Run up for plug clearing

[Roger Long]

I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was the
limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs. I had a really bad one
yesterday with 250 RPM drop. I taxied back to the shop and they said to try
full throttle before pulling the plugs.

It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
CHT's have not yet risen to max.

Any thoughts? What were you taught?

--

Roger Long

[mike regish]

I've only had 2 incidents of plug fouling. The first, ironically, right
after I had asked my stage 3 check instructor if I should lean during taxi.
He said no. A few minutes later, I learned to clear my first plug. I
remember using runup power and just leaning aggressively. No CHT or EGTs
available. That was in a C150.

I had a real bad mag drop a couple of weeks ago in my Tripacer. My brakes
were a little on the weak side and, being that it's a hand brake, I couldn't
go higher than 1800 without starting to roll. I ran it up (1800) and leaned
until It was barely running smoothly (probably lean of peak). I did this
twice for about 30 seconds each. There were planes waiting behind me and the
second time didn't get it, so I pulled off the taxiway and repeated the
procedure for a full minute nad that got it. Had that not worked, I wasn't
going flying that day.

I don't think there's a real limit. If I had toe brakes, I might have tried
a higher power setting. Even now, in my TP, my brakes are back to full
strength, I would have tried as much power as the brakes would hold.


Just my $.02-and worth every bit of it. :-)

mike regish

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
>I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was the
>limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs. I had a really bad one
>yesterday with 250 RPM drop. I taxied back to the shop and they said to
>try full throttle before pulling the plugs.
>
> It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
> for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
> seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
> CHT's have not yet risen to max.
>
> Any thoughts? What were you taught?
>
> --
>
> Roger Long
>
>
>
>

[mike regish]

I've only had 2 incidents of plug fouling. The first, ironically, right
after I had asked my stage 3 check instructor if I should lean during taxi.
He said no. A few minutes later, I learned to clear my first plug. I
remember using runup power and just leaning aggressively. No CHT or EGTs
available. That was in a C150.

I had a real bad mag drop a couple of weeks ago in my Tripacer. My brakes
were a little on the weak side and, being that it's a hand brake, I couldn't
go higher than 1800 without starting to roll. I ran it up (1800) and leaned
until It was barely running smoothly (probably lean of peak). I did this
twice for about 30 seconds each. There were planes waiting behind me and the
second time didn't get it, so I pulled off the taxiway and repeated the
procedure for a full minute nad that got it. Had that not worked, I wasn't
going flying that day.

I don't think there's a real limit. If I had toe brakes, I might have tried
a higher power setting. Even now, in my TP, my brakes are back to full
strength, I would have tried as much power as the brakes would hold.


Just my $.02-and worth every bit of it. :-)

mike regish

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
>I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was the
>limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs. I had a really bad one
>yesterday with 250 RPM drop. I taxied back to the shop and they said to
>try full throttle before pulling the plugs.
>
> It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
> for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
> seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
> CHT's have not yet risen to max.
>
> Any thoughts? What were you taught?
>
> --
>
> Roger Long
>
>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:54:44 GMT, "Roger Long" >
wrote in >::

>It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
>for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
>seems pretty abusive to me.

That's what I was taught. Often it only takes 10 - 15 seconds to
clear/burn the carbon deposit without the necessity of leaning. I
don't see anything abusive or abnormal about this procedure, as the
engine sees full throttle on each takeoff.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:54:44 GMT, "Roger Long" >
wrote in >::

>It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
>for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
>seems pretty abusive to me.

That's what I was taught. Often it only takes 10 - 15 seconds to
clear/burn the carbon deposit without the necessity of leaning. I
don't see anything abusive or abnormal about this procedure, as the
engine sees full throttle on each takeoff.

[Daniel L. Lieberman]

The answer to questions such as this can be found in the POH from the
manufacturer who supposedly knows more than the average flight instructor or
public thought about what is right.

For the Cessna Model 152 Section 4 Normal Procedures under "Takeoff" "Power
Check" says
"It is important to check full-throttle engine operation early in the
takeoff run. Any sign of rough engine operation or sluggish engine
acceleration is good cause for discontinuing the takeoff. IF THIS OCCURS,
YOU ARE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING A THOROUGH FULL-THROTTLE STATIC RUNUP BEFORE
ANOTHER TAKEOFF IS ATTEMPTED. The engine should run smoothly and turn
approximately 2280 to 2380 RPM with carburetor heat off and mixture leaned
to maximum RPM."
(Emphasis added.)

You will not harm the engine therefore if you use 2000 RPM and lean to clean
the plugs.

I suggest if you are serious about this you discuss the matter with a
mechanic.

[Daniel L. Lieberman]

The answer to questions such as this can be found in the POH from the
manufacturer who supposedly knows more than the average flight instructor or
public thought about what is right.

For the Cessna Model 152 Section 4 Normal Procedures under "Takeoff" "Power
Check" says
"It is important to check full-throttle engine operation early in the
takeoff run. Any sign of rough engine operation or sluggish engine
acceleration is good cause for discontinuing the takeoff. IF THIS OCCURS,
YOU ARE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING A THOROUGH FULL-THROTTLE STATIC RUNUP BEFORE
ANOTHER TAKEOFF IS ATTEMPTED. The engine should run smoothly and turn
approximately 2280 to 2380 RPM with carburetor heat off and mixture leaned
to maximum RPM."
(Emphasis added.)

You will not harm the engine therefore if you use 2000 RPM and lean to clean
the plugs.

I suggest if you are serious about this you discuss the matter with a
mechanic.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:54:44 GMT, "Roger Long" >
wrote in >::

>Any thoughts?
http://www.sacskyranch.com/faq_spark_plug/index.html
http://www.sacskyranch.com/faq_spark_plug/FAQ00007.htm

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:54:44 GMT, "Roger Long" >
wrote in >::

>Any thoughts?
http://www.sacskyranch.com/faq_spark_plug/index.html
http://www.sacskyranch.com/faq_spark_plug/FAQ00007.htm

[Dale]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:


> That's what I was taught. Often it only takes 10 - 15 seconds to
> clear/burn the carbon deposit without the necessity of leaning. I
> don't see anything abusive or abnormal about this procedure, as the
> engine sees full throttle on each takeoff.

A difference between a runup and the takeoff roll is the cooling air
flowing thru the cowling when moving. There is very little airflow when
stationary, even with high power settings. I'm not saying you shouldn't
do a high power runup, but you should be cautious and aware of the
possibity of heat problems.

--
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

[Dale]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:


> That's what I was taught. Often it only takes 10 - 15 seconds to
> clear/burn the carbon deposit without the necessity of leaning. I
> don't see anything abusive or abnormal about this procedure, as the
> engine sees full throttle on each takeoff.

A difference between a runup and the takeoff roll is the cooling air
flowing thru the cowling when moving. There is very little airflow when
stationary, even with high power settings. I'm not saying you shouldn't
do a high power runup, but you should be cautious and aware of the
possibity of heat problems.

--
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

[Roger Long]

--

Roger Long



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:54:44 GMT, "Roger Long" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
>>for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
>>seems pretty abusive to me.
>
> That's what I was taught. Often it only takes 10 - 15 seconds to
> clear/burn the carbon deposit without the necessity of leaning. I
> don't see anything abusive or abnormal about this procedure, as the
> engine sees full throttle on each takeoff.

[Roger Long]

--

Roger Long



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:54:44 GMT, "Roger Long" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
>>for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
>>seems pretty abusive to me.
>
> That's what I was taught. Often it only takes 10 - 15 seconds to
> clear/burn the carbon deposit without the necessity of leaning. I
> don't see anything abusive or abnormal about this procedure, as the
> engine sees full throttle on each takeoff.

