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

[max_reason]

... 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. 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.

Yes, I'm real, but I've also lived my life very much like a hermit. After decades, that's pretty much habit now, a habit I enjoy. And no matter how you got your information about me, you don't know more than a fraction. Trying to hold a conversation here reminds me of one reason I became a hermit... namely too many [more-or-less] "normal people" cannot communicate with me effectively (and many have the habit of communicating for purposes other than conveying information and making decisions). Since have always been "live and let live", I happily withdrew from most human contact. But I forgot why, I forgot how impossible this process of trying to communicate rationally with [more-or-less] "normal people" can be, and this mess is the result.

Yes, I haven't had an aviation medical in a long time.

My life has been outrageous... according to opinions of most people. I might add that when I have considered "outrageous" activities in the past, when the time came to "go for it" or "give up", I did "give up" in a large minority of cases. Which is what I tried to explain way back early in this thread... that I refuse to stop accumulating information early in the process, and only "give up" when I have all the information [I think I need] at the end of the process. To give up earlier doesn't work in my business or my kind of life.

I don't understand your comments about VFR and IFR time. Or maybe I do. Like I said, my two hours of flying back east convinced me everyone who flies back east needs an IFR rating and a lot of experience. I wouldn't even think of bothering with aviation back there... unless my goal was to become employed in aviation. Which it isn't. So if that's your context, or anywhere even near your context, I totally understand your decision. I'd be even more conservative in that situation. Well, except I don't know what your goals for aviation are, so I really have no basis to judge.

I intend to fly for the rest of my life... in VFR conditions like in those photos I posted. I intend to visit all sorts of wild, crazy places in the boonies in that area. However, you are exactly correct to say my long-range inter-island-group flights are intended to be literally and exactly "once in a lifetime"... once flying west, and once fly back. Since I won't have any other IMC to contend to, absent some geological catastrophe the magnitude of which none of us want to seriously contemplate, I only have to decide whether any approach exists that will let me fly those "once in a lifetime" flights in relative safety. My 16 years experience living on a tropical island in the middle of the north pacific leads me to infer that most likely... assuming I actually am willing to wait for spectacularly awesome weather and 24-hour forecasts (which I am)... I could probably find times when the risk of not being able to find any island to land when I have near 1000 miles of extra fuel on board is rather low. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the south-pacific is unlike the north-pacific, and more like my experiences back east. If that's what I find, that's a "no go". I don't expect to find that is the case, however. We shall see.

The option of shipping the airplane is on the table. That is still a possibility. But I'm not going to do what [pretty much] everyone here will advise, namely immediately drop the idea of flying and just ship the damn airplane! I need facts relevant to my specific missions. And I won't get them from a list of "prudent practices" that apply everywhere. By definition, if one must create a list of "prudent practices that will be safe everywhere... which must necessarily include the worst environments on the planet", then I admit all the advice I've been pushing aside (pending evidence for my situation)... would be valid advice. Frankly, I'd say most of it is not conservative enough.

So I will continue my quest, but I will stop seeking shortcuts like expecting kind-hearted wisdom from forums. Well, at least this forum, and probably AOPA too. Maybe I can extract at least some additional information from the pipistrel owners forum. I already have, in fact, but maybe I can gain more there. I thought the much larger populations here and AOPA would be more likely to produce answers to the more general and universal questions I have, but obviously I'm wrong. I forgot. Now I remember.

I'm not planning to fly those long legs entirely VFR. No, scratch that. I am planning to fly those long legs entirely VFR. However, I don't rule out the possibility that I might need to fly a little IMC to make my overall trip safer... like possibly to climb above weather trouble or something and/or back down again. But I still don't believe I'm likely to take off in absolutely perfect weather conditions PLUS absolutely the best 24-hour forecast the south-pacific has ever seen... and end up in truly dangerous weather. If I had to bet, I'd say the danger of the engine quitting due to some unexpected <fill-in-the-blank> situation is a greater danger than IMC. This assumes I am at least somewhat prepared for IMC conditions, that I've become expert in my airplane, avionics, autopilot and systems by that time, and so forth. As I've been saying, I am likely to get a significant amount of training to prepare me for flying in IMC conditions, and little training to handle IFR approach and landing practices. Unless evidence not-yet-gained makes me change my mind. You can all now go lie again and claim I stated my intention is to not prepare at all for the possibility of IMC. Sheesh!

To fly across 3000km (1900 miles) of relatively uniform environment (wide open ocean at not an excessively wide range of latitudes) is not the same as flying across a random 3000km (1900 miles) of a content like the USA. Especially out west, a large percentage of weather is caused by variations in environment... like a coastline, like a mountain range, even individual mountains or large lakes. Therefore, my inference (so far) is... when a 24-hour weather prediction for a 3000km (1900 mile) stretch of the south-pacific indicates "awesome weather conditions", the physical environmental reasons for that forecast to be wrong may well be less. Against that, I assume, open oceans have vastly fewer reporting stations. OTOH, there are reporting stations "out there", and satellites have a great many kinds of sensors that provide information for everywhere on the planet. The difference is, there are no dramatic variations in local physical environments (like mountains, huge lakes, etc) to cascade with each other to produce a terrible forecast. Yet... I'm early in my investigation process, so I have yet to find out much of this. I will no longer hope to get information in these forums. I'd rather continue to study weather behavior and predictions on www.windy.com for the next year and draw my own conclusions! At least I'm dealing with reality, not generalized platitudes.

I don't expect "guaranteed" ANYTHING. I expect no guarantee a fuel tank or fuel line won't develop a leak. I expect no guarantee the engine won't quit. I expect no guarantee the engine won't develop a smaller problem and consume more fuel than expected. I expect no guarantee to prevent both of my oxygen tanks to fail. I expect no guarantee that I cannot find an altitude between 100 feet and 23,000 feet (the ceiling for this airplane) where headwinds are not strongly against me. I expect no guarantee that something completely unexpected doesn't arise during my trip. I expect no guarantee that no alien spacecraft will turn on their tractor beam and drag my airplane into their cargo hold, followed by excruciating "animal experimentation". I expect no guarantee period. I do expect that every possibility is some degree of risk. Honestly, I can't imagine any real pilot thinking they have a guarantee of much... even on measly 100 mile trips!

And perhaps most of all, I expect no guarantee that I won't come to the same conclusion that the vast majority here have. I don't start out with conclusions. I gather evidence, then come to conclusions... by inferring how the evidence accumulated applies to the specific posed situation and circumstances. That is how I will continue to function. This approach has worked for me so far. Everyone else should make their own decisions their own ways.

 

[Salty]

The mark of every successful venture is to go to people with more experience for help and then ignore everything they say.

I think you will be doing well if you start flying at all. Buying that plane before you even do your 1500 mile cross country solo will be an enormous waste of money.

 

[tawood]

Yes, I'm real, but I've also lived my life very much like a hermit. After decades, that's pretty much habit now, a habit I enjoy. And no matter how you got your information about me, you don't know more than a fraction. Trying to hold a conversation here reminds me of one reason I became a hermit... namely too many [more-or-less] "normal people" cannot communicate with me effectively (and many have the habit of communicating for purposes other than conveying information and making decisions). Since have always been "live and let live", I happily withdrew from most human contact. But I forgot why, I forgot how impossible this process of trying to communicate rationally with [more-or-less] "normal people" can be, and this mess is the result.

Yes, I haven't had an aviation medical in a long time.

My life has been outrageous... according to opinions of most people. I might add that when I have considered "outrageous" activities in the past, when the time came to "go for it" or "give up", I did "give up" in a large minority of cases. Which is what I tried to explain way back early in this thread... that I refuse to stop accumulating information early in the process, and only "give up" when I have all the information [I think I need] at the end of the process. To give up earlier doesn't work in my business or my kind of life.

I don't understand your comments about VFR and IFR time. Or maybe I do. Like I said, my two hours of flying back east convinced me everyone who flies back east needs an IFR rating and a lot of experience. I wouldn't even think of bothering with aviation back there... unless my goal was to become employed in aviation. Which it isn't. So if that's your context, or anywhere even near your context, I totally understand your decision. I'd be even more conservative in that situation. Well, except I don't know what your goals for aviation are, so I really have no basis to judge.

