Part of their “plastic airplane” series. They were slotted to do a review back in early '99 (Carl Marbach visited the factory the same day I did) but Scott’s accident was a week later and they shelved it for a time.
Here’s an interesting sentence from that Avweb article:
“As we ran through the Arnav’s checklist, we toggled between screens that let us see graphs of the Continental warming.”
Does that imply this demonstrator had some sort of Arnav engine-monitoring software installed? Although it’s been mentioned a lot on this forum, I wasn’t aware that an actual system (even prototype) had been deployed yet.
Has anyone taken a recent demo flight in this plane (119CD) and seen even a demo version of the engine monitoring software?
Thanks
Steve
“As we ran through the Arnav’s checklist, we toggled between screens that let us see graphs of the Continental warming.”
Yes, that caught my attention, too. But there were a few minor errors in the article, so it’s possible that there was some over-enthusiastic sub-editing, perhaps translating a future expectation into a now reality. Sorry, I’m just not getting my hopes up.
“As we ran through the Arnav’s checklist, we toggled between screens that let us see graphs of the Continental warming.”
Yes, that caught my attention, too. But there were a few minor errors in the article, so it’s possible that there was some over-enthusiastic sub-editing, perhaps translating a future expectation into a now reality. Sorry, I’m just not getting my hopes up.
One interesting point I found in the article (twice) was the author discussing his "60knts IAS on final’. Seems dangerous at only 6 knots above dirty stall.
Your thoughts, Clyde?
One interesting point I found in the article (twice) was the author discussing his "60knts IAS on final’. Seems dangerous at only 6 knots above dirty stall.
Not a place I’d choose to be. It will be on the back of the drag curve and would need a significant amount of power to stay up - if your engine should fail at that point you will be going one way - down. And quite unnecessary. 75-80 knots on final is ideal for the SR20, if you can’t land and stop in much less than full runway length at that speed then you’re never going to get out, so there’s no need to drag it in.
One of the other errors I noticed was the reference to 160 knots indicated airspeed at 75% power! And the description of the prop/throttle control behaviour was inaccurate. But nonetheless, not a bad article.
One of the other errors I noticed was the reference to 160 knots indicated airspeed at 75% power! And the description of the prop/throttle control behaviour was inaccurate. But nonetheless, not a bad article.
How would you describe how the
prop/throttle control behaves?
Thanks,
Greg Gritton
How would you describe how the
prop/throttle control behaves?
From my observations, it goes like this:
Full forward - wide open throttle, 2700rpm
Pull back, throttle stays wide open, rpm drops to 2500 (cruise setting)
Pull back more, rpm stays at 2500, throttle/MP starts coming down.
Pull back a lot, rpm drops to around 2200 (pattern power setting, you can feel a “stop”)
Pull back more (some resistance in the lever) and MP drops off towards idle.