Are You Flying a "Beater?"

[Jay Honeck]

AvWeb is reporting that "an alarming number of aircraft" are in poor
mechanical condition.

I must admit that their assessment matches my own observations. Some of the
planes I see regularly flying are almost scary -- and some of the planes
I've seen in hangars and on ramps I can only pray never take flight under
their own power.

As a renter, I flew planes that (on occasion) had doors that wouldn't latch,
lorans that didn't work, had sticky throttles, questionable radios, and
leaky fuel caps -- and those were just the defects I, as a new, renter
pilot, could detect. God only knows what was going on under the cowl.

I once flew a rental plane on a long cross-country that did not have any
valve cover gaskets installed on the right side of the engine. Oil covered
the plane, and scared the bejeesus out of us when we landed. (The A&P's
helper who "forgot" to install them was summarily fired for this, BTW.)

As an owner, I have endeavored to keep my planes pristine, with only the
best maintenance and accessories. IMHO, this is the only way to treat a
machine that carries my family several thousand feet into the sky -- yet, it
is obvious that there are many pilots and owners who don't see it that way.

I personally know a pilot who keeps his automobiles and motorcycles
maintained to perfection -- yet scrimps and cheats on his airplane
maintenance. He's an otherwise "normal" individual, yet he seems to take
pleasure in running his engine way over TBO, and flying around on upholstery
that has metal sticking through the mesh. His panel is mostly
non-functional, the paint is long gone, and all plastic parts are badly
cracked and chipped.

It's almost as if he feels like he's beating "the system" by scrimping like
this -- he likes to brag about how little it costs him to fly -- yet most of
us on the field just think he's acting irrationally.

How about it? Are *you* flying a "beater?" Or do you know anyone who
does? What's going on here?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> How about it? Are *you* flying a "beater?" Or do you know anyone who
> does? What's going on here?

Flying a beater is a false economy - or rather, it's a false economy to
skimp so it becomes a beater. The trouble is once it becomes a beater,
it's vicious circle - often it costs more to keep it running as a
marginal beater than it would cost if it had been kept in good condition
all along. Of course, the cost to turn a beater into a nice plane is so
high, once a plane's a beater, it's unlikely it will ever be anything
other than a beater.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Ken Ibold]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53...
> AvWeb is reporting that "an alarming number of aircraft" are in poor
> mechanical condition.
>
> I must admit that their assessment matches my own observations. Some of
the
> planes I see regularly flying are almost scary -- and some of the planes
> I've seen in hangars and on ramps I can only pray never take flight under
> their own power.

snip

> As an owner, I have endeavored to keep my planes pristine, with only the
> best maintenance and accessories. IMHO, this is the only way to treat a
> machine that carries my family several thousand feet into the sky -- yet,
it
> is obvious that there are many pilots and owners who don't see it that
way.

While I agree with your perceptions, keep in mind that the article focuses
on owners who THINK the airplane is sound, when it really isn't.

[EDR]

Keep in mind that not all owners can write off their aviation costs as
business expenses. ;-))

For many, the cost of ownership takes a good portion of their
disposable income just to cover the minimum annual charges (basic
annual, insurance, oil changes, tie-down/hangar) and is set aside as a
monthly budget item.
I suspect the rise of insurance and fuel costs in the past several
years has siphoned off some of the money that previously went toward
maintenance and repair.

[Jay Honeck]

> Keep in mind that not all owners can write off their aviation costs as
> business expenses. ;-))

True. But it 'tweren't always this way.

> For many, the cost of ownership takes a good portion of their
> disposable income just to cover the minimum annual charges (basic
> annual, insurance, oil changes, tie-down/hangar) and is set aside as a
> monthly budget item.

Understood. However, IMHO these things shouldn't be considered "optional."
Doing so is folly, as Dylan already pointed out -- and the risks are grave.

Finding the line between frugality and reckless disregard for basic
maintenance is not easy. But I've seen too many that have crossed that
line, IMHO.

From a renter's standpoint, the system can be stacked against you. As a
renter you have almost no leverage to make changes for the better. Sure,
you can bitch and turn in squawk sheets -- but in many communities there is
only one FBO, and one place to rent. If you don't like their maintenance,
you simply can't fly.

I suspect this fact has turned more renters into owners than any other
reason.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Don't be fooled by the outside appearance. I know several guys here who
take pride in the fact that their planes look like ****boxes. Bad or no
paint, crappy interior, etc. That's just how they like it. But they are in
perfect mechanical shape. And that's all that really matters.



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Cc7yc.29163$Sw.5688@attbi_s51...
> > Keep in mind that not all owners can write off their aviation costs as
> > business expenses. ;-))
>
> True. But it 'tweren't always this way.
>
> > For many, the cost of ownership takes a good portion of their
> > disposable income just to cover the minimum annual charges (basic
> > annual, insurance, oil changes, tie-down/hangar) and is set aside as a
> > monthly budget item.
>
> Understood. However, IMHO these things shouldn't be considered
"optional."
> Doing so is folly, as Dylan already pointed out -- and the risks are
grave.
>
> Finding the line between frugality and reckless disregard for basic
> maintenance is not easy. But I've seen too many that have crossed that
> line, IMHO.
>
> From a renter's standpoint, the system can be stacked against you. As a
> renter you have almost no leverage to make changes for the better. Sure,
> you can bitch and turn in squawk sheets -- but in many communities there
is
> only one FBO, and one place to rent. If you don't like their maintenance,
> you simply can't fly.
>
> I suspect this fact has turned more renters into owners than any other
> reason.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[[email protected]]

I treat/maintain our airplane just like my scuba gear..

Both "life support" systems....

Dave



On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:50:57 -0600, "Newps" >
wrote:

>Don't be fooled by the outside appearance. I know several guys here who
>take pride in the fact that their planes look like ****boxes. Bad or no
>paint, crappy interior, etc. That's just how they like it. But they are in
>perfect mechanical shape. And that's all that really matters.
>
>

[EDR]

In article >, Newps
> wrote:

> Don't be fooled by the outside appearance. I know several guys here who
> take pride in the fact that their planes look like ****boxes. Bad or no
> paint, crappy interior, etc. That's just how they like it. But they are in
> perfect mechanical shape. And that's all that really matters.

I was going to make a posting about shiny new paint jobs attracting
aircraft/parts/avionics thieves. Look out on the ramp, which would you
be more attracted to and think the better equipment? The one with the
nice shiny paint job? Or, the one with faded, flaking paint?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Newps
> > wrote:
>
> > Don't be fooled by the outside appearance. I know several guys here who
> > take pride in the fact that their planes look like ****boxes. Bad or no
> > paint, crappy interior, etc. That's just how they like it. But they
are in
> > perfect mechanical shape. And that's all that really matters.
>
> I was going to make a posting about shiny new paint jobs attracting
> aircraft/parts/avionics thieves. Look out on the ramp, which would you
> be more attracted to and think the better equipment? The one with the
> nice shiny paint job? Or, the one with faded, flaking paint?

I dunno...I was looking at a early 80's model F33 a while ago that was
pristine on the outside, and had an old analog DME on the inside.
mechanically it was okay.

[Jay Honeck]

> I dunno...I was looking at a early 80's model F33 a while ago that was
> pristine on the outside, and had an old analog DME on the inside.
> mechanically it was okay.

IMHO, it's sorta like gutters on a house. You can often tell more about a
home owner from his gutters than from his resume.

In my experience the outside of the plane usually matches the inside --
unless it's a new owner in the midst of upgrades.

Avionics are an entirely different animal. I've seen absolutely pristine
aircraft with totally antiquated, out-dated avionics, simply because that's
what the owner knows and feels most comfortable with. But I have yet to
find a bug-encrusted, oil-covered, bald-tired plane that wasn't questionable
mechanically.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Blanche]

I bought the cherokee not long after I soloed because I was
really worried about the rentals.

And no I don't skimp on safety. Cosmetics, yes. Safety and
comfort, no.

In the first year of ownership, I took these steps (in this order):
complete rebuild and recover the front 2 seats.
shoulder harnesses for the front and new seat belts in the back
hoerner wing tips
belly strobe (the plane, not me)

In the next couple years:
intercom (had the original A/B switch)
replaced the iffy narco with TKM
replaced the ok narco with SL30
new VOR/GS head (old one didn't work)

Last year
new ASI
overhauled VSI and AI
repaired the wind-up clock
replaced Bendix on starter (under warranty)

This year (so far...)
checked rigging (rudder *way* out of alignment and tension on cables)

Does it need paint? Yup. But that can wait. Does it need a new
interior? Not really. It's in surprisingly good shape (headliner almost
immaculate, no problems with any of the side panels). I just hate it.
It's the original barfy, 1969-era vinyl with fake plastic wood.