I intend to fly for the rest of my life... in VFR conditions like in those photos I posted. I intend to visit all sorts of wild, crazy places in the boonies in that area. However, you are exactly correct to say my long-range inter-island-group flights are intended to be literally and exactly "once in a lifetime"... once flying west, and once fly back. Since I won't have any other IMC to contend to, absent some geological catastrophe the magnitude of which none of us want to seriously contemplate, I only have to decide whether any approach exists that will let me fly those "once in a lifetime" flights in relative safety. My 16 years experience living on a tropical island in the middle of the north pacific leads me to infer that most likely... assuming I actually am willing to wait for spectacularly awesome weather and 24-hour forecasts (which I am)... I could probably find times when the risk of not being able to find any island to land when I have near 1000 miles of extra fuel on board is rather low. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the south-pacific is unlike the north-pacific, and more like my experiences back east. If that's what I find, that's a "no go". I don't expect to find that is the case, however. We shall see.

The option of shipping the airplane is on the table. That is still a possibility. But I'm not going to do what [pretty much] everyone here will advise, namely immediately drop the idea of flying and just ship the damn airplane! I need facts relevant to my specific missions. And I won't get them from a list of "prudent practices" that apply everywhere. By definition, if one must create a list of "prudent practices that will be safe everywhere... which must necessarily include the worst environments on the planet", then I admit all the advice I've been pushing aside (pending evidence for my situation)... would be valid advice. Frankly, I'd say most of it is not conservative enough.

So I will continue my quest, but I will stop seeking shortcuts like expecting kind-hearted wisdom from forums. Well, at least this forum, and probably AOPA too. Maybe I can extract at least some additional information from the pipistrel owners forum. I already have, in fact, but maybe I can gain more there. I thought the much larger populations here and AOPA would be more likely to produce answers to the more general and universal questions I have, but obviously I'm wrong. I forgot. Now I remember.

I'm not planning to fly those long legs entirely VFR. No, scratch that. I am planning to fly those long legs entirely VFR. However, I don't rule out the possibility that I might need to fly a little IMC to make my overall trip safer... like possibly to climb above weather trouble or something and/or back down again. But I still don't believe I'm likely to take off in absolutely perfect weather conditions PLUS absolutely the best 24-hour forecast the south-pacific has ever seen... and end up in truly dangerous weather. If I had to bet, I'd say the danger of the engine quitting due to some unexpected <fill-in-the-blank> situation is a greater danger than IMC. This assumes I am at least somewhat prepared for IMC conditions, that I've become expert in my airplane, avionics, autopilot and systems by that time, and so forth. As I've been saying, I am likely to get a significant amount of training to prepare me for flying in IMC conditions, and little training to handle IFR approach and landing practices. Unless evidence not-yet-gained makes me change my mind. You can all now go lie again and claim I stated my intention is to not prepare at all for the possibility of IMC. Sheesh!

To fly across 3000km (1900 miles) of relatively uniform environment (wide open ocean at not an excessively wide range of latitudes) is not the same as flying across a random 3000km (1900 miles) of a content like the USA. Especially out west, a large percentage of weather is caused by variations in environment... like a coastline, like a mountain range, even individual mountains or large lakes. Therefore, my inference (so far) is... when a 24-hour weather prediction for a 3000km (1900 mile) stretch of the south-pacific indicates "awesome weather conditions", the physical environmental reasons for that forecast to be wrong may well be less. Against that, I assume, open oceans have vastly fewer reporting stations. OTOH, there are reporting stations "out there", and satellites have a great many kinds of sensors that provide information for everywhere on the planet. The difference is, there are no dramatic variations in local physical environments (like mountains, huge lakes, etc) to cascade with each other to produce a terrible forecast. Yet... I'm early in my investigation process, so I have yet to find out much of this. I will no longer hope to get information in these forums. I'd rather continue to study weather behavior and predictions on www.windy.com for the next year and draw my own conclusions! At least I'm dealing with reality, not generalized platitudes.

I don't expect "guaranteed" ANYTHING. I expect no guarantee a fuel tank or fuel line won't develop a leak. I expect no guarantee the engine won't quit. I expect no guarantee the engine won't develop a smaller problem and consume more fuel than expected. I expect no guarantee to prevent both of my oxygen tanks to fail. I expect no guarantee that I cannot find an altitude between 100 feet and 23,000 feet (the ceiling for this airplane) where headwinds are not strongly against me. I expect no guarantee that something completely unexpected doesn't arise during my trip. I expect no guarantee that no alien spacecraft will turn on their tractor beam and drag my airplane into their cargo hold, followed by excruciating "animal experimentation". I expect no guarantee period. I do expect that every possibility is some degree of risk. Honestly, I can't imagine any real pilot thinking they have a guarantee of much... even on measly 100 mile trips!

And perhaps most of all, I expect no guarantee that I won't come to the same conclusion that the vast majority here have. I don't start out with conclusions. I gather evidence, then come to conclusions... by inferring how the evidence accumulated applies to the specific posed situation and circumstances. That is how I will continue to function. This approach has worked for me so far. Everyone else should make their own decisions their own ways.

Since you mention gathering evidence and drawing conclusions...I have a question for you: did you, as you claim elsewhere, invent the astroscan telescope?

 

[max_reason]

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

You need to turn every attempt to simply be accurate into an excuse to throw rocks at me. You just can't resist, can you. Tells me all I need to know. I know you have no evidence of this, but when someone asks me for help, and I think I can help in their case, I actually try to help them. Talk about a weirdo! I obviously deserve that supposed slur.

 

[Ravioli]

... I might add that when I have considered "outrageous" activities in the past, when the time came to "go for it" or "give up", I did "give up" in a large minority of cases. ...

You must love jumbo shrimp. Just be careful about having a crash landing so we don't have to discuss your conspicuous absence.

 

[max_reason]

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.

I looked at the first link. I didn't read every word, but my quick scan did not notice any statement of whether the airplane had GPS, moving-maps, synthetic vision, autopilot or other equipment. As far as I can tell, all they mentioned relative to that general issue was... he was a VFR pilot. The implication being much like the way you people think... that all that matters is the official rating a pilot had, and never mind whether he had zero or tons of equipment that could possibly help him in his situation. You see patterns in my way of thinking... and guess what? I see patterns in your way of thinking too. You skip a LOT of important information.

Nonetheless, I don't need to read the rest of what you write, because I've already addressed these topics. For example, I'm sure you will acknowledge that some pilots "push it" further than others. Not just concerning weather, but other topics too. For example, some pilots have been found to have engaged in "drinking then flying". Does that mean I will do the same? Minor note: I do not drink alcohol or take drugs, and never have. So I doubt I'll decide to slam a few down at the airport before I take off. Just guessing though. /sarcasm

It rather shocks me that you post links like that and take ZERO notice of what I've said in my posts. I mean, I described in detail what I think about flying in marginal weather situations! I stopped flying training back east because I would not even consider flying without IFR experience and equipment back east. And out west, where the weather DOES IN FACT get a great deal clearer and more transparent than what I experienced back east... I still stated completely clearly that I just refuse to fly in any but excellent weather conditions, and stay far away from IMC. You pretend you have a rational basis to compare two pilots who clearly have different policies regarding IMC avoidance. Well, I can't stop you from doing that, but... talk about mental masturbation!

I just imagine trying to design a new CPU or other complex electronic device after reading the documentation of the integrated circuits that will be components... and then ignoring about 80% of the specifications of those integrated circuits. All I can do is laugh! I must take into account every specification over the entire range of temperature and voltage, and how it interacts with all other integrated circuits it connects to or THE DEVICE WON'T WORK. Or worse, it will pretend to work for a while, but the device will be flaky and unreliable. I sure wouldn't want you designing my avionics systems! Sheesh!

Here you have a VFR pilot that flies into a mountainside. With nothing but old style paper charts she could easily find the highest elevation near her, and fly at least 1000 feet higher elevation. That one simple thought and action would have saved her life. I must say, those insanely simple thoughts are what immediately pop into my mind whenever I get anywhere near a questionable situation. How do I most easily and quickly and reliability reduce my risk to zero or nearly so?

