debergalis

[founder here]

the suggestion was “orthocode”.

Thanks, looking into it. I agree and I hope we're able fix this. We're moving all of the Apollo docs to the same system. It's built on Gatsby, which uses GraphQL under the hood.

Agree. And congrats on the round.

[author here]

Yup, we see this pattern a lot. You get the benefits of fewer bytes on the wire, typed APIs, elimination of data fetching code, etc.

But it leaves a lot on the table. The bigger wins come when new features can draw from all your data (in unanticipated combinations) without new API or services development, when you can make new data available for every team's use just by plugging it into the central graph, and when you have a birds-eye view of exactly how all your data is being used so you know where to make further investments.

[Apollo cofounder here — we are indeed the same team that built Meteor.]

Yup, all three are customers.

> I am thinking a major reason for the longevity of the Cessna training line is more to do with cost for budget conscious training schools, rather than being a better aircraft that any other trainer.

Yeah, budget and familiarity. I doubt Cessna is selling many 172s to anything other than flight schools.

Cirrus just certified the SF-50 Vision, a new single-engine VLJ.

Cessna doesn't call it this, but the Mustang is pretty close to VLJ sizes. (Not many being made though, as their M2 pretty much took over that space of the market.) The Embraer Phenom 100 is similar. Both have been reasonably successful.

Yes, the lead raises the effective octane, preventing detonation. The other tool for preventing detonation is running extremely rich fuel/air ratios, the typical setup for the airplane at full takeoff power.

You target an appropriately rich mixture at sea level when tuning the carb or adjusting fuel flow for injected engines. The pilot manually leans the mixture as the aircraft climbs to maintain a reasonable fuel/air ratio.

Owners sometimes call that mixture lever the money lever because it governs fuel flow, aka "dollars spent per minute".

Engine manufacturers typically specify a TBO -- Time Before Overhaul, which is the number of hours in service an engine can run before it needs to be torn down, inspected, and overhauled according to the manufacturer's procedure.

For the most part, commercial operators must adhere to these recommended times, but aircraft operated under FAR Part 91 (roughly, those that aren't used for commercial transportation) aren't required to follow the TBO recommendation. You can run it as long as you want.

In practice, most operators do follow those guidelines. I've never heard of any engine doing much more than 2x the TBO before requiring major overhaul. And you'll often need various repairs to cylinders and engine accessories along the way.

Interestingly, manufacturers also specify calendar time limits on TBO, but private operators commonly ignore these. Lots of airplanes only fly 25 hours or so a year.