Hi Michael
I understand that you have a IV-p kit but do not want to have it pressurized? I really would re-consider this carefully, because there are a few reasons that really would want you to have it.
I have flown a cirrus, a Velocity all not pressurized and I always was very tired after a 2-2 1/2 hour flight. Now in my IV-p I can be flying 3-3 1/2 hours and still feel great. So when I was up there at 17.500ft I was curious about my oxygen and heart levels, so I checked and they were almost like being on the ground. Now that I have enjoyed pressurized I will not want to go back anymore, it is really really great !!
Also consider re-sale value, it will have at least $50k less value than a pressurized one. As a matter of fact, I think if someone is looking for a IV they probably always will go for a pressurized one (as they do not know about any issues). (I hope I did not stepped on anybody toes, but this is just a personal opinion)
So if you are stuck with issues,than get some professional help like Fibercraft or RDD to finish this part, just out of a financial point of view this would be a wise investment.
And if you do not wish to fly pressurized, just don't, but it is good to have the option ;)~
== Ronald
Michael Smith, where ever
you are, I like to ask you a few questions about the L-IV...All I hear is about
the L-IVP and I decided to go the IV route...The kit that I bought is a IVP and
after all the troubles that I have heard about I'm staying with the IV...But I
would like to ask some info about it. Thanks in
advance, Michael
Giardino Glasair II-RG
flying 7sz L-IV being
painted 310-678-4068
cell Hi
Michael,
You left out a very important part of that study, leaving your
conclusions questionable.
Even the persons who conducted the study
suggested that at least part (or perhaps most) of the reason for the
statistics had to do with people flying in airplanes that were not
familiar. With steam gages, they all look pretty much the same; not so
flat panels.
Like others, you have therefore drawn the wrong
conclusion. It is not the EFIS that is "more dangerous," but the pilot
who neglects to become extremely competent with their chosen panel
before flying IFR "for real."
If you are going to strictly fly random
rentals, I would agree that your best strategy is to stick to steam
gages. If, however, 99% of your flying will be in your own plane then
you simply need to become completely knowledgeable about / comfortable with
your panel before flying into the soup.
Fly
safe!
Bill
On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Colyn Case wrote:
michael, got a link to that report?
On Aug 10, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Michael Smith wrote:
All these discussions about panel upgrades and so on begs the question as to
which setup- a an EFIS and flat screen set up or standard spinning gyros
works better in terms of delivering an intact crew and passenger to the
terminal and a plane that is reusable for further flight. I clearly agree
the panels look cool, but I do pay attention to peer reviewed science. The
Cirrus folks did a study and the results published about a year ago
comparing the conventional gyro panels and the EFIS in the same model of
plane- as close a randomized controlled trial in aviation as possible thesedays.
The EFIS cohort bent more planes and orphaned more kids than the old schoolgyros.
So I won't be flying with an EFIS until someone can prove they're safer.
Michael Smith
LIV now over 1000TT
--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html |