I use the same rules for the car and the airplane. Safety issues are
fixed immediately. Comfort, real fast (think summer in the
southwest -- fix that AC in the car NOW!). Cosmetics? Not even
under discussion for the time being.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ut9yc.67100$3x.53481@attbi_s54...
> > I dunno...I was looking at a early 80's model F33 a while ago that was
> > pristine on the outside, and had an old analog DME on the inside.
> > mechanically it was okay.
>
> IMHO, it's sorta like gutters on a house. You can often tell more about a
> home owner from his gutters than from his resume.
>
> In my experience the outside of the plane usually matches the inside --
> unless it's a new owner in the midst of upgrades.
>
> Avionics are an entirely different animal. I've seen absolutely pristine
> aircraft with totally antiquated, out-dated avionics, simply because
that's
> what the owner knows and feels most comfortable with. But I have yet to
> find a bug-encrusted, oil-covered, bald-tired plane that wasn't
questionable
> mechanically.

Yes...and another thing I saw was lots of nice paint jobs and redone
interiors, or nice Garmin packages. One F33A had a Garmin 530/430/327
upgrade, but the engine had been through two top end overhauls in 1500
hours. One had a recent replace with leather interior, and less than 1000
hours TTSN (a 1990) but the engine had metal in the oil filter and
compression was really low in one cylinder.

[NW_PILOT]

A flight school arround here buys wrecks / beaters fixes them to make them
airworthy, runs them out and then sells them. I got tired of rentals that
have paint falling off "In Sheets" and finding out that after 2 weeks a
landing light is still burn out and I will not be able to fly it for my
desired flight Or something someone else wrote down was marked off as
deferred to next inspection by the front counter "loose lock nut".

This problem was easily solved I purchased my own airplane and now I know
things will get done. I know when the airplane's oil has been changed and if
any maintenance issues are found i can have them fixed. I also know that
there was not a person just out flying it at redline on the tach. & bouncing
it off the runway on its nose wheel.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53...
> AvWeb is reporting that "an alarming number of aircraft" are in poor
> mechanical condition.
>
> I must admit that their assessment matches my own observations. Some of
the
> planes I see regularly flying are almost scary -- and some of the planes
> I've seen in hangars and on ramps I can only pray never take flight under
> their own power.
>
> As a renter, I flew planes that (on occasion) had doors that wouldn't
latch,
> lorans that didn't work, had sticky throttles, questionable radios, and
> leaky fuel caps -- and those were just the defects I, as a new, renter
> pilot, could detect. God only knows what was going on under the cowl.
>
> I once flew a rental plane on a long cross-country that did not have any
> valve cover gaskets installed on the right side of the engine. Oil
covered
> the plane, and scared the bejeesus out of us when we landed. (The A&P's
> helper who "forgot" to install them was summarily fired for this, BTW.)
>
> As an owner, I have endeavored to keep my planes pristine, with only the
> best maintenance and accessories. IMHO, this is the only way to treat a
> machine that carries my family several thousand feet into the sky -- yet,
it
> is obvious that there are many pilots and owners who don't see it that
way.
>
> I personally know a pilot who keeps his automobiles and motorcycles
> maintained to perfection -- yet scrimps and cheats on his airplane
> maintenance. He's an otherwise "normal" individual, yet he seems to take
> pleasure in running his engine way over TBO, and flying around on
upholstery
> that has metal sticking through the mesh. His panel is mostly
> non-functional, the paint is long gone, and all plastic parts are badly
> cracked and chipped.
>
> It's almost as if he feels like he's beating "the system" by scrimping
like
> this -- he likes to brag about how little it costs him to fly -- yet most
of
> us on the field just think he's acting irrationally.
>
> How about it? Are *you* flying a "beater?" Or do you know anyone who
> does? What's going on here?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> This problem was easily solved I purchased my own airplane and now I know
> things will get done. I know when the airplane's oil has been changed and
if
> any maintenance issues are found i can have them fixed. I also know that
> there was not a person just out flying it at redline on the tach. &
bouncing
> it off the runway on its nose wheel.

Agree 100%. Knowing your airplane's maintenance and flying history makes
owning worth all the headaches.

Just one nit: Running at "redline" in a light aircraft isn't the same as in
your car. Aircraft engines turn very slowly, by comparison, and "red line"
is set conservatively low. Continuous operation at full throttle burns a
lot of gas, but it isn't unsafe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Just one nit: Running at "redline" in a light aircraft isn't the same as in
> your car. Aircraft engines turn very slowly, by comparison, and "red line"
> is set conservatively low. Continuous operation at full throttle burns a
> lot of gas, but it isn't unsafe.

Your not qualified to make this sort of statement.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Just one nit: Running at "redline" in a light aircraft isn't the same as in
> your car. Aircraft engines turn very slowly, by comparison, and "red line"
> is set conservatively low.

No, it's not set "conservatively" low. Because aircraft engines turn slowly, the
valve springs are much lighter than those used in auto engines. This allows the
manufacturers to also build the rest of the valve train much lighter. Because the
entire system is lighter, the valves will begin to float at a much lower rpm than is
typical for cars. Both aircraft and auto tachometer redlines are set low enough to
allow proper fucntioning and avoid damage to the valve train. There's about the same
amount of safety factor in both cases.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Jack]

Jay Masino wrote:

> Jay Honeck > wrote:

>> Continuous operation at full throttle...isn't unsafe.

> Your not qualified to make this sort of statement.

What are your qualifications to make that accusation?

Are you saying that you could not safely operate your Cherokee 140 at continuous
full throttle safely?

If so, you must cruise at very low altitudes. I would expect full throttle at
normal cruise altitudes to give you 75-65% power, and less in the warmer weather.



Jack

[Gene Seibel]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53>...

> How about it? Are *you* flying a "beater?" Or do you know anyone who
> does? What's going on here?

Ours needs paint and looks pretty rough on the outside, but everything
works. I trust it completely. It flys and flys and never lets us down.
Next week the windshield and glazed pilot side window are being
replaced as well a several items under the cowling. We may have it
painted someday when we can comfortabley afford it, however, we're not
in a hurry to sink a lot of money into making it look like a show
plane so we can whine about what it costs to fly. Those who see us fly
will simply have to remain unimpressed.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Jay Masino]

Jack > wrote:
> What are your qualifications to make that accusation?

My engineering degree PLUS over 12 years of working side by side with my
mechanic and disassembling/re-assembling nearly every major component in
my plane.

> Are you saying that you could not safely operate your Cherokee 140 at continuous
> full throttle safely?

The implication was operating at or above redline. It might be safe or it
might be "somewhat less" than safe. Jay can't claim that it's completely
safe. There are young pilots reading these newsgroups and it's not
prudent to make these sorts of claims. Someone might follow his claim and
go out and get themselves hurt.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Masino]

G.R. Patterson III > wrote:
> No, it's not set "conservatively" low. Because aircraft engines turn slowly, the
> valve springs are much lighter than those used in auto engines. This allows the
> manufacturers to also build the rest of the valve train much lighter. Because the
> entire system is lighter, the valves will begin to float at a much lower rpm than is
> typical for cars. Both aircraft and auto tachometer redlines are set low enough to
> allow proper fucntioning and avoid damage to the valve train. There's about the same
> amount of safety factor in both cases.


Exactly. I also think the rotating assembly (crank, rods, pistons) are
not balanced well enough to operate for any extended time at or above
redline, especially when you consider the large tolerances of an air
cooled engine.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Michael]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
> AvWeb is reporting that "an alarming number of aircraft" are in poor
> mechanical condition.

Yes - the ones owned by people who really don't know enough to do
their own maintenance, but spend plenty and truly believe their
airplane is in great shape. Sound like anyone you know?

> He's an otherwise "normal" individual, yet he seems to take
> pleasure in running his engine way over TBO

You mean like Mike Busch?
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/187037-1.html

> and flying around on upholstery that has metal sticking through the mesh.

Since when is upholstery safety critical? Personally, I consider it
the last thing to worry about.

> His panel is mostly non-functional

Does he fly IFR? If not, what does he need a panel for?

> the paint is long gone, and all plastic parts are badly
> cracked and chipped.

See above comment on upholstery.

The worst piece-of-junk planes I've ever seen for sale had new paint
and upholstery - with serious engine and airframe problems. The best
buys out there are planes with lousy paint and upholstery - but
otherwise in good condition. In fact, when you see a plane for sale
with new paint and upholstery, more than likely you're looking at a
polished turd.

