Nasa Icing courses

[Jim Burns]

As many of you probably know, recent midwest weather has been a steady
stream of low overcast, misty, and foggy days prohibiting most VFR flight
and making IFR flights a spin of the icing roulette wheel. I thought it may
be a good opportunity for us to review NASA's icing online courses.

http://aircrafticing.grc.nasa.gov/courses.html

Jim

[Montblack]

("Jim Burns" wrote)
> As many of you probably know, recent midwest weather has been a steady
> stream of low overcast, misty, and foggy days prohibiting most VFR flight
> and making IFR flights a spin of the icing roulette wheel. I thought it
> may be a good opportunity for us to review NASA's icing online courses.
>
> http://aircrafticing.grc.nasa.gov/courses.html


"The streak of cloudy days continues. If it weren't for about 2 hours of
filtered sun on New Years Day this would be the 14th completely cloudy day
in a row."

<http://www.crh.noaa.gov/crnews/display_story.php?wfo=mpx&storyid=1047&source=0>
NOAA - Persistent Lack of Sunshine in the Twin Cities

<http://www.kare11.com/weather/weather_article.aspx?storyid=115912>
Local news blip


Montblack

[[email protected]]

: "The streak of cloudy days continues. If it weren't for about 2 hours of
: filtered sun on New Years Day this would be the 14th completely cloudy day
: in a row."

Hey... that little window let me fly home (Wisconsin-Virginia) on New Year's
Day.... Take what you can get! :)

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Jay Honeck]

> Hey... that little window let me fly home (Wisconsin-Virginia) on New
> Year's
> Day.... Take what you can get! :)

Hey, we flew VFR from Iowa City to Janesville, WI (and back) last Sunday.

The last 45 minutes were, um, interesting. The temperature and dew points
began to converge, as the sun began to set, and sky conditions dropped from
11,000 broken to a very optimistic 1300 overcast -- across a 250 mile wide
stretch of terrain -- in about 20 minutes. It was the most widespread
deterioration I've ever seen.

I was glad to be on the ground at the end of that flight. We were still
legal VFR, but visibility was 5 miles or less, and nasty icing was occurring
less than a thousand feet up.

Other than that, we haven't flown diddly squat in weeks. Our last fly-in
guest was sometime around Thanksgiving. Worst flying weather I've ever
seen.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Scott Draper]

Please don't crosspost to *every* aviation newsgroup.

[Stubby]

Jim Burns wrote:
> I didn't post to rec.aviation or rec.aviation.homebuilts, or
> alt.binaries.pictures.aviation, or probably a half dozen others.
> If you don't think my post was relevant to each group that I posted to,
> you're wrong. Not everyone receives or subscribes to *every* newsgroup.
>
> Jim
>
> "Scott Draper" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Please don't crosspost to *every* aviation newsgroup.
>>
>>

That's exactly the point. We have multiple groups so we can chose what
we DO NOT want to receive. And then you defeat that mechanism by
blasting out to many groups. What you have to say is not so important
that you need to do that. Just stick to the group that fits best.

If you don't like that, start a movement to get rid of all but ONE
NEWSGROUP.

[Jon Kraus]

To me the Icing topic is entirely relevant to all the newsgroups it was
posted to. Jim has been posting to this NG for a long time and I for one
trust his judgment in regard to his posting techniques. Just my .02 and
of course YMMV.

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ

Stubby wrote:
> Jim Burns wrote:
>
>> I didn't post to rec.aviation or rec.aviation.homebuilts, or
>> alt.binaries.pictures.aviation, or probably a half dozen others.
>> If you don't think my post was relevant to each group that I posted to,
>> you're wrong. Not everyone receives or subscribes to *every* newsgroup.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> "Scott Draper" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Please don't crosspost to *every* aviation newsgroup.
>>>
>>>
>
> That's exactly the point. We have multiple groups so we can chose what
> we DO NOT want to receive. And then you defeat that mechanism by
> blasting out to many groups. What you have to say is not so important
> that you need to do that. Just stick to the group that fits best.
>
> If you don't like that, start a movement to get rid of all but ONE
> NEWSGROUP.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Hey... that little window let me fly home (Wisconsin-Virginia) on New
>>Year's
>>Day.... Take what you can get! :)
>
>
> Hey, we flew VFR from Iowa City to Janesville, WI (and back) last Sunday.
>
> The last 45 minutes were, um, interesting. The temperature and dew points
> began to converge, as the sun began to set, and sky conditions dropped from
> 11,000 broken to a very optimistic 1300 overcast -- across a 250 mile wide
> stretch of terrain -- in about 20 minutes. It was the most widespread
> deterioration I've ever seen.
>
> I was glad to be on the ground at the end of that flight. We were still
> legal VFR, but visibility was 5 miles or less, and nasty icing was occurring
> less than a thousand feet up.
>
> Other than that, we haven't flown diddly squat in weeks. Our last fly-in
> guest was sometime around Thanksgiving. Worst flying weather I've ever
> seen.

Yes, I feel your pain. I haven't flown since a trip in October to New
Hampshire where I got some ice on the return trip. I was off two weeks
at Christmas and the weather was either icing conditions or low vis
every day the entire time I was off work!


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Scott Draper wrote:

> Please don't crosspost to *every* aviation newsgroup.
>
>

Please don't you post at all.

Matt

[Jules]

Man, you have problems or something.

Scott Draper wrote:
> Please don't crosspost to *every* aviation newsgroup.
>
>

[Scott Draper]

<<Not everyone receives or subscribes to *every* newsgroup.>>

That's because we want to choose what we download. Icing is mostly
relevant to IFR flight.

If everyone did what you did, there'd be no point to having multiple
groups.

[Jim Burns]

I didn't post to rec.aviation or rec.aviation.homebuilts, or
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation, or probably a half dozen others.
If you don't think my post was relevant to each group that I posted to,
you're wrong. Not everyone receives or subscribes to *every* newsgroup.

Jim

"Scott Draper" > wrote in message
...
> Please don't crosspost to *every* aviation newsgroup.
>
>

[The Visitor]

Scott Draper wrote:
> <<Not everyone receives or subscribes to *every* newsgroup.>>
>
> That's because we want to choose what we download.

Well you chose to download it.

Icing is mostly
> relevant to IFR flight.
>

Not true. Unless you want to bend thoughts one way only. And I see your
need to do so. I would not advocate vfr pilots follow your lead of
practicing non-enlightenment. Around the great lakes here we get
moisture, higher up icing, farther away icing, and higher and farther it
is snow. VFR pilots here contend with this, lots. The IFR planes are
known icing approved. So would you advocate the ifr pilots not learn
about icing as they can just push a button to shed it?

And if you would bother to look and read before you bash, you would see
that there is also a course on ground icing also.

Both are very applicable to vfr flying.

Somehow I just know you are 'really good' at Microsoft flightsimulator.

I have not looked at the courses yet but I see no harm in them. Take
your electrons to the recycle bin.

It was a good post and I am glad to have run accross it.

[Peter Duniho]

"Scott Draper" > wrote in message
...
> That's because we want to choose what we download. Icing is mostly
> relevant to IFR flight.
>
> If everyone did what you did, there'd be no point to having multiple
> groups.

While I agree with you that the original post was over-cross-posted, it
seems to me that the only newsgroup that was blatantly off-topic for the
post was r.a.owning.

It seems to me that airframe icing is primarily an IFR issue, possibly of
interest to people reading r.a.piloting, and hardly applicable to people
involved in their primary training (the main audience in r.a.student). But
a person who lacks a conservative bent, a person who doesn't understand why
it's a good thing to be VERY minimal about cross-posting, they aren't going
to see it that way.

They are going to think "well, this *might* be of interest to someone who
*might* be reading that newsgroup", and they (or similar-minded folks) are
going to get all bent out of shape if you try to suggest otherwise.

Which is, in fact, what happened so far. :)

Of course, your original reply was somewhat exaggerated as well (there
*were* plenty of rec.aviation.* newsgroups that didn't get the post). I'm
sure that didn't help the mood.

Pete

[Vidéotron]

Thank you Jim for this wonderfull posting.

Paul

"Jim Burns" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> As many of you probably know, recent midwest weather has been a steady
> stream of low overcast, misty, and foggy days prohibiting most VFR flight
> and making IFR flights a spin of the icing roulette wheel. I thought it
> may
> be a good opportunity for us to review NASA's icing online courses.
>
> http://aircrafticing.grc.nasa.gov/courses.html
>
> Jim
>
>

[Ray Andraka]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Other than that, we haven't flown diddly squat in weeks. Our last fly-in
> guest was sometime around Thanksgiving. Worst flying weather I've ever
> seen.

So between the weather and my work backing up, at least my engine picked
a good time to make metal. It is off the airplane waiting for the crate
to arrive from Penn Yan. I last flew on a return trip over Thanksgiving
weekend. Pulled the filter right after that trip (11 hours after
finding metal in the filter during the october annual) and found as much
metal as the previous 30+ hour filter had in it, so I grounded it.

The engine is 26 months and 178 hours out of a new limits Penn Yan
overhaul with new ECI titan stud assemblies, new cam, new accessory
gears, new oil pump, all new accessories, etc. About all that wasn't new
was the crank and case, and those were reworked during the overhaul.

The intake cam lobe for the #3 and #4 cylinders failed and is worn down
considerably, hence the engine coming off and waiting for the crate.

[Scott Draper]

<<it seems to me that the only newsgroup that was blatantly off-topic
for the post was r.a.owning.>>

I agree that it's arguably on topic for most of the groups, but so is
almost *every* topic. After all, what doesn't apply to the "piloting"
group? And aren't we all "students" of some sort?

The overlap of readership among the groups makes cross-posting
redundant. My observation is that it's mostly newbies that do it.