[Roger Long]

#&*(^%$#!)+=- Microsoft.

With the budgets that world domination provides, you would think someone
would have figured out that putting the Send button under the Reply button
would lead to inadvertent blank replies.

With Windows 98, you could move the buttons around so that didn't happen
when you accidentally double clicked. Eliminating that option seems to have
been one of those "Innovations that users demand."

--

Roger Long



"Roger Long" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> --
>
> Roger Long
>
>
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:54:44 GMT, "Roger Long" >
>> wrote in >::
>>
>>>It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
>>>for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
>>>seems pretty abusive to me.
>>
>> That's what I was taught. Often it only takes 10 - 15 seconds to
>> clear/burn the carbon deposit without the necessity of leaning. I
>> don't see anything abusive or abnormal about this procedure, as the
>> engine sees full throttle on each takeoff.
>
>

[Roger Long]

#&*(^%$#!)+=- Microsoft.

With the budgets that world domination provides, you would think someone
would have figured out that putting the Send button under the Reply button
would lead to inadvertent blank replies.

With Windows 98, you could move the buttons around so that didn't happen
when you accidentally double clicked. Eliminating that option seems to have
been one of those "Innovations that users demand."

--

Roger Long



"Roger Long" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> --
>
> Roger Long
>
>
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:54:44 GMT, "Roger Long" >
>> wrote in >::
>>
>>>It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
>>>for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
>>>seems pretty abusive to me.
>>
>> That's what I was taught. Often it only takes 10 - 15 seconds to
>> clear/burn the carbon deposit without the necessity of leaning. I
>> don't see anything abusive or abnormal about this procedure, as the
>> engine sees full throttle on each takeoff.
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 07:30:28 -0800, Dale > wrote in
>::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>> That's what I was taught. Often it only takes 10 - 15 seconds to
>> clear/burn the carbon deposit without the necessity of leaning. I
>> don't see anything abusive or abnormal about this procedure, as the
>> engine sees full throttle on each takeoff.
>
>A difference between a runup and the takeoff roll is the cooling air
>flowing thru the cowling when moving.

True.

>There is very little airflow when stationary, even with high power settings.

Are you able to cite a credible source that supports that assertion?
I'm not saying it isn't true, but I'd like to hear the input of an
A&P.

>I'm not saying you shouldn't do a high power runup, but you should be
>cautious and aware of the possibity of heat problems.

A pilot should always be aware of that possibility.

As the plugs tend to foul more easily when the engine is cold, the
admonition for caution in this instance is mitigated by the fact that
the engine temperature usually hasn't reached a point where it is a
factor at run up time. At least here in California that is what I've
found. In colder climates plug fouling may occur more frequently, but
I would expect the ambient temperature to also mitigate the cautionary
advice.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 07:30:28 -0800, Dale > wrote in
>::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>> That's what I was taught. Often it only takes 10 - 15 seconds to
>> clear/burn the carbon deposit without the necessity of leaning. I
>> don't see anything abusive or abnormal about this procedure, as the
>> engine sees full throttle on each takeoff.
>
>A difference between a runup and the takeoff roll is the cooling air
>flowing thru the cowling when moving.

True.

>There is very little airflow when stationary, even with high power settings.

Are you able to cite a credible source that supports that assertion?
I'm not saying it isn't true, but I'd like to hear the input of an
A&P.

>I'm not saying you shouldn't do a high power runup, but you should be
>cautious and aware of the possibity of heat problems.

A pilot should always be aware of that possibility.

As the plugs tend to foul more easily when the engine is cold, the
admonition for caution in this instance is mitigated by the fact that
the engine temperature usually hasn't reached a point where it is a
factor at run up time. At least here in California that is what I've
found. In colder climates plug fouling may occur more frequently, but
I would expect the ambient temperature to also mitigate the cautionary
advice.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
...

> The answer to questions such as this can be found in the POH from the
> manufacturer who supposedly knows more than the average flight
> instructor.

I just love posts like this one!!

A good flight instructor would know that the answer to this question is
not a general answer that works for all aircraft and would therefore not
deal with it on a newgroup forum or in person before checking it out for
engine manufacturer recommendations and POH remarks as the answer
relates to the SPECIFIC aircraft/engine combination involved with the
question.
Although your answer is correct, unless you are one of these "pilots" on
"piloting" who think CFI's are morons, I see no reason to assume that
the "average" flight instructor wouldn't be intelligent enough to do
this.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Dudley Henriques]

"Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
...

> The answer to questions such as this can be found in the POH from the
> manufacturer who supposedly knows more than the average flight
> instructor.

I just love posts like this one!!

A good flight instructor would know that the answer to this question is
not a general answer that works for all aircraft and would therefore not
deal with it on a newgroup forum or in person before checking it out for
engine manufacturer recommendations and POH remarks as the answer
relates to the SPECIFIC aircraft/engine combination involved with the
question.
Although your answer is correct, unless you are one of these "pilots" on
"piloting" who think CFI's are morons, I see no reason to assume that
the "average" flight instructor wouldn't be intelligent enough to do
this.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Jim Rosinski]

"Roger Long" > wrote

> I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was the
> limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs. I had a really bad one
> yesterday with 250 RPM drop. I taxied back to the shop and they said to try
> full throttle before pulling the plugs.
>
> It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
> for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
> seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
> CHT's have not yet risen to max.
>
> Any thoughts? What were you taught?

I was tought the full-power tactic. But what I found out empirically
was that leaning like crazy for all ground ops (to the point the
engine will barely run) has so far prevented the mag drop problem from
occurring again. I posted about this within the past few months and
found that others use similar procedures.

Jim Rosinski

[Jim Rosinski]

"Roger Long" > wrote

> I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was the
> limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs. I had a really bad one
> yesterday with 250 RPM drop. I taxied back to the shop and they said to try
> full throttle before pulling the plugs.
>
> It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
> for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
> seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
> CHT's have not yet risen to max.
>
> Any thoughts? What were you taught?

I was tought the full-power tactic. But what I found out empirically
was that leaning like crazy for all ground ops (to the point the
engine will barely run) has so far prevented the mag drop problem from
occurring again. I posted about this within the past few months and
found that others use similar procedures.

Jim Rosinski

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:47:05 GMT, "Roger Long" >
wrote in >::

>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180

That's the source of the problem.

Take a look here: http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php
You'll find Forte Agent doesn't propagate virus attachments the way MS
Outlook does either.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:47:05 GMT, "Roger Long" >
wrote in >::

>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180

That's the source of the problem.

Take a look here: http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php
You'll find Forte Agent doesn't propagate virus attachments the way MS
Outlook does either.

[Robert M. Gary]

For the engine, the higher the RPM the better. However, 1800 is used
because its a high RPM but doesn't suck as many rocks into the prop as
full RPM. If you run up to full RPM everytime you'll send up replacing
your prop every annual.

-Robert



"Roger Long" > wrote in message >...
> I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was the
> limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs. I had a really bad one
> yesterday with 250 RPM drop. I taxied back to the shop and they said to try
> full throttle before pulling the plugs.
>
> It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
> for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
> seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
> CHT's have not yet risen to max.
>
> Any thoughts? What were you taught?

[Robert M. Gary]

For the engine, the higher the RPM the better. However, 1800 is used
because its a high RPM but doesn't suck as many rocks into the prop as
full RPM. If you run up to full RPM everytime you'll send up replacing
your prop every annual.