The entire premise of your post is also misguided. I could post twice as many links to IFR pilots killing themselves by being morons. However, I would never be such a jerk to imply the reason they died is because they went to the trouble of getting an IFR rating... even though I'm sure that has happened. What? How can I say that? Easily, it is obvious that an IFR pilot might fly in or through worse conditions precisely because he is an IFR pilot... even though he could have made different choices that kept him firmly in VFR conditions the entire trip. I'm not saying that pilots never get trapped into IMC, because obviously that happens too. But your whole approach to this topic is flawed. To show that some humans have made certain bad judgements, or were terribly unlucky, does not mean you can simply point at one factor and ignore all others. In my line of work, that narrow and simplistic kind of thinking assures failure every single time. In other aspects of life, one can get away with such narrow and simplistic thinking... maybe even for a lifetime in some lucky cases.

If all you were trying to demonstrate is that weather CAN get bad in California and Hawaii... I already said as much, and explicitly so. However, what you imagine constitutes read and thinking may go like this. Max says the atmosphere CAN BE more clear and transparent many places out west, so I'll be a jerk and pretend he said the atmosphere IS ALWAYS clear and transparent. I'll ignore his comment that "the fog along the coastline in summer is often thick as a brick", and I'll ignore his description of huge thunderstorms 50 to 100 miles away, with lightning dancing around the periphery. In fact, I'll just ignore whatever I need to ignore so I can act like a complete imbecile... while pretending Max is the complete imbecile. This may work on other weak minded fools who swallow Sith Mind Tricks by the dozen. It doesn't work on me.

You continue to lie outright where you claim "IMC simply does not happen over the Pacific ocean". I also directly contradicted that in more than one discussion. Like, for example, where I described a place 400 inches of rain per year fall... only 5 miles away from where 5 or 10 inches of rain per year fall. And plenty of other comments that completely contradict YOUR OUTRIGHT INTENTIONAL LIE. You really are openly brazen where others are much more clever and careful to word their messages so they are misleading, but not outright blatant in-your-face lies.

 

[max_reason]

Since you mention gathering evidence and drawing conclusions...I have a question for you: did you, as you claim elsewhere, invent the astroscan telescope?

I have expressed my long-held practice of being a hermit, partly to avoid having my life dragged across hot coals by people who are not benevolent, but get infinitely more joy from jerking people around than any joy they might get from discussing topics that supposedly interest them. So I will not aid and abed any attempt to start digging through my life. While I might make an exception for a benevolent individual in private, given assurances of privacy, no way will I participate in providing fuel for this particular cremation. Not that I'm ashamed of my life, but like I said repeatedly, most other humans do not like those who are independent minded and don't follow conventions. So give me a break, okay. I came here for aviation reasons, not to write an autobiography or help others write a biography. I'm not that interesting to other people, so don't bother. Even if I was, don't bother. And finally, I have very well hidden (made private) a majority of my life, so you'll never figure out more than a tiny fraction anyway.

 

[James331]

Collectively if we as Americans could send a chimp into space...

He just needs to make us a promise and go pro it, but have a floaty on the GoPro and instruction to post the video on POA when it’s found.


So here, go on fltplan and make a free account, input all the planes figures and see how the winds look, fltplan is probably the best flight planning site out there

 

[max_reason]

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.


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.

The more relevant point was the brightness, as an indication of atmospheric transparency. I can assure you, a person with good night vision (or aided by pure oxygen if they don't have great night vision), and after waiting an hour or so for eyes to become fully dark adapted (because it does take quite some time to get the last 20% or so), can see the Milky Way as similarly bright AND in color (bright enough to stimulate both rods and cones). If you don't believe, go there. You'll see. Just make sure you go around June or July (unless you want to stay up very late, in which case March or April will work too). My girlfriend was also totally blown away by the Milky Way during my first trip to northern Chile, and she also saw color. Yet she has terrible night vision compared to me.

As for detail, I can't be sure from memory. Maybe you can't see as much detail as the better of those two photos. I suspect you can see as much detail as the wallpaper photo, though I could be off a bit. Actually, subjective detail is tricky. Unless you focus carefully on a small region and compare to some comparative standard (like the wallpaper photo), it is difficult to judge detail. Part of the reason is, human vision habitually tends to scan a field of view to take in the totality. Plus, only the center of a human field of view has high resolution. The non-central areas of human vision are substantially lower resolution. And so, it is quite natural to get the visual impression that your detail resolution is lower than it actually is. OTOH, no way can human vision see as much detail as those photos simultaneously over the whole field of view.

My rule of thumb is... 15 seconds is sufficient to reveal evidence of trailing.

 

[max_reason]

Collectively if we as Americans could send a chimp into space...

He just needs to make us a promise and go pro it, but have a floaty on the GoPro and instruction to post the video on POA when it’s found.

So here, go on fltplan and make a free account, input all the planes figures and see how the winds look, fltplan is probably the best flight planning site out there

I promise nothing. And after the malicious treatment I've gotten here (with a few exceptions), why would I want to humor the people here? OTOH, now that I think about it, maybe the skeptics would be drowned out by cheering crowds. I mean, when I say discussions of the guy who flew this kind of airplane around the world twice, they didn't seem nearly as nasty. Maybe people become too embarrassed to admit and voice their former positions... once they prove wrong or simplistic. Or when some lucky bastard just happens to beat the odds, right?

But I consider your suggestion about fltplan to be prudent, so I'll follow up on that idea. Thanks for that.

 

[James331]

Well if you want our help at the very least provide the chance for some entertainment.



First thing set up a account (free) on FltPlan.com

So here’s fltplan performance setup page,

(That’s set up with my plane, you would have to input that planes info)



Here’s the planning overview to give you a idea what it looks like (again this is with another plane on my profile)

Aaaaaand...........
I plugged your plane into foreflight really quick, 147kts airspeed, 4.7gph at 8,000’ showing wind overlays

I’d keep the small wheels on the plane, I’d also forgo the survival equipment in trade for as much ferry tank as you can get, because let’s face it, if you go in you’re toast, so fuel (at 6lbs a gal) is more likely to be your salvation vs a small rubber raft in the middle of a huge ocean.


I’d wager you might be able to pull it off if the stars align and you wait for the right day.






Here’s a good floating case for the GoPro https://www.amazon.com/TELESIN-Floa...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B01FHAAU3O

 

[tawood]

I have expressed my long-held practice of being a hermit, partly to avoid having my life dragged across hot coals by people who are not benevolent, but get infinitely more joy from jerking people around than any joy they might get from discussing topics that supposedly interest them. So I will not aid and abed any attempt to start digging through my life. While I might make an exception for a benevolent individual in private, given assurances of privacy, no way will I participate in providing fuel for this particular cremation. Not that I'm ashamed of my life, but like I said repeatedly, most other humans do not like those who are independent minded and don't follow conventions. So give me a break, okay. I came here for aviation reasons, not to write an autobiography or help others write a biography. I'm not that interesting to other people, so don't bother. Even if I was, don't bother. And finally, I have very well hidden (made private) a majority of my life, so you'll never figure out more than a tiny fraction anyway.

Not interesting??? You said yourself that people find you OUTRAGEOUS!!! By the way, you've got to be the only hermit on the planet, that has "very well hidden a majority of (their) life", with a 40+ page autobiographical website dedicated to all their outrageous (but very false) claims of invention, design, etc.
So Max, maybe I don't know everything about you, but, Max, sorry, like in the Wizard of Oz, I've looked behind the curtain...and buddy, you are as full of it as they come. I'd suggest anyone else that's thinking of wasting their time with Max's claims take a look on google...he's not hard to find.
And with that, I too, am out!

 

[Juliet Hotel]

I looked at the first link. I didn't read every word, but my quick scan did not notice any statement of whether the airplane had GPS, moving-maps, synthetic vision, autopilot or other equipment. As far as I can tell, all they mentioned relative to that general issue was... he was a VFR pilot. The implication being much like the way you people think... that all that matters is the official rating a pilot had, and never mind whether he had zero or tons of equipment that could possibly help him in his situation. You see patterns in my way of thinking... and guess what? I see patterns in your way of thinking too. You skip a LOT of important information.

Are you claiming that no VFR pilot has ever had a fatal accident after flying into IMC in an airplane equipped with GPS moving map and/or synthetic vision and an auto pilot which they were very comfortable using?

