Re: Why isn't carb heat automatic?
Bertie the Bunyip
$26...@TEKSAVVY.COM:
> This may seem like a stupid question, but why is the carb heat manually
> controlled in so many aircraft?
Couple of reasons. One, you want nice cold air for ower when you want it,
not when the airplane decides you want it, two, when you make things idiot
proof, all you do is breed a better class of idiot.
>
> All regular engines have a simple thermostat to keep the engine at it's
> preferred temperature; why not do the same thing with the carburator?
Because cold is it's preferred temperature.
Having said that Lyc plumb their inlet maniflods up through the sump which
is why they are less susceptable to carb ice than olde engines. It
shouldn't be a problem, though.
What's a regular engine BTW?
And cars can and do get carb ice..
Bertie
Steve Hix
Some Other Guy <bga...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> This may seem like a stupid question, but why is the carb heat manually
> controlled in so many aircraft?
>
> All regular engines have a simple thermostat to keep the engine at it's
> preferred temperature; why not do the same thing with the carburator?
Because carb heat doesn't have to do with adjusting the engine
temperature. (Aircraft have different systems to deal with that.)
The problem it addresses is induction/carburetor icing.
For example, in a carburetor, there is a sharp temperature drop as the
air coming through the carburetor passes the narrowest point of the
venturi. If there's any condensed moisture in that air, it can fall
below freezing, and begin to build up in the throat, in effect closing
the throttle.
At least, that's how things worked back before we switched to round
wheels.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
news:sehix-33509F....@news.speakeasy.net...
> In article <eb86d$4765d636$cef88832$26...@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
> Some Other Guy <bga...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> This may seem like a stupid question, but why is the carb heat manually
>> controlled in so many aircraft?
>>
>> All regular engines have a simple thermostat to keep the engine at it's
>> preferred temperature; why not do the same thing with the carburator?
>
> Because carb heat doesn't have to do with adjusting the engine
> temperature. (Aircraft have different systems to deal with that.)
>
Cars had a thermostat that controlled the temperature in the air intake to
avoid carb ice - hot air came from muff on the exhaust manifold (in
addition to the thermostat that controlls the coolant temperature). Remember
the round vacuum device mounted on the snorkel (the inlet to the air
cleaner)?
Making it manual on an aircraft lets you switch to an alternate air source
independant of the temperature.
I can't comment on the value of having that option...
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
Robert M. Gary
> This may seem like a stupid question, but why is the carb heat manually
> controlled in so many aircraft?
>
> All regular engines have a simple thermostat to keep the engine at it's
> preferred temperature; why not do the same thing with the carburator?
It would be hard to come up with the proper temp to turn it on though.
Carb ice is mostly a function of moisture, not temp.
-Robert
Andrew Sarangan
> This may seem like a stupid question, but why is the carb heat manually
> controlled in so many aircraft?
>
> All regular engines have a simple thermostat to keep the engine at it's
> preferred temperature; why not do the same thing with the carburator?
That would be like having an automatic cowl flap, not carb heat. A
thermostat in a car engine opens and closes the water line to control
head temperature. A cowl flap does the same except it is for airflow.
Robert M. Gary
Not to mention if you executed a go-around and the carb heat didn't
turn off right away on a hot day you may not make it.
-Robert
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com
Heated induction air also raises the likelyhood of
detonation, and that's not a welcome factor at high power in a go-
around.
Cars, even with their automated carb heat, suffered carb
ice when the conditions were bad enough. Fuel injection changed all
that. When I restored my old '51 International pickup I put a Ford 300
in it. I removed the automatic carb heat stuff because it had become
so erratic and installed a push-pull cable, an old 172 carb heat
control cable, in fact. Now I get better mileage because the air isn't
always heated to around 80°F, at which temp the mixture is rather
rich. Being aware of carb ice, I can control it when I detect it. The
average driver has no clue, and when I sell the truck I'll probably
have to put the automatic stuff back in it or it'll be quitting on the
new owner all the time and he'll be mad at me.
Come to think of it, the average PPL hasn't much clue about
carb ice, either. He pulls the heat because he's supposed to, not
necessarily when he gets carb ice, because he isn't thinking
atmospheric conditions and if he pulls it when he gets ice the engine
runs rough and he shuts it off again. The accident record reflects
this.
