Why does airspeed change when I adjust the prop?

[Mxsmanic]

When I change the prop setting on my (simulated) Baron 58, lowering
the prop RPM, my airspeed drops. I thought that for a given throttle
setting, the actual thrust produced by the powerplant was supposed to
remain the same for a wide range of prop settings, because of
automatic pitch changes made when I change the prop RPM. However,
that doesn't seem to be the case. A lowering of the prop RPM also
lowers airspeed, which implies a change in thrust. The fuel flow also
diminishes, which implies a change in power (?).

So, exactly what do I gain or lose by adjusting prop RPM when I'm
cruising along? Why would I want to change it? Some sources I've
read say that the prop makes less noise, which is surely true, but it
seems that I can't lower the RPM without losing airspeed (and thus I
must be losing power, right?).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:14:47 -0800, Mxsmanic wrote
(in article >):

> When I change the prop setting on my (simulated) Baron 58, lowering
> the prop RPM, my airspeed drops. I thought that for a given throttle
> setting, the actual thrust produced by the powerplant was supposed to
> remain the same for a wide range of prop settings, because of
> automatic pitch changes made when I change the prop RPM. However,
> that doesn't seem to be the case. A lowering of the prop RPM also
> lowers airspeed, which implies a change in thrust. The fuel flow also
> diminishes, which implies a change in power (?).

Think about it. What happens to thrust and airspeed if you reduce RPM to 0?

[Chris W]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> When I change the prop setting on my (simulated) Baron 58, lowering
> the prop RPM, my airspeed drops. I thought that for a given throttle
> setting, the actual thrust produced by the powerplant was supposed to
> remain the same for a wide range of prop settings, because of
> automatic pitch changes made when I change the prop RPM. However,
> that doesn't seem to be the case. A lowering of the prop RPM also
> lowers airspeed, which implies a change in thrust. The fuel flow also
> diminishes, which implies a change in power (?).
>
> So, exactly what do I gain or lose by adjusting prop RPM when I'm
> cruising along? Why would I want to change it? Some sources I've
> read say that the prop makes less noise, which is surely true, but it
> seems that I can't lower the RPM without losing airspeed (and thus I
> must be losing power, right?).
>


Of course you are loosing power. All other things being equal, the
slower an engine spins the less power it can put out, as you have also
noticed, the less fuel it needs. The reason you lower your rpm is to
reduce stress on the engine. In general, engines aren't rated to run
continuously at take off rpm.

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Mxsmanic]

C J Campbell writes:

> Think about it. What happens to thrust and airspeed if you reduce RPM to 0?

Yes, I was thinking about that. But supposedly reducing the RPM
slightly just causes the CS prop to change pitch, which means that it
should still be producing the same thrust (or at least what I've read
seems to assert this). This doesn't hold for very low RPMs because at
some point the limits of practical pitch adjustment are reached.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[chris[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> When I change the prop setting on my (simulated) Baron 58, lowering
> the prop RPM, my airspeed drops. I thought that for a given throttle
> setting, the actual thrust produced by the powerplant was supposed to
> remain the same for a wide range of prop settings, because of
> automatic pitch changes made when I change the prop RPM. However,
> that doesn't seem to be the case. A lowering of the prop RPM also
> lowers airspeed, which implies a change in thrust. The fuel flow also
> diminishes, which implies a change in power (?).
>
> So, exactly what do I gain or lose by adjusting prop RPM when I'm
> cruising along? Why would I want to change it? Some sources I've
> read say that the prop makes less noise, which is surely true, but it
> seems that I can't lower the RPM without losing airspeed (and thus I
> must be losing power, right?).
>
As a pilot who has never flown a a/c with a CSU I might have this all
wrong, but this is AFAIK...

With a fixed pitch prop you can fit a climb prop which gives good climb
but poor cruise, or a cruise prop which is the other way around. A
variable pitch prop allows us to vary the pitch to suit the conditions.
Are you perhaps pulling the RPM back too much and seeing a decrease in
airspeed?
The only firm example I have here is for the Cherokee 6, which has
climb settings of 25" and 2500rpm, and cruise setting of 23" and
2400RPM, so not a huge difference.