<<Of course, your original reply was somewhat exaggerated as well>>

Artistic license? ;-)

[[email protected]]

On 7-Jan-2006, Ray Andraka > wrote:

> The engine is 26 months and 178 hours out of a new limits Penn Yan
> overhaul with new ECI titan stud assemblies, new cam, new accessory
> gears, new oil pump, all new accessories, etc. About all that wasn't new
> was the crank and case, and those were reworked during the overhaul.


So, is Penn Yan providing the new engine at no cost, or pro-rated? Are they
picking up any of the removal/reinstallation and shipping expenses?

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Scott Draper]

<<I would not advocate vfr pilots follow your lead of
practicing non-enlightenment.>>

That's a ridiculous mischaracterization of what I said.

I did say that icing applies *mostly* to IFR pilots and that remains
true. That isn't the same as saying that VFR pilots *never* have to
worry about icing.

Your post was a mixture of ad hominem and straw man arguments.

[The Visitor]

Say what you want, the OP was just fine in what he did.




Scott Draper wrote:
> <<I would not advocate vfr pilots follow your lead of
> practicing non-enlightenment.>>
>
> That's a ridiculous mischaracterization of what I said.
>
> I did say that icing applies *mostly* to IFR pilots and that remains
> true. That isn't the same as saying that VFR pilots *never* have to
> worry about icing.
>
> Your post was a mixture of ad hominem and straw man arguments.
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> The intake cam lobe for the #3 and #4 cylinders failed and is worn down
> considerably, hence the engine coming off and waiting for the crate.

I've been following your engine woes with great interest, Ray, and not a
small bit of horror. To say you are living one of my worst nightmares is
not far from the truth, and I feel your pain.

Does anyone *really* know what causes a camshaft to fail like this? I read
about it happening with alarming regularity, and it's never attributed to
anything in particular. It's always treated like an act of God, or like a
weather phenomenon, rather than like the mechanical failure it is.

And mechanical failures should have simple explanations, no? WHY did one
of the cam lobes fail? Why didn't ALL of the cam lobes fail?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Montblack]

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
[snip]
> It seems to me that airframe icing is primarily an IFR issue, possibly of
> interest to people reading r.a.piloting, and hardly applicable to people
> involved in their primary training (the main audience in r.a.student).


Jim (OP) has experience with people involved in their primary training.

Weather is taught to VFR primary students, why not icing?

"Clouds ......recognize and avoid!"
"T-storms ...recognize and avoid!"
"Icing ..........recognize and avoid!"


Montblack

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Does anyone *really* know what causes a camshaft to fail like this? I read
> about it happening with alarming regularity, and it's never attributed to
> anything in particular.

In the absence of some catastrophe, such as a bent pushrod, this is generally
caused by not flying enough. The layer of hardened steel on a camshaft is fairly
thin. Let the plane sit long enough, and rust will form. When the engine starts
again, the rust is worn away, making the thin layer of hardened steel thinner.
The worst wear points, of course, are the tips of the lobes. Once the hardened
steel wears through, the softer steel underneath goes pretty rapidly.

"So why not build the shaft entirely of hardened steel?", I hear you cry. That's
because the harder steel is, the more brittle it becomes. The best strength
comes from this sort of lamination of hard and soft steels.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jim Macklin]

There is also the fact that the oil pump is at one end of
the engine and the cam shaft lobe that fails is probably at
the other [a guess] and the oil takes some time to reach the
journal and establish a full oil bearing.

Add a little sludge, maybe some cold oil and an over-revved
engine, and you get cam lobe /journal failure or the lifter.

Pilot error due to poor operation.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:J11wf.517$sa4.41@trnddc07...
| Jay Honeck wrote:
|
| > Does anyone *really* know what causes a camshaft to fail
like this? I read
| > about it happening with alarming regularity, and it's
never attributed to
| > anything in particular.
|
| In the absence of some catastrophe, such as a bent
pushrod, this is generally
| caused by not flying enough. The layer of hardened steel
on a camshaft is fairly
| thin. Let the plane sit long enough, and rust will form.
When the engine starts
| again, the rust is worn away, making the thin layer of
hardened steel thinner.
| The worst wear points, of course, are the tips of the
lobes. Once the hardened
| steel wears through, the softer steel underneath goes
pretty rapidly.
|
| "So why not build the shaft entirely of hardened steel?",
I hear you cry. That's
| because the harder steel is, the more brittle it becomes.
The best strength
| comes from this sort of lamination of hard and soft
steels.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.

[Jay Honeck]

> Add a little sludge, maybe some cold oil and an over-revved
> engine, and you get cam lobe /journal failure or the lifter.

Can you expand on that a bit, Jim? What, exactly, is an "over-revved
engine"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote
>
> In the absence of some catastrophe, such as a bent pushrod, this is
> generally caused by not flying enough.

Whenever I see less than 200 hours on an engine in a year, it seems like
there are tales of destruction of an engine to follow.

All of this would not be nearly as likely (it seems to me) if aircraft
engines were equipped with rollers on the cams.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> Whenever I see less than 200 hours on an engine in a year, it seems like
> there are tales of destruction of an engine to follow.

???

That describes almost every privately owned aircraft at our airport. Only
trainers routinely put on more than 200 hours per year.

Mary and I fly more than anyone at the airport, and we just barely put 200
hours on last year.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Macklin]

Start with the throttle 1/2 open, zero rpm to 1800 with no
oil pressure. Etc.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Db1wf.471788$084.269539@attbi_s22...
|> Add a little sludge, maybe some cold oil and an
over-revved
| > engine, and you get cam lobe /journal failure or the
lifter.
|
| Can you expand on that a bit, Jim? What, exactly, is an
"over-revved
| engine"?
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|
|

[Morgans]

>> Whenever I see less than 200 hours on an engine in a year, it seems like
>> there are tales of destruction of an engine to follow.
>
> ???
>
> That describes almost every privately owned aircraft at our airport. Only
> trainers routinely put on more than 200 hours per year.
>
> Mary and I fly more than anyone at the airport, and we just barely put 200
> hours on last year.

Really? I would have thought you put far more than that on, per year.

OK, then perhaps it is the frequency of being well warmed up that is the
more important factor. I have always read that the moisture that is the
killer, and when engines sit for more than a couple weeks, frequently, that
the rust begins killing the internals.

I wonder what the minimum time per year, and maximum frequency of running is
necessary to keep rust at bay?

Still, I think that only rollers touching the cams would be beneficial. I
wonder how many kits have been designed to retrofit popular lycosaruses?
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> Jim (OP) has experience with people involved in their primary training.
>
> Weather is taught to VFR primary students, why not icing?

Because they have enough to learn already?

Seriously though, a primary student's knowledge of icing need not extend
much further than "don't fly when freezing rain is forecast". For extra
credit, a short discussion of what causes freezing rain might be called for.

Most icing occurs inside a cloud, and VFR pilots should not have to worry
about that, or anything else that might happen inside a cloud.

But more importantly (and more to the point) the r.a.student newsgroup is
more about the process of learning to fly, and especially as it applies to
primary students, than it is about any random topic a pilot might be
educated on. Here's the charter:

It's been said that every good pilot is a student pilot -- for
life. This group is dedicated to learning experiences and questions,
particularly (but not exclusively) by and for those who haven't
yet attained the private pilot certificate. Written exams, solo
flights, learning to land, maneuvers, flight tests, instructors
and instructional techniques, etc.

Pete

[Ray Andraka]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> There is also the fact that the oil pump is at one end of
> the engine and the cam shaft lobe that fails is probably at
> the other [a guess] and the oil takes some time to reach the
> journal and establish a full oil bearing.
>
> Add a little sludge, maybe some cold oil and an over-revved
> engine, and you get cam lobe /journal failure or the lifter.
>
> Pilot error due to poor operation.
>
>

This is on an O-540. The cam lobe that wore is in the center of the shaft.

So how long is too long to sit? The longest my airplane sat between
flights since the O/H was one stretch of 7 weeks while it was in the
shop for corrosion repair on the belly. Second longest was also in the
shop for 4 weeks for a new interior. Other than that it has been flown
a minimum of every 20 days.

So if it is pilot error, I am all ears as to what I can do to improve my
technique. So far, no one has been able to tell me anything I did
wrong, including Penn Yan.

[Jay Beckman]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> Whenever I see less than 200 hours on an engine in a year, it seems like
>>> there are tales of destruction of an engine to follow.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> That describes almost every privately owned aircraft at our airport.
>> Only trainers routinely put on more than 200 hours per year.
>>
>> Mary and I fly more than anyone at the airport, and we just barely put
>> 200 hours on last year.
>
> Really? I would have thought you put far more than that on, per year.
>
> OK, then perhaps it is the frequency of being well warmed up that is the
> more important factor. I have always read that the moisture that is the
> killer, and when engines sit for more than a couple weeks, frequently,
> that the rust begins killing the internals.
>
> I wonder what the minimum time per year, and maximum frequency of running
> is necessary to keep rust at bay?
>
> Still, I think that only rollers touching the cams would be beneficial. I
> wonder how many kits have been designed to retrofit popular lycosaruses?
> --
> Jim in NC

I wonder if there is any statistical evidence on this issue regarding
incidences per region?

Are planes out here in the desert SW less prone to this?

Just wondering out loud...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

[Ray Andraka]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Start with the throttle 1/2 open, zero rpm to 1800 with no
> oil pressure. Etc.
>
>

No, I don't start mine like that. On shut down, I set the throttle for
1000 RPM and lock it. The throttle doesn't move again until the engine
is warmed up. I preheat religiously below 30F, and I don't leave the
preheater plugged in.

Also, if it were corrosion that got mine, why only one cam lobe?? My
mechanic tells me there have been a rash of problems with newer cams
with flaws in the case hardening. I haven't seen evidence to prove it
though.

[Sylvain]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>>Weather is taught to VFR primary students, why not icing?
>
> Because they have enough to learn already?
>
> Seriously though, a primary student's knowledge of icing need not extend
> much further than "don't fly when freezing rain is forecast". For extra
> credit, a short discussion of what causes freezing rain might be called for.

I disagree; have you hung around the airport, early in the morning,
on a gorgeous winter day, perfect VFR day, but very cold and all the
aircraft on the ramp have frost or ice on them? you wouldn't believe
the number of folks who don't understand that just brushing off the
worst of it is not good enough...

--Sylvain

[Happy Dog]

"Jay Honeck" >

>> The intake cam lobe for the #3 and #4 cylinders failed and is worn down
>> considerably, hence the engine coming off and waiting for the crate.
>
> I've been following your engine woes with great interest, Ray, and not a
> small bit of horror. To say you are living one of my worst nightmares is
> not far from the truth, and I feel your pain.
>
> Does anyone *really* know what causes a camshaft to fail like this? I
> read about it happening with alarming regularity, and it's never
> attributed to anything in particular. It's always treated like an act of
> God, or like a weather phenomenon, rather than like the mechanical failure
> it is.
>
> And mechanical failures should have simple explanations, no? WHY did one
> of the cam lobes fail? Why didn't ALL of the cam lobes fail?

Timeless issue. www.aviationconsumer.com has hours of reading on the
subject. The common factor is infrequent flying.

moo

[Peter Duniho]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> I disagree; have you hung around the airport, early in the morning,
> on a gorgeous winter day, perfect VFR day, but very cold and all the
> aircraft on the ramp have frost or ice on them? you wouldn't believe
> the number of folks who don't understand that just brushing off the
> worst of it is not good enough...

How is that a disagreement with what I wrote?

My point was not to enumerate all the things a primary student needs to know
about icing. It was simply to point out they don't need to know much, and
regardless the original post was off-topic in r.a.student, no matter HOW
much they need to learn about icing.

The same logic that asserts the original post was on-topic in r.a.student
leads to the conclusion that ANY post that is on-topic in r.a.piloting or
r.a.ifr is on-topic in r.a.student. Clearly that conclusion is false, so by
way of the contradiction so is the logic that led to the conclusion.

Pete

[Sylvain]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> How is that a disagreement with what I wrote?

you said, and I quote:

"...a primary student's knowledge of icing need not extend
much further than "don't fly when freezing rain is forecast"..."


That was the specific statement of yours with which I do disagree.

I did illustrate my point with a very specific and real life
example where a primary student's knowledge of icing DOES indeed
need to extend further than don't fly when freezing rain is
forecast.

Don't be so defensive, I was not attacking your beloved
windows operating system! :-)

--Sylvain

[Peter Duniho]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> you said, and I quote:
>
> "...a primary student's knowledge of icing need not extend
> much further than "don't fly when freezing rain is forecast"..."
>
> That was the specific statement of yours with which I do disagree.

Your reply illustrated no such disagreement. My statement and yours are not
mutually exclusive.

> I did illustrate my point with a very specific and real life
> example where a primary student's knowledge of icing DOES indeed
> need to extend further than don't fly when freezing rain is
> forecast.

I never said that it doesn't.

> Don't be so defensive, I was not attacking your beloved
> windows operating system! :-)

I am of the opinion that no operating system is "beloved". Operating
systems are a stupid way to waste an emotion like love. How that pertains
to this thread at all, I have no idea.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

>> Mary and I fly more than anyone at the airport, and we just barely put
>> 200 hours on last year.
>
> Really? I would have thought you put far more than that on, per year.

200 hours per year is a LOT of flying, if you're not either (a) retired, or
(b) getting paid to do it.

It's the equivalent of flying from Iowa to Michigan -- and back -- every
week.

Or, put another way, it's four 1-hour hamburger flights per week, every
week, all year long...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Start with the throttle 1/2 open, zero rpm to 1800 with no
> oil pressure. Etc.

I aim to keep RPMs at 1000 (or less) from start-up to run-up. (My A&P
showed me that 1000 RPM is too low to kick up stones, so being patient and
taxiing slowly really saves your prop.)

What do you think causes a problem like Ray's, Jim? It just seems to, I
don't know -- random.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> And mechanical failures should have simple explanations, no? WHY did
>> one of the cam lobes fail? Why didn't ALL of the cam lobes fail?
>
> Timeless issue. www.aviationconsumer.com has hours of reading on the
> subject. The common factor is infrequent flying.

I suppose the *real* issue should be: Why do camshafts work at all? When
you sit down and rationally analyze what is happening inside your engine,
the danged thing should just throw itself to pieces in the first ten minutes
of operation.

Yet, most of them don't.

Some, however, like Ray's engine, do -- and in very peculiar ways. (Just
ONE cam lobe went bad?)

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

[Morgans]

>
> I wonder if there is any statistical evidence on this issue regarding
> incidences per region?
>
> Are planes out here in the desert SW less prone to this?
>
> Just wondering out loud...

That would be an interesting study. It might tell how much of a factor
condensation is.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> Some, however, like Ray's engine, do -- and in very peculiar ways. (Just
> ONE cam lobe went bad?)
>
> Why?

Could it be a bad part? Nah!!! Lycosarus never makes a bad part! Not!
--
Jim in NC

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 13:45:12 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

> Or, put another way, it's four 1-hour hamburger flights per week, every
> week, all year long...

Is this slightly low Jay? 1/2 hour each way? My hamburger runs are
minimum 1 hour each way, which would reduce it to 2 hamburger flights per
week.

You are right, 200 hours a year is an awful lot of flying. You had me
curious for me, how much in a year I fly, and it was as follows:

2001 11.7
2002 49.5
2003 142.2
2004 192.9
2005 126.4
2006 4.0

I try to fly once a week at minimum myself and no less then one hour air
time when I fly.

I was told ground runs is one of the worst things you can do to an airplane
engine, as it was designed for sustained high RPM operations, not ground
run RPMS.

Allen

[Jay Honeck]

> I was told ground runs is one of the worst things you can do to an airplane
> engine, as it was designed for sustained high RPM operations, not ground
> run RPMS.

You know, I've heard that since Day One of ownership, too, but ya just
gotta wonder if it's not yet another "old wive's tale", like so many of
these "tried and true" things. How does the engine know the
difference between ground runs at, say 2000 RPM (run-up speed on our
plane) and an extended descent? Is *that* "bad" for the engine, too?

Doesn't running it for 30 minutes on the ground circulate the oil, and
prevent corrosion? Can't you get oil temps up to 150 or better (I
know, 180 is optimal, but...) with a ground run? Isn't that better
than letting it sit and rot till spring?

I fly too often for this to really matter, but I always wonder if it's
a real issue or not? Kinda like "shock cooling" and "pulling the prop
through" before starting on a cold day... And Marvel Mystery oil,
while we're at it...

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

[Mark Hansen]

On 1/8/2006 5:51 AM, Jay Honeck wrote:

>>> And mechanical failures should have simple explanations, no? WHY did
>>> one of the cam lobes fail? Why didn't ALL of the cam lobes fail?
>>
>> Timeless issue. www.aviationconsumer.com has hours of reading on the
>> subject. The common factor is infrequent flying.
>
> I suppose the *real* issue should be: Why do camshafts work at all? When
> you sit down and rationally analyze what is happening inside your engine,
> the danged thing should just throw itself to pieces in the first ten minutes
> of operation.
>
> Yet, most of them don't.
>
> Some, however, like Ray's engine, do -- and in very peculiar ways. (Just
> ONE cam lobe went bad?)
>
> Why?

I wonder if this was the first cam lobe to actually fail. Have they all
been measured and determined to be within spec?

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[nrp]

Strictly my opinion -

Your bad lobe is one of the cam lobes that operates two lifters, so it,
or its companion will be the first to go in a marginal lubrication
situation. The lobes depend on oil thrown from the crankshaft cheeks -
some thing that I don't think happens for a couple of minutes after a
cool start - especially with a cold engine.

It isn't a question of how quickly does the oil pump get oil get to the
cam bearings as journal bearings will retain enough oil to allow them
to be starved for a minute or two and oil gets there in a few seconds
anyway.

More critical though is how quickly does the crankcase develop that
general fog/spray of oil to finally lubricate all the miscellaneous
(and expensive) surfaces such as cam lobes and cylinder bores. The cam
is at the top of the engine & the lobes are the last thing to get lube.
Possibly if the crank is turning too slow, gravity is such that thrown
blobs of oil can't even make it to the lobes until the oil; gets really
thin. Remember that a new engine will inherently have considerably
less oil leakage from the bearings.

That's why preheat is so important to a Lycoming engine. It isn't as
though it is someting that should be done (usually). It is something
that must be done religiously every time (especially with summer weight
oil) as once cam surfaces are scratched, failure isn't far away. The
longer an engine has been sitting, the more the need for preheat. The
newer the engine, the more the need for preheat too. When and how
much? Who knows.

Also - thick oil reduces the flow demand of the engine, and more of it
will simply blow over the relief valve. Oil that is bypassed this way
has no access to the heat of the engine. Oil warmup will be slow even
if the CHT is getting into an operating range.

My guess is that there was a cold start or summer oil combination
somewhere in its history although you indicated you always preheated.
Or maybe the cam which is supposed to be case hardened isn't as hard as
it should be. You might check the cam hardness with a new file on
another lobe. It should not be able to bite into it. If it does, get
a hardness test done on it.

[nrp]

Strictly my opinion -

Your bad lobe is one of the cam lobes that operates two lifters, so it,
or its companion will be the first to go in a marginal lubrication
situation. The lobes depend on oil thrown from the crankshaft cheeks -
some thing that I don't think happens for a couple of minutes after a
cool start - and especially with a cold engine.

It isn't a question of how quickly does the oil pump get oil get to the
cam bearings as journal bearings will retain enough oil to allow them
to be starved for a minute or two and oil gets there in a few seconds
anyway.