Dan
Jim Macklin
melted just enough. The combination of venturi effect cooling plus the
greater effect of cooling from fuel vaporization can cool the air 60-70,
more with a rich mixture.
Fuel injection is more resistant to induction ice because the fuel is not
evaporated in the venturi throat, the temperature drop is probably only 10
degrees.
Carb heat is required to raise the ambient temp by 100 degrees, but that is
with full power and a hot exhaust system, at approach speeds, temperature
rise will be much lower.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFII-ASMELI, A&P
BE400/BE1900-BE300
<Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e1ce2d12-bc8c-41a8...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Roger (K8RI)
<p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote:
>In very cold air, adding carb heat can create ice if the frozen moisture is
>melted just enough. The combination of venturi effect cooling plus the
>greater effect of cooling from fuel vaporization can cool the air 60-70,
>more with a rich mixture.
>
>Fuel injection is more resistant to induction ice because the fuel is not
>evaporated in the venturi throat, the temperature drop is probably only 10
>degrees.
>
>Carb heat is required to raise the ambient temp by 100 degrees, but that is
>with full power and a hot exhaust system, at approach speeds, temperature
>rise will be much lower.
It'll be about what comes out of the cabin heater. In winter,in most
of the planes I flew with carbureted engines I had cold feet by the
time the wheels were on the runway. With full power they tended to get
hot right quick.
Roger (K8RI)
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com
> heat system wouldn't have had the carb heat on in the first place?
>
> That said, I can see why a full automated system might be hard to pull off
> reliably, but surely a semi-automatic one could be done?
>
> For example, if the carb is above a certain temperature and the throttle is
> on full then surely the carb heat should be turned off, and conversely if
> the carb below a certain temperature and the throttle is low then surely
> the carb heat should be turned on. Anywhere inbetween would still be at
> the pilot's discretion.
>
> I admit it's just more gadgetry that could go wrong, but on the other hand
> pilots screw up too. Like forgetting the carb heat control at the worst
> possible time...
The problem with making an automatic carb heat system based
on temperature alone is that it doesn't allow for atmospheric moisture
levels. Carb ice can occur at temperatures up to 100°F (38°C) if the
humidity is high enough, and if the air is dry enough then heating it
when it's cold is a waste of power. There are situations where you
need all the power you can get, and having an automated system could
cause a needless accident.
Fuel injection is the answer, not automatic carb heat.
My old Auster, with its Gipsy Major, had an automatic
carb heat system, applying the heat at anything less than full
throttle. It iced up sometimes, in warmer weather, when the throttle
was more than half open. I would rather have had direct control of the
thing.
Our problem now is that we want everything automatic.
We're lazy and want to look after as little as possible, and we also
don't want to study ahrd enough to understand some of this stuff. The
market demands have given us automobiles that are pretty much
automatic: Stick the key into it, turn it, pull the lever into D, and
push a pedal. After that it's twist the wheel and work the stop and go
pedals. The machine has computers that do almost everything else:
engine management, anti-skid braking, headlight dimming, automatic
wipers, even. So now we have drivers who just stomp on the brakes no
matter the speed and road conditions, and sooner or later they run
into conditions that the car can't save them from. They didn't
recognize the danger because the car looked after them for too long.
Dan
Robert M. Gary
> heat system wouldn't have had the carb heat on in the first place?
"hot" probably isn't the word since you're worried about moisture more
than temp.
-Robert
Robert M. Gary
Nowadays I'm a bit uncomfortable when I fly with students IMC with
carbs. Its been so long since I've flown IFR aircraft regularly that
have carbs I've gotten used to not having to worry about this
(although us Mooney CFIs will tell you an open ram air is more
dangerous than a closed carb heat!!).
-robert, CFII
Dallas
> I admit it's just more gadgetry that could go wrong, but on the other hand
> pilots screw up too.
In the end, the simple answer to me is that it would be just another
mechanical device that could go wrong with unwanted results. In car, an
engine malfunction usually means just pulling off to the side of the
road... not so easy in an aircraft.
--
Dallas
Michael Ash
On the other hand, despite the proliferation of new mechanical and
electrical devices in car engines over the past few decades, reliability
has gone vastly *up*, so maybe there's something to all that. Of course
you shouldn't listen to me, flying behind aircraft engines is something I
only watch other people do.
