an interesting in flight experiment

[a[_3_]]

Next time you're at altitude and in cruise mode, switch from 'both' to
a single bank of spark plugs. It will remind you what happens should
you have one side decide to go in/op when in flight. I had the engine
(IO 360) go rough a couple of weeks ago, but rough was a lot better
than the very smooth and silent effects the left mag only gave me.

[Peter Dohm]

"a" > wrote in message
...
> Next time you're at altitude and in cruise mode, switch from 'both' to
> a single bank of spark plugs. It will remind you what happens should
> you have one side decide to go in/op when in flight. I had the engine
> (IO 360) go rough a couple of weeks ago, but rough was a lot better
> than the very smooth and silent effects the left mag only gave me.
>
Sounds like at least two problems--unless the fault was in the switch.

Peter
Just a thought

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 17, 3:01*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...> Next time you're at altitude and in cruise mode, switch from 'both' to
> > a single bank of spark plugs. It will remind you what happens should
> > you have one side decide to go in/op when in flight. I had the engine
> > (IO 360) go rough a couple of weeks ago, but rough was a lot better
> > than the very smooth and silent effects the left mag only gave me.
>
> Sounds like at least two problems--unless the fault was in the switch.
>
> Peter
> Just a thought

Nope. Engine went rough, stayed just as rough on the right bank, too
quiet on the left. After the repair all was well
again.

Even on run up you lose some RPMs when on a single bank of spark
plugs.

[Jon Woellhaf]

"a" > wrote in message
...
> ... Even on run up you lose some RPMs when on a single bank of spark
> plugs.

If you don't get an rpm drop when running on a single mag, something's
probably amiss. My engine has never run rough during a mag check, except
when I forgot to lean aggressively before taxi and got lead fouling.

[twdeckard]

This test should be part of the run-up pre-flight check.

You are verifying that the P-lead correctly grounds the magneto (by
observing the drop)
and that the firing side is operational. You are also, of course, verifying
that the engine will run on the ungrounded side (and that it is firing that
entire bank of spark plugs by scrutinizing how well it runs).

I am sure you know all of this (grin), I just chimed in becuase its a check
best done on the run-up pad.

Todd

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> "a" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Next time you're at altitude and in cruise mode, switch from 'both' to
>> a single bank of spark plugs. It will remind you what happens should
>> you have one side decide to go in/op when in flight. I had the engine
>> (IO 360) go rough a couple of weeks ago, but rough was a lot better
>> than the very smooth and silent effects the left mag only gave me.
>>
> Sounds like at least two problems--unless the fault was in the switch.
>
> Peter
> Just a thought
>
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"twdeckard" > wrote

> I am sure you know all of this (grin), I just chimed in becuase its a
> check best done on the run-up pad.

He did not say you shouldn't do it at run-up. He was just pointing out
that your engine could run very rough if you lose one side while cruising.

--
Jim in NC

[twdeckard]

I didn't mean the post to sound too pedantic. I guess I reacted to the OP
phrasing it as a question or a suggestion. I am sure it was rhetorically so
....


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "twdeckard" > wrote
>
>> I am sure you know all of this (grin), I just chimed in becuase its a
>> check best done on the run-up pad.
>
> He did not say you shouldn't do it at run-up. He was just pointing out
> that your engine could run very rough if you lose one side while cruising.
>
> --
> Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "twdeckard" > wrote
>
>> I am sure you know all of this (grin), I just chimed in becuase its a
>> check best done on the run-up pad.
>
> He did not say you shouldn't do it at run-up. He was just pointing out
> that your engine could run very rough if you lose one side while cruising.
>
> --
> Jim in NC
I am really not sure exactly what he tried to say; but, in his initial post,
it was clear that he had lost the use of all of one mag and a part of the
other--or the plugs or wires attached to it.

The problem with that is that mags have a couple of failure modes that are
common to all breaker point ignition systems in addition to the failure
modes that are peculiar to magnetos.

As far as I know, it is still a common practice to simply set the timing and
perform a runup type mag check as part of an annual and not open the mags to
gap and visually check the points. That leaves the door a lot farther open
for the failure modes involving erosion of the points--which is related to
one of the two failure modes of the capacitor a/k/a condenser--and also to
wear of the cam follower. Both of those failure modes usually make the
engine harder to start long before they will fail in flight, or at runup
test; but are masked sufficiently by electric starters that they can go
virtually unnoticed--unless the pilot is so dilligent as to carefully prime
and set the throttle and then count the blades on nearly every start.

Peter

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 18, 10:40*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > "twdeckard" > wrote
>
> >> I am sure you know all of this (grin), I just chimed in becuase its a
> >> check best done on the run-up pad.
>
> > He did not say you shouldn't do it at run-up. *He was just pointing out
> > that your engine could run very rough if you lose one side while cruising.
>
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> I am really not sure exactly what he tried to say; but, in his initial post,
> it was clear that he had lost the use of all of one mag and a part of the
> other--or the plugs or wires attached to it.
>
> The problem with that is that mags have a couple of failure modes that are
> common to all breaker point ignition systems in addition to the failure
> modes that are peculiar to magnetos.
>
> As far as I know, it is still a common practice to simply set the timing and
> perform a runup type mag check as part of an annual and not open the mags to
> gap and visually check the points. *That leaves the door a lot farther open
> for the failure modes involving erosion of the points--which is related to
> one of the two failure modes of the capacitor a/k/a condenser--and also to
> wear of the cam follower. *Both of those failure modes usually make the
> engine harder to start long before they will fail in flight, or at runup
> test; but are masked sufficiently by electric starters that they can go
> virtually unnoticed--unless the pilot is so dilligent as to carefully prime
> and set the throttle and then count the blades on nearly every start.
>
> Peter

To put several of your minds at ease, of course I did the conventional
both-right-both-left mag check at runup, but at 1900 RPM. I had not
had one bank of spark plugs go in/op ever until the in flight failure
a little while ago, and my post was simply to suggest pilots go to one
mag while at cruise rpm and engine loading to see what happens. In my
case the engine ran a bit rougher -- rpms stayed where they were set,
of course, because prop pitch changed to accommodate the reduction in
power.

I am sure I make lots of inadvertent errors when flying: missing a mag
check is not one of them.

[Frank Stutzman[_3_]]

a > wrote:


> In my
> case the engine ran a bit rougher -- rpms stayed where they were set,
> of course, because prop pitch changed to accommodate the reduction in
> power.

And if you were flying a 6 cylinder (or larger) engine, you may not have
even noticed the roughness.