-Robert



"Roger Long" > wrote in message >...
> I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was the
> limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs. I had a really bad one
> yesterday with 250 RPM drop. I taxied back to the shop and they said to try
> full throttle before pulling the plugs.
>
> It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
> for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
> seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
> CHT's have not yet risen to max.
>
> Any thoughts? What were you taught?

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:54:44 GMT, "Roger Long" > wrote:

>Any thoughts? What were you taught?

However you monitor engine temperature, oil temp or CHT, just avoid overheating
the engine. I was taught to try a lower RPM for a set period, and if that did
not work go to full power for a set period while closely tracking engine temp.

By set period, I was taught 30 or 60 seconds timed by a watch, not by feel or
guessimate.

Demonick

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:54:44 GMT, "Roger Long" > wrote:

>Any thoughts? What were you taught?

However you monitor engine temperature, oil temp or CHT, just avoid overheating
the engine. I was taught to try a lower RPM for a set period, and if that did
not work go to full power for a set period while closely tracking engine temp.

By set period, I was taught 30 or 60 seconds timed by a watch, not by feel or
guessimate.

Demonick

[Dan Thomas]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message >...
> I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was the
> limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs. I had a really bad one
> yesterday with 250 RPM drop. I taxied back to the shop and they said to try
> full throttle before pulling the plugs.
>
> It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
> for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
> seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
> CHT's have not yet risen to max.
>
> Any thoughts? What were you taught?

The standard technique taught in many airplanes for the
short-field takeoff is brakes locked, full power, lean for best RPM,
and go. This can take some time for a student, and I try to get the
instructors to limit it to 15 seconds or so, no more. We use the same
technique to clear fouled plugs. If they don't clear in a few seconds
at full power, they aren't going to clear adequately for flight. If
it's just a bit of oil that's fouled the bottom plugs during an
extended idle, they'll clear. If it's lead fouling, they won't clear
well and need to come out and get serviced.

Dan

[Dan Thomas]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message >...
> I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was the
> limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs. I had a really bad one
> yesterday with 250 RPM drop. I taxied back to the shop and they said to try
> full throttle before pulling the plugs.
>
> It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
> for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
> seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
> CHT's have not yet risen to max.
>
> Any thoughts? What were you taught?

The standard technique taught in many airplanes for the
short-field takeoff is brakes locked, full power, lean for best RPM,
and go. This can take some time for a student, and I try to get the
instructors to limit it to 15 seconds or so, no more. We use the same
technique to clear fouled plugs. If they don't clear in a few seconds
at full power, they aren't going to clear adequately for flight. If
it's just a bit of oil that's fouled the bottom plugs during an
extended idle, they'll clear. If it's lead fouling, they won't clear
well and need to come out and get serviced.

Dan

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
.. .
> #&*(^%$#!)+=- Microsoft.
>
> With the budgets that world domination provides, you would think someone
> would have figured out that putting the Send button under the Reply button
> would lead to inadvertent blank replies.

Larry's well-known anti-Microsoft religious bias notwithstanding, I have no
idea what you're talking about. I use Outlook Express, and my "Send" button
is nowhere near my "Reply Group" button. They aren't even on the same
window.

Never had any trouble with viruses either.

"A poor carpenter always blames his tools".

> With Windows 98, you could move the buttons around so that didn't happen
> when you accidentally double clicked. Eliminating that option seems to
> have been one of those "Innovations that users demand."

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I can move, add, or remove
any or all of the buttons on all of the toolbars in Outlook Express. I
don't know why you can't, but whatever the reason, you can't blame it on
your tools. Sounds like user error to me.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
.. .
> #&*(^%$#!)+=- Microsoft.
>
> With the budgets that world domination provides, you would think someone
> would have figured out that putting the Send button under the Reply button
> would lead to inadvertent blank replies.

Larry's well-known anti-Microsoft religious bias notwithstanding, I have no
idea what you're talking about. I use Outlook Express, and my "Send" button
is nowhere near my "Reply Group" button. They aren't even on the same
window.

Never had any trouble with viruses either.

"A poor carpenter always blames his tools".

> With Windows 98, you could move the buttons around so that didn't happen
> when you accidentally double clicked. Eliminating that option seems to
> have been one of those "Innovations that users demand."

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I can move, add, or remove
any or all of the buttons on all of the toolbars in Outlook Express. I
don't know why you can't, but whatever the reason, you can't blame it on
your tools. Sounds like user error to me.

Pete

[Dale]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:


> Are you able to cite a credible source that supports that assertion?
> I'm not saying it isn't true, but I'd like to hear the input of an
> A&P.

No, I say this from my experience and common sense. The prop next to
the hub doesn't move much air. I've rarely had a hot engine while
inflight, but often have temps come up while on the ground.

--
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

[Dale]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:


> Are you able to cite a credible source that supports that assertion?
> I'm not saying it isn't true, but I'd like to hear the input of an
> A&P.

No, I say this from my experience and common sense. The prop next to
the hub doesn't move much air. I've rarely had a hot engine while
inflight, but often have temps come up while on the ground.

--
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

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Daniel L. Lieberman" wrote:
>
> For the Cessna Model 152 .......

Roger has a Skyhawk.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Daniel L. Lieberman" wrote:
>
> For the Cessna Model 152 .......

Roger has a Skyhawk.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
> for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
> seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
> CHT's have not yet risen to max.
>
> Any thoughts? What were you taught?

As Dan says, there are other normal situations where you may run the engine
at higher power settings while stationary for extended periods of time. The
key is to pay attention to the engine gauges and make sure things don't get
too hot.

I do have a couple of personal experiences that may provide some insight
into the wisdom of this sort of thing, one in favor and one against. The
executive summary (for those who don't want to read the whole stories):

-- High-power runups may or may not cause engine temperature problems.
In my case, on a warm-not-hot (70 degree) day, I was able to do an extended
engine runup without any risk of exceed temperature limits

-- A rough mag may or may not actually be a case of plug fouling, and a
high-power runup may actually temporarily mask or otherwise "fix" a problem
that turns out not to be plug fouling but rather something more serious.

The long versions...

In the "in favor" category, I recently went up to the airport to introduce
our son to the airplane. As we've done with our dog in the past, the idea
was not to actually fly, but to taxi around and let him get used to the
experience gradually. As part of this, I also wanted to get the engine up
to temperature, as I hadn't had a chance to fly in several weeks (and didn't
have time to take a flight after taxiing around and unloading my
passengers). My goal was to see more than 180 degrees on the oil
temperature, while keeping the CHT below redline.

Keep in mind, also, that my airplane has a pusher prop, so even if on most
airplanes the prop might push a little air through the engine (though I
can't imagine this is a very noticeable effect, except for those planes
equipped with the "power-flo" prop and cowl), I don't get even this modest
effect to contribute to cooling.

Well, anyway...it turned out that taxiing around did nothing to raise the
engine temperatures to anything beyond the lower limits. Oil temps didn't
get much higher than 130-140 or so, and the CHT gauge stayed down at around
300 (which is the bottom of the green on that gauge). I stopped at a run-up
area during the taxiing and ran the engine up, but even after a couple of
minutes of this, I only barely got the oil temperature above 180 degrees,
while the CHT made it up to almost 400 (450 redline).

Interestingly, after the runup, once I started taxiing back, the oil
temperature crept up a little bit, maybe another 5 degrees or so, before
starting back down again. But at no time were the engine temperatures at
risk of exceeding their limits.

The moral of that story is that you may actually find it difficult to get
the engine temperatures too high. It will, of course, depend on outside air
temperature, and the nature of the engine's cooling system (my engine has
oil coolers), but I see nothing obviously wrong temperature-wise with doing
higher-power runups.

