From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] AC & alternatives
To: lml
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:52:18 -0500
Message-ID: <web-556968@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <000001c4db31$3e2614a0$8119fea9@comp21intel32>
References: <000001c4db31$3e2614a0$8119fea9@comp21intel32>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "F. Barry Knotts" <bknotts@buckeye-express.com>:

  The shades will certainly reduce the thermal load in the cockpit.  But
  remember, the IV-P (or any pressurized aircraft) will have an additional
  thermal load from the pressurization system.  In addition, the ventilation
  alternatives are limited by the need to seal the pressure vessel.  The more
  leaks in the bottle, the more pressurized (and therefore heated) air is
  conveyed to the cockpit.  This increases the thermal load over and above
  what a non-pressurized aircraft experiences.  It's like the heater is on all
  the time.  I don't have my IV-P together, yet, but I can say on the basis of
  flying a C340 without A/C that the only way I convinced my building partner
  to go for the IV-P was to plan on A/C from the start.  And I don't even live
  in an upwardly thermally challenged neighborhood.
  
  Barry & Denise Knotts
  Perrysburg, Ohio
  L-IVP, Conti TSIO-550, trudging onward
  
"""
   Why add the weight, expense, and complexity of a AC unit?  On my Legacy,
  I've found that the Koger Sunshade cuts out so much of the solar heating
  from the (huge) canopy that adding AC would be silly.  You only need it on
  the ground, anyway.
"""