Takeoff and landing of course are with the prop set to full fine

Hope I didn't stuff that up and hope that helps

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> Are you perhaps pulling the RPM back too much and seeing a decrease in
> airspeed?

The redline RPM is about 2500, and I pull it back to about 2000-2200.
My IAS then drops by 10 kts or so. The engine is less noisy. I don't
adjust the throttle (which in most cases is fully forward) or mixture
(adjusted for slightly ROP). The fuel rate drops a lot with the RPM,
but the manifold pressure doesn't seem to move much, or I haven't
looked at it closely enough.

> Takeoff and landing of course are with the prop set to full fine

Yes, for take-off and landing I make sure the props and mixture are
set fully forward again.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> But supposedly reducing the RPM
> slightly just causes the CS prop to change pitch,
>

Who supposes that?

We need to be clear about definitions from the start:

There are prop installations (though uncommon) where the pilot can set
prop pitch directly. This is not a constant speed prop. If, for
example, the pilot pitches the aircraft down, that will lead to an
increase in RPM with such a constant pitch prop.

A Constant Speed prop, OTOH, hold RPM (its "speed", hence the name)
constant. If you pull into a climb, the prop RPM will not slow, it will
stay the same. If you push into a descent, RPM will not increase, it
will stay the same. In order to achieve that, the prop will change its
blade pitch continually. With the prop lever, you don't change pitch
(directly), you set an RPM which the CS mechanism will then maintain by
adjusting pitch.

Ok, once this is understood, it becomes much clearer (I hope) that RPM
does of course influence engine power. Think about less air-fuel mix
being burned per minute if the engine does fewer revolutions in that
minute.

What you get with CS, however, is something that is best likened to a
gear-box in a car. You can optimize the engine RPM and the "load" on
the prop to what you are doing. High RPM means the prop is taking
"small bites out of the air" per revolution, low rpm means it's taking
big bites. Hence, high RPM is good for take-off, lower RPM is good for
cruise.

As per the cruise power tables in the POH (you really need to start to
read these things), various combinations of manifold pressure and RPM
will give you the same amount of engine power (often, tables are for 65
and 75 percent of engine power). Which to chose? Well, many people
prefer a low noise setting, that means a combination of low RPM and
high MP. You can't use any combination if you don't want to harm your
engine, but you can use all that are in the POH table.

I know you don't read the stuff you're pointed to here, but for
lurkers: This is all very well explained by John Deakin in his columns
on engine management at www.avweb.com.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[chris[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> chris writes:
>
> > Are you perhaps pulling the RPM back too much and seeing a decrease in
> > airspeed?
>
> The redline RPM is about 2500, and I pull it back to about 2000-2200.
> My IAS then drops by 10 kts or so. The engine is less noisy. I don't
> adjust the throttle (which in most cases is fully forward) or mixture
> (adjusted for slightly ROP). The fuel rate drops a lot with the RPM,
> but the manifold pressure doesn't seem to move much, or I haven't
> looked at it closely enough.
>
> > Takeoff and landing of course are with the prop set to full fine
>
> Yes, for take-off and landing I make sure the props and mixture are
> set fully forward again.

Manifold pressure is set by the throttle.. And you need to pull the
throttle back before pulling the prop control back, and vice versa for
increasing RPM

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Who supposes that?

The sources I've read. One of them compares pitch to the gearing in a
car, with fine pitch being like a low gear, and coarse pitch being
like a high gear. The implication is that you can go faster in cruise
with coarse pitch (just as you can go faster in overdrive in a car
when cruising), but it doesn't seem to work that way. Decreasing the
RPM supposedly compels the pitch to become coarser, like upshifting to
a higher gear.

> There are prop installations (though uncommon) where the pilot can set
> prop pitch directly. This is not a constant speed prop. If, for
> example, the pilot pitches the aircraft down, that will lead to an
> increase in RPM with such a constant pitch prop.

The Baron has a CS prop, I know that.

