Yea, same thing on the Brasilia. Fuel topping gov holds it between 103 and 109, depending on which rpm it caught it at. If the RPM changes too fast though, bye-bye prop.

 

There are many things I agree with on these 8 pages. 1) protect your hearing...earplugs under davidclamps. 2) there is some small sliver of truth to the notion that the bigger they are the easier they are to fly. After flying navajos for cal air charter-now ameriflight, I thought the metroliner wasn't much harder but required 10 times the system knowlege and had no autopilot. Saab 340 is a big piper cherokee. The jets are not so much easier as they are different. Fuel issues are a lot less linear than on a t-prop. I also agree that tailwheel time is good experience. Some of the most challenging flying in my career (20,000hrs) was in a tailwheel beech 18. Never quite got over my fear of the beech on short final. Working through the (pilot) ranks when I did, one didn't get in a turboprop until they'd been a piston twin capt (135), or into a jet until they'd been a Tprop capt. By the time a pilot was working in the herochair of a 737, he or she could fly anything. The way things are now, I worry.

 

I miss the 120. I managed to be lucky enough to fly it for a few years from both seats, and eventually teach on the plane. The prop system was just over engineered. They designed a propeller that would fail to flat pitch, instead of feather, and then had to come up with all these band aids to prevent it from over speeding. Mechanical pumps, electric pumps, mechanical and electric valves, flight idle lock solenoids, over speed governors, pneumatic fuel topping governors...and the list goes on, had they only built it to fail to feather all that could have been avoided.

 

You are SO correct, but when you make statements like this, you run the risk of being labeled just another "old geezzer".

 

Eh, what's wrong with being an "old geezer?!"

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

hahahahahahahahhahaha