With airplanes especially, you can't judge a book by its cover.

Michael

[Dan Luke]

"Michael" wrote:
> In fact, when you see a plane for sale
> with new paint and upholstery, more than likely
> you're looking at a polished turd.

Hee-hee! Truth!

And beware of airplanes for sale with 0 hours SMOH, too.

My airplane is really starting to look seedy, since I've been unwilling
to spend a nickel on cosmetics until I'm confident that my engine woes
of the last two years are really over. Someone looking at '87 Delta
might conclude that her owner doesn't give a damn about maintaining his
airplane, but it ain't so: she's in prime running shape.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jack]

Masino wrote:

> The implication was operating at or above redline.

All those years as an engineer and you choose to communicate by implication
instead of by specific well-defined terms?

Nobody advocates operation above redline, as I expect the poster you criticize
will agree. Though the practicality of continuous operation at redline would
best be determined by reference to the POH for a given engine/aircraft
combination, the poster's implied confidence in aircraft engines is not
misplaced -- they do, however, require some understanding and appreciation for
their needs.

The statement, "Continuous operation at full throttle...isn't unsafe", is not
untrue WRT to light aircraft with which I have had experience. I'd wager that
your 140 is rarely able to achieve tach redline at full throttle in level
flight, that you could certainly operate it at full throttle continuously and in
fact would need to do so in takeoff, climb, and cruise to achieve book
parameters, except at low altitudes in cool weather.


> There are young pilots reading these newsgroups and it's not
> prudent to make these sorts of claims.

Since the "young pilots" about whom you are concerned are unlikely to be
operating high performance aircraft without training beyond that required to
deal with the rigors of piloting a Cherokee 140, your concern is probably
misplaced. If you are worried about neophytes misapplying poorly understood NG
snippets you might make a more worthy contribution by not taking shortcuts in
your own posts.


> Someone might follow his claim and go out and get themselves hurt.

Since one is at least as likely to get hurt by being reluctant to use a high
power setting as by using too much power, why not recommend complete
familiarization with the operating manual for one's specific aircraft, as well
as supporting documentation. Helping out around your A/P's shop, coupled with an
electronic engineering background, doesn't qualify you as anything other than
just another know-it-all engineer, and not an aviation authority.


From the original post which you criticized:

>> Running at "redline" in a light aircraft
>> isn't the same as in your car.

PROBABLY TRUE.


>> Aircraft engines turn very slowly, by comparison,
>> and "red line" is set conservatively low.

MAYBE.


>> Continuous operation at full throttle
>> burns a lot of gas, but it isn't unsafe.

TRUE, IN VERY MANY CASES.


Would you care to take on these points a bit more circumspectly, or do you still
maintain that those who ruffle your feathers must be unqualified?



Jack

[Edward Todd]

In article <nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>..... He's an otherwise "normal" individual, yet he seems to take
> pleasure in running his engine way over TBO


As a non-owner ... but hope to be one day ... let me ask.

What is the deal with TBO? What do the regs say about it? I hear of
people running past it ... so is it not a legal issue? I wouldn't do it
for safety reasons ... but is it legal to run a 2000hour TBO engine up
to 5000 hours as long as it still passes the annual?

Edward

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Edward Todd" > wrote in message
...
> In article <nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> >..... He's an otherwise "normal" individual, yet he seems to take
> > pleasure in running his engine way over TBO
>
>
> As a non-owner ... but hope to be one day ... let me ask.
>
> What is the deal with TBO? What do the regs say about it? I hear of
> people running past it ... so is it not a legal issue? I wouldn't do it
> for safety reasons ... but is it legal to run a 2000hour TBO engine up
> to 5000 hours as long as it still passes the annual?
>

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/187037-1.html

/excerpt on

April 14, 2004

The Savvy Aviator #4: Debunking TBO

By Mike Busch


Engine TBO (time between overhauls) seems to be one of the most
misunderstood concepts in aviation maintenance. There are lots of
TBO-related old wives tales that are widely believed by owners and mechanic
alike, and they can cost owners a great deal of money. Mike Busch endeavors
to clear up these misconceptions, and explain what TBO really means

/excerpt off

(I'm not sure the annual checks for engine internal condition)

Tom
--
"Real science doesn't work on consensus.
It works on contention. When a new fact
is announced, it is attacked voraciously
from all sides and corners. If it holds up,
and proves to be true, it is then, and only
then, accepted as a fact.

With real science, you don't need
consensus. Only facts. " - Dave Hitt

[Bill Denton]

First, allow me to repost your quote from Dave Hitt:

"Real science doesn't work on consensus. It works on contention. When a new
fact is announced, it is attacked voraciously from all sides and corners.
If it holds up, and proves to be true, it is then, and only then, accepted
as a fact.

With real science, you don't need consensus. Only facts. " - Dave Hitt


It's an interesting quote, but it's totally wrong! Without consensus there
would be no facts; there would only be individual scientists offering their
own, frequently differing opinions.

There is a generally accepted distance between Earth and the moon (roughly a
quarter of a million miles). This would generally be described as a "fact".
But no one has ever taken a ruler and actually measured that distance.

What has been done is a method of measuring distances has been developed,
and introduced to the scientific community. Then, as Mr. Hitt noted, the
scientific community takes a run at the method and attempts to discredit it.
But eventually, a consensus will develop that the method is valid. The
distance to the moon is then measured by that method and that distance
replaces the old distance as a fact.

So facts are almost totally the result of consensus...



"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward Todd" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53>,
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >
> > >..... He's an otherwise "normal" individual, yet he seems to take
> > > pleasure in running his engine way over TBO
> >
> >
> > As a non-owner ... but hope to be one day ... let me ask.
> >
> > What is the deal with TBO? What do the regs say about it? I hear of
> > people running past it ... so is it not a legal issue? I wouldn't do it
> > for safety reasons ... but is it legal to run a 2000hour TBO engine up
> > to 5000 hours as long as it still passes the annual?
> >
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/187037-1.html
>
> /excerpt on
>
> April 14, 2004
>
> The Savvy Aviator #4: Debunking TBO
>
> By Mike Busch
>
>
> Engine TBO (time between overhauls) seems to be one of the most
> misunderstood concepts in aviation maintenance. There are lots of
> TBO-related old wives tales that are widely believed by owners and
mechanic
> alike, and they can cost owners a great deal of money. Mike Busch
endeavors
> to clear up these misconceptions, and explain what TBO really means
>
> /excerpt off
>
> (I'm not sure the annual checks for engine internal condition)
>
> Tom
> --
> "Real science doesn't work on consensus.
> It works on contention. When a new fact
> is announced, it is attacked voraciously
> from all sides and corners. If it holds up,
> and proves to be true, it is then, and only
> then, accepted as a fact.
>
> With real science, you don't need
> consensus. Only facts. " - Dave Hitt
>
>
>
>

[EDR]

In article >,
Edward Todd > wrote:

> What is the deal with TBO? What do the regs say about it? I hear of
> people running past it ... so is it not a legal issue? I wouldn't do it
> for safety reasons ... but is it legal to run a 2000hour TBO engine up
> to 5000 hours as long as it still passes the annual?


TBO is a reference established by the manufacturer for certification.
If you run an engine the way the factory did it, you will get the wear
as measured by the manufacturer.
In reality, there are many different ways to operate and engine. These
many different methods of operation will result in different wear
patterns. Some methods will allow you to go beyond TBO, others will
significantly reduce your TBO.
ie... Lycoming AEIO-540 in aerobatic service have a TBO of 1200 hours.
In the real world of aerobatic use, 600-700 is normal. When you go from
full throttle to idle with great rapidity in a 15 minute practice or
competition sequence, you are not operating the engine the same way the
factory did to establish the TBO.
Take that same engine and run it in a Cherokee Six, Cessna 210, or
Beech Bonanza, baby it, and you will go most likely go well beyond 1200
hours.

[Jay Honeck]

> Would you care to take on these points a bit more circumspectly, or do you
still
> maintain that those who ruffle your feathers must be unqualified?

Thanks, Jack. Nice rebuttal, but certainly more thorough and over-arching
than the post required. (The proverbial "kill a gnat with a hammer"
rebuttal is always fun to read, however!)

Masino likes to primp his gee-whiz engineering degree around once in a
while, as if it has anything to do with aircraft piloting or ownership.
He'll blow himself out in a few more posts, and then move on to the next
thing that bothers.

"And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming..."

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> First, allow me to repost your quote from Dave Hitt:
>
> "Real science doesn't work on consensus. It works on contention. When a
new
> fact is announced, it is attacked voraciously from all sides and corners.
> If it holds up, and proves to be true, it is then, and only then, accepted
> as a fact.
>
> With real science, you don't need consensus. Only facts. " - Dave Hitt
>
>
> It's an interesting quote, but it's totally wrong! Without consensus there
> would be no facts;

Fact exist independant of consensus. What's your subscribe to is called
"subjectivism" (reality exists in in mind, not independant of human
"perception").

> there would only be individual scientists offering their
> own, frequently differing opinions.

And those opinions are based on...what?

> There is a generally accepted distance between Earth and the moon (roughly
a
> quarter of a million miles). This would generally be described as a
"fact".
> But no one has ever taken a ruler and actually measured that distance.

Not a ruler, but they've used lasers that are accurate to wintin a few
inches. That was one of the pieces of equipment left behind by one of the
Apollo missions.

>
> What has been done is a method of measuring distances has been developed,
> and introduced to the scientific community. Then, as Mr. Hitt noted, the
> scientific community takes a run at the method and attempts to discredit
it.
> But eventually, a consensus will develop that the method is valid.

There's been a lot of "consensus" by the scientifc community over the
centuries, often wrong. Often completely wrong.

> The
> distance to the moon is then measured by that method and that distance
> replaces the old distance as a fact.

You replace the method, not the "facts".

> So facts are almost totally the result of consensus...

Sigh....and the consensus' mentioned above?

Your "reasoning" is cyclical.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I must admit that their assessment matches my own observations. Some of the
> planes I see regularly flying are almost scary -- and some of the planes
> I've seen in hangars and on ramps I can only pray never take flight under
> their own power.

How do you know anything about their mechanical condition? Outside of my own aircraft
and two planes that have not had air in the tires for years, I know absolutely zilch
about what's been done to any aircraft at Old Bridge. I'd bet you don't know much
more about any at Iowa City. So far, it sounds like you're assuming that lousy paint
means lousy mechanicals as well. That's not a good assumption.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[The CheckerBird]

On 11 Jun 2004 08:04:53 -0700, (Gene Seibel) wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<nN_xc.23080$HG.
18275@attbi_s53>...
>
>> How about it? Are *you* flying a "beater?" Or do you know anyone who
>> does? What's going on here?
>
>Ours needs paint and looks pretty rough on the outside, but everything
>works. I trust it completely. It flys and flys and never lets us down.
>Next week the windshield and glazed pilot side window are being
>replaced as well a several items under the cowling. We may have it
>painted someday when we can comfortabley afford it, however, we're not
>in a hurry to sink a lot of money into making it look like a show
>plane so we can whine about what it costs to fly. Those who see us fly
>will simply have to remain unimpressed.

The CheckerBird has pretty rough paint and interior too, Most folks first visual
impression is probably that she is a "beater" but mechanically she's in very
good shape. She's so dependable that I have no apprehension to fly her cross
country at night as long as the weather is good! :-)

Every piece of equipment on the plane works too. Nothing is INOP.
I too, will not be pouring any money into new paint and interior, unless I win
the lotto or something.

In fact, I must sadly report that I must put her up for sale soon, so if anyone
out there needs a good dependable older Cherokee 140 that, although has a bit
high hours on the airframe (6045), but only has 650 on the engine and prop, let
me know.

She'll make a great timebuilder for another new pilot's first airplane on a
working man's budget as she's been for me. Or a new paint and interior would
make her into a fine looking ship. She's already dependable, structurally &
mechanically sound, and a pleasure to fly.

Neal Howard
(CheckerBird's

--
Use our news server 'news.foorum.com' from anywhere.
More details at: http://nnrpinfo.go.foorum.com/

[Blanche]

Michael > wrote:
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> and flying around on upholstery that has metal sticking through the mesh.
>
>Since when is upholstery safety critical? Personally, I consider it
>the last thing to worry about.

Obviously you've never spent any length of time flying in seats with no
padding under or behind you, and didn't mind the bruise in the shape
of the metal frame remaining on your lower anatomy for 3 days.

When I'm unhappy after 3 hours of flying in what is less comfortable
than a stadium bench, it is definitely a safety issue!

[Jay Honeck]

> Obviously you've never spent any length of time flying in seats with no
> padding under or behind you, and didn't mind the bruise in the shape
> of the metal frame remaining on your lower anatomy for 3 days.
>
> When I'm unhappy after 3 hours of flying in what is less comfortable
> than a stadium bench, it is definitely a safety issue!

I had not considered seats in that way, but -- now that you mention it --
one of the best safety-related upgrades we have made to our plane has been
to have the seats re-padded and upholstered.

We used to be uncomfortable in an hour, and in agony after three. Now, we
can fly all day without noticing, and arrive in the pattern fresh.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> How do you know anything about their mechanical condition? Outside of my
own aircraft
> and two planes that have not had air in the tires for years, I know
absolutely zilch
> about what's been done to any aircraft at Old Bridge. I'd bet you don't
know much
> more about any at Iowa City. So far, it sounds like you're assuming that
lousy paint
> means lousy mechanicals as well. That's not a good assumption.

Well, I'm fairly well plugged into the pilot community here, and I can tell
you which hangar doors open weekly, monthly, or not at all.

Of course, the latter type can *look* pristine, but are probably junk after
months (years?) of inactivity. Thus, they are "pretty beaters"...

You're right -- you can't always judge a book by its cover.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Neal]

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 11 Jun 2004 08:04:53 -0700, (Gene Seibel) wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53>...
>
>> How about it? Are *you* flying a "beater?" Or do you know anyone who
>> does? What's going on here?
>
>Ours needs paint and looks pretty rough on the outside, but everything
>works. I trust it completely. It flys and flys and never lets us down.
>Next week the windshield and glazed pilot side window are being
>replaced as well a several items under the cowling. We may have it
>painted someday when we can comfortabley afford it, however, we're not
>in a hurry to sink a lot of money into making it look like a show
>plane so we can whine about what it costs to fly. Those who see us fly
>will simply have to remain unimpressed.

The CheckerBird has pretty rough paint and interior too, Most folks'
first visual impression is probably that she is a "beater" but
mechanically she's in very good shape. She's so dependable that I have
no apprehension to fly her cross country at night as long as the
weather is good! :-)

Every piece of equipment on the plane works too. Nothing is INOP.
I too, will not be pouring any money into new paint and interior,
unless I win the lotto or something.

In fact, I must sadly report that I must put her up for sale soon, so
if anyone out there needs a good dependable older Cherokee 140 that,
although has a bit high hours on the airframe (6045), but only has 650
on the engine and prop, let me know.

She'll make a great timebuilder for another new pilot's first airplane
on a working man's budget as she's been for me. Or a new paint and
interior would make her into a fine looking ship. She's already
dependable, structurally & mechanically sound, and a pleasure to fly.

Neal Howard
(CheckerBird's

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[Jay Honeck]

> In fact, I must sadly report that I must put her up for sale soon, so
> if anyone out there needs a good dependable older Cherokee 140 that,
> although has a bit high hours on the airframe (6045), but only has 650
> on the engine and prop, let me know.

Say it ain't so! You can't let the Checkerbird go!

In fact, I was hoping you were going to fly it into Osage Beach next
weekend, for the National Cherokee Fly-In. I'll bet you'd win some sort of
an award!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Cub Driver]

>you could certainly operate it at full throttle continuously and in
>fact would need to do so in takeoff, climb, and cruise to achieve book
>parameters,

I was taught to keep my hand on the throttle, to keep it against the
stop, until I reached 1,000 feet, at which point I could release (but
not retard) the throttle.

However, it is far from full throttle at cruise, and the tach never
reaches redline in a climb.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[EDR]

In article >, Blanche
> wrote:

> Michael > wrote:
> >"Jay Honeck" > wrote
> >> and flying around on upholstery that has metal sticking through the mesh.
> >
> >Since when is upholstery safety critical? Personally, I consider it
> >the last thing to worry about.
>
> Obviously you've never spent any length of time flying in seats with no
> padding under or behind you, and didn't mind the bruise in the shape
> of the metal frame remaining on your lower anatomy for 3 days.
> When I'm unhappy after 3 hours of flying in what is less comfortable
> than a stadium bench, it is definitely a safety issue!

In a Champ, the cushions are removable, setting atop a piece of plywood.
The "standard" foam cushion provides padding for less than two hours of
comfort before ones legs go numb.

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:32:41 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

> You're right -- you can't always judge a book by its cover.

That's true, my plane is in good shape except for the paint on it which
looks poor. But it's in a hangar and doesn't sit outside and isn't
getting worse.

I wanted a plane in good shape that had not been repainted so that if and
when I wanted to paint it I would know it was done right and not just a
scuff and shoot job so many get.

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Masino likes to primp his gee-whiz engineering degree around once in a
> while, as if it has anything to do with aircraft piloting or ownership.
> He'll blow himself out in a few more posts, and then move on to the next
> thing that bothers.

My degree is significant because we're trained to analyze technical issues
far better than some dumb ass english major. In these types of posts I
generally refer to my years of experience working on actual airplanes,
too.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Masino]

Jack > wrote:
>> The implication was operating at or above redline.
> All those years as an engineer and you choose to communicate by implication
> instead of by specific well-defined terms?

Honeck changed from the term "redline" to the term "full throttle", but it
is obvious that he was refering to the same thing.

My main objection is that operating in this manner "might" or "might
not" be safe, depending on the aircraft and it's not appropriate to make
the general statement that's it's safe. As I said, there might be young
pilots reading this newsgroup that will take this advice to heart.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Honeck changed from the term "redline" to the term "full throttle", but it
> is obvious that he was refering to the same thing.

Interesting inference.

Just curious -- other than diving steeply, or misadjusting the prop pitch,
how does one operate an aircraft above redline?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> My degree is significant because we're trained to analyze technical issues
> far better than some dumb ass english major.

Your degree -- or any degree, for that matter -- pales into insignificance
five years after graduating from college. What matters here is airplane
experience.

Somehow you've determined that operating an aircraft -- specifically a
Piper/Cessna/Beech/Cirrus spam can -- at full power is potentially
dangerous. I'd be interested to hear your evidence behind this assertion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Edward Todd]

In article >,
"Bill Denton" > wrote:

> There is a generally accepted distance between Earth and the moon (roughly a
> quarter of a million miles). This would generally be described as a "fact".
> But no one has ever taken a ruler and actually measured that distance.
>

One of the Apollo missions left a special prism like mirror set up on
the moon. They then bounced a laser off of it from Earth and were able
to measure the distance with extreme accuracy ( have to look it up but
memory says within a millimeter or so) ... at least the distance at that
particular moment in time (not a perfect circular orbit).


Edward

[Bill Denton]

And you are perfectly making my point...

The only way we could be assured of the laser's accuracy would be to first
measure it with some sort of ruler, then compare the laser with the ruler
measurement. This has not yet been done.

In the US, we have an agency called something like the National Bureau Of
Standards. It's been years, so forgive any minor errors, but at that bureau
they have such things as a metal bar exactly one foot long, a metal weight
that weighs exactly one pound, and similar objects, These objects are made
of various metals and alloys to as best as possible minimize the effects of
expansion and contraction and similar effects.

These are the items that define the various weights and measures we use in
our country; other objects are compared to these to ensure their accuracy.

Now let's look at our laser device...

Something like a laser measuring device (for the purposes we are discussing
here) will be used to measure the distance to something that has been placed
one mile away by a ruler (or similar device). Then it will be used to
measure the distance to something that has been placed ten miles away by a
ruler (or similar device). And this might continue until the curvature of
the earth prohibits additional measurements.

So let's loop back to the original discussion, which had to do with facts
versus consensus.

Our laser measuring device will be examined by various scientists, the
theory behind it will be scrutinized, the testing methodology and results
will be examined, and eventually the scientists will come to a CONSENSUS
that this laser device can accurately measure 250,000 miles. And that's
fine, it probably will be more accurate than previous measurements. But you
will notice that every time a new measurement method comes into play the
distance changes.

But with our metal bar from the NBS, no consensus as to it's accuracy is
required. As it defines the measure, it is defacto correct.






"Edward Todd" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Bill Denton" > wrote:
>
> > There is a generally accepted distance between Earth and the moon
(roughly a
> > quarter of a million miles). This would generally be described as a
"fact".
> > But no one has ever taken a ruler and actually measured that distance.
> >
>
> One of the Apollo missions left a special prism like mirror set up on
> the moon. They then bounced a laser off of it from Earth and were able
> to measure the distance with extreme accuracy ( have to look it up but
> memory says within a millimeter or so) ... at least the distance at that
> particular moment in time (not a perfect circular orbit).
>
>
> Edward

[Bob Noel]

In article <lpGyc.36967$Sw.27358@attbi_s51>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> Just curious -- other than diving steeply, or misadjusting the prop
> pitch,
> how does one operate an aircraft above redline?

If I'm not careful, my 160hp 140 will redline after take-off.

--
Bob Noel

[Teacherjh]

>> eventually the scientists will come to a CONSENSUS

but this consensus is not what makes something fact. And it is still
"falsifiable" - that is, susceptible to other experiments that could prove the
conclusion wrong.

>>
But with our metal bar from the NBS, no consensus as to it's accuracy is
required.
>>

Sure it is, in the same sense as the laser measurement. There are assumptions
being made when comparing lengths using a ruler - one of them is that length
doesn't change simply by being brought in proximity to a ruler, or that it
doesn't change simply by virtue of moving, or of having its position or
alignment changed.

As it turns out, those assumptions are in fact incorrect, though to only a
small degree.

Jose




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

[Marty]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message
ray.net...
> just a
> scuff and shoot job so many get.
>

Matt,
This is a major point. Many of these "scuff and shoots" go without
rebalancing the control surfaces. Not a good thing at all.

Marty

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> And you are perfectly making my point...

The point that you're going off on a wild blue tangent?

>
> The only way we could be assured of the laser's accuracy would be to first
> measure it with some sort of ruler, then compare the laser with the ruler
> measurement. This has not yet been done.

And this has what to do with the original point?

> In the US, we have an agency called something like the National Bureau Of
> Standards. It's been years, so forgive any minor errors, but at that
bureau
> they have such things as a metal bar exactly one foot long, a metal weight
> that weighs exactly one pound, and similar objects, These objects are made
> of various metals and alloys to as best as possible minimize the effects
of
> expansion and contraction and similar effects.
>
> These are the items that define the various weights and measures we use in
> our country; other objects are compared to these to ensure their accuracy.
>
> Now let's look at our laser device...
>
> Something like a laser measuring device (for the purposes we are
discussing
> here) will be used to measure the distance to something that has been
placed
> one mile away by a ruler (or similar device). Then it will be used to
> measure the distance to something that has been placed ten miles away by a
> ruler (or similar device). And this might continue until the curvature of
> the earth prohibits additional measurements.
>
> So let's loop back to the original discussion, which had to do with facts
> versus consensus.
>
> Our laser measuring device will be examined by various scientists, the
> theory behind it will be scrutinized, the testing methodology and results
> will be examined, and eventually the scientists will come to a CONSENSUS
> that this laser device can accurately measure 250,000 miles. And that's
> fine, it probably will be more accurate than previous measurements. But
you
> will notice that every time a new measurement method comes into play the
> distance changes.

That's a consensus about the accuracy of the machine, not about a fact of
distance.

>
> But with our metal bar from the NBS, no consensus as to it's accuracy is
> required. As it defines the measure, it is defacto correct.


Boy...talk about a lot of nothing about nothing.

First of all, a consensus is a continuum, not discrete....

Nice attempt to come off like a deep thinker.

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> Tom Sixkiller > wrote:

> Nice attempt to come off like a deep thinker.

Speaking of deep thinking...... You talk too much.

[Alan Gerber]

Bill Denton > wrote:
> In the US, we have an agency called something like the National Bureau Of
> Standards. It's been years, so forgive any minor errors, but at that bureau
> they have such things as a metal bar exactly one foot long, a metal weight
> that weighs exactly one pound, and similar objects, These objects are made
> of various metals and alloys to as best as possible minimize the effects of
> expansion and contraction and similar effects.

This isn't true any more, at least for the foot. In SI (metric) units,
distance and time have definitions that don't depend on a reference object.
Check out:

http://www.surveyhistory.org/the_standard_meter1.htm
and
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html

OK, more digging -- only the kilogram still has a reference prototype.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html

And the U.S. linear units are defined in terms of metric units, and have
been for a long time:

http://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/sp811.pdf

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Morgans]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> And you are perfectly making my point...
>
> The only way we could be assured of the laser's accuracy would be to first
> measure it with some sort of ruler, then compare the laser with the ruler
> measurement. This has not yet been done.
>

Not much into science, are you? Unless the speed of light has changed, the
laser is still accurate, to a very high degree. The speed of light is one
of the most studied constants, known to scientists, to very many significant
figures.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/8/2004

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Just curious -- other than diving steeply, or misadjusting the prop pitch,
> how does one operate an aircraft above redline?

My Maule will redline about 10 seconds after I level off in cruise, whatever the
altitude. I *will* have to reduce throttle at that point to prevent it from
overspeeding.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Jay Honeck]

> If I'm not careful, my 160hp 140 will redline after take-off.

You aircraft is supposed to be able to reach red-line RPM at full throttle.
If it's not, your prop is misadjusted, or something is up with your engine.

I'm talking about EXCEEDING redline, which is what Masino is worried about.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> My Maule will redline about 10 seconds after I level off in cruise,
whatever the
> altitude. I *will* have to reduce throttle at that point to prevent it
from
> overspeeding.

Is that normal? Does your Maule have a constant speed prop?

If so, it sounds like you need to turn that adjustment screw a turn or two.

Of course, there are some advantages to your set up -- but I don't think my
A&P would allow it...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Blanche]

Jay remarks:
>Your aircraft is supposed to be able to reach red-line RPM at full throttle.
>If it's not, your prop is misadjusted, or something is up with your engine.
>
>I'm talking about EXCEEDING redline, which is what Masino is worried about.

Huh? Only time I ever see full throttle, red-line RPM is in cruise.
Once in a while.

[Bob Noel]

In article <GBQyc.19760$eu.5210@attbi_s02>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> > If I'm not careful, my 160hp 140 will redline after take-off.
>
> You aircraft is supposed to be able to reach red-line RPM at full
> throttle.
> If it's not, your prop is misadjusted, or something is up with your
> engine.

I've never heard that. Where did you get that info?


>
> I'm talking about EXCEEDING redline, which is what Masino is worried
> about.

To be clear, I meant exceeding redline (i.e., exceeding 2700 rpm).
That is, if I'm not careful, my 160hp 140 can exceed 2700 rpm
after take-off.

--
Bob Noel

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:GBQyc.19760$eu.5210@attbi_s02...
> > If I'm not careful, my 160hp 140 will redline after take-off.
>
> You aircraft is supposed to be able to reach red-line RPM at full
throttle.
> If it's not, your prop is misadjusted, or something is up with your
engine.
>
> I'm talking about EXCEEDING redline, which is what Masino is worried
about.

It's very easy to exceed redline in many airplanes with fixed-pitched props.
Quite often, level cruise flight is sufficient, with a high enough throttle
setting. If not, a slight descent is usually all that's necessary.

Constant speed props behave differently, and generally would be harder to
exceed redline with, but even there I'd be careful about saying it could
never happen.

Which is not so say that I feel that Jay Masino's objection has much merit.
People should fly their airplanes according to the POH, not what they read
in the newsgroup. Furthermore, operation AT redline is different from
operation ABOVE redline, and for many engine/prop installations, continuous
operation AT redline/full-throttle is no problem.

I would agree with him that your statement that "'red line' is set
conservatively low" wasn't accurate. The main difference between auto
engines and airplane engines is that airplane engines are designed to
operate at or near their maximum power rating for most of their lifetime,
while auto engines are not (it's expected they will spend most of their
operational lifetime at relatively low power settings). Ignoring, of
course, the innumerable differences with respect to the specifics designs.
:)

Anyway, red line on an airplane engine is definitely not something to be
taken lightly. There are generally specific guidelines in the engine
operation manual (which almost no pilot ever bothers to read, I realize)
regarding how long an engine can be operated above the limits, and if that's
exceeded, what must be done. Inspection or overhaul is often prescribed if
an engine is operated above the RPM redline for any significant amount of
time.

Pete

[Dylan Smith]

In article <ptGyc.32742$HG.16217@attbi_s53>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> Somehow you've determined that operating an aircraft -- specifically a
> Piper/Cessna/Beech/Cirrus spam can -- at full power is potentially
> dangerous. I'd be interested to hear your evidence behind this assertion.

It's no more dangerous than merely operating the aircraft in the first
place. I flew my C140 half way across the United States at full throttle
and 2550 RPM (redline) because that's the only way a C85 will make
enough power to get you over the high ground. The engine was built to be
able to run at maximum rated power - continuously.

The only plane I've flown where that wasn't the case is a turbocharged
Europa with the Rotax 912S engine. There is a five minute limitation on
full power operation. But that's the exception, not the rule, and if
these things apply they are always in the manual.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <GBQyc.19760$eu.5210@attbi_s02>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> You aircraft is supposed to be able to reach red-line RPM at full throttle.
> If it's not, your prop is misadjusted, or something is up with your engine.

Not necessarily. If you have a constant speed prop, yes you should
always make exactly redline RPM at WOT with the prop control forward.

However, you'll almost never make redline RPM with a fixed pitch prop
unless you're at relatively low altitude and flying level or possibly in
a shallow descent (depending on the engine/prop pitch). The Auster I'll
be flying in about a couple of hours time has an O-320 which redlines at
2700 RPM. I never make more than about 2450RPM in the climb at wide open
throttle.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Jay Masino wrote:
> Exactly. I also think the rotating assembly (crank, rods, pistons) are
> not balanced well enough to operate for any extended time at or above
> redline, especially when you consider the large tolerances of an air
> cooled engine.

I'd agree with above redline, but *at* redline? The majority of aircraft
engines are certified (and I would dare say designed) to be run
continuously at max rated power, which is usually achieved at redline
RPM and sea level pressure. There are one or two exceptions you'll find
in lower horsepower aircraft (such as the turbocharged Rotax engines,
which incidentally sound very odd to fly behind if you're used to a
lumbering old O-320 - the 912S is geared and you're cruising with the
engine running at something like 5400 RPM)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[GeorgeB]

I don't normally "top-post", but it seems appropriate here.

I am NOT a pilot, but a lurker ... however, I think I can smooth some
feathers here. The issue appears to be one of definitions.

We've a misunderstanding of "redline" as classically used. That was,
in the old auto days, the speed at which an engine self-destricts,
valves hitting pistons. The line on a tach in an airplane where the
manufacturer has defined as the maximum continuous power for that
plane is also, by FAA regs I think, red.

Think about this for a minute; a friend owns a Cessna 182, and flies a
206 occasionally, neither turbonormalized. He tells me the engine is
the same, but is rated differently. From Cessna's website,
182; IO-540-AB1A5 230 BHP at 2,400 RPM
206; IO-540-AC1A5 300 BHP at 2,700 RPM
on both tachs, the "rated" speed is a red line. Neither 2400 nor 2700
is the speed at (nor PROBALBY near) which the engine floats valves.

In machine design, we routinely assume that frictional wear is a
function of somewhere between the square and cube of "speed"
proportion, iow that the 2700 would have between 70 and 80% the life
of the 2400. BUT, the manufacturer designed and ok's operating them
there. (maybe the C vs B in the model # means better materials?<g>)

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:43:01 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>In article <ptGyc.32742$HG.16217@attbi_s53>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Somehow you've determined that operating an aircraft -- specifically a
>> Piper/Cessna/Beech/Cirrus spam can -- at full power is potentially
>> dangerous. I'd be interested to hear your evidence behind this assertion.
>
>I flew my C140 half way across the United States at full throttle
>and 2550 RPM (redline) because that's the only way a C85 will make
>enough power to get you over the high ground. The engine was built to be
>able to run at maximum rated power - continuously.

[tony]

About operating near red line engine speeds. Even thought the handbook gives
data for engine speeds near redline, the only time my Mooney sees anything like
that RPM is at takeoff. I've found the engine does better, fuel lasts longer,
and lots of good things happen when RPM gets down as soon as possible. The
handbook lists some "oversquare" settings as acceptable, you're much more apt
to see my panel show 2100 RPM 22 inches than 2500 RPM, 22 inches.

An earlier poster pointed out machine designers think of wear as a function of
speed squared or speed cubed, and I'd agree. But even if it's a linear
function, a bearing or rotating seal has only so many revolutions until end of
life. You get to that limit faster at 2550 rpm than you do at 2100 rpm. If it's
your personal dollars that are going to pay for the overhaul, if it can be put
off 10% longer or 15% longer, the answer to me is obvious.

My engine logs a tach hour for about every 2500 rpm * 60 minute revs. When that
number gets to 2000 hours or so, someone is going to pay a big bill.

That's my $20,000 worth.

[Jay Honeck]

> > You aircraft is supposed to be able to reach red-line RPM at full
> > throttle.
> > If it's not, your prop is misadjusted, or something is up with your
> > engine.
>
> I've never heard that. Where did you get that info?

My A&P.

One caveat: This is with a constant-speed prop. Fixed pitch props may be
different.

With our CS prop, there is an adjustment screw can be turned one way or
'tother to adjust the maximum/minimum prop pitch. This is adjusted until
the tach is just touching red-line at full throttle.

Anything less than that, and you are not taking best advantage of the
prop/engine combination.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> About operating near red line engine speeds. Even thought the handbook
gives
> data for engine speeds near redline, the only time my Mooney sees anything
like
> that RPM is at takeoff.

Same here, but that's not the point. The question is not whether it's
economical to operate at redline for extended periods, but whether it's
*safe* to do so.

The answer to that question is "yes". You'll just turn more money into
noise than normal.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[tony]

>
>> data for engine speeds near redline, the only time my Mooney sees anything
>like
>> that RPM is at takeoff.
>
>Same here, but that's not the point. The question is not whether it's
>economical to operate at redline for extended periods, but whether it's
>*safe* to do so.
>
>The answer to that question is "yes". You'll just turn more money into
>noise than normal.
>--
Jay, I concur with your statement. Will you agree with this one? "Other
considerations aside, it's safer to not operate near red line."

That was the point I was trying to make, although I can accept I didn't make it
very well.

AJW

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > My Maule will redline about 10 seconds after I level off in cruise,
> whatever the
> > altitude. I *will* have to reduce throttle at that point to prevent it
> from
> > overspeeding.
>
> Is that normal?

Yes.

> Does your Maule have a constant speed prop?

No.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Bob Noel]

In article <IJYyc.22622$2i5.11813@attbi_s52>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> > > You aircraft is supposed to be able to reach red-line RPM at full
> > > throttle.
> > > If it's not, your prop is misadjusted, or something is up with your
> > > engine.
> >
> > I've never heard that. Where did you get that info?
>
> My A&P.
>
> One caveat: This is with a constant-speed prop. Fixed pitch props may be
> different.

ah. That probably contributes to our different views on running
at redline. Remember, my 140 has a fixed-pitch prop. And the
redline, iirc, is partially limited by keeping proptip speed
within reason.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article <uMYyc.82659$3x.16996@attbi_s54>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> > About operating near red line engine speeds. Even thought the handbook
> gives
> > data for engine speeds near redline, the only time my Mooney sees
> > anything
> like
> > that RPM is at takeoff.
>
> Same here, but that's not the point. The question is not whether it's
> economical to operate at redline for extended periods, but whether it's
> *safe* to do so.
>
> The answer to that question is "yes".

Wouldn't it depend on the airplane?

For my airplane, I have a five-minute limit on
operations at and above 2650 rpm. I think the limit
was put on the STC for noise reasons but I don't know.

--
Bob Noel

[Bill Denton]

The quantity of one gallon is a constant, but testers constantly find
gasoline pumps that indicate one gallon pumped yet there's only 9/10 gallon
in the bucket.

True, the speed of light is a constant, but if you don't properly translate
time into distance the accuracy of the constant is irrelevant.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > And you are perfectly making my point...
> >
> > The only way we could be assured of the laser's accuracy would be to
first
> > measure it with some sort of ruler, then compare the laser with the
ruler
> > measurement. This has not yet been done.
> >
>
> Not much into science, are you? Unless the speed of light has changed,
the
> laser is still accurate, to a very high degree. The speed of light is one
> of the most studied constants, known to scientists, to very many
significant
> figures.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/8/2004
>
>

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> You aircraft is supposed to be able to reach red-line RPM at full throttle.
> If it's not, your prop is misadjusted, or something is up with your engine.

That's absolutely not true. On a fixed pitch aircraft, depending on what
pitch you have installed (climb prop vs cruise prop), it's more than
possible to reach or exceed redline on the tach. My Powerflow exhaust
just makes that easier.

--- Jay

--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> One caveat: This is with a constant-speed prop. Fixed pitch props may be
> different.

You should have said that to begin with.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Masino]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> I'd agree with above redline, but *at* redline? The majority of aircraft
> engines are certified (and I would dare say designed) to be run
> continuously at max rated power, which is usually achieved at redline
> RPM and sea level pressure. There are one or two exceptions you'll find
> in lower horsepower aircraft (such as the turbocharged Rotax engines,
> which incidentally sound very odd to fly behind if you're used to a
> lumbering old O-320 - the 912S is geared and you're cruising with the
> engine running at something like 5400 RPM)

Switch from 150hp pistons to 160hp pistons, and throw on a Powerflow
exhaust, and you'll be able to exceed it. Most people have their prop
repitched to be more of a cruise prop, but that's not neccesarily
required (it's not on my AMR&D STC). For me, I repitched slightly, but
wanted to keep the impressive climb (for a 140) that I aquired from the
mod.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> My degree is significant because we're trained to analyze technical issues
>> far better than some dumb ass english major.
> Your degree -- or any degree, for that matter -- pales into insignificance
> five years after graduating from college. What matters here is airplane
> experience.

Ah, but I always mention my years of experience working on airplanes,
which also far exceeds yours.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, I concur with your statement. Will you agree with this one? "Other
> considerations aside, it's safer to not operate near red line."

Smarter? Yes.

Safer? If so, immeasurably so.

At full throttle your engine wears somewhat faster, and you spend more $$$
on gas when running near redline. (Of course, on the other hand, you get
there faster, so you're running your engine for less time, total.)

I submit that doing so is not "unsafe," or the incredibly anal FAA would
have already forced the manufacturers to set our redlines even LOWER than
they already are.

As evidence, just watch the training fleet that circles my hotel every day,
hour after hour. From full throttle, to idle, to full throttle, to idle,
day after day, for months and years on end. THAT is 100 times harder on
your engine than simply running it for an hour at full throttle, yet I don't
see trainers falling out of the sky.

Our engines, as old and technologically outdated as they are, are incredibly
reliable, at least partly because they are designed to turn very slowly
(relatively speaking) -- even at full throttle.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Sengupta]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> The only plane I've flown where that wasn't the case is a turbocharged
> Europa with the Rotax 912S engine.

914?

Paul

[Bill Denton]

Disclaimer: I'm going back to my high school drag racing days here, so if
I'm way off, please let me know...

Wouldn't mods such as pistons and exhaust systems possibly result in a
change in the engines theoretical redline?

If so, and if one wanted absolute accuracy, would it not be necessary to
recalculate the redline?

I seriously doubt that you would see a significant change in redline, or
that it would have much impact, but it would seem that if you are making a
modification that affects redline you would not be able to use redline to
benchmark the changes without a recalculation.

Of course, you could simply use the "redline" on the tach, but that might or
might not be valid...

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > I'd agree with above redline, but *at* redline? The majority of aircraft
> > engines are certified (and I would dare say designed) to be run
> > continuously at max rated power, which is usually achieved at redline
> > RPM and sea level pressure. There are one or two exceptions you'll find
> > in lower horsepower aircraft (such as the turbocharged Rotax engines,
> > which incidentally sound very odd to fly behind if you're used to a
> > lumbering old O-320 - the 912S is geared and you're cruising with the
> > engine running at something like 5400 RPM)
>
> Switch from 150hp pistons to 160hp pistons, and throw on a Powerflow
> exhaust, and you'll be able to exceed it. Most people have their prop
> repitched to be more of a cruise prop, but that's not neccesarily
> required (it's not on my AMR&D STC). For me, I repitched slightly, but
> wanted to keep the impressive climb (for a 140) that I aquired from the
> mod.
>
>
> --
> __!__
> Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
> http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
> http://www.oceancityairport.com
> http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Paul Sengupta]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> A car engine at max output will fry in 10 - 15 minutes 'cause it's not
really built
> for sustained output.

Don't know why this is often quoted on here. Here in Europe we
have lots of cars with small engines and (in the old days) 4 speed
boxes that in order to maintain motorway cruising speeds had to
be driven at high RPM and full throttle. I drove my old Ford
Fiesta at full throttle for hours at a time up and down motorways
in 4th gear for nigh on 10 years.

Paul

[Michael]

Blanche > wrote
> >Since when is upholstery safety critical? Personally, I consider it
> >the last thing to worry about.
>
> Obviously you've never spent any length of time flying in seats with no
> padding under or behind you, and didn't mind the bruise in the shape
> of the metal frame remaining on your lower anatomy for 3 days.

Or perhaps my lower anatomy is quite adequately padded as is, with no
need to resort to artificial padding.

Michael

[Jay Masino]

Bill Denton > wrote:
> Wouldn't mods such as pistons and exhaust systems possibly result in a
> change in the engines theoretical redline?

I suspect the piston change "might" chage a tiny amount, although other
160hp O-320s still have the 2700 RPM redline. I doubt the exhaust would
change it. As others have said, the redline would be more related to
engine tolerances and balance, as well as valve train design (spring
tension). None of those things change with the piston or exhaust change.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[lance smith]

Cub Driver > wrote in message
> I was taught to keep my hand on the throttle, to keep it against the
> stop, until I reached 1,000 feet, at which point I could release (but
> not retard) the throttle.

I learned that during my ppl too... to prevent the CFI from pulling
the power! Still do it too... habits are hard to break. I suppose it
does prevent accidental movement.

-lance smith

[Capt.Doug]

>"Jay Masino" wrote in message> My degree is significant because we're
>trained to analyze technical issues
> far better than some dumb ass english major.

Unless that dgree has some practical experience with, it amounts to a
liberal arts degree. Not all English majors are dumb-asses.

> In these types of posts I
> generally refer to my years of experience working on actual airplanes,
> too.

Those years of experience should have taught you that the engine in Jay's
plane was certified at continuous full-power and that the POH has no
limitation against running at full-power.

D.

[David CL Francis]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 at 19:50:11 in message
>, Nomen Nescio
]> wrote:

> It's 'cause full throttle and full power are two different things. I'm willing to bet
>that the Fiesta rarely saw full throttle and redline rpm, which more or less
>represents max design power. Few cars are geared that way (full throttle,
>redline, level roads, STP). Throw in a few inclines and the output will change for
>uphill - downhill.
> Put that Fiesta engine on a dyno and run it at max output. Dollars to donuts
>it won't be running after 1/2 hour.

For many auto engines full power is not developed at maximum rpm and as
you rightly say full power and full throttle are by no means the same
thing.

Power is roughly torque x rpm. Most vehicle engines typically produce
maximum torque at 3,000 to 3,500 rpm even though their 'redline' may be
6,500 rpm. The torque falls after its maximum as rpm rise and maximum
power is often below 'redline'. To get maximum speed from a car the
gears are arranged so that maximum power can be developed at the maximum
speed. One difference to an aircraft is a fixed pitch propellor is
partly a 'fixed' load. i.e. at sea level and tethered the required
torque is pretty much fixed for a given rpm
--
David CL Francis

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Capt.Doug" > writes:

> [...] Those years of experience should have taught you that the
> engine in Jay's plane was certified at continuous full-power and
> that the POH has no limitation against running at full-power.

Even a generous interpretation of this won't dull the skepticism of
one whose airplane is equipped with temperature indicators with
limiting red lines, or who would like to run such engines for a long
time. Lycoming SI 1094D recommends 65% cruise for maximum life.

- FChE

[tony]

>
>
>> [...] Those years of experience should have taught you that the
>> engine in Jay's plane was certified at continuous full-power and
>> that the POH has no limitation against running at full-power.
>
>Even a generous interpretation of this won't dull the skepticism of
>one whose airplane is equipped with temperature indicators with
>limiting red lines, or who would like to run such engines for a long
>time. Lycoming SI 1094D recommends 65% cruise for maximum life.
>
There ain't nothing wrong with having the guy doing a major overhaul look at
the engine parts and say "this thing looks like it's got only a couple of
hundred hours on it." I've heard that when the IO360 that pulls my Mooney
around had its major, but I fly it so it'll last a long time.

I think it can go at 2550 RPM its entire rated life, but I don't intend to do
that particular experiment.

AJW

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Put that Fiesta engine on a dyno and run it at max output. Dollars to donuts
> it won't be running after 1/2 hour.

Dunno about an old S reg Fiesta, but certainly modern engines are
torture tested. I believe GM runs tests much more torturous than a mere
half hour run at maximum output, and the engines survive.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Robert M. Gary]

(tony) wrote in message >...
> >
> >
> >> [...] Those years of experience should have taught you that the
> >> engine in Jay's plane was certified at continuous full-power and
> >> that the POH has no limitation against running at full-power.
> >
> >Even a generous interpretation of this won't dull the skepticism of
> >one whose airplane is equipped with temperature indicators with
> >limiting red lines, or who would like to run such engines for a long
> >time. Lycoming SI 1094D recommends 65% cruise for maximum life.
> >
> There ain't nothing wrong with having the guy doing a major overhaul look at
> the engine parts and say "this thing looks like it's got only a couple of
> hundred hours on it." I've heard that when the IO360 that pulls my Mooney
> around had its major, but I fly it so it'll last a long time.
>
> I think it can go at 2550 RPM its entire rated life, but I don't intend to do
> that particular experiment.
>
> AJW


The IO-360 is rated for 2000 hours based on continuous 100% power at
sea level. I pull my Mooney back to save gas, but there really isn't
much reason to save the engine. However, if you run a Cont. engine
this way you'll be buying jugs in bulk. The IO-360 is just an
unusually tough engine.

-Robert

[Jay Honeck]

> The IO-360 is rated for 2000 hours based on continuous 100% power at
> sea level. I pull my Mooney back to save gas, but there really isn't
> much reason to save the engine. However, if you run a Cont. engine
> this way you'll be buying jugs in bulk. The IO-360 is just an
> unusually tough engine.

The -540s and -360s and -320s are ALL rugged, dependable engines.

Do I run at full throttle all the time? Heck, no. I pull back to 24 squared
for regular cruise flight, 25 squared if I want to get there.

However, I have no compunction about running it full bore -- but it burns
20+ gph at that throttle setting!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[tony]

>
>> The IO-360 is rated for 2000 hours based on continuous 100% power at
>> sea level. I pull my Mooney back to save gas, but there really isn't
>> much reason to save the engine. However, if you run a Cont. engine
>> this way you'll be buying jugs in bulk. The IO-360 is just an
>> unusually tough engine.
>
>The -540s and -360s and -320s are ALL rugged, dependable engines.
>
>Do I run at full throttle all the time? Heck, no. I pull back to 24 squared
>for regular cruise flight, 25 squared if I want to get there.
>
>However, I have no compunction about running it full bore -- but it burns
>20+ gph at that throttle setting!
>--
My M20J eastbound (Chicago area to Boston) gets cruise climbed to 9000 or
11000, RPMs get cranked down, leaned to a bit past peak, and it sips 8 gph,
makes it a comfotable nonstop flightt.

Of course, west bound, I'm apt to be lower, with higher RPMs, probably a bit
oversquare, and it'll be sucking 10 or 11 GPH. Still, its range and endurance
can exceed that of my bladder! FOr what it's worth, I'll taxi out on one tank,
swithc over, run up, verify the new tank is good, and take off on it. After
taking a bit less than half the fuel from that tank, I'll switch again, take
that tank to almost dry. When I go back to the tank that's half full, no matter
if my destination is 100 miles away, I'm going to be to be landing for fuel.
25% fuel reserve, unless WX conditions requires more, is as empty as I want
that airplane to be ever!

[Capt.Doug]

>"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message> However, if you run a Cont. engine
> this way you'll be buying jugs in bulk. The IO-360 is just an
> unusually tough engine.

Continental makes an IO-360 also. Continentals are just as good as
Lycomings. When I ran a commuter with C-402Cs, the pilots ran full power for
5 minutes after take-off, then pulled back to the top of the green arc for
MAP and RPM. Those planes ran 8 hours a day, 6 days a week that way. We ran
19 engines to TBO without an inflight shut-down. The only problem we had was
traced back to an after-market Cermi-chrome application that was not applied
properly. That was only 2 cylinders and it wasn't Continental's fault.

D.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Paul Sengupta" >
>
> >Don't know why this is often quoted on here. Here in Europe we
> >have lots of cars with small engines and (in the old days) 4 speed
> >boxes that in order to maintain motorway cruising speeds had to
> >be driven at high RPM and full throttle. I drove my old Ford
> >Fiesta at full throttle for hours at a time up and down motorways
> >in 4th gear for nigh on 10 years.
> >
> >Paul
>
> It's 'cause full throttle and full power are two different things. I'm
willing to bet
> that the Fiesta rarely saw full throttle and redline rpm, which more or
less
> represents max design power. Few cars are geared that way (full throttle,
> redline, level roads, STP). Throw in a few inclines and the output will
change for
> uphill - downhill.
> Put that Fiesta engine on a dyno and run it at max output. Dollars to
donuts
> it won't be running after 1/2 hour.

Well, with a 4 speed gearbox, it wasn't too far off red line.
Especially when going downhill!

As for RPM vs power, I seem to remember seeing a graph which
put max power at maybe 5000 rpm. Red line was 5800. Foot to
the floor cruise in 4th was probably about 5000 rpm on the flat.
Book top speed was 88mph.

Paul