(I once failed to get the switch back to "both" after a run-up. Managed
to take-off and fly for ~15 minutes before I noticed it. The roughness
became more pronounced when I started leaning it out).

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 18, 12:02*pm, Frank Stutzman > wrote:
> a > wrote:
> > In my
> > case the engine ran a bit rougher -- rpms stayed where they were set,
> > of course, because prop pitch changed to accommodate the reduction in
> > power.
>
> And if you were flying a 6 cylinder (or larger) engine, you may not have
> even noticed the roughness. *
>
> (I once failed to get the switch back to "both" after a run-up. *Managed
> to take-off and fly for ~15 minutes before I noticed it. *The roughness
> became more pronounced when I started leaning it out).
>
> --
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B * * "Hula Girl"
> Boise, ID

The IO 360 has 4 cylinders -- the roughness was not really bad, and
you could be right -- with 6 may not have been noticeable.

My hand stays on the mag switch throughout a mag check so I want to
believe I won't forget to go back to both -- help us avoid making your
mistake: do you remember what distracted you enough to leave it
pointing to a single bank of plugs?

[vaughn[_2_]]

"a" > wrote in message
...
>My hand stays on the mag switch throughout a mag check so I want to
>believe I won't forget to go back to both -- help us avoid making your
>mistake: do you remember what distracted you enough to leave it
>pointing to a single bank of plugs?

I agree, no reason to take your hand off the switch, but things can still go
wrong! I also took off on one mag once. I don't think I actually forgot to
return the switch to "both", but just made a sloppy job of it and somehow
ended up with the switch not quite in the detent. I still kick myself for
not aborting that takeoff. It turned out to be a butt-puckering trip around
the patch. I never did make it alll the way up to pattern height.

Now I visually verify the position of the switch before leaving the runup
pad.

Lesson learned!

Vaughn

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 18, 2:24*pm, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >My hand stays on the mag switch throughout a mag check so I want to
> >believe I won't forget to go back to both -- help us avoid making your
> >mistake: do you remember what distracted you enough to leave it
> >pointing to a single bank of plugs?
>
> I agree, no reason to take your hand off the switch, but things can still go
> wrong! *I also took off on one mag once. *I don't think I actually forgot to
> return the switch to "both", but just made a sloppy job of it and somehow
> ended up with the switch not quite in the detent. *I still kick myself for
> not aborting that takeoff. *It turned out to be a butt-puckering trip around
> the patch. *I never did make it alll the way up to pattern height.
>
> Now I visually verify the position of the switch before leaving the runup
> pad.
>
> Lesson learned!
>
> Vaughn

That's interesting. My primary flight instructor must have been burned
by something like that, because my training (which did not include
getting rapped across the knuckles with a stick -- that was from grade
school days) was to focus on the tach, go from both to left, note the
drop, back to both, see the tach get back to 1900, go to right, note
the drop, go to both, see the tach get back to 1900, and only then let
go of the mag switch.

He was the same guy who insisted controls like throttle and mixture
should be pushed with the palm, pulled with curled fingers, and never
grasped-- his point was that if can can only push or pull you are less
apt to move something in the wrong direction. Some old habits are
worth retaining. If he could have he would have replaced radio tuning
knobs with paddles.

Would you say he was compulsive?

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:48:26 -0700 (PDT), a wrote:

> On Oct 18, 2:24*pm, "vaughn" >
> wrote:
>> "a" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>My hand stays on the mag switch throughout a mag check so I want to
>>>believe I won't forget to go back to both -- help us avoid making your
>>>mistake: do you remember what distracted you enough to leave it
>>>pointing to a single bank of plugs?
>>
>> I agree, no reason to take your hand off the switch, but things can still go
>> wrong! *I also took off on one mag once. *I don't think I actually forgot to
>> return the switch to "both", but just made a sloppy job of it and somehow
>> ended up with the switch not quite in the detent. *I still kick myself for
>> not aborting that takeoff. *It turned out to be a butt-puckering trip around
>> the patch. *I never did make it alll the way up to pattern height.
>>
>> Now I visually verify the position of the switch before leaving the runup
>> pad.
>>
>> Lesson learned!
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> That's interesting. My primary flight instructor must have been burned
> by something like that, because my training (which did not include
> getting rapped across the knuckles with a stick -- that was from grade
> school days) was to focus on the tach, go from both to left, note the
> drop, back to both, see the tach get back to 1900, go to right, note
> the drop, go to both, see the tach get back to 1900, and only then let
> go of the mag switch.
>
> He was the same guy who insisted controls like throttle and mixture
> should be pushed with the palm, pulled with curled fingers, and never
> grasped-- his point was that if can can only push or pull you are less
> apt to move something in the wrong direction. Some old habits are
> worth retaining. If he could have he would have replaced radio tuning
> knobs with paddles.
>
> Would you say he was compulsive?

No but he had a feckin' moron for a student.

[vaughn[_2_]]

"a" > wrote in message
...

>Would you say he was compulsive?

Perhaps he just had a will to live? Back in my sailplane instructing days,
I taught my students to not wrap their fingers around certain controls,
particularly on takeoff. Reason? A jolt (we took off on grass) could make
you accidently pull a control. That could disconnect you from the towplane
if you pulled the release (the same as your engine quitting on takeoff)
or...if you accidently pulled the spoilers open, our towplane would no
longer be powerful enough to keep us flying.

Vaughn

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 18, 5:18*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:48:26 -0700 (PDT), a wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 2:24*pm, "vaughn" >
> > wrote:
> >> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >>>My hand stays on the mag switch throughout a mag check so I want to
> >>>believe I won't forget to go back to both -- help us avoid making your
> >>>mistake: do you remember what distracted you enough to leave it
> >>>pointing to a single bank of plugs?
>
> >> I agree, no reason to take your hand off the switch, but things can still go
> >> wrong! *I also took off on one mag once. *I don't think I actually forgot to
> >> return the switch to "both", but just made a sloppy job of it and somehow
> >> ended up with the switch not quite in the detent. *I still kick myself for
> >> not aborting that takeoff. *It turned out to be a butt-puckering trip around
> >> the patch. *I never did make it alll the way up to pattern height.
>
> >> Now I visually verify the position of the switch before leaving the runup
> >> pad.
>
> >> Lesson learned!
>
> >> Vaughn
>
> > That's interesting. My primary flight instructor must have been burned
> > by something like that, because my training (which did not include
> > getting rapped across the knuckles with a stick -- that was from grade
> > school days) was to focus on the tach, go from both to left, note the
> > drop, back to both, see the tach get back to 1900, go to right, note
> > the drop, go to both, see the tach get back to 1900, and only then let
> > go of the mag switch.
>
> > He was the same guy who insisted controls like throttle and mixture
> > should be pushed with the palm, pulled with curled fingers, and never
> > grasped-- his point was that if can can only push or pull you are less
> > apt to move something in the wrong direction. Some old habits are
> > worth retaining. If he could have he would have replaced radio tuning
> > knobs with paddles.
>
> > Would you say he was compulsive?
>
> No but he had a feckin' moron for a student.