> A Constant Speed prop, OTOH, hold RPM (its "speed", hence the name)
> constant. If you pull into a climb, the prop RPM will not slow, it will
> stay the same. If you push into a descent, RPM will not increase, it
> will stay the same. In order to achieve that, the prop will change its
> blade pitch continually. With the prop lever, you don't change pitch
> (directly), you set an RPM which the CS mechanism will then maintain by
> adjusting pitch.
>
> Ok, once this is understood, it becomes much clearer (I hope) that RPM
> does of course influence engine power. Think about less air-fuel mix
> being burned per minute if the engine does fewer revolutions in that
> minute.
>
> What you get with CS, however, is something that is best likened to a
> gear-box in a car. You can optimize the engine RPM and the "load" on
> the prop to what you are doing. High RPM means the prop is taking
> "small bites out of the air" per revolution, low rpm means it's taking
> big bites. Hence, high RPM is good for take-off, lower RPM is good for
> cruise.

OK, but why does the airspeed drop? In a car, you use the highest
gears (coarsest pitch, hence lowest prop RPM) for high-speed cruise.

It seems that high speed and fine pitch should produce exactly the
same thrust as low speed and coarse pitch, as long as the prop blades
don't stall or reach transonic speeds.

> As per the cruise power tables in the POH (you really need to start to
> read these things), various combinations of manifold pressure and RPM
> will give you the same amount of engine power (often, tables are for 65
> and 75 percent of engine power). Which to chose? Well, many people
> prefer a low noise setting, that means a combination of low RPM and
> high MP. You can't use any combination if you don't want to harm your
> engine, but you can use all that are in the POH table.

So you're saying that lowering the RPM necessarily means a drop in net
thrust unless the manifold pressure is increased (a throttle
increase)?

I'm reminded of diesel-electric locomotives. These locomotives have a
large diesel engine that drives a generator or alternator, which
provides electricity for traction motors. When you control speed on
these locomotives, you don't adjust the diesel engine speed directly;
instead you adjust the power demand of the traction motors, and a
governor adjusts the actual diesel engine throttle to provide the
necessary power.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Chris,

> And you need to pull the
> throttle back before pulling the prop control back, and vice versa for
> increasing RPM
>

Uhm, well, good in principle, but not necessarily true.

Example: You're in the climb after take-off, passing what you consider a
safe altitude to start reducing power (1000 AGL for me). Many people are
taught to pull back to 25/25 (IOW 25 MP and 2500 RPM). That is actually
very hard on the engine. The reason is that you're in a high power, bad
cooling situation (less cooling airflow in the climb at low airspeed).
At full throttle, extra fuel is added to provide extra cooling. By
pulling back to 25, you lose that. And most POHs allow you to pull back
the RPM to 2500 and remain at full power. In the Tobago we fly, we pull
back to 2450 (top of the green) while leaving the throttle at full.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Anno v. Heimburg]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> OK, but why does the airspeed drop? In a car, you use the highest
> gears (coarsest pitch, hence lowest prop RPM) for high-speed cruise.

Because the RPM drops. Ceteris paribus, the same amount of fuel/air mixture
enters each cylinder with each intake stroke, and each cylinder imparts the
same amount of torque with each power stroke, but because of the lower rpm,
you have less power strokes per time, thus, the engine yields less power.
If you reduce the RPMs by 20%, c.p.* the engine power will drop by 20%,
too. Hence, you loose airspeed.

And the gearbox-metaphor is not very well suited because most cars don't
have a contiously-variable transmission but rather distinct gears, also,
you don't specify the desired engine rpm but rather the desired gear ratio.
That is not the case with the constant-speed prop, you select a desired
rpm, and the prop governor adjusts the load on the engine (by varying the
prop pitch) to maintain that rpm, regardless of the actual power output of
the engine (within the limits of the prop's abilities, of course).

Anno.

*) and that's a pretty strong c.p.

[Jim Macklin]

Horsepower depends on rpm and MAP. Lowering rpm without
increasing MAP [throttle] will reduce horsepower and that
causes a reduction in speed.