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
Robert M. Gary
But car engines have yet to meet the reliability of aircraft engines.
I've had engines go quiet on cars (including a 6 month old new car),
but I've never had an airplane engine shut itself down.
-Robert
Dallas
> flying behind aircraft engines is something I
> only watch other people do.
Yeah... I was gonna bring that up...
:- )
--
Dallas
Dallas
> I've never had an airplane engine shut itself down.
Knock on wood. :- )
When my medical finally lapses, I hope I can say that too.
--
Dallas
Michael Ash
Apparently this extra reliability isn't solely due to simplicity, since
car engines were even worse before. So what is it about aircraft engines
which makes them so reliable? Are they just built with a preference for
toughness and tolerance over cost and efficiency, or is it something else?
I can certainly see *why* an aircraft engine manufacturer would put more
emphasis on reliability than an automobile engine manufacturer, but I'm
curious as to how it's actually achieved.
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com
> I can certainly see *why* an aircraft engine manufacturer would put more
> emphasis on reliability than an automobile engine manufacturer, but I'm
> curious as to how it's actually achieved.
Two factors:
First:
The aircraft engine's systems are much simpler; no computers (although
FADEC is being used in some smaller applications now, with mixed
results), and simple fuel systems with no electrically-driven
components. Electrical systems make up 90% of all engine malfunctions,
so an aircraft engine has two ignition sources. No auto has that.
Second:
We drive our cars until they quit. The government forces us to
have periodic inspections done on the aircraft to find problems before
they cause failures.
Dan
Michael Ash
> First:
> The aircraft engine's systems are much simpler; no computers (although
> FADEC is being used in some smaller applications now, with mixed
> results), and simple fuel systems with no electrically-driven
> components. Electrical systems make up 90% of all engine malfunctions,
> so an aircraft engine has two ignition sources. No auto has that.
>
> Second:
> We drive our cars until they quit. The government forces us to
> have periodic inspections done on the aircraft to find problems before
> they cause failures.
Both very good points which I hadn't considered. In particular the dual
ignition sources is an obvious trick which adds a great deal of redundancy
and it had completely slipped my mind. Thanks for filling me in.
JGalban via AviationKB.com
>
>Both very good points which I hadn't considered. In particular the dual
>ignition sources is an obvious trick which adds a great deal of redundancy
>and it had completely slipped my mind. Thanks for filling me in.
>
In addition to the redundancy, the ignition sources are powered by dirt
simple magnetos which make their own spark and do not rely on any external
power source. Same basic ignition technology that was used in Ford's Model
T and generations of lawnmowers :-)
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com
Brian
My old Corvair had an automatic cowl flap. They failed about every two
years and had to be replaced.
Brian
Phil
> My old Corvair had an automatic cowl flap. They failed about every two
> years and had to be replaced.
>
> Brian
The Robinson R44 Raven I helicopter has automatic carb heat. It adds
carb heat when the collective is lowered, and removes carb heat when
the collective is raised.
Phil
Kai Rode
> We drive our cars until they quit. The government forces us to
>have periodic inspections done on the aircraft to find problems before
>they cause failures.
Don't you have forced inspections for cars in the US? In Germany we do,
every 2 years for cars and each year for trucks...maybe that's one of the
reasons we have lower accident rates despite having no speed limit on the
autobahn. ;)
Back to the topic...given that more than 80 percents of all accidents are
caused by pilot error...should not be as much as possible be automated? My
guess would be that the main reason so few things are automated in General
Aviation is because of the huge potential for lawsuits should anything go
wrong.. no matter that things are much more likely to go wrong if done
manually, but in that case it's the pilot's problem.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
news:bgl7n358pmop140jt...@4ax.com...
>> Second:
>> We drive our cars until they quit. The government forces us to
>>have periodic inspections done on the aircraft to find problems before
>>they cause failures.
>
> Don't you have forced inspections for cars in the US? In Germany we do,
> every 2 years for cars and each year for trucks...
Depends on the state - some do, most don't.
Michael Ash
>> Second:
>> We drive our cars until they quit. The government forces us to
>>have periodic inspections done on the aircraft to find problems before
>>they cause failures.