As for the rest of your rant and accusations I'll tell you something about me. I do not lie. Ever. If I'm mistaken about my understanding of something you've stated, then I am mistaken. But I do not lie. I take honesty very seriously. I have been nothing but civil with you. I expect the same in return. Feel free to disagree with me, please correct me if I am mistaken in my understanding of something you've said, and try to do so in less that 10,000 words. But please do not continue to accuse me of lying. I take that very seriously and I consider the accusation an insult. Please stop.

 

[Ravioli]

I looked at the first link. I didn't read every word, but my quick scan did not notice any statement of whether the airplane had GPS, moving-maps, synthetic vision, autopilot or other equipment. As far as I can tell, all they mentioned relative to that general issue was... he was a VFR pilot. The implication being much like the way you people think... that all that matters is the official rating a pilot had, and never mind whether he had zero or tons of equipment that could possibly help him in his situation. You see patterns in my way of thinking... and guess what? I see patterns in your way of thinking too. You skip a LOT of important information.

You are clearly depriving some village of its idiot.

The capability, training, and licenses of the plane mean nothing. It's all about the pilot.

EX: My plane is approved for aerobatics and certified for IFR. I am not trained for aero, nor have I completed my IFR. Therefore I stay away from those two flight regimes. Most likely because I like myself too much and want to stick around a while.

Many of the "unintentional flight into IMC" situations we see in accident reports are people who, like me, have a capable plane but are not current on training and certificates. One of the few times I agree that certification standards and recurrent training are important.

 

[max_reason]

Not interesting??? You said yourself that people find you OUTRAGEOUS!!! By the way, you've got to be the only hermit on the planet, that has "very well hidden a majority of (their) life", with a 40+ page autobiographical website dedicated to all their outrageous (but very false) claims of invention, design, etc.
So Max, maybe I don't know everything about you, but, Max, sorry, like in the Wizard of Oz, I've looked behind the curtain...and buddy, you are as full of it as they come. I'd suggest anyone else that's thinking of wasting their time with Max's claims take a look on google...he's not hard to find.

And with that, I too, am out!

Yes, outrageous in the sense of repulsive (in my ideas and choices). But maybe you're right. Maybe "regular folks" get a thrill out of seeing the repulsive sight of a poor animal squashed on the road by a car, but still wiggingly around in pain before it dies. I'm not fascinated by the repulsive, so maybe I just don't get it (as usual).

I'll tell you what. You pick two or three of my very false claims, and I'll provide evidence to the contrary for you. That is, on the condition you stop dragging my private life into public. Deal? But understand this. If you agree, I damn well expect you to honor your agreement. All you know about are efforts before 2000 or so, the last revision. Back then I had reasons to be more public in niche ways. But understand, things were different in the 1980s and 1990s... think internet for example. If you take me up on my offer, contact me in private, and be prepared to post nothing further here about my personal life except perhaps "Max proved to my satisfaction claims that I said were lies".

Contact me via private contact on this website, and we can start with a phone call if you wish. But for the record, none of what you read is a lie. PERIOD. And what you don't know, including almost everything post 1998 ~ 2000, is well hidden. So even with proof of what I claimed, you still don't know most of the good stuff.

What a bunch of self-important morons, pretending they know things they do not know, and have no idea about. What a farce!

 

[Ravioli]

@tawood -- at least the rebukes are getting shorter. Thanks for the assist!

 

[WannFly]

Man why on earth am I getting an IR? I have an autopilot, synthetic vision , gps, even an AOA... only if someone told me that would be enough I wouldn’t have bothered to go thru the damn boring videos ...

 

[max_reason]

Are you claiming that no VFR pilot has ever had a fatal accident after flying into IMC in an airplane equipped with GPS moving map and/or synthetic vision and an auto pilot which they were very comfortable using?

As for the rest of your rant and accusations I'll tell you something about me. I do not lie. Ever. If I'm mistaken about my understanding of something you've stated, then I am mistaken. But I do not lie. I take honesty very seriously. I have been nothing but civil with you. I expect the same in return. Feel free to disagree with me, please correct me if I am mistaken in my understanding of something you've said, and try to do so in less that 10,000 words. But please do not continue to accuse me of lying. I take that very seriously and I consider the accusation an insult. Please stop.

Your first sentence is a perfect example! Holy crapola! Of course I NEVER said anything remotely like "No VFR pilot has ever had a fatal accident after flying into IMC in an airplane equipped with GPS, moving-maps, synthetic vision, autopilot... or any other combination of goodies". The fact that you can even imagine I implied, much less said anything like that proves you are either so used to lying that your blind to what you're doing, or else your IQ is pitifully low, or you suffered brain damage. No reasonable person with a plausible IQ could come to the conclusion I said that. Your (shall we call them) "misinterpretations" of what I said are so many light-years over-the-top, I barely know how to respond. Good grief!

YOU LIE ALL THE TIME. Either that, or you have brain damage or inadequacy. I explain so clearly and carefully and at so much length, that only failure to read or lack of normal level of comprehension can explain your comebacks. Either that, or you simply lie as a matter of course. I don't see any other alternatives.

When you lie about what I say AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN... that is not civil. You waste my time, and you waste the time of everyone else here.

The only way to correct you is to repeat what I said yet again, which just puts me in the situation of "writing too much again" (which many here are complaining about), or just asking you to go back and read what I wrote before. Why not do that instead? What you MIGHT be doing (though it doesn't seem like it), is reading one or two sentences I wrote, then totally ignoring the 30 other surrounding paragraphs that give context and qualification to what I said, and thereby inferring what you imagine what I mean ... which directly and blatantly contradicts what I said nearby the sentence or two you chose to extract from the context that explains what it means.

You do understand that you can't expect to understand the meaning of a book, or a chapter, or even one page... if you extract one or two sentences and ignore everything else. You do understand that, right?

I did not accuse you of outright lying until you had claimed I said things I did not SEVERAL TIMES. After a certain point it becomes obvious that no honest human without brain damage or serious mental deficiency could possibly make so many honest mistakes. If you want me to stop calling you a liar, then stop lying. Or in the unlikely event that you really don't realize you are utterly and totally misrepresenting what I said (which BTW constitutes calling me a liar), go back RIGHT NOW and read the ENTIRE messages you extracted the basis for your claims about what I said (for which I called you a liar), and see if you can figure out how you got such utterly false impressions of what I said. There is no point in continuing the previous pattern. If you can't see how completely wrongly you presented what I claimed, there is ZERO hope for continuing conversation with me, no matter what is the reason for you doing that.

 

[tawood]

Yes, outrageous in the sense of repulsive (in my ideas and choices). But maybe you're right. Maybe "regular folks" get a thrill out of seeing the repulsive sight of a poor animal squashed on the road by a car, but still wiggingly around in pain before it dies. I'm not fascinated by the repulsive, so maybe I just don't get it (as usual).

I'll tell you what. You pick two or three of my very false claims, and I'll provide evidence to the contrary for you. That is, on the condition you stop dragging my private life into public. Deal? But understand this. If you agree, I damn well expect you to honor your agreement. All you know about are efforts before 2000 or so, the last revision. Back then I had reasons to be more public in niche ways. But understand, things were different in the 1980s and 1990s... think internet for example. If you take me up on my offer, contact me in private, and be prepared to post nothing further here about my personal life except perhaps "Max proved to my satisfaction claims that I said were lies".

Contact me via private contact on this website, and we can start with a phone call if you wish. But for the record, none of what you read is a lie. PERIOD. And what you don't know, including almost everything post 1998 ~ 2000, is well hidden. So even with proof of what I claimed, you still don't know most of the good stuff.

What a bunch of self-important morons, pretending they know things they do not know, and have no idea about. What a farce!

