BFM this

Looks kinda scary to me: ya never know what the computer in the Airbus will decide to do at any given moment...

Haven't flow the T-6 but I do have some time with the PT-6 series engine. If you can visualize the reverse flow, compressor section spooled directly to the first stage turbine. There the spool stops and right next to the first turbine is another turbine: a power stage turbine which is geared to the prop. N1: the speed of the first stage turbine and compressor section, in percent of rated rpm. Np: the speed of the prop, typically in rpm's (IE 1700-2200 normal range for an early model King Air -90), but not always. ITT checks as C-21 talked about. As far as EGT vs ITT, it all depends on where the designers decided to stick the probe (STS). For the T-56 that's on the Herc, it was at the turbine inlet (TIT), PT-6 it was around the interstage point (ITT), J-69: you get the picture. PMU: sure, what C17wannabe said...

Per diem rates. Randolph = $44 per day unless you are on base, then $28 proportional rate.

Mine have been impacting since high school. I was first encouraged to have them removed at boot camp. This encouragement continued up until one flight physical as a reservist when I caught the dentist (06) on a particularly bad day: threatened charges. Needless to say, my FC1 went through without a hitch. Heck, I even figured I'd get them pulled during my 3 months of casual. The tech at the front counter gently disuaded me from doing that here, though. Don't know why, just took her word for it: I'll get it done after wings.

PAB, I like the sim for the same reasons: I even use it for some contact. It gets kind of sketchy at that point: mostly a "one potata, two potata, three potata, TURN" method in the pattern... It's money for the instruments, though: I'd flown both of the main profiles used here at CBM before we ever strapped into the jet: a big help. And I'm flying each of my I-sims beforehand as well. There's a double edge to the sword, though. I've been playing flight sims since I was a kid, so for me, it was no problem setting it up and making it work (control wise and such). I've tried to bring in folks that were having trouble and the control issues were too distracting at times.

A computer is useful for UPT, but no special capabilities are required. I'm running a T37 sim on mine, which is pushing the envelope on my laptop that was built for size, not speed or power. Other than that, M$ Office is about as far out as you really need. No real use for portability (laptop) so a desktop is adequate.

Young, single, 2LT UPT studs: this is what my bud did, I personally think it's the gouge and would follow suit if I wasn't years beyond single. Drove his college ride through UPT and on to the FTU. Saved his money in the process and a few weeks prior to shipping overseas, bought something that would be, well, uniqe where he was going. Needless to say what it lacked in trunk pace it more than made up for in muscle. And with the money he saved by using a little restraint during UPT, it's anything but practical ($$$). More power to him. I hope to be in that position while I'm still young enough to enjoy it.

If you touch concrete 50 miles away, log the XC. Every bit will help if you end up in a non-road tripping airframe come ATP time.

Tough one: I really have no idea. Since this involves your medical record, you might bounce this off of Flight Doc or F16pilotMD in the Aviation Medicine forum. The answer could be not a chance. Otherwise, how did your enlistment go and did you ever CC for anyone who now wears a star?...

If my understanding of legend is correct, over-g is where we get things like static displays and aircraft at maintenace schools.

Info sticky at AFOTS dot com. Many of these links are to other personal pages that include links to gouge. Also: Local flight training outfit run by ret AF fighter pilot now sim instructor here at Columbus. Includes great zip file on the tweet.

drelyn8: we were talking about the t-6, which I'd bet is less than 12.5k, but I'm going to be in the tweet, so I'm not worried about it... To check, call flight safety or sim-com and ask how much they charge for a C-90 type rating. ;) As I mentioned above, when I flew skydivers there was one inspector from the local FSDO in particular who would have ate me alive had I been outside the lines on something like this. §61.31 Type rating requirements, additional training, and authorization requirements. (a) Type ratings required. A person who acts as a pilot in command of any of the following aircraft must hold a type rating for that aircraft: (1) Large aircraft (except lighter-than-air). (2) TurboJET-powered airplanes. (3) Other aircraft specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate procedures.

Dunno, Only at KRND Yep, happened in one of the last classes here. Assignment read something like: "you've excelled at two of the most advanced cockpits in the AF inventory, now you will move on to one of the most advanced...nevermind" The rest, I dunno

Question: Aside from the fact that this development now opens the door to $#!++Y assignments for FAIPs, has anyone heard of FAIPs actually drawing these undesirable slots? Yes, it kind of sucks that the possibility exists and leaves the light at the other end of a FAIP tunnel at least shrouded. But a lot of the choice assignments are choice because they need the best quality--the top grads, the sharpest people. The best are still going to be those FAIPs, not against their peers when they graduate neccessarily, but measured against the new grads that will go out into the assignment pool at the same time as that FAIP finishing their tour. This is the line of reasoning given to new UPT studs. Is this flawed reasoning and/or smoke/sunshine?

For every UPT grad that was sweating a possible FAIP drop, I've met a Col or Gen prior FAIP who said it was not a big deal career-wise and were glad they did it. I personally wouldn't mind it-- everyone says the tweet is a blast to fly (in a moped kind of way ;) ) and almost as much as I like tearin it up on my own, I kind of liked teaching, but I'm kind of twisted like that...

I'm w/C150J: spent a summer flying skydivers in a King Air and Twin Otter--both PT6 powered like the Tex, not a type rating to my name. And the feds like to visit skydive outfits--got to know several of the local FSDO reps, they would have pointed it out if my "turbojet" interpretation of Pt61 was inaccurate. Like they tried to point out that I needed High Alt for the King Air, which would never pressurize again since we'd taken off the door and drilled holes in it for the hand rails--I had that signoff though.

IFTex, You're a PP-SEL flying the t-6; it's just a SEL airplane that doesn't require a type rating so log away. Since the feds consider any turbojet a typed aircraft, I'm not sure how my t-37 time will go in my logbook until I start solo sorties. :confused:

From a nubee's perspective: I just thought he was in a hurry to get back; IE burner to short final, boards to get configured, etc. Didn't think of it as a method to burn down extra gas...

Eh, I used to make that argument as well. But when you take a close look at the "solely by reference to instruments" clause, the gray line starts to shift a little; I can take a VFR airplane (no gyros) and fly it in 0 vis (horizontal) if I got one eye on the ground (or the sky if "on top") as a reference. May be tough to hold a heading but at least I can keep the butter side up. Take away that last reference and I better have sumthin spining! ME, G, II [ 06 February 2004, 22:10: Message edited by: flyinjunky ]