>
> Don't you have forced inspections for cars in the US? In Germany we do,
> every 2 years for cars and each year for trucks...maybe that's one of the
> reasons we have lower accident rates despite having no speed limit on the
> autobahn. ;)
Like so many things, it varies depending on what state your car is
registered in. I live in Virginia and they require a yearly inspection.
However it is not *nearly* as thorough as an airplane's annual inspection.
The shop down the street from me does these inspections for, I believe,
$25 and it takes them about twenty minutes. They will catch obvious
problems but they don't dig deep the way they do with airplanes. How
thorough are your vehicle inspections in Germany?
I would say that the reason for your lower accident rate is more thorough
driver training, though. In the US you can get a driver's license with
little more than a signature and a heartbeat. Obviously that's a slight
exaggeration but when they test you for your license they don't even take
you on the highway or get the car moving faster than maybe 30MPH. Then
people go out on the highway and drive in heavy traffic at 75 and no
wonder so many get killed.
> Back to the topic...given that more than 80 percents of all accidents are
> caused by pilot error...should not be as much as possible be automated? My
> guess would be that the main reason so few things are automated in General
> Aviation is because of the huge potential for lawsuits should anything go
> wrong.. no matter that things are much more likely to go wrong if done
> manually, but in that case it's the pilot's problem.
I'm sure that liability is a huge factor in this. Control is another
factor; most drivers believe that they are in the top 20% when it comes to
driving skill, and I would imagine that the same is true of pilots. People
will believe that *they* can do better than the machine even if most
people can't, and even if they can't they will prefer to make their own
mistake than have the machine screw it up for them.
Even in cars where so much is being automated, you still generally have a
direct connection from the steering wheel to the road wheels and from the
brake pedal to the brakes. They try to help you but not override you.
Control over the engine is given over pretty much completely to the
machines, but an engine failure in a car is an inconvenience, not a
life-threatening emergency like it is in a small aircraft.
This brings up an interesting question, though. What would be the aviation
equivalent of anti-lock brakes and traction control and other semi-active
safety measures found on cars? I suppose the ballistic recovery parachute
would be the equivalent of the airbag, complete with some people thinking
that it causes more problems than it solves.
Steve Hix
Kai Rode <nik...@web.de> wrote:
> > Second:
> > We drive our cars until they quit. The government forces us to
> >have periodic inspections done on the aircraft to find problems before
> >they cause failures.
>
> Don't you have forced inspections for cars in the US?
California does, if not for the same reasons.
> In Germany we do,
> every 2 years for cars and each year for trucks...maybe that's one of the
> reasons we have lower accident rates despite having no speed limit on the
> autobahn. ;)
Unless a sizable fraction of auto accidents are due to mechanical
failures, which doesn't appear to be the case here, it's more likely
driver training.
Or maybe not even that.
Some years back, an international police conference was hosted in
Sacramento, CA (California, not Canada). One of the highlights of the
event was provided by the German contingent's equivalent to the Cal.
Highway Patrol. *Everyone* was drooling over a police-marked Porsche,
whether it was a proposed idea for a fast police interceptor, or actual
equipment, I don't recall.
Anyway, the CHP gave a presentation, which included discussion of our
highway accident and fatality rates, rather apologetically noted.
After the talk, the presenter was approached by one of the German group,
who proceeded to directly wish that *they* had rates as low as ours.
Which stopped everyone who heard in their tracks; everyone was aware of
the good record of German autobahn drivers.
What he then noted was that the driving stats were much worse on the
secondary road system, at least at the time, it may have improved
greatly since then.
Anyway, one reason why I figure road accidents are overwhelmingly a
result of driver error, rather than mechanically-caused.
WingFlaps
>
> This brings up an interesting question, though. What would be the aviation
> equivalent of anti-lock brakes and traction control and other semi-active
> safety measures found on cars? I suppose the ballistic recovery parachute
> would be the equivalent of the airbag, complete with some people thinking
> that it causes more problems than it solves.
>
I thought some planes had anti skid devices....
Cheers
Maxwell
"WingFlaps" <More...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a889858e-ce8f-4684...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Probably most aircraft over 12,500 pounds and or made after 1950 do.