Sigh...Max, I have no interest...you could have simply answered my question with one word, "yes" or "no", as to whether or not your claim, that you invented the Astroscan telescope, is true...instead, you wrote 183 words stating how you (directly) were not going to answer...but you indirectly already answered my question anyway...not to mention, a good interviewer doesn't ask a question he doesn't already know the answer. But I (unfortunately) have to deal with pathological liars on a regular, professional, basis...and I know they typically don't quit. When they are caught in a lie, they just shift gears, accuse others of slander or name call, discuss how they have their own definition of words like "outrageous", etc...I'm off for the holiday, and I don't feel like working.
So like I said above, others can google you too, Mr man of mystery Max Reason...heck, your secret life hasn't kept your personal autobiography from being the top google result.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The more relevant point was the brightness, as an indication of atmospheric transparency. I can assure you, a person with good night vision (or aided by pure oxygen if they don't have great night vision), and after waiting an hour or so for eyes to become fully dark adapted (because it does take quite some time to get the last 20% or so), can see the Milky Way as similar bright AND in color (bright enough to stimulate both rods and cones). If you don't believe, go there. You'll see. Just make sure you go around June or July (unless you want to stay up very late, in which case March or April will work too). As for detail, I can't be sure from memory. Maybe you can't see as much detail as the better of those two photos. I suspect you can see as much detail as the wallpaper photo, though I could be off a bit. Actually, subjective detail is tricky. Unless you focus carefully on a small region and compare to some comparative standard (like the wallpaper photo), it is difficult to judge detail. Part of the reason is, human vision habitually tends to scan a field of view to take in the totality. Plus, only the center of a human field of view has high resolution. The non-central areas of human vision are substantially lower resolution. And so, it is quite natural to get the visual impression that your detail resolution is lower than it actually is. OTOH, no way can human vision see as much detail as those photos simultaneously over the whole field of view.

My rule of thumb is... 15 seconds is sufficient to reveal evidence of trailing.

Star trails is very much a function of focal length. The lenses listed in my citations wouldn't show trailing until ~30 seconds; they were quite sharp at the 20 seconds they were exposed. They were also at 3200 ISO. Human eyes seem to top out about ISO 800 equivalent, depending heavily on the measurement technique. Cones only need about 10 minutes to get fully dark adapted, which means the assertion that after 45 minutes, we can see the color as well is just something made up.

Those observatories were sited there for only a few reasons- generally good weather, little light pollution, and the ability to see the southern hemisphere. The radio observatories were sited above water vapor, enough land for the VLBL interferometry, and a view of the southern hemisphere.

You seem to post beyond your knowledge, and that makes people hostile to you.

What a bunch of self-important morons, pretending they know things they do not know, and have no idea about. What a farce!

That actually seems to describe you.

Henning- is that you?

 

[max_reason]

You are clearly depriving some village of its idiot.

The capability, training, and licenses of the plane mean nothing. It's all about the pilot.

EX: My plane is approved for aerobatics and certified for IFR. I am not trained for aero, nor have I completed my IFR. Therefore I stay away from those two flight regimes. Most likely because I like myself too much and want to stick around a while.

Many of the "unintentional flight into IMC" situations we see in accident reports are people who, like me, have a capable plane but are not current on training and certificates. One of the few times I agree that certification standards and recurrent training are important.

Well, "it's all about the pilot"... depending on how you want to formulate your ideas. When I said the pilot could have simply flown at an altitude 1000+ feet above the highest terrain or obstacle to avoid any chance of hitting a mountain or tower... that is indeed "all about the pilot". However, the options open to a pilot depend on what instrumentation exists in his airplane... whether he rented the airplane (and thus had no way to choose), or whether he owned the airplane (and thus had a way to choose).

Well, now you sound like me. Seriously. You say "therefore I stay away from IFR (and acro)". That's what I did when I was flying, and that's what I've been saying here. But just about EVERYONE claims it is essentially impossible in practice for VFR pilots to make flying decisions that keep him away from IMC... even on relatively short flights.

Please note, I was not trying to encourage that dead VFR pilot to fly through the mountains by watching his GPS, moving-maps, synthetic vision and setting his autopilot. My approach would be: don't fly on a marginal day... but if you made that mistake, turn back before you risk getting into an IMC situation. And if you make the mistake of getting into a situation where IMC seems like it might happen, climb higher than EVERY possible obstacle in the area you are flying (which are on ALL charts I've ever seen). However, if all these precautions fail, and some pilot was dumb enough (and/or suckered by some truly and amazingly unusual and tricky conditions) to actually get into IMC conditions (which one must be in to fly right into a mountainside)... THEN one would be wise to look at their damn GPS-driven moving-maps and synthetic-vision... and probably (depending on the pilot and all other circumstances) decide to let the autopilot fly the route the pilot selects on the basis of the moving maps to avoid mountains, and/or to avoid getting into those famous situations in which humans lose situational awareness due to sensory perceptual confusion. What I'm saying is... AT THAT LATE POINT IN THE PROCESS... having and paying attention to whatever advanced avionics you might have is a damn good idea. When you are in trouble, take full advantage of EVERY resource you have available. Why not?

When I say things like this, it is WRONG to pull a sentence or two out context and then claim I encourage VFR pilots to fly into disastrous IMC conditions, then make last ditch attempts to save their bacon with advanced avionics and IMC flying. That's exactly backwards! You don't do that... and 99.999% of the time won't have to do that... if you make the wise and appropriate decisions LONG before you get your butt into the wringer.

To be clear, I'm not saying that a VFR pilot can be certain he never accidentally gets into IMC conditions. Obviously that can occur. And I have said that I COULD find myself in that sort of situation 1000 miles from the nearest land while flying across the south-pacific. Some of the reasons are obvious... like I won't have enough fuel to fly in any random direction to avoid IMC conditions. Whereas when a VFR pilot flies over a continent, there are airports and airstrips (and even roads in even worse situations) IN EVERY DIRECTION... including whatever direction likely has the best weather conditions. That's a huge advantage of flying over a continent versus flying over open ocean. And that's why the chances I do get into an unusual situation that forces me into IMC are greater than flying above a continent. Hell, if I was planning to fly these 1000 and 2000 mile flights over a continent, I wouldn't worry so much about IMC. Well, I better qualify that by reminding you that I'd never fly anywhere near places that have weather like was common "back east", whether they are over continents or not. But for example, let's just say I wouldn't be afraid to fly from Arizona to Banff in Alberta Canada, for example. That's a long flight, but opportunities to stay out of IMC would be vastly (and I do mean vastly) more numerous.

I'm not sure why just about everyone seems to ignore all the qualifications I make, and get the idea I'm saying what I'm not saying. Has the attention span of humans become so minuscule that humans can't read a few paragraphs and consider how the ideas fit together to express coherent thoughts? Maybe so. Glad I never bought a mobile phone or ipad! I couldn't function with such a limited attention span!

 

[max_reason]

Sigh...Max, I have no interest...you could have simply answered my question with one word, "yes" or "no", as to whether or not your claim, that you invented the Astroscan telescope, is true...instead, you wrote 183 words stating how you (directly) were not going to answer...but you indirectly already answered my question anyway...not to mention, a good interviewer doesn't ask a question he doesn't already know the answer. But I (unfortunately) have to deal with pathological liars on a regular, professional, basis...and I know they typically don't quit. When they are caught in a lie, they just shift gears, accuse others of slander or name call, discuss how they have their own definition of words like "outrageous", etc...I'm off for the holiday, and I don't feel like working.
So like I said above, others can google you too, Mr man of mystery Max Reason...heck, your secret life hasn't kept your personal autobiography from being the top google result.

I suppose the lesson for me is... get a more common name, or remove all that old information from the internet. Probably I should.

FYI, I take people seriously. You outright said you knew I was lying, so it did not occur to me for one nanosecond that you would accept a "yes" or "no" assertion. So I took you seriously and offered to prove true whatever items you considered to be most certainly a lie. I really don't belong "in society" so to speak. I interact quite effectively with machines, electronics, software and inorganics in general. Humans on the other hand... they've been nothing but trouble since I was 4 years old, got hooked on astronomy and science, and decided I needed to observe and think for myself, because humans are entirely too unreliable and dishonest.

For the record, my response to you want not to call you names, but instead to provide proof of my veracity. I can't tell whether from your paragraph whether you admitted that (and now believe my claims), or you thought I had fallen into the usual pattern of liars. I also didn't know you were an interviewer and I was an interviewee. I'm sure you do have to deal with pathological liars, because my experience is, almost all humans are pathological liars... even those who [sorta] don't [fully] realize they are.

It's not that I want to be a "man of mystery". I just prefer to be left alone, because my work requires intense focus. At least it requires intense focus from me. And I have an interesting life to live, and that takes time I don't have to waste. Even without any need to work a job, each day has too few hours.