Thanks so much for your insight. So far his moronic student had 3000
safe odd hours in a complex single, so his instruction worked. You, on
the other hand -- your remark is the QED of that -- clearly failed in
social skills..

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 18, 5:22*pm, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >Would you say he was compulsive?
>
> Perhaps he just had a will to live? *Back in my sailplane instructing days,
> I taught my students to not wrap their fingers around certain controls,
> particularly on takeoff. *Reason? *A jolt (we took off on grass) could make
> you accidently pull a control. *That could disconnect you from the towplane
> if you pulled the release (the same as your engine quitting on takeoff)
> or...if you accidently pulled the spoilers open, our towplane would no
> longer be powerful enough to keep us flying.
>
> Vaughn

Good habits are often validated in the real world. I doubt that things
like pushing with palm, pulling with fingertips, have saved lives, but
the ingraining of bits and pieces like those in total probably do.
That old saw -- a superior pilot uses superior judgement to avoid
circumstances where he (or she) has to use his (or her) superior
skills really is true.

[Peter Dohm]

"a" > wrote in message
...
>On Oct 18, 10:40 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > "twdeckard" > wrote
>>
>> >> I am sure you know all of this (grin), I just chimed in becuase its a
>> >> check best done on the run-up pad.
>>
>> > He did not say you shouldn't do it at run-up. He was just pointing out
>> > that your engine could run very rough if you lose one side while
>> > cruising.
>>
>> > --
>> > Jim in NC
>>
>> I am really not sure exactly what he tried to say; but, in his initial
>> post,
>> it was clear that he had lost the use of all of one mag and a part of the
>> other--or the plugs or wires attached to it.
>>
>> The problem with that is that mags have a couple of failure modes that
>> are
>> common to all breaker point ignition systems in addition to the failure
>> modes that are peculiar to magnetos.
>>
>> As far as I know, it is still a common practice to simply set the timing
>> and
>> perform a runup type mag check as part of an annual and not open the mags
>> to
>> gap and visually check the points. That leaves the door a lot farther
>> open
>> for the failure modes involving erosion of the points--which is related
>> to
>> one of the two failure modes of the capacitor a/k/a condenser--and also
>> to
>> wear of the cam follower. Both of those failure modes usually make the
>> engine harder to start long before they will fail in flight, or at runup
>> test; but are masked sufficiently by electric starters that they can go
>> virtually unnoticed--unless the pilot is so dilligent as to carefully
>> prime
>> and set the throttle and then count the blades on nearly every start.
>>
>> Peter
>
> To put several of your minds at ease, of course I did the conventional
> both-right-both-left mag check at runup, but at 1900 RPM. I had not
> had one bank of spark plugs go in/op ever until the in flight failure
> a little while ago, and my post was simply to suggest pilots go to one
> mag while at cruise rpm and engine loading to see what happens. In my
> case the engine ran a bit rougher -- rpms stayed where they were set,
> of course, because prop pitch changed to accommodate the reduction in
> power.
>
> I am sure I make lots of inadvertent errors when flying: missing a mag
> check is not one of them.
>
I was not trying to suggest that you failed to check the mags prior to
takeoff, and I do not have an opinion as to whether an in-flight check would
necessarily tell anything of value.

The problem that I have personally observed was a case of points which had
gradually "closed up" on a 65 horsepower Piper Cub until the engine could
not be manually started--and then was started on the first "lave" pull after
the points had been dressed and gapped. A second case, that was only
confirmed much later, involved a Cessna 172 which occasionally required
manual starting for an assortment of stupid reasons; but started very
reluctantly in those instances...

The salient point is that both aircraft passed all tests normally available
to a pilot; but, based upon the number of hours that each was operated,
probably had one or both mags out internal tolerances for multiple years.
So there are failure modes that the pilot can not necessarily
overcome--including damaged insulation on a p-lead, or a shorted mag switch,
amoung others.

By the way, what were the problems later identified on your aircraft?

Peter

[Brian Whatcott]

a wrote:
....
> Even on run up you lose some RPMs when on a single bank of spark
> plugs.

Usually. At a 1700 rpm run up this morning, - I couldn't find a
drop either side. So I did a dead cut (at 1200rpm) with the usual effect.

Brian W

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 18, 6:39*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >On Oct 18, 10:40 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> >> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > "twdeckard" > wrote
>
> >> >> I am sure you know all of this (grin), I just chimed in becuase its a
> >> >> check best done on the run-up pad.
>
> >> > He did not say you shouldn't do it at run-up. He was just pointing out
> >> > that your engine could run very rough if you lose one side while
> >> > cruising.
>
> >> > --
> >> > Jim in NC
>
> >> I am really not sure exactly what he tried to say; but, in his initial
> >> post,
> >> it was clear that he had lost the use of all of one mag and a part of the
> >> other--or the plugs or wires attached to it.
>
> >> The problem with that is that mags have a couple of failure modes that
> >> are
> >> common to all breaker point ignition systems in addition to the failure
> >> modes that are peculiar to magnetos.
>
> >> As far as I know, it is still a common practice to simply set the timing
> >> and
> >> perform a runup type mag check as part of an annual and not open the mags
> >> to
> >> gap and visually check the points. That leaves the door a lot farther
> >> open
> >> for the failure modes involving erosion of the points--which is related
> >> to
> >> one of the two failure modes of the capacitor a/k/a condenser--and also
> >> to
> >> wear of the cam follower. Both of those failure modes usually make the
> >> engine harder to start long before they will fail in flight, or at runup
> >> test; but are masked sufficiently by electric starters that they can go
> >> virtually unnoticed--unless the pilot is so dilligent as to carefully
> >> prime
> >> and set the throttle and then count the blades on nearly every start.
>
> >> Peter
>
> > To put several of your minds at ease, of course I did the conventional
> > both-right-both-left mag check at runup, but at 1900 RPM. I had not
> > had one bank of spark plugs go in/op ever until the in flight failure
> > a little while ago, and my post was simply to suggest pilots go to one
> > mag while at cruise rpm and engine loading to see what happens. In my
> > case the engine ran a bit rougher -- rpms stayed where they were set,
> > of course, because prop pitch changed to accommodate the reduction in
> > power.
>
> > I am sure I make lots of inadvertent errors when flying: missing a mag
> > check is not one of them.
>
> I was not trying to suggest that you failed to check the mags prior to
> takeoff, and I do not have an opinion as to whether an in-flight check would
> necessarily tell anything of value.
>
> The problem that I have personally observed was a case of points which had
> gradually "closed up" on a 65 horsepower Piper Cub until the engine could
> not be manually started--and then was started on the first "lave" pull after
> the points had been dressed and gapped. *A second case, that was only
> confirmed much later, involved a Cessna 172 which occasionally required
> manual starting for an assortment of stupid reasons; but started very
> reluctantly in those instances...
>
> The salient point is that both aircraft passed all tests normally available
> to a pilot; but, based upon the number of hours that each was operated,
> probably had one or both mags out internal tolerances for multiple years.
> So there are failure modes that the pilot can not necessarily
> overcome--including damaged insulation on a p-lead, or a shorted mag switch,
> amoung others.
>
> By the way, what were the problems later identified on your aircraft?
>
> Peter

My in-flight check in fact produced something of value, Peter. The
engine in cruise went a little rough and stayed that way with mixture
adjustments. When I went to a single bank of spark plugs the engine
noise went from rough to none: I was flying on half the spark plugs.
That told me two things -- to land for a repair, and what to tell the
A&E.

My suggestion in the OP was that pilots learn what their engine does
when on a single bank of plugs when at cruise. It might be
instructive, it might not be. The failure mode I experienced was in
the high voltage lead between the magneto and the distributer. The
voltage impulse found a gap more convenient than the one at the spark
plugs, this on an engine that was only about 1100 hours (on a 2000
hour engine) since last major overhaul. I continued on my trip in less
than 2 hours. Clearly the aviation gods smiled on me.

[Peter Dohm]

"a" > wrote in message
...
>On Oct 18, 6:39 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> "a" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> I was not trying to suggest that you failed to check the mags prior to
>> takeoff, and I do not have an opinion as to whether an in-flight check
>> would
>> necessarily tell anything of value.
>>
>> The problem that I have personally observed was a case of points which
>> had
>> gradually "closed up" on a 65 horsepower Piper Cub until the engine could
>> not be manually started--and then was started on the first "lave" pull
>> after
>> the points had been dressed and gapped. A second case, that was only
>> confirmed much later, involved a Cessna 172 which occasionally required
>> manual starting for an assortment of stupid reasons; but started very
>> reluctantly in those instances...
>>
>> The salient point is that both aircraft passed all tests normally
>> available
>> to a pilot; but, based upon the number of hours that each was operated,
>> probably had one or both mags out internal tolerances for multiple years.
>> So there are failure modes that the pilot can not necessarily
>> overcome--including damaged insulation on a p-lead, or a shorted mag
>> switch,
>> amoung others.
>>
>> By the way, what were the problems later identified on your aircraft?
>>
>> Peter
>
> My in-flight check in fact produced something of value, Peter. The
> engine in cruise went a little rough and stayed that way with mixture
> adjustments. When I went to a single bank of spark plugs the engine
> noise went from rough to none: I was flying on half the spark plugs.
> That told me two things -- to land for a repair, and what to tell the
> A&E.
>
> My suggestion in the OP was that pilots learn what their engine does
> when on a single bank of plugs when at cruise. It might be
> instructive, it might not be. The failure mode I experienced was in
> the high voltage lead between the magneto and the distributer. The
> voltage impulse found a gap more convenient than the one at the spark
> plugs, this on an engine that was only about 1100 hours (on a 2000
> hour engine) since last major overhaul. I continued on my trip in less
> than 2 hours. Clearly the aviation gods smiled on me.
>
It looks like you did about the only thing that can be done for that sort of
problem. There is just no reasonable way, at least none that I have ever
seen, to inspect for or predict an impending failure of a shielded cable--or
of several other parts of magnetos and distributors. It just serves as the
remaining justification for dual ignition!

I'm glad that it worked out well.

Peter

[Ross]

Jon Woellhaf wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ... Even on run up you lose some RPMs when on a single bank of spark
>> plugs.
>
> If you don't get an rpm drop when running on a single mag, something's
> probably amiss. My engine has never run rough during a mag check, except
> when I forgot to lean aggressively before taxi and got lead fouling.
>
>
Long ago I had rented a C=150 that the run up mag check was fine before
a return flight back to the home airport (about 1 hour flying). All of a
sudden in cruise the engine was running rough. I did a mag check, on one
side was rough and the other side smooth. I elected to run on one mag
that was good and squawked the aircraft upon landing.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Ross schreef:
> I < ... > squawked the aircraft upon landing.

Ross, what do you mean by "squawking a plane upon landing?"
I only know the verb in a transponder context.

[-b-[_3_]]

Reading the posts here I believe there may be confusion between two different,
but related issues.

Why do we have two mags per engine and two spark plugs per cylinder?
The main reason is redundancy, and the secondary reason is performance.

On the performance side, losing one mag in flight should produce a slight
decrease in performance, but no really significant roughness or danger to the
engine. The function of both mags is detected through the single-mag check on
runup.

A far more likely occurrence however is the failure of a sparkplug in one
cylinder. This goes almost undetected if both mags are working, but will
produce very significant roughness on the single-mag check, and will produce a
considerable imbalance in operation. So on the redundancy side the mag check
serves not only to detect a faulty mag, but more likely to detect a faulty
spark plug. If you never did the single mag check, you could theoretically run
for some time with a defective plug or even more than one. Then the day you
have a mag failure you are at risk of a rapid engine failure.

[-b-[_3_]]

One question beginning pilots frequently ask, and rightly so, is given the
obvious performance effect of two functioning spark plugs per cylinder, why do
automobile engines not adopt this? The answer, in recent years, is of course
that many do, but not so many years ago this was not the case.

The effect of two or more spark plugs per cylinder and the development of the
flame front in a combustion chamber has been the object of a great deal of
research, and experimental engines have been built with up to four plugs per
cylinder. The results have shown a strong performance improvement by using two
plugs, and diminishing returns thereafter. Part of the performance increase
must be attributed to redundancy - plugs simply do not fire every time, and
doubling the number of plugs greatly enhances the probability of a fire each
stroke. Redundancy is not alone though, there is an ample body of evidence for
enhanced uniformity of the flame front in a combustion chamber with two
sparking points instead of one. Automobile manufacturers have known this since
the 1940’s, so we can only assume that economy is the driving factor, overcome
in aircraft engines by safety concerns related to engine failures.

[John Clear]

In article >,
jan olieslagers > wrote:
>Ross schreef:
>> I < ... > squawked the aircraft upon landing.
>
>Ross, what do you mean by "squawking a plane upon landing?"
>I only know the verb in a transponder context.

Squawk in this usage is a maintenance issue. In the US, it is
common for a plane to have a 'squawk sheet' aka maintenance log
that pilots can note issues on.

If the transponder wasn't working, you'd squawk it for not squawking.

Isn't English fun?

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

John Clear schreef:
> In article >,
> jan olieslagers > wrote:
>> Ross schreef:
>>> I < ... > squawked the aircraft upon landing.
>> Ross, what do you mean by "squawking a plane upon landing?"
>> I only know the verb in a transponder context.
>
> Squawk in this usage is a maintenance issue. In the US, it is
> common for a plane to have a 'squawk sheet' aka maintenance log
> that pilots can note issues on.

Thank you, Sir, it is nice to learn some little thing every day.

> If the transponder wasn't working, you'd squawk it for not squawking.

};-)

> Isn't English fun?

Not bad, but I'll bet you never tried or even tasted French!
KA

[-b-[_3_]]

In article >,
says...
>

>
>> Isn't English fun?
>
>Not bad, but I'll bet you never tried or even tasted French!
>KA


What's wrong with French?
It's the only place where saying "Pitot" comes naturally! ;-)

[Peter Dohm]

"-b-" > wrote in message
...
> One question beginning pilots frequently ask, and rightly so, is given the
> obvious performance effect of two functioning spark plugs per cylinder,
> why do
> automobile engines not adopt this? The answer, in recent years, is of
> course
> that many do, but not so many years ago this was not the case.
>
> The effect of two or more spark plugs per cylinder and the development of
> the
> flame front in a combustion chamber has been the object of a great deal of
> research, and experimental engines have been built with up to four plugs
> per
> cylinder. The results have shown a strong performance improvement by using
> two
> plugs, and diminishing returns thereafter. Part of the performance
> increase
> must be attributed to redundancy - plugs simply do not fire every time,
> and
> doubling the number of plugs greatly enhances the probability of a fire
> each
> stroke. Redundancy is not alone though, there is an ample body of evidence
> for
> enhanced uniformity of the flame front in a combustion chamber with two
> sparking points instead of one. Automobile manufacturers have known this
> since
> the 1940's, so we can only assume that economy is the driving factor,
> overcome
> in aircraft engines by safety concerns related to engine failures.
>
Aircraft engines are unique, in that the driving force for dual ignition
really is redundancy and the same performance--and that, with the edxception
of redundancy, similar performance could be achieved by a very slight change
in timing.

OTOH, Wankel rotaries are simply unable to achieve the required flame
propagation at high RPM without a second starting point; and a similar
problem exists in some engines with dradically peaked pistons--which can be
resolved by a second ignition system or, in some cases, by a channel bored
across the crown of each piston.

And, yes, a lot has been known since the 1940s that was not practical to
implement at that time. Some of it still is not.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"-b-" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>
>>
>>> Isn't English fun?
>>
>>Not bad, but I'll bet you never tried or even tasted French!
>>KA
>
>
> What's wrong with French?
> It's the only place where saying "Pitot" comes naturally! ;-)
>

I've been outdone!

Peter

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 19, 6:49*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "-b-" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
>
> >>> Isn't English fun?
>
> >>Not bad, but I'll bet you never tried or even tasted French!
> >>KA
>
> > What's wrong with French?
> > It's the only place where saying "Pitot" comes naturally! ;-)
>
> I've been outdone!
>
> Peter

There are places in the US where one would not say pitot in mixed
company because you may be escorted out the door with a pitchfork.
Been there, don't want to go back.

[Brian Whatcott]

jan olieslagers wrote:
> Ross schreef:
>> I < ... > squawked the aircraft upon landing.
>
> Ross, what do you mean by "squawking a plane upon landing?"
> I only know the verb in a transponder context.

Squawk, write-up and snag mean about the same when applied to
notifying the service group about aircraft systems misfunctions.

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

-b- wrote:
> Reading the posts here I believe there may be confusion between two different,
> but related issues.
>
> Why do we have two mags per engine and two spark plugs per cylinder?
> The main reason is redundancy, and the secondary reason is performance.
>
> On the performance side, losing one mag in flight should produce a slight
> decrease in performance, but no really significant roughness or danger to the
> engine. The function of both mags is detected through the single-mag check on
> runup.
>
> A far more likely occurrence however is the failure of a sparkplug in one
> cylinder. This goes almost undetected if both mags are working, but will
> produce very significant roughness on the single-mag check, and will produce a
> considerable imbalance in operation. So on the redundancy side the mag check
> serves not only to detect a faulty mag, but more likely to detect a faulty
> spark plug. If you never did the single mag check, you could theoretically run
> for some time with a defective plug or even more than one. Then the day you
> have a mag failure you are at risk of a rapid engine failure.
>


Good point. I had a mag failure on a night flight with an instructor
long ago, from Tulsa to Oklahoma City. The engine sounded rough, and the
instructor suggested a mag check: one side led to a slight reduction,
the other to a rapid tailoff of RPM.
So we turned tail.

Brian W

[Ross]

jan olieslagers wrote:
> Ross schreef:
>> I < ... > squawked the aircraft upon landing.
>
> Ross, what do you mean by "squawking a plane upon landing?"
> I only know the verb in a transponder context.

We use that word to make write ups on the squawk sheet that they had for
each airplane, describing what is wrong. That is what they called it a
squawk sheet. I looked at dictionary.com for the definition of squawk. I
am not sure it would apply for this or a transponder. The definitions
came back as:

1. to utter a loud, harsh cry, as a duck or other fowl when frightened.
2. Informal. to complain loudly and vehemently.

A little harsh meaning :)
--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[Ross]

John Clear wrote:
> In article >,
> jan olieslagers > wrote:
>> Ross schreef:
>>> I < ... > squawked the aircraft upon landing.
>> Ross, what do you mean by "squawking a plane upon landing?"
>> I only know the verb in a transponder context.
>
> Squawk in this usage is a maintenance issue. In the US, it is
> common for a plane to have a 'squawk sheet' aka maintenance log
> that pilots can note issues on.
>
> If the transponder wasn't working, you'd squawk it for not squawking.
>
> Isn't English fun?
>
> John

That was good!

