1st plane

rpadula said:
If that were true, then you'd only get one button. :wink2:
Click to expand...

Scarier yet - iOS 4.3 has four and five finger gestures - Swipe up with 4 fingers gets you to the multitasking stuff (same as a double-tap on the home button), left and right with 4 fingers switches between apps, and a 5-finger pinch takes you back to the home screen.

Word is, they're going to try to get rid of the only button the iPad has! :crazy:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Scarier yet - iOS 4.3 has four and five finger gestures - Swipe up with 4 fingers gets you to the multitasking stuff (same as a double-tap on the home button), left and right with 4 fingers switches between apps, and a 5-finger pinch takes you back to the home screen.

Word is, they're going to try to get rid of the only button the iPad has! :crazy:
Click to expand...
Actually, I was referring to Steve's adamant decree to provide only a one-button mouse. And here I thought you were a fanboy. :D
 
rpadula said:
Actually, I was referring to Steve's adamant decree to provide only a one-button mouse. And here I thought you were a fanboy. :D
Click to expand...

Don't forget the lack of arrow keys - And I am. I just wanted to provide a more modern reference. ;)
 
10 pages?

182. It does about anything you'll ask it to (no aerobatics please).

Although Tigers are about as cheap as they've ever been.

Assume your first airplane is your "mistake" airplane - there is a lot to learn as an owner. You want those mistakes to be as inexpensive as possible. One man's opinion.
 
denverpilot said:
Arrow keys?! Any self-respecting vi user doesn't need 'em. H J K and L work just fine! ;)
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if Steve Jobs used vi - I sure as hell don't, I'm an emacs guy - but the original Macintosh had no arrow keys on the keyboard because His Steveness decreed that people needed to be forced to use the mouse so that they'd learn how. (The original Mac was the first computer in widespread use that had a mouse.)

attachment.php

attachment.php

 

Attachments

  • mac128k320.jpg
    mac128k320.jpg
    13.3 KB · Views: 65
  • jobs1984.jpg
    jobs1984.jpg
    19.4 KB · Views: 65
What? A thread Kent was in turned to Apple talk? No freakin way!!
 
Emacs? I knew there was something wrong with you, Kent. LOL! Kidding.

I started out an emacs guy, but then I had to do a paid sysadmin job with over one-hundred Linux boxes to care and feed, as well as Suns, AIX, BSD, and the like. And I realized that vi is installed by default on all of those in even the most minimalist installations, and I'd have to force feed 50 or more of them emacs, so I forced myself to learn vi. Also had to get really good at shell scripting, so I didn't need an editor that was it's own OS anymore.

Loved emacs when I coded and lived the non-interrupt-driven life of a paid coder, where I could launch it once and stay in it all day, even for e-mail, but in and out of ten to twenty machines a day, ssh, vi and a little shell-Fu was more efficient for that.

For anything really ugly (including the code) Perl became my go-to hacking toolbox. But often that was just out of laziness of not wanting to write a really big ugly portable shell script. ;)
 
Jesse,

I thought you were working on that ignore thread thing a year ago. What the hell happened?
 
Like you don't have vim tips in your RSS reader.
 
I am going to take a look at a 1967 182k skylane with 300hp this weekend.
 
EdFred said:
That sounds like a good first plane!
Don't look at the fuel receipts though!! :eek:
Click to expand...

Depends on how you run it. The 300 hp engines in the 310 only burn 12.5 GPH average the way I fly them.
 
I got tired of reading this at page 3. But I would put in a plug for a Mooney M20C or E, preferably E. Not because I own one, but because I want one. Yes, retractable gear, but a manual system that uses a Johnson bar. Not much to fix or break. I think the biggest disadvantage is the back seat is somewhat less than existent (I read trips for two plus bags...) and my experience has suggested they work best for those of use not overly endowed in pitch or yaw.

Talk about bang for the buck.
 
He should keep looking until he finds one with adjustable power controls. Those gadgets can do wonders for fuel consumption. It's even better if all three knobs can be moved during flight.

EdFred said:
That sounds like a good first plane!
Don't look at the fuel receipts though!! :eek:
Click to expand...
 
steingar said:
I got tired of reading this at page 3. But I would put in a plug for a Mooney M20C or E, preferably E. Not because I own one, but because I want one. Yes, retractable gear, but a manual system that uses a Johnson bar. Not much to fix or break. I think the biggest disadvantage is the back seat is somewhat less than existent (I read trips for two plus bags...) and my experience has suggested they work best for those of use not overly endowed in pitch or yaw.

Talk about bang for the buck.
Click to expand...

Plus the M20E is a good hotrod. M20F is a hair slower, but bigger interior. We've comfortably fit 4 FAA standard people (2 males, 2 females) just fine in one.
 
wabower said:
He should keep looking until he finds one with adjustable power controls. Those gadgets can do wonders for fuel consumption. It's even better if all three knobs can be moved during flight.
Click to expand...