 

[max_reason]

Star trails is very much a function of focal length. The lenses listed in my citations wouldn't show trailing until ~30 seconds; they were quite sharp at the 20 seconds they were exposed. They were also at 3200 ISO. Human eyes seem to top out about ISO 800 equivalent, depending heavily on the measurement technique. Cones only need about 10 minutes to get fully dark adapted, which means the assertion that after 45 minutes, we can see the color as well is just something made up.

Those observatories were sited there for only a few reasons- generally good weather, little light pollution, and the ability to see the southern hemisphere. The radio observatories were sited above water vapor, enough land for the VLBL interferometry, and a view of the southern hemisphere.

You seem to post beyond your knowledge, and that makes people hostile to you.

That actually seems to describe you.

Henning- is that you?

How long it takes one to fully dark adapt depends on how dark the environment is. Therefore, people who live "back east" can dark adapt quicker. Sorry if that sounds like a slander, but not everyone loves space and astronomy, and very few have ever spent time in the best locations for observing on planet earth.

See the difference? I understand why you got your impression 10 minutes is sufficient to dark adapt. That may be true in every situation you've ever experienced (though 10 minutes really does seem a bit short for someone who has lived anywhere out west (and far away from city lights)). In contrast, you just accuse me of "making up" what I said, which is the same as calling me a liar. So you see, I understand context, and I understand not everywhere is the same. I wish a few other humans did.

I've spent considerable time at observatories, including the largest and best. Sometimes installing or testing equipment, sometimes executing observing programs. I know what my experiences were. As I relayed, after I had spent a fair bit of time on 10,000 foot Haleakala on Maui, and 13,000+ foot Mauna Kea on Hawaii (the big island), I actually believed the PR and bragging of the people there (and their "scientific" articles and publishing). And sure, the skies were pretty damn good on the best nights, and usually most of the substantial humidity was far below the summits.

And so, when I made my first trek to northern Chile, to ESO at Paranal (plus informal visits to other optical and radio telescope observatories in the area), I was rather shocked to find the skies so astronomically better than anywhere I'd been before (pun intended). So I can't seem surprised that other people "don't get it". I didn't get it, and I had visited dozens of observatories before that, and even lived at a mountaintop observatory for 7 years. So I understand. Go visit the Atacama desert for yourself. Go in May, June or July so you have the Milky Way in a good position. BTW, conveniently, that's the middle of their winter! During the daytime at ESO (which is only 8700 feet so), wearing a T-shirt is comfortable... though at night you'll want a jacket too. In winter, subtract 10 degrees or so.

I'm sure I SEEM to post beyond my knowledge. However, what that actually demonstrates is... I know these topics (observatories, astronomy, observing, instrumentation, Atacama Desert) better than 99.999% of people on earth. For the record, I'm sure each of you knows vastly more than I do about a great many topics. So the issue isn't me being "exceptional", the issue is you people only want to talk about me and my life, which not too surprisingly, I know better than you do! Let's talk about your lives, so I can be the ignoramus, and you can be the experts. I'd enjoy that a great deal more, because I'd learn something. Oh, I know, how about aviation! I came here because I expected many of the people here would be light-years beyond me in aviation... so I could be the padawan learner and you could be Obi Wan (so to speak). Unfortunately and regretfully, it doesn't seem like many people here can provide more than general platitudes... which are fine as general platitudes, but what I need are very narrow specific answers for one narrow and unsual situation. For that, most of us here can't seem to get on compatible wavelengths, and unfortunately the interference patterns are ugly.

For the record, if you're asking, I have no idea who Henning is.

 

[Ravioli]

For the record, if you're asking, I have no idea who Henning is.

And if you don't know who Henning is, you didn't take the 20 seconds to google it or search this forum.

 

[James331]

Sigh...Max, I have no interest...you could have simply answered my question with one word, "yes" or "no", as to whether or not your claim, that you invented the Astroscan telescope, is true...instead, you wrote 183 words stating how you (directly) were not going to answer...but you indirectly already answered my question anyway...not to mention, a good interviewer doesn't ask a question he doesn't already know the answer. But I (unfortunately) have to deal with pathological liars on a regular, professional, basis...and I know they typically don't quit. When they are caught in a lie, they just shift gears, accuse others of slander or name call, discuss how they have their own definition of words like "outrageous", etc...I'm off for the holiday, and I don't feel like working.
So like I said above, others can google you too, Mr man of mystery Max Reason...heck, your secret life hasn't kept your personal autobiography from being the top google result.

I thought you did some professional level snooping, yeah....he did come up with my first google for his screen name.

Ether way let’s be supportive!
He and his floating gopro shall launch into infamy!!!


http://www.maxreason.com/

 

[Cap'n Jack]

How long it takes one to fully dark adapt depends on how dark the environment is. Therefore, people who live "back east" can dark adapt quicker. Sorry if that sounds like a slander, but not everyone loves space and astronomy, and very few have ever spent time in the best locations for observing on planet earth.

See the difference? I understand why you got your impression 10 minutes is sufficient to dark adapt. That may be true in every situation you've ever experienced (though 10 minutes really does seem a bit short for someone who has lived anywhere out west (and far away from city lights)). In contrast, you just accuse me of "making up" what I said, which is the same as calling me a liar. So you see, I understand context, and I understand not everywhere is the same. I wish a few other humans did.

I've spent considerable time at observatories, including the largest and best. Sometimes installing or testing equipment, sometimes executing observing programs. I know what my experiences were. As I relayed, after I had spent a fair bit of time on 10,000 foot Haleakala on Maui, and 13,000+ foot Mauna Kea on Hawaii (the big island), I actually believed the PR and bragging of the people there (and their "scientific" articles and publishing). And sure, the skies were pretty damn good on the best nights, and usually most of the substantial humidity was far below the summits.

And so, when I made my first trek to northern Chile, to ESO at Paranal (plus informal visits to other optical and radio telescope observatories in the area), I was rather shocked to find the skies so astronomically better than anywhere I'd been before (pun intended). So I can't seem surprised that other people "don't get it". I didn't get it, and I had visited dozens of observatories before that, and even lived at a mountaintop observatory for 7 years. So I understand. Go visit the Atacama desert for yourself. Go in May, June or July so you have the Milky Way in a good position. BTW, conveniently, that's the middle of their winter! During the daytime at ESO (which is only 8700 feet so), wearing a T-shirt is comfortable... though at night you'll want a jacket too. In winter, subtract 10 degrees or so.

I'm sure I SEEM to post beyond my knowledge. However, what that actually demonstrates is... I know these topics (observatories, astronomy, observing, instrumentation, Atacama Desert) better than 99.999% of people on earth. For the record, I'm sure each of you knows vastly more than I do about a great many topics. So the issue isn't me being "exceptional", the issue is you people only want to talk about me and my life, which not too surprisingly, I know better than you do! Let's talk about your lives, so I can be the ignoramus, and you can be the experts. I'd enjoy that a great deal more, because I'd learn something. Oh, I know, how about aviation! I came here because I expected many of the people here would be light-years beyond me in aviation... so I could be the padawan learner and you could be Obi Wan (so to speak). Unfortunately and regretfully, it doesn't seem like many people here can provide more than general platitudes... which are fine as general platitudes, but what I need are very narrow specific answers for one narrow and unsual situation. For that, most of us here can't seem to get on compatible wavelengths, and unfortunately the interference patterns are ugly.

For the record, if you're asking, I have no idea who Henning is.

You don't know how to read either. I specifically mentioned the cones (color vision) night adapting in 10 minutes, to the extent that they will do so. That means your color sensitivity is maxxed out in that time, while black and white sensitivity is still improving. You don't get improved color perception in more time. Your eyes certainly can't match the sensitivity of a modern DSLR at ISO 3200 over 20 to 30 seconds.

You seem to be implying that the people using the Mauna Kea aren't writing scientific articles- I'm rather sure they know the quality of the data they see.

Anyway, have fun....we have enough "know-it-alls" here. I need not waste more of my time.

 

[Ravioli]

Back the truck up. The guy knows FORTRAN. I am now certain he is totally legit.

 

[max_reason]

Well if you want our help at the very least provide the chance for some entertainment.