More critical though is how quickly does the crankcase develop that
general fog/spray of oil to finally lubricate all the miscellaneous
(and expensive) surfaces such as cam lobes and cylinder bores. The cam
is at the top of the engine & the lobes are the last thing to get lube.
Possibly if the crank is turning too slow, gravity is such that thrown
blobs of oil can't even make it to the lobes until the oil; gets really
thin. Remember that a new engine will inherently have considerably
less oil leakage from the bearings.

That's why preheat is so important to a Lycoming engine. It isn't as
though it is someting that should be done (usually). It is something
that must be done religiously every time (especially with summer weight
oil) as once cam surfaces are scratched, failure isn't far away. The
longer an engine has been sitting, the more the need for preheat. The
newer the engine, the more the need for preheat too. When and how
much? Who knows.

Also - thick oil reduces the flow demand of the engine, and more of it
will simply blow over the relief valve. Oil that is bypassed this way
has no access to the heat of the engine. Oil warmup will be slow even
if the CHT is getting into an operating range.

My guess is that there was a cold start or cool start with summer oil
combination somewhere in its history although you indicated you always
preheated. Or maybe the cam which is supposed to be case hardened
isn't as hard as it should be. You might check the cam hardness with a
new file on another lobe. It should not be able to bite into it. If
it does, get a hardness test done on it.

[Ray Andraka]

wrote:
> On 7-Jan-2006, Ray Andraka > wrote:
>
>
>>The engine is 26 months and 178 hours out of a new limits Penn Yan
>>overhaul with new ECI titan stud assemblies, new cam, new accessory
>>gears, new oil pump, all new accessories, etc. About all that wasn't new
>>was the crank and case, and those were reworked during the overhaul.
>
>
>
> So, is Penn Yan providing the new engine at no cost, or pro-rated? Are they
> picking up any of the removal/reinstallation and shipping expenses?
>

Well, I don't know the full story yet. It will at least be pro-rated
because I am still in the pro-rate part of the warranty period. They
cover it full for 2 years then after that it is pro-rated 40 hours/month.

[Jim Macklin]

Even a 1000 rpm could be a little higher than ideal. It is
hard to say what causes problems sometimes. There are
manufacturing defects, there is a possibility that an oil
passage is partially plugged. Sometimes the mechanic who
assembled the engine can have missed getting assembly lube
on the cam or journal. If it is on a cam and or lifter,
even valve spring tension will effect the load on the wear
surfaces.

Best you can do is follow the engine manufacturer's
recommendations about starting and shutdown, oil changes,
etc and save money for the unexpected work.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
news:mQ2wf.41528$Mi5.36676@dukeread07...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Start with the throttle 1/2 open, zero rpm to 1800 with
no
| > oil pressure. Etc.
| >
| >
|
| No, I don't start mine like that. On shut down, I set the
throttle for
| 1000 RPM and lock it. The throttle doesn't move again
until the engine
| is warmed up. I preheat religiously below 30F, and I
don't leave the
| preheater plugged in.
|
| Also, if it were corrosion that got mine, why only one cam
lobe?? My
| mechanic tells me there have been a rash of problems with
newer cams
| with flaws in the case hardening. I haven't seen evidence
to prove it
| though.

[Jim Macklin]

Check for valve sticking on that cylinder, that would raise
the pressure on the lifter/cam.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
| On 1/8/2006 5:51 AM, Jay Honeck wrote:
|
| >>> And mechanical failures should have simple
explanations, no? WHY did
| >>> one of the cam lobes fail? Why didn't ALL of the cam
lobes fail?
| >>
| >> Timeless issue. www.aviationconsumer.com has hours of
reading on the
| >> subject. The common factor is infrequent flying.
| >
| > I suppose the *real* issue should be: Why do camshafts
work at all? When
| > you sit down and rationally analyze what is happening
inside your engine,
| > the danged thing should just throw itself to pieces in
the first ten minutes
| > of operation.
| >
| > Yet, most of them don't.
| >
| > Some, however, like Ray's engine, do -- and in very
peculiar ways. (Just
| > ONE cam lobe went bad?)
| >
| > Why?
|
| I wonder if this was the first cam lobe to actually fail.
Have they all
| been measured and determined to be within spec?
|
| --
| Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
| Sacramento, CA

[Jim Macklin]

It is to do with air flow, you don't get proper cooling and
crankcase ventilation is very poor on the ground.

After landing, cool down is as important as warm up,
particularly with a turbocharged engine.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 13:45:12 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:
|
| > Or, put another way, it's four 1-hour hamburger flights
per week, every
| > week, all year long...
|
| Is this slightly low Jay? 1/2 hour each way? My
hamburger runs are
| minimum 1 hour each way, which would reduce it to 2
hamburger flights per
| week.
|
| You are right, 200 hours a year is an awful lot of flying.
You had me
| curious for me, how much in a year I fly, and it was as
follows:
|
| 2001 11.7
| 2002 49.5
| 2003 142.2
| 2004 192.9
| 2005 126.4
| 2006 4.0
|
| I try to fly once a week at minimum myself and no less
then one hour air
| time when I fly.
|
| I was told ground runs is one of the worst things you can
do to an airplane
| engine, as it was designed for sustained high RPM
operations, not ground
| run RPMS.
|
| Allen

[.Blueskies.]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
snip
>
> All of this would not be nearly as likely (it seems to me) if aircraft engines were equipped with rollers on the cams.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Yes, the 'new' roller cams finally address this issue...

[Jim Macklin]

Low rpm does save the prop, it also keeps the load on the
bearings a little less, throttle jockeying is worst, cold
oil doesn't flow quickly in response to throttle changes.
Also, if you have a constant speed prop, the governor uses
engine oil, so avoid taxing the oil pressure with rpm and /
or prop changes until the oil has had a chance to warm up a
little.

It also came to mind, that a sticking valve will cause more
wear on that cam/lifter assembly, so that can be a problem
to check.

Most engines have the oil pump at one end and oil pressure
is measured from a point on the other end, probably a cam
shaft gallery so that you can tell that oil passages are not
blocked. That is one reason for the "shutdown in 30
seconds" if you don't have oil pressure on starting note.

I like to idle an engine for a minute (4-5 minutes with
turbocharged engine) to allow it to cool before shutdown
while still having oil cooling. This would be at
1,000-1,200 rpm so the prop would be blowing some air
through the cowl. I then think it is a good idea to
throttle back to minimum rpm, to see that the idle is smooth
at 500-700 rpm range and I do a mag grounding check at that
point and then pull the mixture to shut it down. That
should show a slight 25-50 rpm increase just as it shuts
down since idle should be a little rich.

I start the engine at minimum throttle and using as little
priming as possible [wait after priming a few seconds to a
minute in cold weather to allow the fuel to vaporize, liquid
doesn't burn and it washes the oil off the cylinder walls]
then after it starts, advance the throttle smoothly to 1000
rpm to get some prop wash cooling and generator output.

Change to oil often, it is a lot cheaper to change the oil
than to tear down the engine. Use the best oil you can find
and the multi-weight oils do start working/ pumping faster.
Oil changes can be done by the pilot/owner as preventative
maintenance. A logbook entry is required and you must
follow the service manual procedures. Be sure to check for
leaks after the change and be sure to safety any drain
plugs. A quick drain system makes it a lot easier to do,
and an extension hose on the drain will keep the cowl clean.
Filters may not need to be changed every time if the oil
change is due to calendar time and condensation draining.
The oil filter does work on engine time in service since it
only functions when the oil is flowing and being filtered.
But follow the manual, if it says change the filter with
every oil change, you should do so.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:_J8wf.714011$xm3.343650@attbi_s21...
|> Start with the throttle 1/2 open, zero rpm to 1800 with
no
| > oil pressure. Etc.
|
| I aim to keep RPMs at 1000 (or less) from start-up to
run-up. (My A&P
| showed me that 1000 RPM is too low to kick up stones, so
being patient and
| taxiing slowly really saves your prop.)
|
| What do you think causes a problem like Ray's, Jim? It
just seems to, I
| don't know -- random.
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|
|

[David Lesher]

George Patterson > writes:


>"So why not build the shaft entirely of hardened steel?", I hear you cry. That's
>because the harder steel is, the more brittle it becomes. The best strength
>comes from this sort of lamination of hard and soft steels.

Saw a show w/ a Japanese craftsman making a sword. Two layers of
different steels. Pounded it thin; folded it over; pounded...
Many layers later, that was the sword...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Happy Dog]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:
>>> And mechanical failures should have simple explanations, no? WHY did
>>> one of the cam lobes fail? Why didn't ALL of the cam lobes fail?
>>
>> Timeless issue. www.aviationconsumer.com has hours of reading on the
>> subject. The common factor is infrequent flying.
>
> I suppose the *real* issue should be: Why do camshafts work at all? When
> you sit down and rationally analyze what is happening inside your engine,
> the danged thing should just throw itself to pieces in the first ten
> minutes of operation.
>
> Yet, most of them don't.
>
> Some, however, like Ray's engine, do -- and in very peculiar ways. (Just
> ONE cam lobe went bad?)

I've gone through a couple on one engine and they had those exact symptoms.
One AME suggested that the front lobes wear more quickly since the cam is
slightly elevated at the front so the oil drains off more quickly. There
are as many theories as worn cams, it sometimes seems.

moo

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:jN8wf.472265$084.362812@attbi_s22...
....
> I suppose the *real* issue should be: Why do camshafts work at all? When
> you sit down and rationally analyze what is happening inside your engine,
> the danged thing should just throw itself to pieces in the first ten
> minutes of operation.
>
> Yet, most of them don't.

The oil film, when all goes well, prevents actual metal to metal contact.
Just like the plain bearings on the crankshaft.

Google the word "tribology": WEB RESULTS 1 - 10 of about 48,500

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Paul Missman]

>
> The oil film, when all goes well, prevents actual metal to metal contact.
> Just like the plain bearings on the crankshaft.
>

I had to have my engine (Lycoming O-235) overhauled last year at less than
1/2 TBO, partially for cam pitting. Prior to my owning it, it hadn't flown
too much for the past few years.

Now, I'm flying every 2 weeks, at least, if weather permits, and am using
Avblend. This additive is supposed to better impregnate the metal, and
prevent some of this corrosion.

I now have the plane in a hanger, instead of outside in the cold and added
moisture.


The few things I've heard about causing the problems are:

Flying too infrequently, with oil seeping off the cam and moisture eating at
the exposed surfaces.

When flying happens, not getting the oil completely hot, so as to eliminate
the moisture from it.

Running the engine too slow at startup. Apparently, the cams in some
engines get lubrication mainly from the oil splashing around inside the
case. In some engines, 1000 RPM may not be sufficient for full lubrication
after startup. My A&P suggested 1100 - 1200 RPM.


I'm certainly hoping that the steps I'm taking will keep the engine in good
shape. I can't afford another overhaul anytime soon.

Paul Missman

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Paul Missman" > wrote in message
...

....
> The few things I've heard about causing the problems are:
>
> Flying too infrequently, with oil seeping off the cam and moisture eating
> at the exposed surfaces.
>
> When flying happens, not getting the oil completely hot, so as to
> eliminate the moisture from it.

That's one thing that could be changed on aircraft engines that would give a
LOT of bang for the buck - positive crankcase ventilation. Huge reduction in
unburned hydrocarbons (you may or may not care about that), and a lot less
moisture in the crankcase - engines last a lot longer.

The straight up auto style PCV valve probably wouldn't be the way to go,
though. It won't get you much at higher altitudes where you have the
throttle wide open.

> Running the engine too slow at startup. Apparently, the cams in some
> engines get lubrication mainly from the oil splashing around inside the
> case. In some engines, 1000 RPM may not be sufficient for full
> lubrication after startup. My A&P suggested 1100 - 1200 RPM.
>
Anything's possible.


--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[George Patterson]

David Lesher wrote:

> Saw a show w/ a Japanese craftsman making a sword. Two layers of
> different steels. Pounded it thin; folded it over; pounded...
> Many layers later, that was the sword...

Yep, that's a very old technique. Westerners call it "Damascus steel."

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Some, however, like Ray's engine, do -- and in very peculiar ways. (Just
> ONE cam lobe went bad?)
>
> Why?

Once again. When the layer of hardened steel wears through, the rest of the lobe
wears *very quickly*.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Flyingmonk]

George Patterson wrote:
>David Lesher wrote:
>> Saw a show w/ a Japanese craftsman making a sword. Two layers of
>> different steels. Pounded it thin; folded it over; pounded...
>> Many layers later, that was the sword...

>Yep, that's a very old technique. Westerners call it "Damascus steel."

Got a knife made using that technique. Beautiful grain, sort of like a
nice gun stock made with multiple layers of different wood, beautiful
when carved.

The Monk

[Jay Honeck]

> Running the engine too slow at startup. Apparently, the cams in some
> engines get lubrication mainly from the oil splashing around inside the
> case. In some engines, 1000 RPM may not be sufficient for full
> lubrication after startup. My A&P suggested 1100 - 1200 RPM.

Isn't that a stitch? Your A&P says 1000 RPM is too *slow* for proper
lubrication. Jim Macklin (and many others) says it may be too *fast* to
run your engine before proper lubrication has occurred. Who is right?

And my A&P says 1000 RPM or slower, primarily to save your prop on loose
rocks but also to ensure long engine life.

Argh. Wouldn't you think there would be SOME science to this?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Stan Prevost]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Wgcwf.40975$QW2.5751@dukeread08...
> point and then pull the mixture to shut it down. That
> should show a slight 25-50 rpm increase just as it shuts
> down since idle should be a little rich.
>

For my TIO540-S1AD, Lycoming says five rpm, not more than ten.

Stan

[Stan Prevost]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've gone through a couple on one engine and they had those exact
> symptoms. One AME suggested that the front lobes wear more quickly since
> the cam is slightly elevated at the front so the oil drains off more
> quickly. There are as many theories as worn cams, it sometimes seems.
>

Especially when you take your engine to your flight physical! :-)

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Argh. Wouldn't you think there would be SOME science to this?

If there is, it's available from Lycoming or Continental for your engine. Not
from "my A&P says...."

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jim Macklin]

I'll buy that, always best to use specific data rather than
a generic answer. It takes a pretty good eye and tach to
see 5 rpm.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Wgcwf.40975$QW2.5751@dukeread08...
| > point and then pull the mixture to shut it down. That
| > should show a slight 25-50 rpm increase just as it shuts
| > down since idle should be a little rich.
| >
|
| For my TIO540-S1AD, Lycoming says five rpm, not more than
ten.
|
| Stan
|
|

[Jay Honeck]

>> Argh. Wouldn't you think there would be SOME science to this?
>
> If there is, it's available from Lycoming or Continental for your engine.
> Not from "my A&P says...."

Well, I am blessed to have an A&P who:

1. Doesn't work on little planes cuz he needs the money.
2. Is an award-winning home builder
3. Has 40 years in the business
4. Is an accomplished pilot
5. Has rebuilt over 100 O-540s, including mine.

What he says about engines is, in my world, gospel.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Stan Prevost wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:Wgcwf.40975$QW2.5751@dukeread08...
>
>>point and then pull the mixture to shut it down. That
>>should show a slight 25-50 rpm increase just as it shuts
>>down since idle should be a little rich.
>
> For my TIO540-S1AD, Lycoming says five rpm, not more than ten.

The mixture on injected engines typically is not as rich at idle as carburetted
engines, so the rpm increase should not be as great.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Paul Missman]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Hxkwf.474673$084.253721@attbi_s22...

> Isn't that a stitch? Your A&P says 1000 RPM is too *slow* for proper
> lubrication. Jim Macklin (and many others) says it may be too *fast* to
> run your engine before proper lubrication has occurred. Who is right?
>

Your O-540 is probably better at oil distribution than my O-235. Your
engine is substantially larger and more expensive. They can afford to give
it a better oiling system than exists in a smaller, cheaper engine.

As for trusting Lycoming to tell us: I believe they have a commitment to
safety, but they also make money from parts, like cam shafts. Adding to
that, summer is much different than winter oil at startup, not to mention
cylinder clearances. On startup, do you want the cylinders to wear out
faster, or would you rather protect your cam? You may not be able to have
both in an optimum fashion on some engines. Less RPM may help the
cylinders, but leave the cam with less lubrication. It makes me wish that
all cams had a direct spray oil system, and that there was an electric oil
pump that could be used to lubricate the engine prior to startup.

Paul Missman

[Jim Macklin]

With the low rpm, air flow in the manifold is not smooth or
steady. A carb meters fuel based on volume and the engine
burns fuel by mass. Getting balanced and safe fuel mixture
in each cylinder with a carb is not easy, they tend to meter
a little extra at all power settings. Aircraft injection is
usually constant flow port injection, but it is more precise
and the fuel is dumped into the intake manifold just at the
intake valve. The automotive and newer aircraft systems
have controlled injectors which only squirt fuel as needed,
making even more accurate distribution.
Diesel and the big radial engines late in WWII/until the
1950's had direct injection into the combustion chamber.
[Most radials used a pressure carb [fuel injection with the
nozzle in the throttle body] or port injection.]


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.




"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Volwf.18567$em5.10846@trnddc05...
| Stan Prevost wrote:
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| > news:Wgcwf.40975$QW2.5751@dukeread08...
| >
| >>point and then pull the mixture to shut it down. That
| >>should show a slight 25-50 rpm increase just as it shuts
| >>down since idle should be a little rich.
| >
| > For my TIO540-S1AD, Lycoming says five rpm, not more
than ten.
|
| The mixture on injected engines typically is not as rich
at idle as carburetted
| engines, so the rpm increase should not be as great.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.

[JJS]

It makes me wish that
> all cams had a direct spray oil system, and that there was an electric oil pump that could be used to lubricate the
> engine prior to startup.
>
> Paul Missman

You can add a pre-oiler, (at least to some aircraft).

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/proluber.php

I've read of engine modifications for spray nozzles as well but don't have time to find a link right now.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > I was told ground runs is one of the worst things you can do to an airplane
> > engine, as it was designed for sustained high RPM operations, not ground
> > run RPMS.
>
> You know, I've heard that since Day One of ownership, too, but ya just
> gotta wonder if it's not yet another "old wive's tale", like so many of
> these "tried and true" things. How does the engine know the
> difference between ground runs at, say 2000 RPM (run-up speed on our
> plane) and an extended descent? Is *that* "bad" for the engine, too?

consider the difference in cooling air.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

[Jim Macklin]

Ground running does not scavenge the vapors since the vent
system depends on airspeed.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|> I was told ground runs is one of the worst things you can
do to an airplane
| > engine, as it was designed for sustained high RPM
operations, not ground
| > run RPMS.
|
| You know, I've heard that since Day One of ownership, too,
but ya just
| gotta wonder if it's not yet another "old wive's tale",
like so many of
| these "tried and true" things. How does the engine know
the
| difference between ground runs at, say 2000 RPM (run-up
speed on our
| plane) and an extended descent? Is *that* "bad" for the
engine, too?
|
| Doesn't running it for 30 minutes on the ground circulate
the oil, and
| prevent corrosion? Can't you get oil temps up to 150 or
better (I
| know, 180 is optimal, but...) with a ground run? Isn't
that better
| than letting it sit and rot till spring?
|
| I fly too often for this to really matter, but I always
wonder if it's
| a real issue or not? Kinda like "shock cooling" and
"pulling the prop
| through" before starting on a cold day... And Marvel
Mystery oil,
| while we're at it...
|
| :-)
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[[email protected]]

: Your bad lobe is one of the cam lobes that operates two lifters, so it,
: or its companion will be the first to go in a marginal lubrication
: situation. The lobes depend on oil thrown from the crankshaft cheeks -
: some thing that I don't think happens for a couple of minutes after a
: cool start - especially with a cold engine.

: It isn't a question of how quickly does the oil pump get oil get to the
: cam bearings as journal bearings will retain enough oil to allow them
: to be starved for a minute or two and oil gets there in a few seconds
: anyway.

It's quite unfortunate that the regulations make adding an oil
accumulator/pre-oiler cost-prohibitive for most. Pushing 60-80psi oil from the last
run into the system 30-60 seconds before hitting the starer would help a lot of this.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Dave Butler]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Running the engine too slow at startup. Apparently, the cams in some
>>engines get lubrication mainly from the oil splashing around inside the
>>case. In some engines, 1000 RPM may not be sufficient for full
>>lubrication after startup. My A&P suggested 1100 - 1200 RPM.
>
>
> Isn't that a stitch? Your A&P says 1000 RPM is too *slow* for proper
> lubrication. Jim Macklin (and many others) says it may be too *fast* to
> run your engine before proper lubrication has occurred. Who is right?
>
> And my A&P says 1000 RPM or slower, primarily to save your prop on loose
> rocks but also to ensure long engine life.
>
> Argh. Wouldn't you think there would be SOME science to this?

You'd think so, and maybe there is, but if so it hasn't penetrated the pilot
community. Most of what you read is superstition, collective wisdom, common
sense, anecdotal reports, opinion, experiments run with small sample sizes.
Seems the best you can do is to read all the recommendations and try to do the
things that make sense to you. It's frustrating.

Dave

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> You know, I've heard that since Day One of ownership, too, but ya just
> gotta wonder if it's not yet another "old wive's tale", like so many of
> these "tried and true" things. How does the engine know the
> difference between ground runs at, say 2000 RPM (run-up speed on our
> plane) and an extended descent? Is *that* "bad" for the engine, too?

I've wondered that myself. The only big difference that I can think of is that
the circulation of cooling air will be different. As far as long descents is
concerned, I've seen statements that this is harmful due to excessive cooling
and possible plug fouling. Never seen a claim that oil circulation suffers, though.

> Doesn't running it for 30 minutes on the ground circulate the oil, and
> prevent corrosion? Can't you get oil temps up to 150 or better (I
> know, 180 is optimal, but...) with a ground run? Isn't that better
> than letting it sit and rot till spring?

As several others have pointed out, circulation of the oil isn't the problem
with the cam lobes. Those are lubricated by splash from the crank. I've never
seen any claims that this differs much from splash while in flight, though.

What I've read is that you really can't get the oil temperature high enough by
running it on the ground. The claim is that ground running adds water and acids
to the oil (flying also does this) and never gets the oil hot enough to vaporize
these. Crankcase ventilation through the breather is also very poor on the
ground; as a result, vapors that do form never leave the crankcase. As another
poster suggested, some form of positive crankcase ventilation would probably
help that.

If the only real issue proves to be the buildup of pollutants in the oil from
ground running, then changing the oil after every other run would take care of
the problem; however, given a choice between this and simply flying the plane
for a few hours, I'd be in the air.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jose]

> How does the engine know the
> difference between ground runs at, say 2000 RPM (run-up speed on our
> plane) and an extended descent? Is *that* "bad" for the engine, too?

I'm guessing, but in an extended descent, the engine was already running
full bore for a while and is nice and hot and happy. In a ground run,
the engine probably started out cold and never got hot and happy.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Longworth]

Pete,
I have read and participate in r.a.s for the last few years. The
newsgroup is not 'restricted' to primary students. There are many
instrument/comercial etc. students there as well and IMHO, the
learnings are never stopped for all pilots.

The website link which Jim provided has section on ground icing as
well. The information benefits all pilots and not just IFR rated
pilots.

Again, IMHO, there are no such things as too much information when
it comes to safety issues. Weather is totally unpredictable, VFR
pilots can encounter icing unintentionally. I had posted the account
of my first encounter with freezing rain about this time last year (not
in weather forecast, we were not in the cloud). What happened to us
could have happened to many pilots including primary students on a
solo VFR flight.

Any perceived problem with cross postings of on-topic subject is
quite insignificant in comparison to the numerous off topic, thread
hijacking branching out to politic and religious discussions seen at
rec.avatiation newgroups!

Hai Longworth

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 05:02:33 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>In the absence of some catastrophe, such as a bent pushrod, this is generally
>caused by not flying enough. The layer of hardened steel on a camshaft is fairly
>thin. Let the plane sit long enough, and rust will form. When the engine starts
>again, the rust is worn away, making the thin layer of hardened steel thinner.
>The worst wear points, of course, are the tips of the lobes. Once the hardened
>steel wears through, the softer steel underneath goes pretty rapidly.

The automotive world tried out roller lifters a long time ago. They
would work fine in aircraft engines too. I've heard that some of the
engines built for the homebuilt market can and do incorporate roller
lifters. I even thought I read that at least one company was
intending to certify such an engine.

Corky Scott

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 05:02:33 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote:
>
>>In the absence of some catastrophe, such as a bent pushrod, this is
>>generally
>>caused by not flying enough. The layer of hardened steel on a camshaft is
>>fairly
>>thin. Let the plane sit long enough, and rust will form. When the engine
>>starts
>>again, the rust is worn away, making the thin layer of hardened steel
>>thinner.
>>The worst wear points, of course, are the tips of the lobes. Once the
>>hardened
>>steel wears through, the softer steel underneath goes pretty rapidly.
>
> The automotive world tried out roller lifters a long time ago. They
> would work fine in aircraft engines too. I've heard that some of the
> engines built for the homebuilt market can and do incorporate roller
> lifters. I even thought I read that at least one company was
> intending to certify such an engine.
>
> Corky Scott

It is not uncommon to see roller rockers on round engines.

[Ray Andraka]

wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 05:02:33 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote:
>
>
>>In the absence of some catastrophe, such as a bent pushrod, this is generally
>>caused by not flying enough. The layer of hardened steel on a camshaft is fairly
>>thin. Let the plane sit long enough, and rust will form. When the engine starts
>>again, the rust is worn away, making the thin layer of hardened steel thinner.
>>The worst wear points, of course, are the tips of the lobes. Once the hardened
>>steel wears through, the softer steel underneath goes pretty rapidly.
>
>
> The automotive world tried out roller lifters a long time ago. They
> would work fine in aircraft engines too. I've heard that some of the
> engines built for the homebuilt market can and do incorporate roller
> lifters. I even thought I read that at least one company was
> intending to certify such an engine.
>
> Corky Scott
>

Lycoming is starting to offer roller tappets. The crankcase has
different bores for the tappets, so an upgrade to the roller tappets
requires a new crankcase, as well as a different cam, different tappets,
pushrods, pushrod tubes and seals. They are not offering a retrofit to
the older narrow deck engines like mine.

[Peter Duniho]

"Longworth" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Pete,
> I have read and participate in r.a.s for the last few years. The
> newsgroup is not 'restricted' to primary students.

I never said it was. Please don't put words in my mouth. It does nothing
to support your point, and makes you look dishonest.

> [...]
> Any perceived problem with cross postings of on-topic subject is
> quite insignificant in comparison to the numerous off topic, thread
> hijacking branching out to politic and religious discussions seen at
> rec.avatiation newgroups!

Your statement is quite ironic, given how this thread got hijacked into a
r.a.owning issue ("engine making metal"). IMHO, that's a perfect
illustration why excessive cross-posting is such a problem (never mind the
divergent threads that wouldn't be on-topic in any rec.aviation.*
newsgroup).

Your other statements are classic slippery-slope logic. The fact is, lots
of topics would be of possible interest to many if not all of the people who
frequent the various rec.aviation.* newsgroups. Unfortunately for your
argument, that's not justification for posting messages on those topics.

Pete

[Longworth]

Pete,
My post is in reference to several points that you made below.

Regarding thread hijacking, I don't have problems with thread
branching out to other topics. Using google, at least the branch was
labeled Engine making metal. It is not the same as branching or
hijacking to non-aviation related discussions on politics and
religions.

I think I have sufficiently expressed my opinion on cross postings
and off-topic subject and do not wish to engage in any further
discussions here to conserve bandwidth.

Hai Longworth



================================================== =========================

> Weather is taught to VFR primary students, why not icing?



Because they have enough to learn already?

Seriously though, a primary student's knowledge of icing need not
extend
much further than "don't fly when freezing rain is forecast". For
extra
credit, a short discussion of what causes freezing rain might be called
for.


Most icing occurs inside a cloud, and VFR pilots should not have to
worry
about that, or anything else that might happen inside a cloud.


But more importantly (and more to the point) the r.a.student newsgroup
is
more about the process of learning to fly, and especially as it applies
to
primary students
.....

Pete

[Longworth]

Pete,
I do not wish to engage in any disputes with you. I use single
quotation mark around the word 'restricted' and not double quotation
mark.
According to this website

http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/singlequotationmark.html

" single quotation marks for words that are not actual quotations but
that are being set off for some other reason"

I just simply expressed my opinion that Jim's post is appropriate in
rec.aviation.student group.

Hai Longworth

[Peter Duniho]

"Longworth" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Pete,
> I do not wish to engage in any disputes with you.

That clearly is false.

> I use single
> quotation mark around the word 'restricted' and not double quotation
> mark.

Well, if there were some official specification that prohibited the use of
single quotation marks for quotation here on Usenet, that might make a
difference.

In any case, whether you are literally quoting or simply mischaracterizing
what I wrote, it's "putting words into my mouth".

> According to this website
>
> http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/singlequotationmark.html
>
> " single quotation marks for words that are not actual quotations but
> that are being set off for some other reason"

Wonderful. When you get that standard to be the official policy on Usenet,
you let me know.

> I just simply expressed my opinion that Jim's post is appropriate in
> rec.aviation.student group.

No, you did more than that.