In the "argument against" category, I have a somewhat more disconcerting
experience. You may recall earlier this summer I had a very subtle but
troubling change in engine noise during takeoff, causing me to abort the
flight and return to the departure airport. As part of that story went, I
had my mechanic come by and inspect the airplane, and then we flew it over
to his airport with him along for the ride. Before taking off, we had a
rough mag, which we spent a few minutes with a high-power runup clearing.

When I posted that, someone suggested it would have been better to just shut
down the engine, pull the plug, and clean it by hand. At the time, I felt
that was a little impractical, since a) we had no shop handy where we could
pull the plug and clean it, and b) it seems like if you can clear the plug
with a runup, why not do that?

Well, in hindsight, I'm not sure we had a fouled plug, and if that had been
the case, we would have realized that when we pulled it. Where does this
hindsight come from?

Well, last Sunday when I went to go flying, during the runup I discovered a
rough mag again. I did the usual "increase power, lean engine" routine to
try to clear the plug. When I did the mag check again, I discovered that
mag was nearly dead. As soon as I switched to the mag, the engine stumbled,
and then died completely.

Oops. That's definitely NOT a fouled plug, unless by some incredible
coincidence, all six plugs fouled simultaneously and solidly (and I've never
heard of that happening).

So, what did it turn out to be? The p-lead wire, where it went into the
mag, had chafed against the ferrule that created the entrance into the mag.
The insulation on the wire had been cut all the way through, and now the
p-lead was shorting out against the magneto case! I had simply gotten to a
point where it had shorted out solidly enough to have an easily detectable
problem.

In hindsight, it's entirely possible that the shorting had already begun
back at the beginning of summer, and that it was responsible for the rough
mag check we had "cleared" before. Some extra vibration at the higher power
settings might have just moved the wire enough to provide normal operation,
at least briefly.

Had we pulled the plugs, we would have seen that they were not fouled after
all, and that would have suggested to us that we had a more serious ignition
problem somewhere else.

Now, it might still have been a pain to diagnose. I don't know. I also
don't know if it would have resulted in us not taking that flight (or all
the subsequent ones I made successfully since). But I seems like we would
have at least had a little more information to work with.

I don't know if any of the above information helps. But it should give you
food for thought, anyway.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
> for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
> seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
> CHT's have not yet risen to max.
>
> Any thoughts? What were you taught?

As Dan says, there are other normal situations where you may run the engine
at higher power settings while stationary for extended periods of time. The
key is to pay attention to the engine gauges and make sure things don't get
too hot.

I do have a couple of personal experiences that may provide some insight
into the wisdom of this sort of thing, one in favor and one against. The
executive summary (for those who don't want to read the whole stories):

-- High-power runups may or may not cause engine temperature problems.
In my case, on a warm-not-hot (70 degree) day, I was able to do an extended
engine runup without any risk of exceed temperature limits

-- A rough mag may or may not actually be a case of plug fouling, and a
high-power runup may actually temporarily mask or otherwise "fix" a problem
that turns out not to be plug fouling but rather something more serious.

The long versions...

In the "in favor" category, I recently went up to the airport to introduce
our son to the airplane. As we've done with our dog in the past, the idea
was not to actually fly, but to taxi around and let him get used to the
experience gradually. As part of this, I also wanted to get the engine up
to temperature, as I hadn't had a chance to fly in several weeks (and didn't
have time to take a flight after taxiing around and unloading my
passengers). My goal was to see more than 180 degrees on the oil
temperature, while keeping the CHT below redline.

Keep in mind, also, that my airplane has a pusher prop, so even if on most
airplanes the prop might push a little air through the engine (though I
can't imagine this is a very noticeable effect, except for those planes
equipped with the "power-flo" prop and cowl), I don't get even this modest
effect to contribute to cooling.

Well, anyway...it turned out that taxiing around did nothing to raise the
engine temperatures to anything beyond the lower limits. Oil temps didn't
get much higher than 130-140 or so, and the CHT gauge stayed down at around
300 (which is the bottom of the green on that gauge). I stopped at a run-up
area during the taxiing and ran the engine up, but even after a couple of
minutes of this, I only barely got the oil temperature above 180 degrees,
while the CHT made it up to almost 400 (450 redline).

Interestingly, after the runup, once I started taxiing back, the oil
temperature crept up a little bit, maybe another 5 degrees or so, before
starting back down again. But at no time were the engine temperatures at
risk of exceeding their limits.

The moral of that story is that you may actually find it difficult to get
the engine temperatures too high. It will, of course, depend on outside air
temperature, and the nature of the engine's cooling system (my engine has
oil coolers), but I see nothing obviously wrong temperature-wise with doing
higher-power runups.

In the "argument against" category, I have a somewhat more disconcerting
experience. You may recall earlier this summer I had a very subtle but
troubling change in engine noise during takeoff, causing me to abort the
flight and return to the departure airport. As part of that story went, I
had my mechanic come by and inspect the airplane, and then we flew it over
to his airport with him along for the ride. Before taking off, we had a
rough mag, which we spent a few minutes with a high-power runup clearing.

When I posted that, someone suggested it would have been better to just shut
down the engine, pull the plug, and clean it by hand. At the time, I felt
that was a little impractical, since a) we had no shop handy where we could
pull the plug and clean it, and b) it seems like if you can clear the plug
with a runup, why not do that?

Well, in hindsight, I'm not sure we had a fouled plug, and if that had been
the case, we would have realized that when we pulled it. Where does this
hindsight come from?

Well, last Sunday when I went to go flying, during the runup I discovered a
rough mag again. I did the usual "increase power, lean engine" routine to
try to clear the plug. When I did the mag check again, I discovered that
mag was nearly dead. As soon as I switched to the mag, the engine stumbled,
and then died completely.

Oops. That's definitely NOT a fouled plug, unless by some incredible
coincidence, all six plugs fouled simultaneously and solidly (and I've never
heard of that happening).

So, what did it turn out to be? The p-lead wire, where it went into the
mag, had chafed against the ferrule that created the entrance into the mag.
The insulation on the wire had been cut all the way through, and now the
p-lead was shorting out against the magneto case! I had simply gotten to a
point where it had shorted out solidly enough to have an easily detectable
problem.

In hindsight, it's entirely possible that the shorting had already begun
back at the beginning of summer, and that it was responsible for the rough
mag check we had "cleared" before. Some extra vibration at the higher power
settings might have just moved the wire enough to provide normal operation,
at least briefly.

Had we pulled the plugs, we would have seen that they were not fouled after
all, and that would have suggested to us that we had a more serious ignition
problem somewhere else.

Now, it might still have been a pain to diagnose. I don't know. I also
don't know if it would have resulted in us not taking that flight (or all
the subsequent ones I made successfully since). But I seems like we would
have at least had a little more information to work with.