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 20, 12:16*pm, Ross > wrote:
> jan olieslagers wrote:
> > Ross schreef:
> >> I < ... > squawked the aircraft upon landing.
>
> > Ross, what do you mean by "squawking a plane upon landing?"
> > I only know the verb in a transponder context.
>
> We use that word to make write ups on the squawk sheet that they had for
> each airplane, describing what is wrong. *That is what they called it a
> squawk sheet. I looked at dictionary.com for the definition of squawk. I
> am not sure it would apply for this or a transponder. The definitions
> came back as:
>
> 1. to utter a loud, harsh cry, as a duck or other fowl when frightened.
> 2. Informal. to complain loudly and vehemently.
>
> A little harsh meaning :)
> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> Sold :(
> KSWI

We've all heard 'squack ident', but I laughed out loud when a
controller told me to 'strangle the parrot'. Yes, he meant put the
transponder to standby.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:16:41 -0500, Ross > wrote in >:

>We use that word to make write ups on the squawk sheet that they had for
>each airplane, describing what is wrong. That is what they called it a
>squawk sheet. I looked at dictionary.com for the definition of squawk. I
>am not sure it would apply for this or a transponder. The definitions
>came back as:

>1. to utter a loud, harsh cry, as a duck or other fowl when frightened.
>2. Informal. to complain loudly and vehemently.

>A little harsh meaning :)

I didn't realize that I didn't know how to spell the word
correctly until I read your post.

I've been reading it without difficulty since I subscribed
to Flying magazine in the mid-60s.

What a word!

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Dave Doe]

In article <ee751f57-50ce-40fa-8bd2-8c3253201138
@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Oct 19, 6:49*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > "-b-" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > says...
> >
> > >>> Isn't English fun?
> >
> > >>Not bad, but I'll bet you never tried or even tasted French!
> > >>KA
> >
> > > What's wrong with French?
> > > It's the only place where saying "Pitot" comes naturally! ;-)
> >
> > I've been outdone!
> >
> > Peter
>
> There are places in the US where one would not say pitot in mixed
> company because you may be escorted out the door with a pitchfork.
> Been there, don't want to go back.

Why's that? Where's that? What does it mean "down there"? :)

--
Duncan.

[Brian Whatcott]

Dave Doe wrote:
....
>> There are places in the US where one would not say pitot in mixed
>> company because you may be escorted out the door with a pitchfork.
>> Been there, don't want to go back.
>
> Why's that? Where's that? What does it mean "down there"? :)
>
I could only think of the places that think of the fried articles as
Freedom Fries

Brian W

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 20, 8:33*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Dave Doe wrote:
>
> ...>> There are places in the US where one would not say pitot in mixed
> >> company because you may be escorted out the door with a pitchfork.
> >> Been there, don't want to go back.
>
> > Why's that? Where's that? What does it mean "down there"? :)
>
> I could only think of the places that think of the fried articles as
> Freedom Fries
>
> Brian W

As a way off topic response, I live in North Carolina, home of "I bet
I can deep fry that". For proof, our State Fair is going on now, and
there are deep fried Coca Cola soaked breads, pickles, candy
bars, . . . It might have been here that chicken fried steak was
invented: start with a great steak, coat it with bread crumbs, and fry
until well past well done.

The airspace above the Fair should be restricted -- it may be CAVU but
the vapors on your windscreen will make it actual IMC in the cockpit.
Of course, your engine will run rich, ingesting a near explosive
mixture of air and grease vapor. And drag goes down too -- but be
careful exiting your low winged airplane, the traction you expect will
not be there: grease does that.

Close by are some of the better heart hospitals in the country.
Coincidence? I think not.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled program.

[Don Poitras]

The new addition this year: Chocolate-covered bacon. Mmmmm...
And congressman Jones of "Freedom Fries" fame did eventually come
to his senses and Congress no longer has to eat "Freedom Toast", etc.
I think it was because he was getting pressure to institute "Freedom Curves"
and "Freedom Kissing". :)

a > wrote:
> On Oct 20, 8:33?pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> > Dave Doe wrote:
> >
> > ...>> There are places in the US where one would not say pitot in mixed
> > >> company because you may be escorted out the door with a pitchfork.
> > >> Been there, don't want to go back.
> >
> > > Why's that? Where's that? What does it mean "down there"? :)
> >
> > I could only think of the places that think of the fried articles as
> > Freedom Fries
> >
> > Brian W

> As a way off topic response, I live in North Carolina, home of "I bet
> I can deep fry that". For proof, our State Fair is going on now, and
> there are deep fried Coca Cola soaked breads, pickles, candy
> bars, . . . It might have been here that chicken fried steak was
> invented: start with a great steak, coat it with bread crumbs, and fry
> until well past well done.

> The airspace above the Fair should be restricted -- it may be CAVU but
> the vapors on your windscreen will make it actual IMC in the cockpit.
> Of course, your engine will run rich, ingesting a near explosive
> mixture of air and grease vapor. And drag goes down too -- but be
> careful exiting your low winged airplane, the traction you expect will
> not be there: grease does that.

> Close by are some of the better heart hospitals in the country.
> Coincidence? I think not.

> Now, back to the regularly scheduled program.


--
Don Poitras

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 21, 7:06*am, (Don Poitras) wrote:
> The new addition this year: Chocolate-covered bacon. Mmmmm...
> And congressman Jones of "Freedom Fries" fame did eventually come
> to his senses and Congress no longer has to eat "Freedom Toast", etc.
> I think it was because he was getting pressure to institute "Freedom Curves"
> and "Freedom Kissing". :)
>
>
>
>
>
> a > wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 8:33?pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> > > Dave Doe wrote:
>
> > > ...>> There are places in the US where one would not say pitot in mixed
> > > >> company because you may be escorted out the door with a pitchfork.
> > > >> Been there, don't want to go back.
>
> > > > Why's that? Where's that? What does it mean "down there"? :)
>
> > > I could only think of the places that think of the fried articles as
> > > Freedom Fries
>
> > > Brian W
> > As a way off topic response, I live in North Carolina, home of "I bet
> > I can deep fry that". For proof, our State Fair is going on now, and
> > there are deep fried Coca Cola soaked breads, pickles, candy
> > bars, . . . * It might have been here that chicken fried steak was
> > invented: start with a great steak, coat it with bread crumbs, and fry
> > until well past well done.
> > The airspace above the Fair should be restricted -- it may be CAVU but
> > the vapors on your windscreen will make it actual IMC in the cockpit.
> > Of course, your engine will run rich, ingesting *a near explosive
> > mixture of air and grease vapor. And drag goes down too -- but be
> > careful exiting your low winged airplane, the traction you expect will
> > not be there: grease does that.
> > Close by are some of the better heart hospitals in the country.
> > Coincidence? I think not.
> > Now, back to the regularly scheduled program.
>
> --
> Don Poitras

Should the thread continue on this path, it will have to cross post to
cardiac or food groups. I'll have to look for the chocolate covered
deep fried bacon. Have you noticed the slicked down look and shiny
hair most people have as they return to their cars (which have been
under and over coated with rust proofing if they were parked downwind
in the fair (downwind makes this aviation related)). (note the nested
(()) -- programming habits die hard.

Do people still use French curves? Or even vellum? It's difficult
enough even buying graph paper these days.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:09:57 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote in
>:

>... (note the nested
>(()) -- programming habits die hard.

Note the missing closing paren at the end of that sentence.

I know from bitter experience what a missing paren or semicolon
does to code. :o(

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 21, 9:45*am, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" >
wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:09:57 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote in
> >:
>
> >... (note the nested
> >(()) -- programming habits die hard.
>
> Note the missing closing paren at the end of that sentence.
>
> I know from bitter experience what a missing paren or semicolon
> does to code. *:o(
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Marty
> --
> Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk..*
> Seehttp://www.big-8.orgfor info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

Glad you saw it -- you're validated as a programmer!!!

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2009-10-21, Martin X. Moleski, SJ > wrote:
> Note the missing closing paren at the end of that sentence.
>
> I know from bitter experience what a missing paren or semicolon
> does to code. :o(

But under normal circumstances, the compiler picks it up and stops
with a compile error.

On the other hand, writing "=" where you actually meant "==" can cause
a complete new world of hurt with some compilers :-)

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:13:53 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith > wrote in >:

>On 2009-10-21, Martin X. Moleski, SJ > wrote:
>> Note the missing closing paren at the end of that sentence.

>> I know from bitter experience what a missing paren or semicolon
>> does to code. :o(

>But under normal circumstances, the compiler picks it up and stops
>with a compile error.

And a kindly compiler or engine suggests what might have
gone wrong.

The painful times are when it reports the NEXT error caused
by the missing characters. :o(

>On the other hand, writing "=" where you actually meant "==" can cause
>a complete new world of hurt with some compilers :-)

BTDT, know what you mean. :-O

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:09:57 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote in
> >:
>
> >... (note the nested
> >(()) -- programming habits die hard.
>
> Note the missing closing paren at the end of that sentence.
>
> I know from bitter experience what a missing paren or semicolon
> does to code. :o(

Your sentence ends with an unbalanced paren too, you know!

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[-b-[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>Aircraft engines are unique, in that the driving force for dual ignition
>really is redundancy and the same performance--and that, with the edxception
>of redundancy, similar performance could be achieved by a very slight change
>in timing.
>
>OTOH, Wankel rotaries are simply unable to achieve the required flame
>propagation at high RPM without a second starting point; and a similar
>problem exists in some engines with dradically peaked pistons--which can be
>resolved by a second ignition system or, in some cases, by a channel bored
>across the crown of each piston.
>
>And, yes, a lot has been known since the 1940s that was not practical to
>implement at that time. Some of it still is not.
>



"Dradically" is a contraction for "Drastically" and "Radically"?
Sorry, couldn’t resist - don’t take it badly...

Your point is well taken about the inter-relation between combustion chamber
geometry and effectiveness/need for multiple sparking points.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:59 -0400, Mike Ash > wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:09:57 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >... (note the nested
>> >(()) -- programming habits die hard.
>>
>> Note the missing closing paren at the end of that sentence.
>>
>> I know from bitter experience what a missing paren or semicolon
>> does to code. :o(

>Your sentence ends with an unbalanced paren too, you know!

DOH! Good eyes! :-P

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:29:41 -0700 (PDT), a wrote:

> On Oct 18, 5:18*pm, Franklin <"Franklin >>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:48:26 -0700 (PDT), a wrote:
>>> On Oct 18, 2:24*pm, "vaughn" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "a" > wrote in message
>>
...
>>
>>>>>My hand stays on the mag switch throughout a mag check so I want to
>>>>>believe I won't forget to go back to both -- help us avoid making your
>>>>>mistake: do you remember what distracted you enough to leave it
>>>>>pointing to a single bank of plugs?
>>
>>>> I agree, no reason to take your hand off the switch, but things can still go
>>>> wrong! *I also took off on one mag once. *I don't think I actually forgot to
>>>> return the switch to "both", but just made a sloppy job of it and somehow
>>>> ended up with the switch not quite in the detent. *I still kick myself for
>>>> not aborting that takeoff. *It turned out to be a butt-puckering trip around
>>>> the patch. *I never did make it alll the way up to pattern height.
>>
>>>> Now I visually verify the position of the switch before leaving the runup
>>>> pad.
>>
>>>> Lesson learned!
>>
>>>> Vaughn
>>
>>> That's interesting. My primary flight instructor must have been burned
>>> by something like that, because my training (which did not include
>>> getting rapped across the knuckles with a stick -- that was from grade
>>> school days) was to focus on the tach, go from both to left, note the
>>> drop, back to both, see the tach get back to 1900, go to right, note
>>> the drop, go to both, see the tach get back to 1900, and only then let
>>> go of the mag switch.
>>
>>> He was the same guy who insisted controls like throttle and mixture
>>> should be pushed with the palm, pulled with curled fingers, and never
>>> grasped-- his point was that if can can only push or pull you are less
>>> apt to move something in the wrong direction. Some old habits are
>>> worth retaining. If he could have he would have replaced radio tuning
>>> knobs with paddles.
>>
>>> Would you say he was compulsive?
>>
>> No but he had a feckin' moron for a student.
>
> Thanks so much for your insight.

No problem, you need all the help you can get obviously.

> So far his moronic student had 3000
> safe odd hours in a complex single, so his instruction worked.

All while beating your meat and massaging your ego, quite a feat.

>You, on
> the other hand -- your remark is the QED of that -- clearly failed in
> social skills..

I agree to your social superiority, masturbation and ego stroking.

You win.

[Franklin[_7_]]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:33:22 -0700 (PDT), a wrote:

> Good habits are often validated in the real world.

Hammers hammer nails.

Your turn, a-ristotle.