First thing set up a account (free) on FltPlan.com

So here’s fltplan performance setup page,

(That’s set up with my plane, you would have to input that planes info)



Here’s the planning overview to give you a idea what it looks like (again this is with another plane on my profile)

Aaaaaand...........
I plugged your plane into foreflight really quick, 147kts airspeed, 4.7gph at 8,000’ showing wind overlays

I’d keep the small wheels on the plane, I’d also forgo the survival equipment in trade for as much ferry tank as you can get, because let’s face it, if you go in you’re toast, so fuel (at 6lbs a gal) is more likely to be your salvation vs a small rubber raft in the middle of a huge ocean.

I’d wager you might be able to pull it off if the stars align and you wait for the right day.

Here’s a good floating case for the GoPro https://www.amazon.com/TELESIN-Floa...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B01FHAAU3O

No matter where I'm flying, I WILL wait for excellent current and forecast weather. Of that I am certain (insert sound of chicken clucking).

The self-inflating raft weights 32 pounds, so you would be correct to say "that is a lot of gasoline!". A quick estimate is 5 gallons == 1 hour == 170 miles at cruise speed, or 250 miles at economy speed (if you believe what owners say). Obviously 170~250 miles could easily "make the difference"... between SPLASH and LAND.

One could apply the same logic to the "ballistic whole-plane parachute", an option that virtually everyone buys for their pipistrel airplanes (at the encouragement of pipistrel and their dealers). That's another 33 pounds, or another 170 to 250 miles. Together, that's 350 to 500 miles of extra range. And that parachute consumes cargo space, creating more room for extra gasoline or other supplies. Their 50 liter (13 gallon) optional fuel tank goes in the cargo area, so that's 13 gallons / 4.7gph == 2.75 hours * 275kph == 760km (470 miles). So again, 470 miles (at 75% throttle cruise) to ~690 miles (at 55% throttle economy speed) is quite a bit of extra range.

Very valuable. OTOH, many pilots say I'd be insane to fly without the life raft or ballistic parachute. It certainly is a trade-off, so I can understand every point of view. Before I started listening to people, my first guess was... forget the parachute and life-raft and bring extra fuel. My guess is, that may be the first choice of ferry pilots too. OTOH, if I end up crashing into the ocean for some other reason, I can imagine not being very amused at my choices! Hahaha. <<=== screaming "where's my damn life raft".

I suppose the two ways to look at the situation are:
#1: Maximize your chances of success.
#2: Maximize your chances of survival of a failure.

In general, I tend to focus on #1. That's certainly my approach to IMC, for instance. Better to not have a disaster in the first place!

If running out of fuel was my only (or far-and-away primary) concern, the choice would be a non-brainer... choose #1 == lots of extra fuel.

However, in my current early state off learning, I still imagine engine failure (for any reason whatsoever, including bad fuel, hoses. leaks, clamps, whatever) is my greatest danger, followed by some form of IMC that I don't manage to successfully cope with for some reason (even with good avionics support).

Remember, I'm probably not going to fly from California to Hawaii. Possibly I will, but my current plans are to fly from Chile across the south-pacific and back and not bother with Hawaii (been there, done that). When I stared this thread, it looked as though the longest leg of the south-pacific plans was exactly the same distance as California to Hawaii, namely 3800km == 2400 miles. However, after further research, I've been able to cut the longest leg from 3800km (2400 miles) down to 3000km (1900 miles). Which means, I just found I can put that 500 miles of difference into my "safety margin". That makes "splash due to running out of fuel" somewhat less likely, thereby pushing those other potential causes of disaster closer to top of the list... or further above #2 on the list.

So once I get fltplan working, I'll be plugging in the 3000km (1900 mile) flight from "Isla Robinson Crusoe" to "Totegegie", not the 3800km (2400 mile) flight from Monterey, California to Hawaii.

If I find out I can get gasoline at this strange but fascinating Pitcairn island, that reduces the longest leg another 500km (300 miles). I see one place on that island where I can land on a barely adequate size grass lawn, and two or three places where I can probably land on short stretches of dirt road (most promising short stretches of dirt road appear to have what looks like bushes along them that might extend high enough to touch the underside of the high wings. But... I don't yet know whether the island has any gasoline at all. Unlike many islands, the dirt roads seem rather lame (only 4.5 meters wide, which might be only one-lane or just for walking or golf carts). Plus, I don't see any obvious cars on the roads or parked next to buildings. So... quite possibly there are no cars (and thus no gasoline) on this island, in which case I will have to make the 3000km flight to Totegegie.

There are two islands (Ducie and Henderson) that I could land on without trashing the airplane slightly closer than Pitcairn island, but they are empty (no population) and would only be places to land short and wait for help if for some reason I could not reach Pitcairn or Totegegie. Oh, there is also Oeno Island, another zero-population island that is further than Pitcairn but closer than Totegegie. But again, like those other unpopulated islands, only appropriate in case of serious problem like fuel imminent fuel exhaustion or engine or other systems not functioning well, so landing and calling for help is prudent despite the enormous hassle.

Even if Pitcairn has no gasoline, if something "wasn't entirely right", I can still land on Pitcairn and deal with the problem rather than risk the extra 300 miles to Totegegie. Now that I look again, I do see 2 or 3 objects that look like cars... about the right shape and size for cars... but given I don't see any other signs, I'm a bit dubious. There is a small bay on the north side where photos show they dock small vessels. There is some kind of support building there, and what might be a small car or jeep parked there (or a golf cart). But maybe boats don't need premium gasoline, so... still dubious. Time to find a way to contact 2 or 3 people on that island and get the inside story. As the wise ones around here say, "research, research, research".

Later Addendum: As of 14 years ago, the primary if not exclusive transportation on the Pitcairn island were "all terrain three and four wheel motorbikes". Somehow, my guess would be they take regular gasoline, not premium. Bad sign, but not yet definitive.

 

[max_reason]

Back the truck up. The guy knows FORTRAN. I am now certain he is totally legit.

You don't want to know how many decades since I programmed in fortran. Probably before some of you were born! So scratch that one off my list... please! I only program in C/C++ and assembly language (and microcode and HDL for FPGAs) any more. Oh, wrote a little javascript a few years ago, but forget that too (hate it).

Should I judge you by the fact you used to poo in your diapers? Thought not.

 

[max_reason]

You don't know how to read either. I specifically mentioned the cones (color vision) night adapting in 10 minutes, to the extent that they will do so. That means your color sensitivity is maxed out in that time, while black and white sensitivity is still improving. You don't get improved color perception in more time. Your eyes certainly can't match the sensitivity of a modern DSLR at ISO 3200 over 20 to 30 seconds.

You seem to be implying that the people using the Mauna Kea aren't writing scientific articles - I'm rather sure they know the quality of the data they see.

Anyway, have fun....we have enough "know-it-alls" here. I need not waste more of my time.

Yeah, please don't try to tell me what I know so well from first hand observation and experience. Sheesh!

If you think everything [official] out of the mouths and articles of scientists are reliable, I suggest you check out AGW. And if you think the administrators [and scientists] at many scientific organizations don't exaggerate the crap out of their organization and facilities (and sites in the case of observatories), you're blind, or smoking something stronger than I'd ever touch. Actually, I never smoked either, so I can't actually judge smoke very well from personal experience. Well, except for this awful forest fire I was stuck in for a while. Gag!

Sure, a scientific paper about galactic spectra won't usually brag about the observatory site (either in the positive or negative). But those are not the only articles published by scientific organizations. And besides, I was there doing work, so mostly what I heard about that issue, I heard with my hears. Lots of people are proud of their "observatory" or "airplane" or "beer brand" and talk it up. You doubt this? Seriously? My mistake was believing what they said was even close to true. I had no reason to suspect so at the time, but what they said wasn't true. Though I do suspect most of them believed what they were saying, precisely because they hadn't been to better places either, and had no idea how much better other places could be.

 

[Brad Smith]

@max_reason
Take a look at the accomplishments of long-distance record setter Max Conrad:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Conrad

The non-stop distances he covered in Piper airplanes is unbelievable and these flights were accomplished in the Tri-Pacer, 180 and 250 Comanche, Aztec and Twin Comanche. He had the backing of Piper aircraft and some of these records go back to the 1950's, well before modern navigation systems. He even won the coveted Harmon Trophy. Preparation was the key as you'll discover if you read his book "Into the Wind" (published 1973). A very good read for anyone attempting long distance flights or for any pilot for that matter. Check it out!