Pete

[John Clonts]

Nice tap dance there Pete, but she's got you cold on that one!

Suggest you stop blaming her for your misinterpretation of what she
wrote.

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Bill Zaleski]

Get over it, Mr. Duniho......you are all wet! Move on....


On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 13:52:59 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Longworth" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Pete,
>> I do not wish to engage in any disputes with you.
>
>That clearly is false.
>
>> I use single
>> quotation mark around the word 'restricted' and not double quotation
>> mark.
>
>Well, if there were some official specification that prohibited the use of
>single quotation marks for quotation here on Usenet, that might make a
>difference.
>
>In any case, whether you are literally quoting or simply mischaracterizing
>what I wrote, it's "putting words into my mouth".
>
>> According to this website
>>
>> http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/singlequotationmark.html
>>
>> " single quotation marks for words that are not actual quotations but
>> that are being set off for some other reason"
>
>Wonderful. When you get that standard to be the official policy on Usenet,
>you let me know.
>
>> I just simply expressed my opinion that Jim's post is appropriate in
>> rec.aviation.student group.
>
>No, you did more than that.
>
>Pete
>

[Stan Prevost]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:7ilwf.41026$QW2.13106@dukeread08...
> I'll buy that, always best to use specific data rather than
> a generic answer. It takes a pretty good eye and tach to
> see 5 rpm.
>
>

Sure does. And a digital tach may flicker that much. Sometimes it is
called a "barely perceptible rise".

Some say it is easier to observe a rise in MP than such a small RPM rise,
and that is borne out by my observation.
The MP will rise one to two inches, and the MP gauge seems to be more stable
than the tach.

If the mixture is set to spec, it is not necessary to lean for ground ops,
since it is already lean enough to prevent plug fouling. Ground leaning is
effective only if leaned back to the edge of idle cutoff, anyway.

The Lycoming manual doesn't seem to have any tables for adjusting RPM rise
for density altitude. If it is leaned to the 5RPM rise spec at a high
altitude airport, I wonder if it might be too lean at a low-altitude
airport, with no way to enrichen it.

Stan

[Jim Macklin]

I flew a demo in a BE 58P Baron into a high altitude
private strip in the Wyoming mountains,


A-A Ranch Airport is an airport in Carbon County,
Wyoming. It has an elevation of 7,880 feet.

With the Continental fuel injection, being the
mechanical constant displacement type, the engines died when
they were set to idle during the landing because they were
too rich and then turbos had spun down. This was a problem
because the runway looked like a ski-jump and I was half way
up the hill. I was able to hold the brakes and get it
started again and manually leaned the mixture to about 1/2
travel on the lever and taxi up the hill to the level ramp
area. Of course you have to keep it full rich in case of a
go-around, so I learned a lesson that was not in the manual,
as soon as touching down, mixture reduce, throttle reduce.
For take-off run up to 2000 RPM then full rich.
I much preferred the Bendix injection because it is
metered by ambient fuel and air pressure, so the mixture is
more stable and self-leaning. I love the PT6 even better.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their
rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and
duties.







"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:7ilwf.41026$QW2.13106@dukeread08...
| > I'll buy that, always best to use specific data rather
than
| > a generic answer. It takes a pretty good eye and tach
to
| > see 5 rpm.
| >
| >
|
| Sure does. And a digital tach may flicker that much.
Sometimes it is
| called a "barely perceptible rise".
|
| Some say it is easier to observe a rise in MP than such a
small RPM rise,
| and that is borne out by my observation.
| The MP will rise one to two inches, and the MP gauge seems
to be more stable
| than the tach.
|
| If the mixture is set to spec, it is not necessary to lean
for ground ops,
| since it is already lean enough to prevent plug fouling.
Ground leaning is
| effective only if leaned back to the edge of idle cutoff,
anyway.
|
| The Lycoming manual doesn't seem to have any tables for
adjusting RPM rise
| for density altitude. If it is leaned to the 5RPM rise
spec at a high
| altitude airport, I wonder if it might be too lean at a
low-altitude
| airport, with no way to enrichen it.
|
| Stan
|
|

[karl gruber]

I think you're thinking of "Ney Nozzles."

http://www.chuckneyent.com/neynozzle.html
Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Stan Prevost > wrote:
: If the mixture is set to spec, it is not necessary to lean for ground ops,
: since it is already lean enough to prevent plug fouling. Ground leaning is
: effective only if leaned back to the edge of idle cutoff, anyway.

: The Lycoming manual doesn't seem to have any tables for adjusting RPM rise
: for density altitude. If it is leaned to the 5RPM rise spec at a high
: altitude airport, I wonder if it might be too lean at a low-altitude
: airport, with no way to enrichen it.

Not to mention seasonal variation. With temperatures in Virginia in the 60s
(!) the past weeks it's difficult to even do it for winter/summer... not to mention
density altitude.

I ground lean mine... typically right on the edge of idle cutoff. It's enough
so that anything over 1200 RPM will cause the engine to stumble. That way it will be
periodically run extra-lean during the taxi and help reduce plug fouling. Can't hurt
the engine with leaning at such low power and it's impossible to runup or takeoff
without enrichening.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[nrp]

> Lycoming is starting to offer roller tappets.

Roller tappets however will increase the Herzian compressive stresses
on the cam (and on the roller) when compared to a flat tappet surface.
It isn't necessarily a cure all.

I suspect radial engines use roller tappets because of the
comparatively high velocities between the cam and the tappet.

[Bob Gardner]

I have always thought that airplane owners would be wise to find a pilot
familiar with their type of aircraft who meets the "open pilot" requirements
of their insurance, and have that pilot fly the airplane for an hour once a
week. Cost to the owner compared to the cost of maintenance should be
minimal. Only hurdle I can think of is some anal FAA guy busting the
volunteer pilot for logging hours (compensation?) with only a private
ticket. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

Bob Gardner

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:rh1wf.471795$084.27584@attbi_s22...
>> Whenever I see less than 200 hours on an engine in a year, it seems like
>> there are tales of destruction of an engine to follow.
>
> ???
>
> That describes almost every privately owned aircraft at our airport. Only
> trainers routinely put on more than 200 hours per year.
>
> Mary and I fly more than anyone at the airport, and we just barely put 200
> hours on last year.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[George Patterson]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> Only hurdle I can think of is some anal FAA guy busting the
> volunteer pilot for logging hours (compensation?) with only a private
> ticket. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

Maybe not. Perhaps you could "rent" the plane to him or her for a nominal sum.
Do you get into the 100 hour inspection requirement if you do that?

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Steven Barnes]

With regard to severe leaning on the ground, does hot summertime temps make
a difference? Long taxis or long hold shorts? I made the "lean the sh!t out
of it on the ground" comment at a flying club meeting once, & one of the
guys flipped.


> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.owning Stan Prevost > wrote:
> : If the mixture is set to spec, it is not necessary to lean for ground
ops,
> : since it is already lean enough to prevent plug fouling. Ground leaning
is
> : effective only if leaned back to the edge of idle cutoff, anyway.
>
> : The Lycoming manual doesn't seem to have any tables for adjusting RPM
rise
> : for density altitude. If it is leaned to the 5RPM rise spec at a high
> : altitude airport, I wonder if it might be too lean at a low-altitude
> : airport, with no way to enrichen it.
>
> Not to mention seasonal variation. With temperatures in Virginia in the
60s
> (!) the past weeks it's difficult to even do it for winter/summer... not
to mention
> density altitude.
>
> I ground lean mine... typically right on the edge of idle cutoff. It's
enough
> so that anything over 1200 RPM will cause the engine to stumble. That way
it will be
> periodically run extra-lean during the taxi and help reduce plug fouling.
Can't hurt
> the engine with leaning at such low power and it's impossible to runup or
takeoff
> without enrichening.
>
> -Cory
>
>
> --
>
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * Cory Papenfuss *
> * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
> * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
> ************************************************** ***********************
>

[Peter R.]

Steven Barnes > wrote:

> With regard to severe leaning on the ground, does hot summertime temps make
> a difference? Long taxis or long hold shorts? I made the "lean the sh!t out
> of it on the ground" comment at a flying club meeting once, & one of the
> guys flipped.

Leaning during high ground temperatures should not cause excessive cylinder
temperatures since you are taxiing at very low RPMS.

The C172SPs (fuel-injected engines) at my former flight school always
experienced fouled plugs if the students/renters failed to lean for ground
operations.

--
Peter

[Jay Honeck]

>I have always thought that airplane owners would be wise to find a pilot
>familiar with their type of aircraft who meets the "open pilot"
>requirements of their insurance, and have that pilot fly the airplane for
>an hour once a week. Cost to the owner compared to the cost of maintenance
>should be minimal. Only hurdle I can think of is some anal FAA guy busting
>the volunteer pilot for logging hours (compensation?) with only a private
>ticket. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

I'm friends with a CFI in Wisconsin who used to do just that.

For a nominal fee (like, beer or lunch?), he would "exercise" planes each
week. That's how I managed to get time in an Ercoupe, by tagging along.

He built time, and the owners were happy to know that their engines weren't
being trashed by inactivity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steve S]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:v2Ywf.2512$rS4.2361@trndny05...
> Maybe not. Perhaps you could "rent" the plane to him or her for a nominal
> sum. Do you get into the 100 hour inspection requirement if you do that?

Not unless he uses it for instructing. Renting a plane does not put in the
"For Hire" category that necessitates 100 hour inspections.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:10:22 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>As several others have pointed out, circulation of the oil isn't the problem
>with the cam lobes. Those are lubricated by splash from the crank. I've never
>seen any claims that this differs much from splash while in flight, though.

I actually thought this was a joke when I read it in a previous post.
You mean to tell me that the cam REALLY gets it's lubrication from
splash?

The crankshaft has to whip it's throws into the oil in the oil pan so
that the oil gets whipped around inside the engine and THAT's how the
cam gets oiled?

