skippydiesel

BrenDan - I appreciate your willingness to help this old duffer BUT ; Aircraft Pilot's Headset Bluetooth Mobile Phone Adapter with GA Plugs and Auxiliary Input The photos show what looks to be two male & two female jacks. I assume this is for the input/ear circuit of the headset (s). I do not see an "Auxiliary Input." Nor do I see any mention of how the unit is powered. Yes my iPad has Bluetooth and it may be able to deliver music (never tried), definitely no phone, although it does have a Telstra "chip". Does the existing iPad Bluetooth automatically mean that it will connect with this headset adapter device & deliver the warning messages from AvTraffic? Then there is the BLULINK INTERFACE/GA - even less information. 😈

Yes I read that BUT there is no mention of connection with an iPad, nor am I the least bit intersted in "Cell Phone & Music" - just want to be able to receive verbal/in head set, aircraft in proximity /conflict messages - Will this gizmo do this for me? How is it powered? What is an "Auxiliary Input."? 😈

Yeah! - had a look yesterday - couldn't make "head nor tail" Hence my contacting the learned member's of the Forum Which one, of the several similar sounding units, will do the job for me??.😈

Thank BrendAn - have writen to the company😈

From RAA Members and Subscribers Newsletter; "AvTraffic™ air traffic conflict monitoring and alerting app for iPhone and iPad. In today’s increasingly busy airspace, AvTraffic is a powerful, practical safety tool for pilots. Designed to operate either as a standalone app or alongside your preferred EFB—such as OzRunways™—AvTraffic enhances traffic awareness by monitoring and alerting using multiple data sources, including: ADS-B traffic from your ADSB-IN or electronic conspicuity device (e.g. SkyEcho2) AvTraffic provides both visual and audible alerts and integrates seamlessly with your existing EFB map display. Its key advantage? It shows traffic even from pilots who aren’t using the same EFB platform as you. You can also route audible alerts directly to your Bluetooth headset—delivering superior situational awareness in busy airspace while keeping your eyes outside the cockpit" Most if my flying starts & finishes in congested airspace. Consequently I am intersted in any system/technique that might assist in allerting me to aircraft in my proximity (10NM?) especially those that may be closing with my position. I ave three conspicuity devices in my aircraft two of which display on my iPad ie require me to look at my panel The above infomercial caught my eye. Something that will give me an audible warning, freeing my eyes for look & avoid - sounds great. Unfortunatly I am of a generation that doesn't quite grasp the compatibilities of systems - so hoping the Forum will give me some advice. I use a recently refurbished David Clark H10-13X ENC head set - works very well. The AVTraffic appears to works via Bluetooth to a headset (also Bluetooth??) - I assume I will either need a Bluetooth compatible headset or a Blue tooth/headset adapter . Is there a Bluetooth adapter for an old tech headset? If so what does the Forum recomend?😈

You may have a doctorate in drone driving, that doesn't excuse the use of "in language" on an open Forum - just bad manners. Defending this with claims of superior training, as if this in some way justifies your position, is just adding insult to the first injury. 😈

Maaate: If it makes a drone operator feel like a pilot, by all means use all the bureaucratic mumbo jumbo you like. As far as I am concerned a Pilot manipulates his aircraft (or ship) from within😈

You shouldn't have to. In polite/inclusive society every acronym/abbreviation is flagged at the start of the conversation. If you want to exclude people - talk in the jargon that your tribe is familiar with.😈

If you are going to talk in Drone lingo, I suggest you do so on a drone only site😈

SCARY!😈

I hope not - the owner died a few months back but his partner & the factory staff are all extant. ATEC likly make the best performing aircraft in its class. Criteria: Superlative Flying Qualities/Low Stall/ High Cruise/Great Carrying Capacity/Comfort/Low Maintenance. Yes I am biased but I recon anyone who has had a few ours in a Faeta/Zephyr (now out of production) would have the same opinion. The closest performer to the Fatea is the Virus SW - has a lower carrying capacity and has a very very much higher (new) acquisition cost.😈

Slight posative spin - If you want to save, go for a kit. The composite aircraft are all quick build ie modules that can be shipped in a container, that you put together. The Faeta used to come as a complete airframe, on its wheels (painted if requested). The builder just had to fit the engine (supply if not ordered), avionics, wire & plumb the fuel - easy as!😈

