you have done your homework. And enjoy the trip.

I bid you adieu.

See, Greg, your problem is the same as mine. We are too average to understand just how exceptional an individual we're dealing with.

 

[tawood]

Some of you know I do investigations for a living...
So the "bizarreness" of these posts has me doing some google digging...well actually, I was at first quite skeptical that max was in fact max (as @tmyers had mentioned), and not another POA member with a similar argument style. My suspicious were especially elevated when I found him also posting on AOPA, comparing planes to motorcycles like the person I had in mind from here recently did on this site...but then I did more google digging, and found max is in fact a real (separate) person, with a real address, girlfriend, etc...but, I'd also say, that max seems to have a history of making some very outrageous claims with no offered proof to back up those claims (not that he must offer proof, but I'm just saying)...so I guess I can only say that max is real, but, perhaps not too real, lol. Or, maybe just "how real" remains to be seen.
Oh, there was one thing I found possibly suspicious (but that there maybe is a logical answer for): he is not, under any part of his name/DOB combination, listed as a private pilot in the FAA database...but maybe a person is removed from the database if they go many years without a medical??? IDK.
Either way, to max: dude, you may have made some great accomplishments, but my advice would be to look to a simpler answer to your problem. A flight like you think you're capable of making is a once-or-twice in a lifetime, after many many years of experience, kind of thing...as others have mentioned, maybe getting a plane you can easily disassemble and ship would be the way to go. I'm recently IFR rated, and even though I'm capable/legal flying IFR, and while I've flown 5 to 6 hour non-stop legs while VFR, right now I limit my IFR time to short hops of absolutely no more than 2 hours. The weather prediction is way too frequently wrong, and when you cover that much distance, there is too much to take in for a single flight. And with the distance you're talking about, there is absolutely no way you can fly the whole way guaranteed VFR.

 

[Salty]

I’m thinking you will start this adventure with a 1500 mile solo cross country as your first flight.

But, if I’m wrong, can I take out an insurance policy on you?

 

[Ravioli]

@tawood -- that's some serious sleuthing.

 

[tawood]

@tawood -- that's some serious sleuthing.

Naw...10 minutes on an ipad while sitting on my living room couch. LOL

 

[WannFly]

I’m thinking you will start this adventure with a 1500 mile solo cross country as your first flight.

But, if I’m wrong, can I take out an insurance policy on you?

If he has his PPL that won’t count. 1500 nm before PPL, double that over the pond after PPL. You aren’t paying attention salty

 

[Ravioli]

Naw...10 minutes on an ipad while sitting on my living room couch. LOL

10 Minutes? I can't even read ONE of his posts that fast. heehee

 

[Cap'n Jack]

View attachment 69409 View attachment 69408

I'll see if I can find where I say that. I don't have several hundred hours flying on moonless nights. I have several hundred hours flying (about 400 hours), which includes several long night flights. That's several night flights, not several hundred. I'll be surprised if I made that mistake, but I type exceedingly fast and my brain is typically several words ahead of my fingers, and errors like that do happen on occasion. Sorry for that mistake, if I really did do that.

As compensation, please accept this photo of a relatively cloudy day in the Atacama desert. IFR required?

And another, if it fits, of what the Milky Way actually looks like with naked eyes in the Atacama. IFR required?

What Greg says below... He has the right of it. I've seen the Aurora from a passenger plane with the navigation lights ruining my light vision.

I am 100% sure that shot is NOT what you can see with the naked eye. I have spent a lot of time above 30,000 feet at night and have never seen anything like that other than in pictures.

And that is not a cloudy day, relative or otherwise, by any stretch of the imagination In the other picture.

To get those sort of milky way photos, you need an exposure of 20-30 seconds using ISO 3200 or more and a wide angle lens. That brings out details the human eye can't see. The exposure time using wide angle lens is limited to 20 to 30 seconds before the star trails become noticeable due to the earth's rotation.

Here are some examples, with EXIF data:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/muitosabao/14372794118/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/13191...QCi-8eMg3p-eFn28b-dkXbWB-cYYLPN-XSuN8C-7oYTgx

IOW, you didn't see that detail with the naked eye.

Henning....is that you?

 

[Juliet Hotel]

He's already told everyone several times he doesn't need an instrument ticket to do what he's going to do because he's going to be flying places where an instrument ticket isn't needed. Places like California.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20100509X50301&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20050610X00750&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20050601X00700&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

And places like Hawaii.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20001214X39290&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

And of course, he'll be flying over the Pacific ocean where again, an instrument rating is simply not needed because IMC simply does not happen there.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20001211X14304&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=AM

I'm pretty convinced he's not really follow through on any of this. I strongly suspect he already knows deep down he'll never do any of this. But I'd love for him to prove me wrong.

 

[max_reason]

Max, some people around here are very quick to label someone a troll when they think that individual is not making much sense or ignoring what other people are saying. I am not one to do that. There are always reasons to think one is a legitimate poster. I have given you the benefit of the doubt. A lot of your posts seem like legitimate posts. But occasionally you throw in a post that makes me scratch my head. You have asked questions that a reasonably competent Private Pilot should know the answer to. Or at least know where to look to find them. I have rolled with that flow. I actually enjoy the debate.

But I have reached my limit. Like others, I think you are trolling us. Or me. No matter what I say, or anyone else, for that matter, you have a contrarian response, or an answer that demonstrates your supposed superior knowledge on a particular subject. I am not taking the bait anymore. To be sure, I will still look at the thread, but I think I am done responding to your posts.

Have a great life. I wish you luck on your endeavors. And if you really are serious about hopping the Pacific, make damned sure you have done your homework. And enjoy the trip.

I bid you adieu.

That's completely appropriate. We all should be adult enough to make these kinds of decisions throughtout life. Those who can't make judgements based on their own analysis of evidence, and instead live at the mercy of habit, like pointless flights of moths near a lightbulb. Thanks for the facts and opinions you provided in response to my questions.