David Megginson wrote:
I don't think we should disable any systems, period, but we can put users by default in situations where carb icing is unlikely (i.e. a clear, dry day). Once you get into situations where carb icing is likely, users are going to be dealing with other problems like reduced visibility anyway.
I agree totally. Does FG define humidity at all? - from what I've read and understood on my PPL course and in the UK CAA leaflets the major component of carb ice is the humidity and temperature combination. We're drilled to use carb heat before making any major reduction in power (below the green arc) on the C152 and C150 and in/near precipitation if icing is suspected. I've never read the POH for these, I just do what my instructor tells me.
Carb icing is common on humid days in certain Continental engines such as the one in the Cessna 150 and the old (pre-1967) 172, but it is very rare in engines like the Lycoming O-320 (used in the Warrior and post-1967 Cessna 172's). The warnings in the later 172 POH's about using carb heat at low power are left over from the old Continental O-300 days -- the Warrior has essentially the same engine, but my POH does not recommend carb heat for low power operation unless I suspect actual icing.
We lost a C150 last week to suspected carb ice. The engine stopped dead on base leg when the pilot (a recent PPL graduate) throttled down to descend for landing. The 'landing' appears to have been rather hard as the 'plane is a write-off. Thankfully he's OK... I think my Vans RV-9 will have a diesel engine :-)
All the best,
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d