I don't know if any of the above information helps. But it should give you
food for thought, anyway.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:48:37 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Roger Long" > wrote in message
.. .
>> #&*(^%$#!)+=- Microsoft.
>>
>> With the budgets that world domination provides, you would think someone
>> would have figured out that putting the Send button under the Reply button
>> would lead to inadvertent blank replies.
>
>Larry's well-known anti-Microsoft religious bias notwithstanding, I have no
>idea what you're talking about. I use Outlook Express, and my "Send" button
>is nowhere near my "Reply Group" button. They aren't even on the same
>window.
>
>Never had any trouble with viruses either.
>
>"A poor carpenter always blames his tools".
>
>> With Windows 98, you could move the buttons around so that didn't happen
>> when you accidentally double clicked. Eliminating that option seems to
>> have been one of those "Innovations that users demand."
>
>Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I can move, add, or remove
>any or all of the buttons on all of the toolbars in Outlook Express. I
>don't know why you can't, but whatever the reason, you can't blame it on
>your tools. Sounds like user error to me.
>
>Pete
>

As a M$ programmer, you are about as friendly as the tools written by
M$. :-(

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:48:37 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Roger Long" > wrote in message
.. .
>> #&*(^%$#!)+=- Microsoft.
>>
>> With the budgets that world domination provides, you would think someone
>> would have figured out that putting the Send button under the Reply button
>> would lead to inadvertent blank replies.
>
>Larry's well-known anti-Microsoft religious bias notwithstanding, I have no
>idea what you're talking about. I use Outlook Express, and my "Send" button
>is nowhere near my "Reply Group" button. They aren't even on the same
>window.
>
>Never had any trouble with viruses either.
>
>"A poor carpenter always blames his tools".
>
>> With Windows 98, you could move the buttons around so that didn't happen
>> when you accidentally double clicked. Eliminating that option seems to
>> have been one of those "Innovations that users demand."
>
>Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I can move, add, or remove
>any or all of the buttons on all of the toolbars in Outlook Express. I
>don't know why you can't, but whatever the reason, you can't blame it on
>your tools. Sounds like user error to me.
>
>Pete
>

As a M$ programmer, you are about as friendly as the tools written by
M$. :-(

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> As a M$ programmer, you are about as friendly as the tools written by
> M$. :-(

Friendly? What do you about friendliness in general? And more importantly,
what do you know about MY friendliness specifically? Nothing, that's what.
(By the way, I have not worked at Microsoft for years).

In any case, everything I wrote about Outlook Express is true. I don't know
what Roger's problem is, but it has nothing to do with what you can and
cannot do in Outlook Express.

I'll say this much for you...you certainly don't miss a chance to express
your anti-Microsoft religious views. What was that they said about
consistency and little minds?

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> As a M$ programmer, you are about as friendly as the tools written by
> M$. :-(

Friendly? What do you about friendliness in general? And more importantly,
what do you know about MY friendliness specifically? Nothing, that's what.
(By the way, I have not worked at Microsoft for years).

In any case, everything I wrote about Outlook Express is true. I don't know
what Roger's problem is, but it has nothing to do with what you can and
cannot do in Outlook Express.

I'll say this much for you...you certainly don't miss a chance to express
your anti-Microsoft religious views. What was that they said about
consistency and little minds?

[C Kingsbury]

Some more chow for thinkin'...

I've gotten plug fouling a couple of times on my C-172N, and cleared it with
a runup to 2000 and 30-60 seconds of lean-off, with the point of leaning
being "when the engine starts getting rough, and then a little more." We
have a single-probe EGT and I watch it and it rises but rarely above what
you'd see at cruise. Of course, a single-probe EGT doesn't tell you all that
much, either.

A few weeks ago, this procedure failed to clear a 200RPM dropoff, so I
aborted and taxied back. The problem turned out to be a failed ignition
lead.

We've also got one cylinder with passable but low compression (63/80) which
we suspect is a valve problem. If there's some blow-by going on here that
could easily provoke the plug fouling which has been happening more
regularly. We still get good static and cruise RPM and the engine seems
smooth overall but we are keeping a closer eye on it.

Also, as someone else here mentioned, prop dinging is an issue anytime you
run things up. We normally runup to 1800 for the mag check.

Best,
-cwk.

[C Kingsbury]

Some more chow for thinkin'...

I've gotten plug fouling a couple of times on my C-172N, and cleared it with
a runup to 2000 and 30-60 seconds of lean-off, with the point of leaning
being "when the engine starts getting rough, and then a little more." We
have a single-probe EGT and I watch it and it rises but rarely above what
you'd see at cruise. Of course, a single-probe EGT doesn't tell you all that
much, either.

A few weeks ago, this procedure failed to clear a 200RPM dropoff, so I
aborted and taxied back. The problem turned out to be a failed ignition
lead.

We've also got one cylinder with passable but low compression (63/80) which
we suspect is a valve problem. If there's some blow-by going on here that
could easily provoke the plug fouling which has been happening more
regularly. We still get good static and cruise RPM and the engine seems
smooth overall but we are keeping a closer eye on it.

Also, as someone else here mentioned, prop dinging is an issue anytime you
run things up. We normally runup to 1800 for the mag check.

Best,
-cwk.

[Roger Long]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> I use Outlook Express, and my "Send" button is nowhere near my "Reply
> Group" button. They aren't even on the same window.
>

No, but after you click "Reply" the next window comes up with the "Send"
button at the same place on the screen. If you double click, it sends the
reply before you add anything to it.

I used to be able to drag click the buttons around so I just moved "Send" to
a different location. That doesn't work since I went to XP. However, I now
see that there is a window to customize toolbars. I can probably fix it
with that.

--

Roger Long

[Roger Long]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> I use Outlook Express, and my "Send" button is nowhere near my "Reply
> Group" button. They aren't even on the same window.
>

No, but after you click "Reply" the next window comes up with the "Send"
button at the same place on the screen. If you double click, it sends the
reply before you add anything to it.

I used to be able to drag click the buttons around so I just moved "Send" to
a different location. That doesn't work since I went to XP. However, I now
see that there is a window to customize toolbars. I can probably fix it
with that.

--

Roger Long

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> Larry's well-known anti-Microsoft religious bias notwithstanding,
>

I'm known as much non-anti-Microsoft as they come, but with regard to
Outlook Express as a newsreader, Larry's right on. It just plain s*cks.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> Larry's well-known anti-Microsoft religious bias notwithstanding,
>

I'm known as much non-anti-Microsoft as they come, but with regard to
Outlook Express as a newsreader, Larry's right on. It just plain s*cks.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
. ..
> No, but after you click "Reply" the next window comes up with the "Send"
> button at the same place on the screen. If you double click, it sends the
> reply before you add anything to it.

So move the window. Geez. No one is forcing you to leave the window in
such a precarious position.

> I used to be able to drag click the buttons around so I just moved "Send"
> to a different location. That doesn't work since I went to XP. However,
> I now see that there is a window to customize toolbars. I can probably
> fix it with that.

All you've ever had to do is right-click on the toolbar and choose the
"Customize" option. XP or otherwise.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
. ..
> No, but after you click "Reply" the next window comes up with the "Send"
> button at the same place on the screen. If you double click, it sends the
> reply before you add anything to it.

So move the window. Geez. No one is forcing you to leave the window in
such a precarious position.

> I used to be able to drag click the buttons around so I just moved "Send"
> to a different location. That doesn't work since I went to XP. However,
> I now see that there is a window to customize toolbars. I can probably
> fix it with that.

All you've ever had to do is right-click on the toolbar and choose the
"Customize" option. XP or otherwise.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> I'm known as much non-anti-Microsoft as they come, but with regard to
> Outlook Express as a newsreader, Larry's right on. It just plain s*cks.

No. Your opinion is that it sucks. But thankfully, your opinion is not the
written Gospel. It takes a real idiot to think that they are the absolute
truth in what does or does not suck.

I've used a half-dozen different newsreaders over the years. If OE really
did suck, I guarantee you that I wouldn't be using it right now.

You, and everyone else that dislikes OE, are free to their opinion. But
don't expect to say something stupid like stating your opinion as an
absolute truth without the idiocy of doing so being pointed out to you.