Michael Ash
I'm sure they do, but I don't think it's really equivalent. On a car,
anti-lock brakes allow reasonable panic braking to a full stop under
nearly any conditions. (Of course they fail or are inadequate sometimes,
but *most* of the time they do a great deal of good.) The same device on
an aircraft just helps to prevent one particular kind of landing mishap,
and doesn't do any good at all for 99% of the aircraft's operating regime.
Michael
> Back to the topic...given that more than 80 percents of all accidents are
> caused by pilot error...should not be as much as possible be automated?
Yes, but you won't convince most (private) pilots of this. Here's the
basic problem. GA is already significantly more dangerous than
driving, but the most dangerous part of GA is personal flying (what
most private pilots do most of the time). Cropdusting is safer. Self-
flown business travel is much safer. Corporate is safer still. But
most private pilots can't admit how dangerous their hobby is (even to
themselves, much less to their wives) so they pretend that the
statistics don't apply to them because all the risk is under their
control (unlike in a car, where you can be killed by another's
stupidity) and so while the overall statistics might look bad, they
are safe. It's an illusion, and automating stuff takes away from the
illusion.
In reality, even the relatively crappy and unreliable automation
available in GA is more reliable than the typical private pilot. But
it's worth considering why the automation available in GA is so
limited and crappy.
> My
> guess would be that the main reason so few things are automated in General
> Aviation is because of the huge potential for lawsuits should anything go
> wrong.. no matter that things are much more likely to go wrong if done
> manually, but in that case it's the pilot's problem.
It's very popular to blame the trial lawyers, but in reality the main
problem is the FAA. It has to do with certification rules. They're
very different for aircraft than they are for automobiles.
Automobiles have safety rules too, you know. A lot of them. But they
are empirical rules. A test is defined. For example - you must load
the car with instrumented crash dummies, buckle them in, smash the car
into a brick wall at 30 mph, and the data from the dummies should show
that everyone lived. Automobile engines also meet reliability
standards, though these are not government imposed. Actually, they're
far more rigorous than the government-imposed tests for aircraft
piston engines, but that's an aside. The point is that the test is
defined, and then the engineers go off to design the vehicle in
whatever way seems best to them. Then, as long as it passes all the
tests, it is good to go. They are free to incorporate whatever new
techology makes sense to them. Just so long as it works.
Aircraft certification doesn't work that way. It's prescriptive.
What it really means is that after you design the airplane, you have
to convince an FAA engineer that the design is OK. It can pass any
test in the world, but if he says no the answer is no. Unfortunately,
an engineer in government service makes a fraction of what he would
make in private industry (if he was good enough to a senior position
in private industry) so you pretty much get the dregs. Also, all
promotions are by seniority, so the guy actually making the decision
is decades out of school and probably hasn't learned anything new
since he got out. Good luck convincing him that this new technology
you decided to use will work.
Here's how this plays out. The Cirrus is probably the best selling
piston airplane in the world. I don't think the company has recouped
its R&D/certification costs as yet. And yet still so much of the
plane is proven tech. When Rutan tried to certify a composite
business turborop, the FAA made him add rivets. On the other hand,
the Husky was designed and certified for $400K, all up. Of course if
you were to fly the Husky through a time warp and land it in 1965,
nobody would notice it on the ramp. Every mechanic around could fix
it. He could even get all the parts for everything but the panel.
Certification is no big deal - as long as you do nothing new or
innovative.
That, of course, is what discourages innovation. You will spend a
fortune proving to the FAA that it works, and you will probably have
to compromise the design (degrading it) to make the FAA bureaucrat
happy (that way he won't have to learn too much new stuff), and that
will make a half-ass system that you will know is half-ass. And then
when it fails the lawyers will eat you alive, because you knew it was
half-ass and sold it anyway.
On top of that, the market is so small (because flying is both
dangerous and expensive) that the payback from spending all this money
isn't there. Lawyers really are only a small part of the problem.
Michael
Peter Clark
wrote:
>
>Probably most aircraft over 12,500 pounds and or made after 1950 do.
I don't know of any light single, regardless of what year it was made,
that has anti-lock breaks. Do you have an example?
Dallas
> I thought some planes had anti skid devices....
And airbags too....
--
Dallas
Dallas
> I would say that the reason for your lower accident rate is more thorough
> driver training,
In Germany it costs about $3,000 bucks for mandatory automobile driving
school before you can get your drivers licence.
My PPL only cost $4,600.00.