Lordy, thought that technology went out with Model T's

I can't think of a single engine in the automotive world that depends
on splash oil to lubricate anything.

No wonder auto oil is not supposed to be used in airplane engines.

Corky Scott

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 19:41:33 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
> wrote:

>Saw a show w/ a Japanese craftsman making a sword. Two layers of
>different steels. Pounded it thin; folded it over; pounded...
>Many layers later, that was the sword...

Right, but the entire blade is heat treated so that it is tempered,
rather than hard. If it were made from the kind of steel that
camshafts were cast from, it would be very brittle.

Not many camshafts, in low rpm engines, require forged camshafts,
there just isn't much pressure on them because they spin so slowly and
the valve springs aren't very stiff. But all camshafts require heat
treating the outer layer, or they'd wear out very quickly.

Corky Scott

[Mitty]

On 1/18/2006 11:44 AM, wrote the following:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:10:22 GMT, George Patterson
<snip>
>
> I can't think of a single engine in the automotive world that depends
> on splash oil to lubricate anything.
>

Hmm ... In every engine I've ever assembled the cam lobes running against the
tappets are splash oiled. In pushrod motors the rocker arm noses running
against the valve stems are splash oiled. Also the timing chain(s), the
distributor drive gear, ... Pretty much it is only the bearings that are
pressure oiled. i.e., mains, rods, cam(s).

YMMV, of course.

[George Patterson]

wrote:

> Right, but the entire blade is heat treated so that it is tempered,
> rather than hard. If it were made from the kind of steel that
> camshafts were cast from, it would be very brittle.

No, David had it right. Japanese cutting tools are made by laminating hard,
brittle steel with soft, mild steel. The best place to see this these days is
chisels or plane blades. There are only two layers in these; the outside layer
is very hard and the inside very soft (for tool steel, that is).

This has the disadvantage that the cutting edge is much more easily damaged than
that of a western blade. It is, as you point out, brittle. They were never
designed to be used in buildings with concrete floors or environments that
include nails.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:40:21 -0600, Mitty > wrote:

>In pushrod motors the rocker arm noses running
>against the valve stems are splash oiled. Also the timing chain(s), the
>distributor drive gear, ... Pretty much it is only the bearings that are
>pressure oiled. i.e., mains, rods, cam(s).

The engines pushrod engines I've assembled had hollow pushrods and fed
pressurized oil to the rocker arms. The rocker arms were hollow and
injected oil onto the valve stem to assist in cooling. Yes, the top
of the valve stem did not have any direct injection so it did require
splash oil for it's lubrication. That's where roller rockers help.

Guess I hadn't thought that much about it for a long while. I stopped
working as an auto mechanic a long time ago.

Corky Scott

[Ray Andraka]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>Whenever I see less than 200 hours on an engine in a year, it seems like
>>>>there are tales of destruction of an engine to follow.
>>>
>>>???
>>>
>>>That describes almost every privately owned aircraft at our airport.
>>>Only trainers routinely put on more than 200 hours per year.
>>>
>>>Mary and I fly more than anyone at the airport, and we just barely put
>>>200 hours on last year.
>>
>>Really? I would have thought you put far more than that on, per year.
>>
>>OK, then perhaps it is the frequency of being well warmed up that is the
>>more important factor. I have always read that the moisture that is the
>>killer, and when engines sit for more than a couple weeks, frequently,
>>that the rust begins killing the internals.
>>
>>I wonder what the minimum time per year, and maximum frequency of running
>>is necessary to keep rust at bay?
>>
>>Still, I think that only rollers touching the cams would be beneficial. I
>>wonder how many kits have been designed to retrofit popular lycosaruses?
>>--
>>Jim in NC
>
>
> I wonder if there is any statistical evidence on this issue regarding
> incidences per region?
>
> Are planes out here in the desert SW less prone to this?
>
> Just wondering out loud...
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> AZ Cloudbusters
> Chandler, AZ
>
>
Tanis has an article on engine corrosion
http://www.tanisaircraft.com/servicebullitens.html where they list a
bunch of factors leading to cam corrosion. If you go by that list, my
score comes out to 11 or 12 which they say makes my engine a candidate
for corrosion. The surprise to me was recent overhaul puts the engine
at risk. Digging into that more, it seems that a low time engine hasn't
had a chance to build up any varnish to protect surfaces. Now, I can't
see varnish building on the cam faces, so I don't entirely buy that.

The other surprise to me was that they claim multi-weight oil is bad for
corrosion resistance if the airplane is not flown very frequently (a
couple times a week) because it drains off too quickly. I vaguely
recall seeing a similar claim a while back.

So, I still don't know what caused my cam to fail, but articles like the
tanis one seem to indicate that even a relatively new cam can get rust
pits on the cam faces that can lead to an early demise.

They also advocate a engine ventilator to be used in conjunction with
full time preheat to dry out the crankcase. that's great if you can
leave it plugged in 24/7. I can't because I am in a group hangar where
the FBO regularly shuffles the aircraft around. I guess I'll switch
back to single weight oil and make it a point to fly at least once evey
7 days instead of at least once every 20 days like I had been doing.
Hopefully I'll avoid trashing another cam. In the mean time, I will be
trying to get a forensic analysis of the old cam to hopefully learn why
it failed.

I did see the cam lobe myself, and it was spalling rather profusely.
The adjacent lobes did not appear to have any pits or rough spots on them.

It seems to me that there ought to be a way to go in through the
dipstick with a filtered compressed air wand or something to fog oil in
the crankcase to get a pre-lube, as well as to periodically lube the
inside of the engine during a period of inactivity. Once the engine is
running there is plenty of oil flying around to keep everything lubed I
think, the problem is a dry start after a relatively short period of
inactivity, and a regular pre-oiler doesn't seem like it would get the
oil to the places it is really needed, ie the cam shaft, cylinder walls,
and accessory gears.

[nrp]

>It seems to me that there ought to be a way to go in through the
dipstick with a filtered compressed air wand or something to fog oil in
the crankcase to get a pre-lube, as well as to periodically lube the
inside of the engine during a period of inactivity.<

It would probably require the oil to be warm to atomize it. There is a
major baffle system in the crankcases that prevent the oil from being
sucked into the whirling machinery. That baffle system would tend to
defeat most attempts at atomization in the sump. It wouldn't take much
oil though to fog things enough to eventually get the insides of the
crankcase wet. I'd like to try it sometime to find out. Anyone want
to saw a hole in their crankcase?

I generally agree with Tanis on the importance of cold start preheat,
but my '75 C172M is now at 1700 TTSN & has never been apart.
Compression and oil consumption hasn't changed, & obviously it gets
flown infrequently. The last oil analysis was 5.8 PPM of iron. It
has a Tanis score of about 17. I only preheat the oil & use a blanket
on the engine.

The key, especially with Lycomings, is to NEVER do a cold start without
preheat below like 40 degrees - warmer if it has been sitting for some
weeks & warmer if you don't have winter oil, but otherwise keep it cold
if it is not being flown.

I now have started to shut off the fuel & run the carb empty if it
isn't going to be run for a week or more. I try to purge the engine of
combustion gasses & use autofuel almost exclusively. It really helps
restarting next time with autofuel.

[Bob Moore]

Ray Andraka >wrote

> The other surprise to me was that they claim multi-weight oil is
> bad for corrosion resistance if the airplane is not flown very
> frequently (a couple times a week) because it drains off too
> quickly. I vaguely recall seeing a similar claim a while back.

Ray, do a search on the Lyc o-320H engine. The "H" engine had a real
bad habit of cam failure until the FAA put out an AD mandating that a
particular additive be used in the oil. This seemed to fix the
problem, I taught in one particular 172N for six years with never a
problem. The additive was so good, that it is now a standard
ingredient of the AeroShell multigrade oil. I see this "snake oil"
being sold over the counter at Sun n Fun, but the name escapes me
right now. I would't switch if I were you.

Bob Moore

[Allen]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> Ray Andraka >wrote
>
> > The other surprise to me was that they claim multi-weight oil is
> > bad for corrosion resistance if the airplane is not flown very
> > frequently (a couple times a week) because it drains off too
> > quickly. I vaguely recall seeing a similar claim a while back.
>
> Ray, do a search on the Lyc o-320H engine. The "H" engine had a real
> bad habit of cam failure until the FAA put out an AD mandating that a
> particular additive be used in the oil. This seemed to fix the
> problem, I taught in one particular 172N for six years with never a
> problem. The additive was so good, that it is now a standard
> ingredient of the AeroShell multigrade oil. I see this "snake oil"
> being sold over the counter at Sun n Fun, but the name escapes me
> right now. I would't switch if I were you.
>
> Bob Moore

It's also in the Aeroshell 100W Plus if you don't want to use the
semi-synthetic 15W-50.

[nobody]

I guess I understand now how you fellows and gals have
time to work on your airplane. Down here in sunny Texas,
it is almost always good flying weather, and given the choice
between flying and tinkering, I always seem to pick flying.

Ronnie

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:24Hvf.682611$x96.306653@attbi_s72...
>> Hey... that little window let me fly home (Wisconsin-Virginia) on New
>> Year's
>> Day.... Take what you can get! :)
>
> Hey, we flew VFR from Iowa City to Janesville, WI (and back) last Sunday.
>
> The last 45 minutes were, um, interesting. The temperature and dew
> points began to converge, as the sun began to set, and sky conditions
> dropped from 11,000 broken to a very optimistic 1300 overcast -- across a
> 250 mile wide stretch of terrain -- in about 20 minutes. It was the most
> widespread deterioration I've ever seen.
>
> I was glad to be on the ground at the end of that flight. We were still
> legal VFR, but visibility was 5 miles or less, and nasty icing was
> occurring less than a thousand feet up.
>
> Other than that, we haven't flown diddly squat in weeks. Our last fly-in
> guest was sometime around Thanksgiving. Worst flying weather I've ever
> seen.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>