Sounds like a great aircraft Blue however the performance figures don't lie: My Zephyr, with a 912ULS, sub 30 knot stall, 300 kg empty weight, very comfy for two, with ergonomically laid out controls and large baggage space - 100 knot Cruise @ 5200 rpm, ground adjust able prop, advantage TO, consistently delivered an average fuel consumption a bit over 12L/hr (single pilot) Flight planned at 14L/hr- Topped out at 120 knots, 5500 rpm at sea level. My Sonex 912ULS, CS prop, 37 Knot stall, 340kg empty weight, squeezy for two, limited baggage volume - Crusie 130 knots @ 5000 rpm, 25" MAP, 14.25L/hr Flight plan at 15L/hr - tops out at 147 knots 5500 rpm. Check out 912ULS powered ATEC Faeta, Pipistrel Virus SW - there may be other low stall/high speed cruise light aircraft. The Fatea has particularly good luggage capacity. As far as I am concerned - anything that flies is wonderful and if it meets your wants thats all that matters. Personally I like economy (without it I could not afford to fly) so the combination of low fuel consumption, with good speed (low trip time) "ticks my box" 😈

Wow! That's one draggy aircraft 😈

Am I the only person who thinks the changes to the Virus SW performance figures (STALL/high speed Cruise) since Pipistrel was bought out by Textron are a tad strange? It would seem that the change of ownership has increased Stall from 30 Knots to 43 Knots and high speed Cruise from 135 Knots to 147 Knots. Under the previous ownership, this aircraft won several CAFE foundation competitions ie its performance was established by an independent third party.😈

Yes. There seemed to be a bit confusion, so I tuned out. Sorry!😈

It seems that Government departments (or is it just human behaviour) feel compelled to fix/change things/systems that aren't broken. The BOM has really gone insane on this change - how on Earth can they justify $96.5 million. The $4million, first figure, was crazy enough. The money must be coming from US THE TAX PAYER - would have been better spent on education/hospitals/ etc. Criminal charges should ensue (not holding my breath)😈

Thanks Rodgerc - Will look into it😈

Sad day. Baron/Bonanza are incredibly handsome aircraft. The replacement -Denali is somewhat lacking in the looks department and appear to be a much larger (Class) of aircraft to the B & B.😈

"Class C ".......... "typically transponders are referred to by mode, not class" Yes. My bad. Dont know what I was thinking of. While we are on the correct grammar /technical terminology; ".............there are ADS-B out transponders, and yes, there are ADS-B receivers,.." My understanding of the word "transponder" is that it is made up from transmit - respond. So transponder refers to a device for receiving a radio signal and automatically transmitting a diffrent signal in response. In aviation the same devise (if so capable/enabled) both receives & transmits -ADS-B IN/OUT. The SE2 does this. So your description, above is, when transponder & receivers is used, is incorrect, as receiver is redundant. That is unless you are referring to a seperate device/system altogether.😈

"..... the main purpose of turbocharged aircraft engines is to maintain manifold pressure and power at altitude ..." I think this is well understood by all. The thrust of my curiosity, is not the reasons for using a turbo charger or how it works but why was a simple wastegate was not used for the 914. Without anyone actually stating the reason, it seems likly that the (Rotax designers) desire for what is an extreme altitude (33,000ft) for the vast majority of recreational level aircraft, is that reason. Success in this venture, carried over into the production engine. I think it highly likly (speculation) that a mechanical wastegate system could have a Rotax 9 operating to 20,000 ft. Comparisons with Turbo LyCons & similar is questionable. Remember the Rotax 9's use an automatic diaphragm carburettor mixture control (no pilot input)- as far as I know, no legacy aircraft engine does this.😈

From the Rotax Owners Forum; "In 1993, the Rotax 912 engine was modified and equipped with a turbocharger for an altitude flight test. The airplane (HK36 Super Dimona model) reached an altitude of 33,000 feet (approx. 11,000 m). The concept was successful. The company started the development of the turbocharged Rotax 914 engine with 115 hp, and serial production began in 1996." It would seem that the desire to achieve high altitude flight, may have been the reason for selecting a TCU, rather than a mechanical wastegate. I am assuming that a mechanical wastegate would not have the "range " to respond to sea level - 33,000ft changes in atmospheric pressure.😈

"I believe you will need a mode C transponder or higher (Skyecho will not cover it) and a VHF radio (but not a second radio)." Transponders I get a tad lost with transponder designations - Class C is on the way out ? and has been for yonks. If correct then its Class C that does not show up on ADSB IN/OUT transponders - so not on SE2 bluetoothed to an iPad. A safety issue that should concern every pilot transitioning/operating in, congested airspace. Transeviers/Radio You are correct in saying "....VHF radio (but not a second radio)" however it would be more correct to say not a second listening frequency. Again this should concerne all pilots operating in congested airspace - ALL pilots should be listening out on Area Frequency + their operating frequency. That the authorities accept single channel radios, in congested airspace, is an unnecessary risk to us all. NOTE: Its probable that the recent loss of three lives (2 aircraft) at The Oaks, could have been prevented, if the ancient C180 had an operating ASB OUT and/or a two channel radio (Area Frequency & The Oaks CTAF)😈