Used Auto Pilot Questions

[rick bell]

Originally Posted by Roger

Trolling? On the contrary, I was making I believe a fair comparison on how "performance and power" are very subjective and as such are often times misunderstood when related to "work performed" by a particular aircraft.

It would be my contention that 337's are very powerful as per the common demands typically placed on aircraft, and as defined by Webster: powerful: producing great physical effects, having great effectiveness, etc..

Not to be confused with aircraft that for example may have more "horsepower", and are as such considered more "powerful" based entirely on that criteria, irrespective of what said "horespower actually provides in speed/load factor.

it was a joke

[sns3guppy]

The P-navajo is considerably heavier than the skymaster, too. Power does not equate to performance. Excess power does.

One of the single biggest mistakes a prospective or current light twin pilot can make is to view his or her aircraft as a powerful and capable machine. Instead, the forethought should be it's glaring limitations and it's drastic loss in performance with the loss of power. Overestimation of one's equipment and the actions which follow are often the dividing line between the living and the dead when it comes to aircraft mishaps. Those who plan ahead typically avoid them. Those who profess excess admiration in the capabilities of their equipment, especially limited equipment, are due for a rude awakening.

The aircraft I most often fly currently has well over two hundred thousand pounds of thrust, and I can assure you is not overpowered, nor particularly powerful. In fact, there are frequent occasions when I'd like considerably more. Simply because it has power doesn't make it a wonder machine.

The beauty of the Skymaster is that it's simple. It's more like a 182 with an extra motor, but it's not powerful, and it's not a high performing machine. It handles nicely, it does offer a little better performance than some comparable machines, but there is a lot of equipment in the case class and power range that does as well or better. It's loud, not particularly fast, and not an advanced platform. It's well designed, within reason, and it's loved by most of those who own them; that ought to be enough.

The Skymaster is still in use commercially for operations ranging from aerial supervision to intelligence gathering to photography and charter. It's easy to fly, and easy to fly well. It lands nicely. It's not appreciably bigger than many comparable light singles; it's easy to hangar and store and to find space for on the ramp or apron. It's comfortable for long distances.

It's not powerful, even by light twin standards, and it's not really a top performer, either. It's not a P-navajo, and does't have the cabin room of a P-navajo (although surprisingly, quite a bit can be fit in one with all the seats removed) or the capability. The Panther navajo conversion isn't particularly powerful, either.

[rick bell]

Originally Posted by sns3guppy

The P-navajo is considerably heavier than the skymaster, too. Power does not equate to performance. Excess power does.

One of the single biggest mistakes a prospective or current light twin pilot can make is to view his or her aircraft as a powerful and capable machine. Instead, the forethought should be it's glaring limitations and it's drastic loss in performance with the loss of power. Overestimation of one's equipment and the actions which follow are often the dividing line between the living and the dead when it comes to aircraft mishaps. Those who plan ahead typically avoid them. Those who profess excess admiration in the capabilities of their equipment, especially limited equipment, are due for a rude awakening.

The aircraft I most often fly currently has well over two hundred thousand pounds of thrust, and I can assure you is not overpowered, nor particularly powerful. In fact, there are frequent occasions when I'd like considerably more. Simply because it has power doesn't make it a wonder machine.

The beauty of the Skymaster is that it's simple. It's more like a 182 with an extra motor, but it's not powerful, and it's not a high performing machine. It handles nicely, it does offer a little better performance than some comparable machines, but there is a lot of equipment in the case class and power range that does as well or better. It's loud, not particularly fast, and not an advanced platform. It's well designed, within reason, and it's loved by most of those who own them; that ought to be enough.

The Skymaster is still in use commercially for operations ranging from aerial supervision to intelligence gathering to photography and charter. It's easy to fly, and easy to fly well. It lands nicely. It's not appreciably bigger than many comparable light singles; it's easy to hangar and store and to find space for on the ramp or apron. It's comfortable for long distances.

It's not powerful, even by light twin standards, and it's not really a top performer, either. It's not a P-navajo, and does't have the cabin room of a P-navajo (although surprisingly, quite a bit can be fit in one with all the seats removed) or the capability. The Panther navajo conversion isn't particularly powerful, either.

well said - rick