 

[Ravioli]

Satisfy my curiosity.

Dr. @max_reason has 108 posts on PoA. This is the 272nd post in this thread.

So, Dr Max... anything else going on but this [potentially troll] thread? No insights to share on other conversation over the month since you joined?

oh, damn. Answered my own question. This is the only thread you have posted in.

 

[max_reason]

@max_reason
Take a look at the accomplishments of long-distance record setter Max Conrad:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Conrad

The non-stop distances he covered in Piper airplanes is unbelievable and these flights were accomplished in the Tri-Pacer, 180 and 250 Comanche, Aztec and Twin Comanche. He had the backing of Piper aircraft and some of these records go back to the 1950's, well before modern navigation systems. He even won the coveted Harmon Trophy. Preparation was the key as you'll discover if you read his book "Into the Wind" (published 1973). A very good read for anyone attempting long distance flights or for any pilot for that matter. Check it out!

Interesting. 12,341km non-stop in 1959... in a single-engine Piper PA-24-250 Comanche. Sorta makes 3000km look wimpy, huh? Actually, not sure that flight was non-stop.

 

[max_reason]

Satisfy my curiosity.

Dr. @max_reason has 108 posts on PoA. This is the 272nd post in this thread.

So, Dr Max... anything else going on but this [potentially troll] thread? No insights to share on other conversation over the month since you joined?

oh, damn. Answered my own question. This is the only thread you have posted in.

I'm not social. Get it? I don't go looking for things to talk about. I have projects, and I execute them. If being social is what makes a human worthwhile, then I'm not worthwhile. Everything else I'm doing at the moment is related to this project... talking to Rotax about engine training classes, talking to pipistrel representatives, talking to pipistrel owners, researching islands and island airports... slowly but surely researching and preparing.

First and foremost I need to figure out how to get this sucker "registered" in right categories, figure out how and where to make sure I get airworthiness certificates, and everything else I need to be able to place an order and get myself in the production queue.

What do you think I do when I'm not typing here? Playing chess with an HAL9000 computer?

 

[James331]

Interesting. 12,341km non-stop in 1959... in a single-engine Piper PA-24-250 Comanche. Sorta makes 3000km look wimpy, huh? Actually, not sure that flight was non-stop.

The PA24 has been the choice to set quite a few records, its a VERY good design that has a payload to speed ratio to tank size that makes it a good choice for many things, many people recommend that plane for x/c stuff, myself included.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Yeah, please don't try to tell me what I know so well from first hand observation and experience. Sheesh!

If you think everything [official] out of the mouths and articles of scientists are reliable, I suggest you check out AGW. And if you think the administrators [and scientists] at many scientific organizations don't exaggerate the crap out of their organization and facilities (and sites in the case of observatories), you're blind, or smoking something stronger than I'd ever touch. Actually, I never smoked either, so I can't actually judge smoke very well from personal experience. Well, except for this awful forest fire I was stuck in for a while. Gag!

Sure, a scientific paper about galactic spectra won't usually brag about the observatory site (either in the positive or negative). But those are not the only articles published by scientific organizations. And besides, I was there doing work, so mostly what I heard about that issue, I heard with my hears. Lots of people are proud of their "observatory" or "airplane" or "beer brand" and talk it up. You doubt this? Seriously? My mistake was believing what they said was even close to true. I had no reason to suspect so at the time, but what they said wasn't true. Though I do suspect most of them believed what they were saying, precisely because they hadn't been to better places either, and had no idea how much better other places could be.

AzBlackbird!

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Your first sentence is a perfect example! Holy crapola! Of course I NEVER said anything remotely like "No VFR pilot has ever had a fatal accident after flying into IMC in an airplane equipped with GPS, moving-maps, synthetic vision, autopilot... or any other combination of goodies". The fact that you can even imagine I implied, much less said anything like that proves you are either so used to lying that your blind to what you're doing, or else your IQ is pitifully low, or you suffered brain damage.

Ignoring the personal insults I'd like to recap what has taken place here. You have repeatedly said you don't think you need to get an instrument rating because the places you fly don't experience IMC very much. I won't bother to go dig up quotes of your posts but you've said essentially that.

I posted some links to NTSB reports of fatal accidents involving VFR pilots flying into IMC in the areas you have mentioned, i.e. California and Hawaii. My intent was to point out that IMC does happen in those places and VFR pilots do indeed die by flying into IMC in those places. Your response to that was as follows:

I looked at the first link. I didn't read every word, but my quick scan did not notice any statement of whether the airplane had GPS, moving-maps, synthetic vision, autopilot or other equipment. As far as I can tell, all they mentioned relative to that general issue was... he was a VFR pilot. The implication being much like the way you people think... that all that matters is the official rating a pilot had, and never mind whether he had zero or tons of equipment that could possibly help him in his situation.

So your response is to question how the plane was equipped. I asked if that meant you were claiming that no VFR pilot ever had a fatal by flying into IMC in an airplane equipped with the equipment you specified.

Question for you max. Do you understand the meaning of the phrase 'are you claiming' Do you understand it does not mean the same thing as 'max has claimed'? Do you understand that? I was asking you clarify what you meant by yours statement and instead of explaining yourself, you accuse me of lying and then call my intelligence into question and accuse me of being brain damaged. You also go on to suspect that I'm not reading your posts and you seem to have a problem with that. But go read the first few words you wrote that I quoted above. Here I'll save you the trouble. You said 'I looked on the first link. I didn't read every word...'

Nice. You seem to have a problem with people commenting on your posts if you think they haven't read the whole thing no matter how many words you use. But you're just fine doing it yourself. Nice.


Now I'm going to ask you again. Stop with accusations of lying. And please stop accusations of brain damage and low IQ. Its insulting and offensive. Very offensive.

 

[Ravioli]

I thought AZ was ruled out.

 

[Hang 4]

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

Apparently nothing.

 

[max_reason]

Ignoring the personal insults I'd like to recap what has taken place here. You have repeatedly said you don't think you need to get an instrument rating because the places you fly don't experience IMC very much. I won't bother to go dig up quotes of your posts but you've said essentially that.

I posted some links to NTSB reports of fatal accidents involving VFR pilots flying into IMC in the areas you have mentioned, i.e. California and Hawaii. My intent was to point out that IMC does happen in those places and VFR pilots do indeed die by flying into IMC in those places. Your response to that was as follows:

So your response is to question how the plane was equipped. I asked if that meant you were claiming that no VFR pilot ever had a fatal by flying into IMC in an airplane equipped with the equipment you specified.

Question for you max. Do you understand the meaning of the phrase 'are you claiming' Do you understand it does not mean the same thing as 'max has claimed'? Do you understand that? I was asking you clarify what you meant by yours statement and instead of explaining yourself, you accuse me of lying and then call my intelligence into question and accuse me of being brain damaged. You also go on to suspect that I'm not reading your posts and you seem to have a problem with that. But go read the first few words you wrote that I quoted above. Here I'll save you the trouble. You said 'I looked on the first link. I didn't read every word...'

Nice. You seem to have a problem with people commenting on your posts if you think they haven't read the whole thing no matter how many words you use. But you're just fine doing it yourself. Nice.

Now I'm going to ask you again. Stop with accusations of lying. And please stop accusations of brain damage and low IQ. Its insulting and offensive. Very offensive.

I explained my point of view many times. You cut it out again, the parts where I say how I will never go anywhere near IMC conditions. Also the part where I say any VFR pilot who gets near mountains can easily read off the charts what the highest elevation in his/her general area is... and fly 1000 or more feet higher. Yes, I also made a comment about how a pilot who completely screwed up all the obvious steps would be better off looking at his GPS based moving map displays. Of course he should. BUT THAT DOES NOT ERASE ALL THE OTHER EARLIER AND IMPORTANT COMMENTS I MADE. The only way you could possibly ask your "are you saying" question was to ignore all the good and more fundamental advice. Which is part of your... modus-operandi. If I say "don't pick poison mushrooms", and then later after you do I say "don't eat that poison mushroom"... you will say "are you saying I should pick poison mushrooms and bring them home?". That's insane. You're insane. Leave me alone. You are wasting your time, my time, and everyone else's time. I won't answer you any more, because you're so far beyond nuts that no way exists to communicate rationally with you. So I won't. Goodbye... and good luck.