The Carenado stuff really is excellent and I commend it to anyone looking for a really good quality potterer. The only grumble I have is that apart from the T34 it is all rather samey. It would be nice if they cast their net wider. A twin of the same quality as their singles maybe
Mike D
Carenado for something different??
Moderators: Guru's, The Ministry
Dave,
I think, in the case of Carenado, it may be the persuit of perfection that has caused this confusion.
What I suspect has happened is they modelled the aircraft off an older Cessna, and bought new checklists to go with it.
A lot of the older Stationair's were retro-fitted with a fuel selector that gives the option for "both" and hence the checklists produced today (mine included) have the fuel selector set to "Both" for startup and Departure.
Not to digress too far but it is important to remember that the majority of airframes available to hire or buy to the average pilot these days have been produced over many many years, if you go into a pilot shop and buy a checklist for that aircraft it may not fit exactly the aircraft you are flying.
A sobering reminder of this occured to a fellow aviator only a few years ago, an older Cessna (182 I think) had been fitted with a modern diesel engine as a trial at the club for fuel economy.
Part of the retrofit involved re-locating one of the icing controls. The pilot had plenty of time on the 182 and had owned one for many years and his logbook reflected this. As such he turned down the offer by the club of having a quick familiarisation ride before he hired the aircraft.
When he couldn't find the icing control in its normal place he simply assumed that it wasn't required on this A/C or was automatic and thus carried on without.
Sure enough ice formed and he found himself in a very sticky situation which resulted in a forced landing and a bent undercarriage.
It just proves the importance of knowing your aircraft, in exactly the same way that a different model or variant of car may have the controls fitted slightly differently over the years, only at 4,000ft it can be a little more dangerous than not being able to find the cup holder
But look, I've digressed!
In answer to your other question there are many, particularly, older GA aircraft that require some careful fuel management and tank ballancing. However I have been lucky in that most the aircraft I have flown have had newer selectors fitted!
All the best,
Alex
I think, in the case of Carenado, it may be the persuit of perfection that has caused this confusion.
What I suspect has happened is they modelled the aircraft off an older Cessna, and bought new checklists to go with it.
A lot of the older Stationair's were retro-fitted with a fuel selector that gives the option for "both" and hence the checklists produced today (mine included) have the fuel selector set to "Both" for startup and Departure.
Not to digress too far but it is important to remember that the majority of airframes available to hire or buy to the average pilot these days have been produced over many many years, if you go into a pilot shop and buy a checklist for that aircraft it may not fit exactly the aircraft you are flying.
A sobering reminder of this occured to a fellow aviator only a few years ago, an older Cessna (182 I think) had been fitted with a modern diesel engine as a trial at the club for fuel economy.
Part of the retrofit involved re-locating one of the icing controls. The pilot had plenty of time on the 182 and had owned one for many years and his logbook reflected this. As such he turned down the offer by the club of having a quick familiarisation ride before he hired the aircraft.
When he couldn't find the icing control in its normal place he simply assumed that it wasn't required on this A/C or was automatic and thus carried on without.
Sure enough ice formed and he found himself in a very sticky situation which resulted in a forced landing and a bent undercarriage.
It just proves the importance of knowing your aircraft, in exactly the same way that a different model or variant of car may have the controls fitted slightly differently over the years, only at 4,000ft it can be a little more dangerous than not being able to find the cup holder
But look, I've digressed!
In answer to your other question there are many, particularly, older GA aircraft that require some careful fuel management and tank ballancing. However I have been lucky in that most the aircraft I have flown have had newer selectors fitted!
All the best,
Alex
-
Chris Trott
- Vintage Pair
- Posts: 2590
- Joined: 26 Jun 2004, 05:16
- Location: Houston, Texas, USA
- Contact:
One of the few drawbacks of the Piper line is that they never fitted a "both" selector and as a result they had a rash of accidents in the last 20 years of their "introductory" level aircraft having fuel exhaustion accidents due to relatively inexperienced pilots forgetting to switch tanks. There was one fairly recently where the pilot actually flew for 2 1/2 hours on one tank and when he maded his forced landing (on a road, no damage thankfully) his other tank was still completely full.Reheat wrote:In answer to your other question there are many, particularly, older GA aircraft that require some careful fuel management and tank ballancing. However I have been lucky in that most the aircraft I have flown have had newer selectors fitted!
I know that good training and good habits prevents it from happening, but be honest (the real pilots among you) how many times have you forgotten to switch tanks at one time or another? I know I have, even with the checklist sitting in front of my face, a full Nav Log and reminders everywhere to switch tanks every hour for longer flights. Heck, I end up doing it on the Cessnas even with the "both" position when I'm flying alone as the left wing doesn't like to drain as evenly with the right side...
Hi Guys,
A new startup FS Design group is currently working on a Payware Harvard... and from what I have seen of the design so far it is going to be very much worth it, the aim is for Cloud 9 type interaction, or so I am told!
They don't have a website or 'owt yet though!
Sorry for going a bit CNB there, must say a Harvard doesn't really interest me for some reason - just doesn't float my boat!
Alex
A new startup FS Design group is currently working on a Payware Harvard... and from what I have seen of the design so far it is going to be very much worth it, the aim is for Cloud 9 type interaction, or so I am told!
They don't have a website or 'owt yet though!
Sorry for going a bit CNB there, must say a Harvard doesn't really interest me for some reason - just doesn't float my boat!
Alex
-
david balmer
Reheat,
sorry for taking so long to reply, computer had to be rebuilt and i've only just got it back. reguarding the 182Q. i had the same thoughts as yourself when i looked at the display photo's on the web site. after flying the stationair around for a short time, the better half got to me and i bought the 182Q. yes the panels are as good if not better than the 206. the sounds on this aircraft are smother and less metalic than the 206. but i would say yes worth every penny or cent depending which country you live in.
the graphic on the interior are as good as the 206. there are only a hand full of repaints as of yet. the only draw back is the long range version. details give the same weights and flight distance as the normal 182Q, so why call it long range. i'll have to get in touch and ask if there is a reason for this. screen shot's will come later as i 'am still in the process of testing out the new graphics card. my old card of six months burned out. :sad:
sorry for taking so long to reply, computer had to be rebuilt and i've only just got it back. reguarding the 182Q. i had the same thoughts as yourself when i looked at the display photo's on the web site. after flying the stationair around for a short time, the better half got to me and i bought the 182Q. yes the panels are as good if not better than the 206. the sounds on this aircraft are smother and less metalic than the 206. but i would say yes worth every penny or cent depending which country you live in.
the graphic on the interior are as good as the 206. there are only a hand full of repaints as of yet. the only draw back is the long range version. details give the same weights and flight distance as the normal 182Q, so why call it long range. i'll have to get in touch and ask if there is a reason for this. screen shot's will come later as i 'am still in the process of testing out the new graphics card. my old card of six months burned out. :sad:
