Simulated Engine Outs

[BoDEAN]

In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine

[Greg Esres]

<<I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1 notch of flaps. Not as hard
on the engine>>

All of our trainers make it WELL past TBO, in spite of being brought
to idle all the time.

I'd be concerned that some of your trainees, when faced with a real
engine out, will throw in a notch of flaps.

[Bob Gardner]

News to me. In 30 years of instructing I never failed to simulate engine-out
in a single by any means other than going to idle; the Cherokees at the
school where I taught for 7 years routinely had their engines go to 2500
hours.

Bob Gardner

"BoDEAN" > wrote in message
...
> In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
> throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
> notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine
>
>

[Ditch]

>I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
>notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine

doing 60kts at idle isn't extremely hard on engines, either.
Now, if it is some super-duper turbo charged 350hp engine and you are cruising
at 200 IAS and pull the throttle to idle from a high power setting...there
might be some problems. At least that is what I have heard. Not something I
have experimented with.



-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[BTIZ]

you don't get much of an "engine out" at 1500RPM

sort of builds a false sense of security of the seemingly good glide ratio

BT

"BoDEAN" > wrote in message
...
> In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
> throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
> notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine
>
>

[Cub Driver]

>In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
>throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
>notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine

Crikey, the Cub will pretty much fly at 1500 rpm.

I bring it back to the stop. Then I goose it every couple or three
minutes--I've never noticed how frequently.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[EDR]

In article >, BoDEAN
> wrote:

> In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
> throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
> notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine

It's much more exciting to pull the mixture!

[Big John]

bodean

Probably one rational behind keeping engine warm is that if you go to
idle and glide a long time the engine will cool down. You then slap on
full power and the cylinders are hit with a high temperature all of a
sudden.

By keeping 1500 rpm and putting down partial flaps you simulate
aircraft performance with engine out for practice (and MAY reduce your
possibility of engine problems???)

However from posts on NG you see a number who just pull back to idle
to sim engine out practice with no problems.

Of course idle engine will not duplicate aircraft performance with
dead engine. 1500 rpm and the appropriate amount of flaps will give
you very close to actual performance if you lose the engine so you are
practicing like you will fly (a good thing) with dead engine.

I'm assuming you shoot for the middle of the field (landing area)
until you see you have it made and then slip off the excess altitude?

An ADVANCED method to lose the excess altitude is to slow the bird
down (behind the power curve) and pick up a high sink rate leaving
enough altitude to dump the nose to pick airspeed back up so you can
flare? Don't try this unless you know what you are doing.

So, youse kind of pays ur money and takes ur chances :o)

Big John



On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:38:53 -0500, BoDEAN >
wrote:

>In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
>throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
>notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine
>

[EDR]

In article >, Cub Driver
> wrote:

> >In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
> >throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
> >notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine

> Crikey, the Cub will pretty much fly at 1500 rpm.
> I bring it back to the stop. Then I goose it every couple or three
> minutes--I've never noticed how frequently.

John, you have to remember that modern instructors do not teach
"clearing the engine" as we were taught with the Champs, Cubs, etc.

[Dennis O'Connor]

I was demonstrating engine outs last sunday... Temp was about 4F... Taxiied
all the way in and shut down - and the blades went into feather on both
engines... <mutter mumble>..
Restarted <shaking, quaking and banging until the blades unfeathered> Ran
the engines up to 1500 to set the locks, idled, and then shut down...
*^(%#$@ blades feathered again... <really mutter, mumble and other anglo
saxon entreaties>
Started up again <shake, quake and rattle - entire airport now watching and
pointing> once the blades unfurled ran the engines up to full throttle for
20 seconds each, idled, and shut down... Stayed at flat pitch finally.. The
feathering pins were stiff in the cold and once retracted, the usual 800 rpm
not enough to sling them back out... Be careful about simulated this or
that in extreme temps..
denny

"Cub Driver" > wrote in > I bring it back to the
stop. Then I goose it every couple or three
> minutes--I've never noticed how frequently.
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford

[Anyone]

Go to idle but clear the engine every once in a while. I think I can limp
along half ass with 1500 rpm.



"BoDEAN" > wrote in message
...
> In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
> throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
> notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine
>
>

[Jim]

I'm going with BT on this one.... I know the post is about the potential for
engine damage, and I'm guessing that the people using this technique are
worried about shock cooling caused by the prop driving the engine and
forcing the engine to digest more cool air through it's cylinders than
normal.... just a guess... but I'd be more worried about what it teaches the
student. Think about it. Even at idle the engine is producing "some"
power. However you want to explain it, power either produces lift or
extends glide range. I'm not sure that 1 notch of flaps produces enough
drag to overcome the increased lift created by the 1500 rpms + flaps
configuration.
Just a thought. (But I'm on so much cold medicine I might not be thinking
to clearly)
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:nl_Wb.15852$IF1.7345@fed1read01...
> you don't get much of an "engine out" at 1500RPM
>
> sort of builds a false sense of security of the seemingly good glide ratio
>
> BT

[Michael]

Big John > wrote
> Probably one rational behind keeping engine warm is that if you go to
> idle and glide a long time the engine will cool down. You then slap on
> full power and the cylinders are hit with a high temperature all of a
> sudden.

That's probably the best rationale I've ever heard for 1500 RPM and
one notch of flaps. We all worry about shock cooling, but letting the
engine cool off and then pouring on the coals is a recipe for shock
heating. I might rethink the way I do this...

> Of course idle engine will not duplicate aircraft performance with
> dead engine.

No it won't. It's also a great recipe for icing up the carb. For
both those reasons, I usually pull the mixture to idle. That way you
get a true windmilling engine, and since no fuel is evaporating in the
carb there's no risk of ice.

1500 RPM is still very low power, and the chance for carb ice is still
there. Not sure whether I'd rather worry about shock heating the
cylinders or icing up the carb.

> So, youse kind of pays ur money and takes ur chances :o)

Yup.

Michael

[BTIZ]

recently there was a C-172 that ended up completing the "forced landing"
practice from a simulated engine failure... the "practice approach" was to a
dirt road in the local desert.. how ever.. and attempting the "go around /
aborted approach" at 50ft.. the engine coughed wheezed and died..

subject CFI took control of the aircraft and attempted to complete the
landing on the dirt road, lost control off to the side, (just how wide are
the landing gear in a C-172 and just how wide do you think a seemingly
single lane dirt road is)

any way, he lost it, turned turtle on him out in the desert, totaled,
insurance company attempted to refused payment for landing on a non-improved
landing area.. don't know the final out come.

Part of the accident investigation, the CFI had not been taught about
periodic "clearing" of the engine during a long glide.

BT
"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Cub Driver
> > wrote:
>
> > >In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
> > >throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
> > >notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine
>
> > Crikey, the Cub will pretty much fly at 1500 rpm.
> > I bring it back to the stop. Then I goose it every couple or three
> > minutes--I've never noticed how frequently.
>
> John, you have to remember that modern instructors do not teach
> "clearing the engine" as we were taught with the Champs, Cubs, etc.

[BTIZ]

I new and instructor that would move the single C-150 fuel shut off valve to
off in the traffic pattern, he did it once to many times, he was left
holding the valve handle.

BT

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, BoDEAN
> > wrote:
>
> > In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
> > throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
> > notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine
>
> It's much more exciting to pull the mixture!

[Mike O'Malley]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:jZfXb.16636$IF1.12161@fed1read01...
> I new and instructor that would move the single C-150 fuel shut off valve to
> off in the traffic pattern, he did it once to many times, he was left
> holding the valve handle.
>
> BT

Which is why I never fly without a Leatherman :-)

[Brian Burger]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, EDR wrote:

> In article >, Cub Driver
> > wrote:
>
> > >In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
> > >throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
> > >notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine
>
> > Crikey, the Cub will pretty much fly at 1500 rpm.
> > I bring it back to the stop. Then I goose it every couple or three
> > minutes--I've never noticed how frequently.
>
> John, you have to remember that modern instructors do not teach
> "clearing the engine" as we were taught with the Champs, Cubs, etc.

Really? I got my PPL in 2002, from an instructor who'd only being flying
for four years (yes, aviation's favourite whipping boy, the 21-year old
career-bound instructor...) and engine clearing every 1000ft or so was
absolutely standard procedure.

Some instructors might not teach it, but the club I'm with does at least.
(My instructor had been taught by our Chief Flight Instructor, who was
also my PPL flight test examiner...)

Brian.

[Dennis O'Connor]

Had there been a crash it would have been interesting to listen to him
explain to the fsdo inspector how he, singlehandedly, managed to trash a
perfectly good airplane...
As I mentioned prior in this thread, lets be careful out there...
denny
"Mike O'Malley" > wrote in message
...
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:jZfXb.16636$IF1.12161@fed1read01...
> > I new and instructor that would move the single C-150 fuel shut off
valve to
> > off in the traffic pattern, he did it once to many times, he was left
> > holding the valve handle.
> >
> > BT
>
> Which is why I never fly without a Leatherman :-)
>
>

[Robert Moore]

"BTIZ" > wrote

> I new and instructor that would move........

Was this supposed to read ?

"I knew an instructor...."

I wonder how some of our NG posters met FAR 61.103 ? :-)

Section 61.103: Eligibility requirements: General.
To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English
language.

Bob Moore

[BTIZ]

> Some instructors might not teach it, but the club I'm with does at least.
> (My instructor had been taught by our Chief Flight Instructor, who was
> also my PPL flight test examiner...)
>

That explains why he knows to clear the engine

[BTIZ]

I can pass that FAR.. the problem is connecting the mind to the phat
phingers on the computer keyboard.. and then trusting a spell checker..

so go pound sand..

BT

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 6...
> "BTIZ" > wrote
>
> > I new and instructor that would move........
>
> Was this supposed to read ?
>
> "I knew an instructor...."
>
> I wonder how some of our NG posters met FAR 61.103 ? :-)
>
> Section 61.103: Eligibility requirements: General.
> To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
> (c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English
> language.
>
> Bob Moore
>

[Dan Thomas]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> Big John > wrote
> > Probably one rational behind keeping engine warm is that if you go to
> > idle and glide a long time the engine will cool down. You then slap on
> > full power and the cylinders are hit with a high temperature all of a
> > sudden.
>
> That's probably the best rationale I've ever heard for 1500 RPM and
> one notch of flaps. We all worry about shock cooling, but letting the
> engine cool off and then pouring on the coals is a recipe for shock
> heating. I might rethink the way I do this...
>
> > Of course idle engine will not duplicate aircraft performance with
> > dead engine.
>
> No it won't. It's also a great recipe for icing up the carb. For
> both those reasons, I usually pull the mixture to idle. That way you
> get a true windmilling engine, and since no fuel is evaporating in the
> carb there's no risk of ice.

Carb heat should be the first thing applied when the engine
"quits." Carb icing is the most common cause of engine failure, and if
the pilot is a bit slow in pulling it, there won't be any heat left to
remove the ice. As it is, he'll be lucky to regain power. Some folks
aren't aware of decreasing RPM or manifold pressure until things get
real quiet.
Pulling mix to idle cutoff has caused several accidents in
Canada, and it's no longer part of the simulated forced approach.

Dan

[Andrew Sarangan]

You can simulate a engine out approach by adding just enough drag to
offset the engine rpm. In the Canadian PTS, this was specifically
mentioned as an acceptable practice. However, as others have pointed
out there is no clear evidence to support the shock cooling theory in
small aircraft. Some believe it exists, and some don't.

You have to do whatever you feel is necessary to safely simulate an
engine out approach. There is nothing wrong with leaving 1500 RPM and
using flaps. Even if you pull the power back completely, one can argue
that frequently clearing the engine unrealistically increases the
glide range. The effect of power on glide performance is not all that
different than the effects of wind. There are too many variables to
claim that one way is better than another. It all comes down to what
the pilot is comfortable with.





"BTIZ" > wrote in message news:<nl_Wb.15852$IF1.7345@fed1read01>...
> you don't get much of an "engine out" at 1500RPM
>
> sort of builds a false sense of security of the seemingly good glide ratio
>
> BT
>
> "BoDEAN" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
> > throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
> > notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine
> >
> >

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 6...
> "BTIZ" > wrote
>
> > I new and instructor that would move........
>
> Was this supposed to read ?
>
> "I knew an instructor...."
>
> I wonder how some of our NG posters met FAR 61.103 ? :-)
>
> Section 61.103: Eligibility requirements: General.
> To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:
> (c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English
> language.
>

Bob, you must unnderstan that their jus publik skool and collage studints.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:VorXb.16815$IF1.8472@fed1read01...
> I can pass that FAR.. the problem is connecting the mind to the phat
> phingers on the computer keyboard.. and then trusting a spell checker..

Can you connect your finegers to the controls of the aircraft?

>
> so go pound sand..

If you can't connect properly, you just might pound sand in a nose down
attitude.

[Brian Burger]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, BTIZ wrote:

> > Some instructors might not teach it, but the club I'm with does at least.
> > (My instructor had been taught by our Chief Flight Instructor, who was
> > also my PPL flight test examiner...)
> >
>
> That explains why he knows to clear the engine

Engine clearing is also mentioned explicitly as part of simulated engine
outs in Canadian training manuals.

As for my training arrangement, I really think I've lucked out. Having
heard so many horror stories on here and elsewhere about barely competent,
unsupervised instructors, shabbily run schools, and dodgy FBOs, it all
makes the Club seem even better. Our Chief Flight Instructor is usually a
DE as well, and trains most of the other instructors in the club; he
maintains the school side of the outfit to good standards. The business
side of the Club is equally well run - last weekend one of the new office
staff messed up a plane booking I phoned in, and the manager, without
hesitation, gave me a 30% discount on the next booking I made...

Brian.

[David CL Francis]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 at 23:19:07 in message
.ca>, Brian Burger
> wrote:
>Really? I got my PPL in 2002, from an instructor who'd only being flying
>for four years (yes, aviation's favourite whipping boy, the 21-year old
>career-bound instructor...) and engine clearing every 1000ft or so was
>absolutely standard procedure.

As it was also presented to me when I had flying lessons in 1954!

--
David CL Francis

[Travis Marlatte]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 at 23:19:07 in message
> .ca>, Brian Burger
> > wrote:
> >Really? I got my PPL in 2002, from an instructor who'd only being flying
> >for four years (yes, aviation's favourite whipping boy, the 21-year old
> >career-bound instructor...) and engine clearing every 1000ft or so was
> >absolutely standard procedure.
>
> As it was also presented to me when I had flying lessons in 1954!
>
> --
> David CL Francis

Clearing the engine when an airport is not at hand seems like a prudent
procedure. I have had instructors let me take it all the way to 200 feet
within a farmer's field - clearing the engine periodically all the way down.
Over an airport, throttle to idle all the way to touchdown. This combination
of training seems like a good combination to me.

-------------------------------
Travis

[C J Campbell]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Cub Driver
> > wrote:
>
> > >In small high wing planes (Ie 172, 152, 150) do you do/teach pulling
> > >throttle all the back to idel? I've been told bring it to 1500 RPM, 1
> > >notch of flaps. Not as hard on the engine
>
> > Crikey, the Cub will pretty much fly at 1500 rpm.
> > I bring it back to the stop. Then I goose it every couple or three
> > minutes--I've never noticed how frequently.
>
> John, you have to remember that modern instructors do not teach
> "clearing the engine" as we were taught with the Champs, Cubs, etc.

Well, yes they are. In fact, it is specifically mentioned in the commercial
pilot PTS in the United States. I think it should be taught to private
pilots as well.

[C J Campbell]

"Michael" > wrote in message
>
> That's probably the best rationale I've ever heard for 1500 RPM and
> one notch of flaps. We all worry about shock cooling

Actually, no we do not all worry about shock cooling. Neither do we all
worry about shock heating. Many highly respected pilots and mechanics
believe that shock cooling and shock heating are myths, at least for modern
aircraft engines. The manufacturers have also said that shock cooling and
shock heating should not be a problem -- of course, maybe they like to sell
replacement engines. :-)

I seriously doubt that shock cooling is much of a problem on training
aircraft, at least. These airplanes are subjected to all kinds of supposed
mistreatment, but their engines almost always make it to TBO.

[Andrew Sarangan]

(Dan Thomas) wrote in message >...
> (Michael) wrote in message >...
> > Big John > wrote
> > > Probably one rational behind keeping engine warm is that if you go to
> > > idle and glide a long time the engine will cool down. You then slap on
> > > full power and the cylinders are hit with a high temperature all of a
> > > sudden.
> >
> > That's probably the best rationale I've ever heard for 1500 RPM and
> > one notch of flaps. We all worry about shock cooling, but letting the
> > engine cool off and then pouring on the coals is a recipe for shock
> > heating. I might rethink the way I do this...
> >
> > > Of course idle engine will not duplicate aircraft performance with
> > > dead engine.
> >
> > No it won't. It's also a great recipe for icing up the carb. For
> > both those reasons, I usually pull the mixture to idle. That way you
> > get a true windmilling engine, and since no fuel is evaporating in the
> > carb there's no risk of ice.
>
> Carb heat should be the first thing applied when the engine
> "quits." Carb icing is the most common cause of engine failure, and if
> the pilot is a bit slow in pulling it, there won't be any heat left to
> remove the ice. As it is, he'll be lucky to regain power. Some folks
> aren't aware of decreasing RPM or manifold pressure until things get
> real quiet.
> Pulling mix to idle cutoff has caused several accidents in
> Canada, and it's no longer part of the simulated forced approach.
>
> Dan

Do you have the details of these accidents, or where one might find
them? It would be interesting to know the exact cause of the accident.

[d b]

I was taught that way. Full rich, carb heat, switch tanks, switch mags.
Unfortunately my only fully dead engine episode needed the
opposite solution. I didn't have time to figure it out, if I would have been
smart enough in the first place.

The carb float had sunk and the engine flooded on power to idle reduction. I
didn't know it. When I needed the power, no power. Full rich - wrong.
Switch mags - so what. Other tank - who cares. Carb heat -wrong.

If only I had pulled the mixture to lean and full throttle. Probably
wouldn't have helped - too low - the whole thing was under a minute
to touchdown.




In article >,
(Andrew Sarangan) wrote:
(Dan Thomas) wrote in message
> >...
>> (Michael) wrote in message
> >...
>> > Big John > wrote
>> > > Probably one rational behind keeping engine warm is that if you go to
>> > > idle and glide a long time the engine will cool down. You then slap on
>> > > full power and the cylinders are hit with a high temperature all of a
>> > > sudden.
>> >
>> > That's probably the best rationale I've ever heard for 1500 RPM and
>> > one notch of flaps. We all worry about shock cooling, but letting the
>> > engine cool off and then pouring on the coals is a recipe for shock
>> > heating. I might rethink the way I do this...
>> >
>> > > Of course idle engine will not duplicate aircraft performance with
>> > > dead engine.
>> >
>> > No it won't. It's also a great recipe for icing up the carb. For
>> > both those reasons, I usually pull the mixture to idle. That way you
>> > get a true windmilling engine, and since no fuel is evaporating in the
>> > carb there's no risk of ice.
>>
>> Carb heat should be the first thing applied when the engine
>> "quits." Carb icing is the most common cause of engine failure, and if
>> the pilot is a bit slow in pulling it, there won't be any heat left to
>> remove the ice. As it is, he'll be lucky to regain power. Some folks
>> aren't aware of decreasing RPM or manifold pressure until things get
>> real quiet.
>> Pulling mix to idle cutoff has caused several accidents in
>> Canada, and it's no longer part of the simulated forced approach.
>>
>> Dan
>
>Do you have the details of these accidents, or where one might find
>them? It would be interesting to know the exact cause of the accident.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Unfortunately my only fully dead engine episode needed the
opposite solution. [...] The carb float had sunk and the
engine flooded on power to idle reduction.
<<

One size never fits all.

>>
I didn't have time to figure it out, if I would have been
smart enough in the first place.
<<

What would it have taken to figure it out in flight? (other than time to try
all the other combinations that are not in the first response?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[d b]

At that point in my experience, I would never have figured it out.
I had never heard of such an occurence. Dumb luck might have
saved the day, assuming I had plenty of time to remember
to do everything, like turn the fuel off. But if I had followed what
is the "proper" off field landing check, I wouldn't have turned
off the fuel early enough to have a positive effect. Since then
there have been multiple times that haven't fit any past learning
or knowledge. It's called the school of hard knocks. Fortunately
they haven't hurt anybody or any thing. Today's young
instructors have a long way to go (at least 20 years) before they
get good. Variety counts for a lot more than hours and ratings.


In article >,
(Teacherjh) wrote:
>>>
>Unfortunately my only fully dead engine episode needed the
>opposite solution. [...] The carb float had sunk and the
> engine flooded on power to idle reduction.
><<
>
>One size never fits all.
>
>>>
>I didn't have time to figure it out, if I would have been
>smart enough in the first place.
><<
>
>What would it have taken to figure it out in flight? (other than time to try
>all the other combinations that are not in the first response?
>
>Jose
>

[Dennis O'Connor]

You are still talking to us, so it was a 'good' landing...
Mine was when a piston knocked a hole through the side of the jug and
proceeded to pump the oil overboard... Since then I prefer to fly twins...
denny
"d b" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I was taught that way. Full rich, carb heat, switch tanks, switch mags.
> Unfortunately my only fully dead engine episode needed the
> opposite solution. I didn't have time to figure it out, if I would have
been
> smart enough in the first place.
>
> The carb float had sunk and the engine flooded on power to idle reduction.
I
> didn't know it. When I needed the power, no power. Full rich - wrong.
> Switch mags - so what. Other tank - who cares. Carb heat -wrong.
>
> If only I had pulled the mixture to lean and full throttle. Probably
> wouldn't have helped - too low - the whole thing was under a minute
> to touchdown.
>
>
>
>
> In article >,
> (Andrew Sarangan) wrote:
> (Dan Thomas) wrote in message
> > >...
> >> (Michael) wrote in message
> > >...
> >> > Big John > wrote
> >> > > Probably one rational behind keeping engine warm is that if you go
to
> >> > > idle and glide a long time the engine will cool down. You then slap
on
> >> > > full power and the cylinders are hit with a high temperature all of
a
> >> > > sudden.
> >> >
> >> > That's probably the best rationale I've ever heard for 1500 RPM and
> >> > one notch of flaps. We all worry about shock cooling, but letting
the
> >> > engine cool off and then pouring on the coals is a recipe for shock
> >> > heating. I might rethink the way I do this...
> >> >
> >> > > Of course idle engine will not duplicate aircraft performance with
> >> > > dead engine.
> >> >
> >> > No it won't. It's also a great recipe for icing up the carb. For
> >> > both those reasons, I usually pull the mixture to idle. That way you
> >> > get a true windmilling engine, and since no fuel is evaporating in
the
> >> > carb there's no risk of ice.
> >>
> >> Carb heat should be the first thing applied when the engine
> >> "quits." Carb icing is the most common cause of engine failure, and if
> >> the pilot is a bit slow in pulling it, there won't be any heat left to
> >> remove the ice. As it is, he'll be lucky to regain power. Some folks
> >> aren't aware of decreasing RPM or manifold pressure until things get
> >> real quiet.
> >> Pulling mix to idle cutoff has caused several accidents in
> >> Canada, and it's no longer part of the simulated forced approach.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >
> >Do you have the details of these accidents, or where one might find
> >them? It would be interesting to know the exact cause of the accident.

[Michael]

"C J Campbell" > wrote
> Actually, no we do not all worry about shock cooling. Neither do we all
> worry about shock heating. Many highly respected pilots and mechanics
> believe that shock cooling and shock heating are myths, at least for modern
> aircraft engines.

First - we do not fly behind modern aircraft engines, at least in
trainers. Those engines are warmed-over 1950's (at best) technology.

Second, maybe those who are not worried about it should be. I know a
Bonanza pilot who didn't worry about it. He would routinely cut the
power way back for a rapid descent. I attempted to get him to stop,
but he just wasn't worried about it. Then he lost a jug on takeoff.
He's more careful now.

> The manufacturers have also said that shock cooling and
> shock heating should not be a problem -- of course, maybe they like to sell
> replacement engines. :-)

The manufacturers haven't had any engineering expertise worth
mentioning. And I bet what they like to sell are not replacement
engines (few people buy one) but replacement jugs. The bottom end
never really gets hot enough to be concerned, but the jugs sure do.

> I seriously doubt that shock cooling is much of a problem on training
> aircraft, at least. These airplanes are subjected to all kinds of supposed
> mistreatment, but their engines almost always make it to TBO.

How many of them make it to TBO without replacing a jug here and
there? None that I know of.

Michael

[Michael]

Bad form, I know. Lousy proofreading.

I said:

The manufacturers haven't had any engineering expertise worth
mentioning.

I meant to say:

The manufacturers haven't had any engineering expertise worth
mentioning for years.

Michael

[Robert Moore]

(Michael) wrote
> How many of them make it to TBO without replacing a jug here and
> there? None that I know of.

I and one other instructor flew a C-172N to overhaul (replacement)
twice with literally NO engine maintenance either time.
The secret to long engine life is daily operation and frequent oil
changes.

Bob Moore

[Dale]

In article >,
(Michael) wrote:


> Second, maybe those who are not worried about it should be. I know a
> Bonanza pilot who didn't worry about it. He would routinely cut the
> power way back for a rapid descent. I attempted to get him to stop,
> but he just wasn't worried about it. Then he lost a jug on takeoff.
> He's more careful now.

But what indicates that his descent procedure led to the cylinder
failure? Maybe he didn't warm the engine enough for takeoff, maybe he
didn't change oil often, perhaps he over-boosted the engine routinely.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[C J Campbell]

The only jug I ever lost was due to a leaky valve which lead to a cracked
cylinder.

Most engine maintenance seems to be caused by finding metal in the oil in
airplanes that do not fly much. Cylinder corrosion seems to be a much bigger
factor than shock cooling.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
> > Actually, no we do not all worry about shock cooling. Neither do we all
> > worry about shock heating. Many highly respected pilots and mechanics
> > believe that shock cooling and shock heating are myths, at least for
modern
> > aircraft engines.
>
> First - we do not fly behind modern aircraft engines, at least in
> trainers. Those engines are warmed-over 1950's (at best) technology.
>
> Second, maybe those who are not worried about it should be. I know a
> Bonanza pilot who didn't worry about it. He would routinely cut the
> power way back for a rapid descent. I attempted to get him to stop,
> but he just wasn't worried about it. Then he lost a jug on takeoff.
> He's more careful now.

How does that relate to shock cooling the engine?


http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182107-1.html

[Michael]

Dale > wrote
> But what indicates that his descent procedure led to the cylinder
> failure? Maybe he didn't warm the engine enough for takeoff, maybe he
> didn't change oil often, perhaps he over-boosted the engine routinely.

He could not overboost since it was not turboed.

I flew with him enough to know that he did not habitually take off
with a cold engine. I also know his mechanic, and thus know that he
did not skimp on maintenance, especially oil changes. But he was
sloppy about the descent procedures.

Do I KNOW that this caused the problem? Not really. But I know two
pilots who lost a jug on takeoff. He was one; the other flew a
jumpship owned by a non-pilot non-mechanic.

Michael

[Ron Natalie]

"Michael" > wrote in message m...

> Do I KNOW that this caused the problem? Not really. But I know two
> pilots who lost a jug on takeoff. He was one; the other flew a
> jumpship owned by a non-pilot non-mechanic.
>
I had a valve break and trash the hell out of the #6 cyl. It was the third flight
of the day (I was doing Young Eagles rides).

[Dale]

In article >,
(Michael) wrote:


> He could not overboost since it was not turboed.

Hmm. Try leaving the throttle in and pulling the prop back.

> Do I KNOW that this caused the problem? Not really. But I know two
> pilots who lost a jug on takeoff. He was one; the other flew a
> jumpship owned by a non-pilot non-mechanic.

You know 3 now. I lost a jug on a PW 1830 (a few minutes after takeoff
actually) and I can assure you that engine was never shock-cooled.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dennis O'Connor]

I lost a jug in level flight on a 65 hp engine - not possible to overboost
or shock cool... So, that's 4...
denny
"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Michael) wrote:
>
>
> > He could not overboost since it was not turboed.
>
> Hmm. Try leaving the throttle in and pulling the prop back.
>
> > Do I KNOW that this caused the problem? Not really. But I know two
> > pilots who lost a jug on takeoff. He was one; the other flew a
> > jumpship owned by a non-pilot non-mechanic.
>
> You know 3 now. I lost a jug on a PW 1830 (a few minutes after takeoff
> actually) and I can assure you that engine was never shock-cooled.
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk
>
> There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
> as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
> http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Michael]

Dale > wrote
> > He could not overboost since it was not turboed.
> Hmm. Try leaving the throttle in and pulling the prop back.

Never heard that called overboost, but OK. Never saw him do that
either.

> > Do I KNOW that this caused the problem? Not really. But I know two
> > pilots who lost a jug on takeoff. He was one; the other flew a
> > jumpship owned by a non-pilot non-mechanic.
>
> You know 3 now. I lost a jug on a PW 1830 (a few minutes after takeoff
> actually) and I can assure you that engine was never shock-cooled.

And the jug actually came off? When I say lost a jug, I do mean a
cylinder cracked and came off the engine.

I know LOTS of people who had stuck/munched valves.

Michael

[Dale]

In article >,
(Michael) wrote:



> And the jug actually came off? When I say lost a jug, I do mean a
> cylinder cracked and came off the engine.

Wow! I didn't realize you meant it literally. <G>

But yes, in my case the entire head came off the cylinder..only the
baffling kept it from going anywhere.

We didn't realize how bad it was...notice some smoke from the top of the
cowl on #4, reduced the throttle a bit and the smoke lessened a bit.
Instruments were all normal, was still putting out power..there was no
yaw. Returned for landing and the ground crew was looking at us kind of
funny as we taxied in...it was making a bunch of noise. <G> The piston
was beat up pretty bad, much longer and we would have started munching
the engine with debris going thru it.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html