Frankly, what I really don't understand is why someone that doesn't like OE
would keep using it. At least you and Larry find alternatives that suit you
better.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> I'm known as much non-anti-Microsoft as they come, but with regard to
> Outlook Express as a newsreader, Larry's right on. It just plain s*cks.

No. Your opinion is that it sucks. But thankfully, your opinion is not the
written Gospel. It takes a real idiot to think that they are the absolute
truth in what does or does not suck.

I've used a half-dozen different newsreaders over the years. If OE really
did suck, I guarantee you that I wouldn't be using it right now.

You, and everyone else that dislikes OE, are free to their opinion. But
don't expect to say something stupid like stating your opinion as an
absolute truth without the idiocy of doing so being pointed out to you.

Frankly, what I really don't understand is why someone that doesn't like OE
would keep using it. At least you and Larry find alternatives that suit you
better.

Pete

[Daniel L. Lieberman]

Dudley,
You have made my point. There is a POH for every plane. A pilot should read
it when he has a question. He is supposed to always be learning. If he has
found an answer then he should verify what he has found with a CFI if he
feels it necessary.

The question did NOT contain the necessary information to find a specific
answer. What I quoted was quoted as an example of what can be found by
reading the POH.

The instructor obviously, if he is competent, which we must assume until
proven otherwise could answer the question - what does that teach the pilot?

The pilot has the ultimate responsibility for what he does. At some time he
must cut the apron strings and act like a PIC. That obviously requires
asking a more knowledgeable person if he cannot answer a question himself
with a little work.

Daniel

P.S. I believe that almost all CFIs are competent. The ultimate goal is to
generate a safe pilot who can fly himself.

[Daniel L. Lieberman]

Dudley,
You have made my point. There is a POH for every plane. A pilot should read
it when he has a question. He is supposed to always be learning. If he has
found an answer then he should verify what he has found with a CFI if he
feels it necessary.

The question did NOT contain the necessary information to find a specific
answer. What I quoted was quoted as an example of what can be found by
reading the POH.

The instructor obviously, if he is competent, which we must assume until
proven otherwise could answer the question - what does that teach the pilot?

The pilot has the ultimate responsibility for what he does. At some time he
must cut the apron strings and act like a PIC. That obviously requires
asking a more knowledgeable person if he cannot answer a question himself
with a little work.

Daniel

P.S. I believe that almost all CFIs are competent. The ultimate goal is to
generate a safe pilot who can fly himself.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley,
> You have made my point. There is a POH for every plane. A pilot should
> read it when he has a question.

Of course.


He is supposed to always be learning.

Basic flying 101.

If he has
> found an answer then he should verify what he has found with a CFI if
> he feels it necessary.

One way to handle it that's for sure. He could also check any and all
available sources of information as he should be doing; and this would
include any good CFI; the result should be a path leading directly to
the manufacturer's POH.
My point was simply that your statement as worded assumed that the
"average flight instructor" might not know enough to point the
questioner in the direction of the POH; an assumption I totally disagree
with.
I have no problem at all with your basic premise that checks the POH. In
fact that would be MY answer as well. Since I'm a flight instructor, and
would have done that, your added "assumption" to your comment about
CFI's not necessarily knowing enough to point a pilot to the POH I
thought might need a bit of "adjustment" so to speak. :-)
>
> The question did NOT contain the necessary information to find a
> specific answer.

Correct.

What I quoted was quoted as an example of what can be found by
> reading the POH.

Also correct. Just don't assume that the "average flight instructor"
wouldn't know enough to point someone in the right direction.

>
> The instructor obviously, if he is competent, which we must assume
> until proven otherwise could answer the question - what does that
> teach the pilot?

Don't assume anything in flying. It will kill you in short order! As for
"teaching the pilot". It isn't a CFI "game". If a pilot has a question,
you give him what you have and point him in the right direction to the
answer. In this case it's the POH. Any informative source can do that.
It's up to the pilot to make maximum use of all available sources and
sort out the good from the bad.
Again, my comment on your remark is directed only to your instructor
reference being not as reliable as the manufacturer's POH. BOTH should
be equally reliable in the context of this question; the POH for
supplying the needed data and the instructor for supplying the path to
the POH for obtaining that data.
It's no big deal, but I like to keep the air nice and clean when it
comes to statements about instructors.
Your basic point about the POH was correct. In my opinion, your added
reference about the "average instructor" I thought needed some
additional clarification which we have done I believe.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired



>
> The pilot has the ultimate responsibility for what he does. At some
> time he must cut the apron strings and act like a PIC. That obviously
> requires asking a more knowledgeable person if he cannot answer a
> question himself with a little work.
>
> Daniel
>
> P.S. I believe that almost all CFIs are competent. The ultimate goal
> is to generate a safe pilot who can fly himself.
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley,
> You have made my point. There is a POH for every plane. A pilot should
> read it when he has a question.

Of course.


He is supposed to always be learning.

Basic flying 101.

If he has
> found an answer then he should verify what he has found with a CFI if
> he feels it necessary.

One way to handle it that's for sure. He could also check any and all
available sources of information as he should be doing; and this would
include any good CFI; the result should be a path leading directly to
the manufacturer's POH.
My point was simply that your statement as worded assumed that the
"average flight instructor" might not know enough to point the
questioner in the direction of the POH; an assumption I totally disagree
with.
I have no problem at all with your basic premise that checks the POH. In
fact that would be MY answer as well. Since I'm a flight instructor, and
would have done that, your added "assumption" to your comment about
CFI's not necessarily knowing enough to point a pilot to the POH I
thought might need a bit of "adjustment" so to speak. :-)
>
> The question did NOT contain the necessary information to find a
> specific answer.

Correct.

What I quoted was quoted as an example of what can be found by
> reading the POH.

Also correct. Just don't assume that the "average flight instructor"
wouldn't know enough to point someone in the right direction.

>
> The instructor obviously, if he is competent, which we must assume
> until proven otherwise could answer the question - what does that
> teach the pilot?

Don't assume anything in flying. It will kill you in short order! As for
"teaching the pilot". It isn't a CFI "game". If a pilot has a question,
you give him what you have and point him in the right direction to the
answer. In this case it's the POH. Any informative source can do that.
It's up to the pilot to make maximum use of all available sources and
sort out the good from the bad.
Again, my comment on your remark is directed only to your instructor
reference being not as reliable as the manufacturer's POH. BOTH should
be equally reliable in the context of this question; the POH for
supplying the needed data and the instructor for supplying the path to
the POH for obtaining that data.
It's no big deal, but I like to keep the air nice and clean when it
comes to statements about instructors.
Your basic point about the POH was correct. In my opinion, your added
reference about the "average instructor" I thought needed some
additional clarification which we have done I believe.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired



>
> The pilot has the ultimate responsibility for what he does. At some
> time he must cut the apron strings and act like a PIC. That obviously
> requires asking a more knowledgeable person if he cannot answer a
> question himself with a little work.
>
> Daniel
>
> P.S. I believe that almost all CFIs are competent. The ultimate goal
> is to generate a safe pilot who can fly himself.
>

[Cub Driver]

>There is a POH for every plane.

If only this were true! I would love to have a POH for the 1946 J-3
Cub that I fly.


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

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

[Cub Driver]

>There is a POH for every plane.

If only this were true! I would love to have a POH for the 1946 J-3
Cub that I fly.


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

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 06:21:11 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>
>>There is a POH for every plane.
>
>If only this were true! I would love to have a POH for the 1946 J-3
>Cub that I fly.


