lml@lancaironline.net Mailing List Archive

I concur with Ronald on this. The pressurization is very useful, even below the flight levels. You arrive much less dehydrated and much fresher, even for shorter hops. I consider it one of the truly unexpected benefits of my IV-P. I popped a pin hole in my door seal just before OSH and flew from Manassas VA to OSH and return, with a couple of side trips along the way…all without pressurization. This kept us below 12,000’ (I only have an emergency O2 supply aboard—20 minutes or so) where we spent some time discussing and avoiding the heavy weather with ATC while in mostly IMC conditions. I REALLY like being up higher where you can usually see the places to avoid… Judy also noticed that she seemed much more tired after each landing…in part due to the “discussion” about enroute weather??

Bob

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

From: <N66mg@aol.com>
Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:48:13 -0400
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [LML] Re: EFIS versus six pack

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

n66mg@aol.com

310-678-4068 cell

In a message dated 8/11/2011 1:33:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gt_phantom@hotmail.com writes:

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