--
Dallas
JGalban via AviationKB.com
>
>That, of course, is what discourages innovation. You will spend a
>fortune proving to the FAA that it works, and you will probably have
>to compromise the design (degrading it) to make the FAA bureaucrat
>happy (that way he won't have to learn too much new stuff), and that
>will make a half-ass system that you will know is half-ass. And then
>when it fails the lawyers will eat you alive, because you knew it was
>half-ass and sold it anyway.
>
I think you're right on the money there. That's one of the reasons why
innovations usually happen in the experimental homebuilt market. The
American/Grumman series with their bonded wing, the composite Cirrus and the
Columbia airplanes all originated as experimental homebuilt airplanes. Of
course, once they crossed over to the production side it took years and
millions to jump the FAA certification hurdles. Once FAA approval is achieved,
the design is is going to remain relatively static unless the designer is
willing to spend even more R&D cash for approval of improvements.
Same goes for avionics. I'm sure that one day we (or our great-
grandchildren) will all be flying behind glass panels. Nowadays, most of the
homebuilders I know are planning on using reasonably priced glass panels in
place of steam gauges. They've been available in the experimental market
for years and are priced competitively. I've flown a couple of them and
they're great. Unlike production glass panels like Garmin G1000 and Avidyne,
the experimental versions are constantly being redesigned and improved. The
production glass panel designs haven't really changed much since they were
initially approved.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/learning/200712/1
Maxwell
"Peter Clark" <Inva...@NotIn.YourLifetime.com.hatespam> wrote in message
news:co8an3d42e5saqvj3...@4ax.com...
I don't know of any light weight aircraft the do either. I was speculating
that perhaps aircraft large enough to require a type rating made after about
1950 might have anti-lock systems.
Kai Rode
>school before you can get your drivers licence.
>My PPL only cost $4,600.00.
Reading this almost hurts...my current estimate for my PPL(A) in Germany is
about €11.000 (about $16.000). I could probably take some unpaid vacation
and do the PPL in the US and still save money. :-(
Would have probably stayed below €10.000 if not some stupid EU bureaucrats
started requiring the addition of bio ethanol to gasoline so that most
engines requiring moderately expensive Mogas now have to be run using
ridiculously expensive Avgas which is exempt from this regulation...last
time I checked we were at €2.40 per liter (thats $13 per gallon).
Dallas
> Reading this almost hurts...my current estimate for my PPL(A) in Germany is
> about €11.000 (about $16.000). I could probably take some unpaid vacation
> and do the PPL in the US and still save money. :-(
Our flight schools are full of Europeans for that very reason. Come to the
U.S. on a 2 month vacation and go back with a certificate, a free vacation
to the U.S., and save a few thousand dollars. :- )
I guess we Americans need to be thankful about this...
With $16,000 I could pay for my PP certificate and still pay for 146 hours
of flying after I got it.
--
Dallas
Dallas
> Reading this almost hurts...my current estimate for my PPL(A) in Germany is
> about €11.000 (about $16.000).
Oh... recently someone here said 1 hour of dual instruction in the UK
costs £155.00 ($315.27 USD) per hour.
That would put the certificate (55 hours) at about $16,619.85, about the
same as Germany. (Not including the tests, materials and ground school.)
--
Dallas
Mxsmanic
> I could probably take some unpaid vacation
> and do the PPL in the US and still save money.
That is definitely true for an instrument rating, although one acquired in the
USA does involve some restrictions for people flying in Europe (such as the
need to fly a U.S.-registered aircraft).
Kai Rode
>> about €11.000 (about $16.000). I could probably take some unpaid vacation
>> and do the PPL in the US and still save money. :-(
>Our flight schools are full of Europeans for that very reason. Come to the
>U.S. on a 2 month vacation and go back with a certificate, a free vacation
>to the U.S., and save a few thousand dollars. :- )
Too late for that, I've already finished ground school, got my radio
communications license and passed the written exam except for meteorology.
But when/if I ever want to get my IFR or MEP rating, that's what I'll
probably do. One of the other flight schools here offers ground school in
Germany, flying in Vero Beach, FL...
Dallas
> But when/if I ever want to get my IFR or MEP rating, that's what I'll
> probably do.
You actually started a thread over at rec.aviation.piloting.
Look for: $16,619.85
--
Dallas