Owner's Manual for Cub Special J-3C-65……………..………$10.00
http://www.cub-club.com/Printed72303.doc

Here's a CD with 8 different Cub manuals:
http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com/Cub.html

There's one here:
http://www.aeroplanebooks.com/seriesPilot.htm

Piper Cub J-3 Service Manual
http://www.historicaviation.com/historicaviation/product_info.po;jsessionid=vE63PPu_0M-U90wTx3XdDKst(0CpplRPt)?ID=1544
http://www.xs4all.nl/~aviation/books3.html
http://www.texair.com/rfq/catalog-P.asp

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 06:21:11 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>
>>There is a POH for every plane.
>
>If only this were true! I would love to have a POH for the 1946 J-3
>Cub that I fly.


Owner's Manual for Cub Special J-3C-65……………..………$10.00
http://www.cub-club.com/Printed72303.doc

Here's a CD with 8 different Cub manuals:
http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com/Cub.html

There's one here:
http://www.aeroplanebooks.com/seriesPilot.htm

Piper Cub J-3 Service Manual
http://www.historicaviation.com/historicaviation/product_info.po;jsessionid=vE63PPu_0M-U90wTx3XdDKst(0CpplRPt)?ID=1544
http://www.xs4all.nl/~aviation/books3.html
http://www.texair.com/rfq/catalog-P.asp

[Jim Weir]

You can't be serious as to not know the difference between a POH and an owners'
manual, can you?

Jim



Larry Dighera >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 06:21:11 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::
->
->>
->>>There is a POH for every plane.
->>
->>If only this were true! I would love to have a POH for the 1946 J-3
->>Cub that I fly.
->
->
->Owner's Manual for Cub Special J-3C-65……………..………$10.00
->http://www.cub-club.com/Printed72303.doc
->
->Here's a CD with 8 different Cub manuals:
->http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com/Cub.html
->
->There's one here:
->http://www.aeroplanebooks.com/seriesPilot.htm
->
->Piper Cub J-3 Service Manual
->http://www.historicaviation.com/historicaviation/product_info.po;jsessionid=vE63PPu_0M-U90wTx3XdDKst(0CpplRPt)?ID=1544
->http://www.xs4all.nl/~aviation/books3.html
->http://www.texair.com/rfq/catalog-P.asp



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

You can't be serious as to not know the difference between a POH and an owners'
manual, can you?

Jim



Larry Dighera >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 06:21:11 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::
->
->>
->>>There is a POH for every plane.
->>
->>If only this were true! I would love to have a POH for the 1946 J-3
->>Cub that I fly.
->
->
->Owner's Manual for Cub Special J-3C-65……………..………$10.00
->http://www.cub-club.com/Printed72303.doc
->
->Here's a CD with 8 different Cub manuals:
->http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com/Cub.html
->
->There's one here:
->http://www.aeroplanebooks.com/seriesPilot.htm
->
->Piper Cub J-3 Service Manual
->http://www.historicaviation.com/historicaviation/product_info.po;jsessionid=vE63PPu_0M-U90wTx3XdDKst(0CpplRPt)?ID=1544
->http://www.xs4all.nl/~aviation/books3.html
->http://www.texair.com/rfq/catalog-P.asp



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> Your opinion is that it sucks. But thankfully, your opinion is not the
> written Gospel.
>

Of course not. Neither is yours. Is ANYONE here spreading more than his or
her opinion? But thanks for pointing out the very basics. Maybe you needed
the reminder. I didn't.

Where, pray, tell, are your statements less absolute than mine?

And no, I don't use OE.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> Your opinion is that it sucks. But thankfully, your opinion is not the
> written Gospel.
>

Of course not. Neither is yours. Is ANYONE here spreading more than his or
her opinion? But thanks for pointing out the very basics. Maybe you needed
the reminder. I didn't.

Where, pray, tell, are your statements less absolute than mine?

And no, I don't use OE.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:54:08 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:

>You can't be serious as to not know the difference between a POH and an owners'
>manual, can you?

Huh?

Kindly point me to either a POH or an owner's manual for the J-3 Cub.

I don't know the difference! How can there be a difference between two
things that don't exist?


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

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

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:54:08 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:

>You can't be serious as to not know the difference between a POH and an owners'
>manual, can you?

Huh?

Kindly point me to either a POH or an owner's manual for the J-3 Cub.

I don't know the difference! How can there be a difference between two
things that don't exist?


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

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:12:31 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>Kindly point me to either a POH or an owner's manual for the J-3 Cub.

http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&as_umsgid=%3Cchcim0lgku4tr22a420odvd9c5hheob160@4a x.com%3E&lr=&hl=en

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:12:31 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>Kindly point me to either a POH or an owner's manual for the J-3 Cub.

http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&as_umsgid=%3Cchcim0lgku4tr22a420odvd9c5hheob160@4a x.com%3E&lr=&hl=en

[Dan Thomas]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in message >...
> For the engine, the higher the RPM the better. However, 1800 is used
> because its a high RPM but doesn't suck as many rocks into the prop as
> full RPM. If you run up to full RPM everytime you'll send up replacing
> your prop every annual.
>
> -Robert

1800 (or 1700 or even 1600 in other installations) is selected
because that's where cylinder pressures are highest for the static
condition. Lower RPMs give lower pressures because the throttle is
closed too much, and higher revs will give slightly lower pressures
because the volumetric efficiency of the engine is beginning to drop
off (there's too much friction in the intake and exhaust systems). At
highest cylinder pressures weak mags or sparkplugs are most likely to
cut out, which is what we're checking for.

Dan
>
>
>
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message >...
> > I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was the
> > limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs. I had a really bad one
> > yesterday with 250 RPM drop. I taxied back to the shop and they said to try
> > full throttle before pulling the plugs.
> >
> > It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
> > for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
> > seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
> > CHT's have not yet risen to max.
> >
> > Any thoughts? What were you taught?

[Dan Thomas]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in message >...
> For the engine, the higher the RPM the better. However, 1800 is used
> because its a high RPM but doesn't suck as many rocks into the prop as
> full RPM. If you run up to full RPM everytime you'll send up replacing
> your prop every annual.
>
> -Robert

1800 (or 1700 or even 1600 in other installations) is selected
because that's where cylinder pressures are highest for the static
condition. Lower RPMs give lower pressures because the throttle is
closed too much, and higher revs will give slightly lower pressures
because the volumetric efficiency of the engine is beginning to drop
off (there's too much friction in the intake and exhaust systems). At
highest cylinder pressures weak mags or sparkplugs are most likely to
cut out, which is what we're checking for.

Dan
>
>
>
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message >...
> > I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was the
> > limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs. I had a really bad one
> > yesterday with 250 RPM drop. I taxied back to the shop and they said to try
> > full throttle before pulling the plugs.
> >
> > It worked but running the engine full power (near sea level) while leaned
> > for best power and peak EGT with minimum airflow for the minute it took
> > seems pretty abusive to me. Maybe you can get away with it because the
> > CHT's have not yet risen to max.
> >
> > Any thoughts? What were you taught?

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Of course not. Neither is yours. Is ANYONE here spreading more than his or
> her opinion? But thanks for pointing out the very basics. Maybe you needed
> the reminder. I didn't.

You did, and it appears you still do.

> Where, pray, tell, are your statements less absolute than mine?

They are statements of fact, regarding what you can and cannot do in OE.
Your statements, on the other hand, are statements of opinion, stated *as if
they were fact*, when in fact they are not.

> And no, I don't use OE.

I know you don't. That's why I wrote that you don't.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Of course not. Neither is yours. Is ANYONE here spreading more than his or
> her opinion? But thanks for pointing out the very basics. Maybe you needed
> the reminder. I didn't.