Well, Wayne, you let the cat out of the bag on this one. Now everyone will be looking for more fuel efficient aircraft, rather than just accepting the fact that airplanes burn tons of fuel. But since you've let it out, I'll add a bit. The best part is that these adjustable power controls can usually be installed without an STC. Procedure is as follows:

1) Locate the knob(s) or lever(s) marked "MIXTURE". Sometimes they are identified by the color red.
2) Use them.

I've managed to see significant fuel savings with this method.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Plus the M20E is a good hotrod. M20F is a hair slower, but bigger interior. We've comfortably fit 4 FAA standard people (2 males, 2 females) just fine in one.
Click to expand...

I said an M20C or E because the OP said it was him, Mrs. OP, and some bags. I sat in the back of an F once, and I fit OK, but I'm a midget. If the OP really wants that back seat I'd go with the Skylane, since that's the only plane where you can fill the back seats with adult-sized people and still take enough gas to get somewhere.

What I like about the Mooneys is the low acquisition cost (bumps up a bit for an F), high speed, low fuel burn, and simple systems. I would have bought one years ago but my airplane partners are not in any way challenged in pitch or yaw.
 
For his stated purpose:

I am a beginner pilot- no private license yet.

I want a plane for monthly trips of 150 miles and will take longer trips ie 400 miles every other month.

Any thoughts re Cessna 172 versus Cessna 182 versus Piper Archer? Several people have said the 182 is too much plane for a beginner, therfore dangerous. Other friends said "you will hate a 172 with a 40mph headwind" therefore buy a 182 or equivalent.

IMHO, he is over buying, but that's OK, he'll grow into it.
 
wabower said:
He should keep looking until he finds one with adjustable power controls. Those gadgets can do wonders for fuel consumption. It's even better if all three knobs can be moved during flight.
Click to expand...

Remember, he is a student pilot, he will spend a lot of time in the pattern, watching those 300 horses eat his wallet for lunch.
 
Since this thread is already lapping itself, I'll bring the Cardinal that Tom previously mentioned - gotta go a few pages back for the link.
 
Tom-D said:
Remember, he is a student pilot, he will spend a lot of time in the pattern, watching those 300 horses eat his wallet for lunch.
Click to expand...

Who flies the pattern at full power?
 
EdFred said:
Who flies the pattern at full power?
Click to expand...

Most people do on takeoff, but I agree that difference in pattern fuel consumption should be negligible.
 
I don't. But I am 800' MSL, and not quite getting full MP. :D
 
With fuel prices what they are, Tigers and Mooneys make even more sense. Struts? We don't need no stinkin struts!
 
EdFred said:
Who flies the pattern at full power?
Click to expand...

Not every one, but he is a student, and who knows who his instructor is, or if they know engine management.

the C-182K came from the factory with a 0-470-R, that was rated at 230 horse, so what does he have for an upgrade, or is somebody blowing smoke?

Would you turn a student loose on solo with a TSIO520/550? these big bore continentals are not known for their forgiveness of poor fuel management.

The 177 I mentioned before is a much better fit to purpose
 
Nothing at all wrong with a Cardinal, just for the same money you can get more airplane and go loads faster with the Mooney. Yes, it will cost a bit more in training, but it would cost more when the noob pilot ditches the Skylane to get something that goes zoom anyway.

Unless the OP and/or Mrs. OP is/are a "plus" sized individual(s), in which case the Skylane is the best choice for a bunch of reasons.
 
Tom-D said:
the C-182K came from the factory with a 0-470-R, that was rated at 230 horse, so what does he have for an upgrade, or is somebody blowing smoke?
Click to expand...

There are about 5 STCs for 520 variants and one or to for 550s.

Would you turn a student loose on solo with a TSIO520/550? these big bore continentals are not known for their forgiveness of poor fuel management.
Click to expand...

What exactly can you mismanage in the pattern ? The fuel-injected 182 conversions even eliminate the 'off' position on the fuel selector to keep folks from screwing up. This thing has so much power that even in cruise it is hard to screw up, as long as you stay below 65%, you can even put the little red knob into whichever position you please.

The 177 I mentioned before is a much better fit to purpose
Click to expand...

For the immediate purpose yes, for the anticipated growth in the OPs flying habit not so much.
 
Tom-D said:
Not every one, but he is a student, and who knows who his instructor is, or if they know engine management.

the C-182K came from the factory with a 0-470-R, that was rated at 230 horse, so what does he have for an upgrade, or is somebody blowing smoke?

Would you turn a student loose on solo with a TSIO520/550? these big bore continentals are not known for their forgiveness of poor fuel management.

The 177 I mentioned before is a much better fit to purpose
Click to expand...

Sure. But I also teach engine management a bit more than the CFIs that don't give a crap about the rental fleet cause they only got 120 more hours till the airlines, so I hope the student comes away with an understanding of why the engine is not just operated like the rental fleet.

Slam er in, yank er back. Yipes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top