[Ross]

a wrote:
> On Oct 20, 8:33 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>> Dave Doe wrote:
>>
>> ...>> There are places in the US where one would not say pitot in mixed
>>>> company because you may be escorted out the door with a pitchfork.
>>>> Been there, don't want to go back.
>>> Why's that? Where's that? What does it mean "down there"? :)
>> I could only think of the places that think of the fried articles as
>> Freedom Fries
>>
>> Brian W
>
> As a way off topic response, I live in North Carolina, home of "I bet
> I can deep fry that". For proof, our State Fair is going on now, and
> there are deep fried Coca Cola soaked breads, pickles, candy
> bars, . . . It might have been here that chicken fried steak was
> invented: start with a great steak, coat it with bread crumbs, and fry
> until well past well done.
>
> The airspace above the Fair should be restricted -- it may be CAVU but
> the vapors on your windscreen will make it actual IMC in the cockpit.
> Of course, your engine will run rich, ingesting a near explosive
> mixture of air and grease vapor. And drag goes down too -- but be
> careful exiting your low winged airplane, the traction you expect will
> not be there: grease does that.
>
> Close by are some of the better heart hospitals in the country.
> Coincidence? I think not.
>
> Now, back to the regularly scheduled program.
>

Not to be outdone, but the Texas State Fair just finished this year and
they, too, have deep fried stuff. This year they introduced deep fried
butter. Last year I think it was deep fried bacon. I still like the old
Fletcher's corny dog.



--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[Ross]

a wrote:
> On Oct 21, 7:06 am, (Don Poitras) wrote:
>> The new addition this year: Chocolate-covered bacon. Mmmmm...
>> And congressman Jones of "Freedom Fries" fame did eventually come
>> to his senses and Congress no longer has to eat "Freedom Toast", etc.
>> I think it was because he was getting pressure to institute "Freedom Curves"
>> and "Freedom Kissing". :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> a > wrote:
>>> On Oct 20, 8:33?pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>>>> Dave Doe wrote:
>>>> ...>> There are places in the US where one would not say pitot in mixed
>>>>>> company because you may be escorted out the door with a pitchfork.
>>>>>> Been there, don't want to go back.
>>>>> Why's that? Where's that? What does it mean "down there"? :)
>>>> I could only think of the places that think of the fried articles as
>>>> Freedom Fries
>>>> Brian W
>>> As a way off topic response, I live in North Carolina, home of "I bet
>>> I can deep fry that". For proof, our State Fair is going on now, and
>>> there are deep fried Coca Cola soaked breads, pickles, candy
>>> bars, . . . It might have been here that chicken fried steak was
>>> invented: start with a great steak, coat it with bread crumbs, and fry
>>> until well past well done.
>>> The airspace above the Fair should be restricted -- it may be CAVU but
>>> the vapors on your windscreen will make it actual IMC in the cockpit.
>>> Of course, your engine will run rich, ingesting a near explosive
>>> mixture of air and grease vapor. And drag goes down too -- but be
>>> careful exiting your low winged airplane, the traction you expect will
>>> not be there: grease does that.
>>> Close by are some of the better heart hospitals in the country.
>>> Coincidence? I think not.
>>> Now, back to the regularly scheduled program.
>> --
>> Don Poitras
>
> Should the thread continue on this path, it will have to cross post to
> cardiac or food groups. I'll have to look for the chocolate covered
> deep fried bacon. Have you noticed the slicked down look and shiny
> hair most people have as they return to their cars (which have been
> under and over coated with rust proofing if they were parked downwind
> in the fair (downwind makes this aviation related)). (note the nested
> (()) -- programming habits die hard.
>
> Do people still use French curves? Or even vellum? It's difficult
> enough even buying graph paper these days.

I am in an engineering department and I know there are new hires that
only use autoCAD. They no nothing else. How did we ever fly (aviation
related) men to the moon.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[-b-[_3_]]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:20:49 +0200, -b- wrote:
>
>> One question beginning pilots frequently ask, and rightly so, is given the
>> obvious performance effect of two functioning spark plugs per cylinder, why
do
>> automobile engines not adopt this?
>
>The failure of an auto engine is an apple compared to the failure of an
>aircraft engine, the orange. Why don't planes have ABS? And side impact
>airbags? And special fittings per fuel types at fuel feeds?
>

Except that we were talking about performance, not failures, which brings us
back to oranges and oranges.

[Peter Dohm]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-10-21, Martin X. Moleski, SJ > wrote:
>> Note the missing closing paren at the end of that sentence.
>>
>> I know from bitter experience what a missing paren or semicolon
>> does to code. :o(
>
> But under normal circumstances, the compiler picks it up and stops
> with a compile error.
>
> On the other hand, writing "=" where you actually meant "==" can cause
> a complete new world of hurt with some compilers :-)
>
LISP isn't really a complier, but...

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Peter Dohm schreef:
> LISP isn't really a complier, but...

I know those who'd call it a non-complier... };-)

[Blanche]

In article >,
a > wrote:
>
>As a way off topic response, I live in North Carolina, home of "I bet
>I can deep fry that". For proof, our State Fair is going on now, and
>there are deep fried Coca Cola soaked breads, pickles, candy
>bars, . . . It might have been here that chicken fried steak was
>invented: start with a great steak, coat it with bread crumbs, and fry
>until well past well done.
>
>The airspace above the Fair should be restricted -- it may be CAVU but
>the vapors on your windscreen will make it actual IMC in the cockpit.
>Of course, your engine will run rich, ingesting a near explosive
>mixture of air and grease vapor. And drag goes down too -- but be
>careful exiting your low winged airplane, the traction you expect will
>not be there: grease does that.
>
>Close by are some of the better heart hospitals in the country.
>Coincidence? I think not.
>
>Now, back to the regularly scheduled program.
>

Anyone here a "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!" fan? Remember the episode
with Paula Deen (and the infamous tofu segment?). The panelists were
chatting with Paula about her new line of furniture and one of the
panelists (Mo Rocca, maybe?) asked "How do you deep fry an ottoman?"

Without missing a beat she replied "Oh, it's easy, honey, you just
dip it in egg first...."

[Blanche]

Anyone here a "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!" fan? Remember the episode
with Paula Deen (and the infamous tofu segment?). The panelists were
chatting with Paula about her new line of furniture and one of the
panelists (Mo Rocca, maybe?) asked "How do you deep fry an ottoman?"

Without missing a beat she replied "Oh, it's easy, honey, you just
dip it in egg first...."

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 23, 11:08*pm, Blanche > wrote:
> Anyone here a "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!" fan? Remember the episode
> with Paula Deen (and the infamous tofu segment?). The panelists were
> chatting with Paula about her new line of furniture and one of the
> panelists (Mo Rocca, maybe?) asked "How do you deep fry an ottoman?"
>
> Without missing a beat she replied "Oh, it's easy, honey, you just
> dip it in egg first...."

how little she knows ".. dip in egg, then roll in bread crumbs:
crispy ottoman! Is more than one an ottomen?