You did, and it appears you still do.

> Where, pray, tell, are your statements less absolute than mine?

They are statements of fact, regarding what you can and cannot do in OE.
Your statements, on the other hand, are statements of opinion, stated *as if
they were fact*, when in fact they are not.

> And no, I don't use OE.

I know you don't. That's why I wrote that you don't.

Pete

[Trent Moorehead]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was
the
> limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs.

<snip>

I was taught to throttle up to 2000, lean to peak, and run this way for 60
seconds. I've had to do this many times and it has always worked.

Now, I was taught in a C-150 and I have transferred that knowledge to the
C-172, so I may be doing something wrong now. I will check the POH when I
get a chance.....

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Trent Moorehead]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was
the
> limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs.

<snip>

I was taught to throttle up to 2000, lean to peak, and run this way for 60
seconds. I've had to do this many times and it has always worked.

Now, I was taught in a C-150 and I have transferred that knowledge to the
C-172, so I may be doing something wrong now. I will check the POH when I
get a chance.....

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Dan Thomas]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message >...
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was
> the
> > limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs.
>
> <snip>
>
> I was taught to throttle up to 2000, lean to peak, and run this way for 60
> seconds. I've had to do this many times and it has always worked.
>
> Now, I was taught in a C-150 and I have transferred that knowledge to the
> C-172, so I may be doing something wrong now. I will check the POH when I
> get a chance.....
>
> -Trent
> PP-ASEL

60 seconds is way too long. That engine gets cooking hot by that
time. Try actually timing it sometime and see just how long it is.

Dan

[Dan Thomas]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message >...
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM was
> the
> > limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs.
>
> <snip>
>
> I was taught to throttle up to 2000, lean to peak, and run this way for 60
> seconds. I've had to do this many times and it has always worked.
>
> Now, I was taught in a C-150 and I have transferred that knowledge to the
> C-172, so I may be doing something wrong now. I will check the POH when I
> get a chance.....
>
> -Trent
> PP-ASEL

60 seconds is way too long. That engine gets cooking hot by that
time. Try actually timing it sometime and see just how long it is.

Dan

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:48:55 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>I'll say this much for you...you certainly don't miss a chance to express
>your anti-Microsoft religious views.


My views are supported by Microsoft itself as evidenced by their
security patches released yesterday:


http://entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=6403

News

Microsoft Releases 10 Security Bulletins

by Scott Bekker

October 12, 2004

In one of its biggest monthly "Patch Tuesday" events yet, Microsoft
posted 10 new security bulletins, seven of them for critical flaws
that could allow attackers to remotely take control of a computer.
The new bulletins are Microsoft's 29th through 38th of the year. They
follow a month when Microsoft released only one bulletin for flaw in
Microsoft's component for processing JPEG images. Microsoft also on
Tuesday released an updated version of its tool for detecting programs
that require the patch for the JPEG component.


http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04-oct.mspx
Summary
Included in this advisory are updates for newly discovered
vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities, broken down by severity are:

Critical (7)


Bulletin Identifier Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-032
Bulletin Title
Security Update for Microsoft Windows (840987)

Executive Summary
A remote code execution vulnerability, two elevation of privilege
vulnerabilities, and a denial of service vulnerability exist in
Windows. The most severe vulnerability could allow remote code
execution on an affected system.

Maximum Severity Rating
Critical

Impact of Vulnerability
Remote Code Execution

Affected Software
Windows. For more information, see the Affected Software and Download
Locations section.

Bulletin Identifier Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-033
Bulletin Title
Vulnerability in Microsoft Excel Could Allow Remote Code Execution
(886836)

Executive Summary
A vulnerability exists in Microsoft Excel that could allow remote
code execution on an affected system.

Maximum Severity Rating
Critical

Impact of Vulnerability
Remote Code Execution

Affected Software
Office, Excel, Office for Mac, Excel for Mac. For more information,
see the Affected Software and Download Locations section.

Bulletin Identifier Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-034
Bulletin Title
Vulnerability in Compressed (zipped) Folders Could Allow Remote Code
Execution (873376)

Executive Summary
A vulnerability exists in the way that Windows processes Compressed
(zipped) Folders that could allow remote code execution on an affected
system.

Maximum Severity Rating
Critical

Impact of Vulnerability
Remote Code Execution

Affected Software
Windows. For more information, see the Affected Software and Download
Locations section.

Bulletin Identifier Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-035
Bulletin Title
Vulnerability in SMTP Could Allow Remote Code Execution (885881)

Executive Summary
A vulnerability exists in the Windows SMTP component and Exchange
Server Routing Engine component that could allow remote code execution
on an affected system.

Maximum Severity Rating
Critical

Impact of Vulnerability
Remote Code Execution

Affected Software
Windows and Exchange. For more information, see the Affected Software
and Download Locations section.

Bulletin Identifier Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-036
Bulletin Title
Vulnerability in NNTP Could Allow Remote Code Execution (883935)

Executive Summary
A vulnerability exists in the Windows NNTP Component that could allow
remote code execution on an affected system.

Maximum Severity Rating
Critical

Impact of Vulnerability
Remote Code Execution

Affected Software
Windows and Exchange. For more information, see the Affected Software
and Download Locations section.

Bulletin Identifier Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-037
Bulletin Title
Vulnerability in Windows Shell Could Allow Remote Code Execution
(841356)

Executive Summary
A vulnerability exists in the way that the Windows Shell launches
applications. A vulnerability exists in Program Group Converter
because of the way that it handles specially crafted requests. Both
could allow remote code execution on an affected system.

Maximum Severity Rating
Critical

Impact of Vulnerability
Remote Code Execution

Affected Software
Windows. For more information, see the Affected Software and Download
Locations section.

Bulletin Identifier Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-038
Bulletin Title
Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (834707)

Executive Summary
Five remote code execution and three information disclosure
vulnerabilities exist in Internet Explorer.

Maximum Severity Rating
Critical

Impact of Vulnerability
Remote Code Execution

Affected Software
Windows, Internet Explorer. For more information, see the Affected
Software and Download Locations section.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> My views are supported by Microsoft itself as evidenced by their
> security patches released yesterday:

Hardly. As if Microsoft has the only software (or OS, for that matter)
published with security flaws. At least they are fixing them, and doing so
before someone exploits them.

[Trent Moorehead]

"Dan Thomas" > wrote in message
om...
> "Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I can't remember where I "learned" it but I always thought 1800 RPM
was
> > the
> > > limit for ground running leaned to clear plugs.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I was taught to throttle up to 2000, lean to peak, and run this way for
60
> > seconds. I've had to do this many times and it has always worked.
> >
> > Now, I was taught in a C-150 and I have transferred that knowledge to
the
> > C-172, so I may be doing something wrong now. I will check the POH when
I
> > get a chance.....
> >
> > -Trent
> > PP-ASEL
>
> 60 seconds is way too long. That engine gets cooking hot by that
> time. Try actually timing it sometime and see just how long it is.
>
> Dan

I time it exactly using the sweep hand of my watch. I may be doing it for
too long, but I'm not guessing about it.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[John Harlow]

Roger Long wrote:
> #&*(^%$#!)+=- Microsoft.
>
> With the budgets that world domination provides, you would think
> someone would have figured out that putting the Send button under the
> Reply button would lead to inadvertent blank replies.
>
> With Windows 98, you could move the buttons around so that didn't
> happen when you accidentally double clicked. Eliminating that option
> seems to have been one of those "Innovations that users demand."

Right click on the toolbar, hit "customize" and move the buttons anywhere
you want.