"C J Campbell" > wrote in
message
e.com...
| On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:14:47 -0800, Mxsmanic wrote
| (in article >):
|
| > When I change the prop setting on my (simulated) Baron
58, lowering
| > the prop RPM, my airspeed drops. I thought that for a
given throttle
| > setting, the actual thrust produced by the powerplant
was supposed to
| > remain the same for a wide range of prop settings,
because of
| > automatic pitch changes made when I change the prop RPM.
However,
| > that doesn't seem to be the case. A lowering of the
prop RPM also
| > lowers airspeed, which implies a change in thrust. The
fuel flow also
| > diminishes, which implies a change in power (?).
|
| Think about it. What happens to thrust and airspeed if you
reduce RPM to 0?
|

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> OK, but why does the airspeed drop?

Because your power output is lower.

> It seems that high speed and fine pitch should produce exactly the
> same thrust as low speed and coarse pitch, as long as the prop blades
> don't stall or reach transonic speeds.

Why?

> So you're saying that lowering the RPM necessarily means a drop in net
> thrust unless the manifold pressure is increased (a throttle
> increase)?

Yes.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose]

> The implication is that you can go faster in cruise
> with coarse pitch (just as you can go faster in overdrive in a car
> when cruising), but it doesn't seem to work that way.

What happens when, in a car, you go from second gear to fifth gear?
Unless you are going fast enough for fifth gear to be appropriate, the
car will lug, and slow down. The point of car gearing is to keep the
engine at its most efficient RPM range. While this is an extreme case,
something similar happens with an airplane engine - if you lower the
RPM, the pitch will become coarser (all other things being equal) and
the engine will have a harder time (do more work) for each revolution.
Each revolution pulls you through more air.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Dohm]

> When I change the prop setting on my (simulated) Baron 58, lowering
> the prop RPM, my airspeed drops. I thought that for a given throttle
> setting, the actual thrust produced by the powerplant was supposed to
> remain the same for a wide range of prop settings, because of
> automatic pitch changes made when I change the prop RPM. However,
> that doesn't seem to be the case. A lowering of the prop RPM also
> lowers airspeed, which implies a change in thrust. The fuel flow also
> diminishes, which implies a change in power (?).
>
> So, exactly what do I gain or lose by adjusting prop RPM when I'm
> cruising along? Why would I want to change it? Some sources I've
> read say that the prop makes less noise, which is surely true, but it
> seems that I can't lower the RPM without losing airspeed (and thus I
> must be losing power, right?).
>
I can hardly believe that I am reading this thread, much less responding to
it!

However, someone reading all this may very well work their way up to
captain, and I may very well be one of their passengers...

As of 9:50am EST on Jan 16, most of the responses seem to pertain to the
first power reduction after take-off, even though the question was specific
to cruise, and most of the remainder appear to presume a very radical change
in RPM. OTOH, none have mentioned that many aircraft--especdially
twins--have an automatic manifold pressure control (as contrasted to a plane
old throttle plate) connected to the throttle levers. This is (or should
be) universal for turbo-supercharged engines equipped with automatic
waste-gates.

None of these systems function perfectly, but to the extent that they
approxamate a constant manifold pressure, horsepower will thus be directly
proportional to RPM.

In addition; when operating above the critical altitude a normally aspirated
engine will typically operate as though the manifold pressure is
regfulated--but a turbo-supercharged engine (or any engine with a
centrifugal supercharger) will work in reverse of what might be intuitive:
an increase in RPM will result in an increase in manifold pressure and a
decrease in RPM will result in a decrease in Manifold pressure.

The exception to the above occurs when operating an "entry level" conplex
aircraft at low altitude and reduced power. In that case, a reduction in
RPM by means of the prop control will result in an increase in manifold
pressure. There will still be a reduction in horsepower, but not nearly as
much.

Peter

[Paul kgyy]

Power is a linear function of the amount of air processed through the
engine. The amount of air is a function of the product of manifold
pressure and RPM.

For my Arrow, takeoff numbers 30" 2700 RPM, product 81000, 200 hp.

At 5000 ft, 25", 2400 RPM, product 60000. 60/81 = 74% power, 150 hp.

If I reduce to 2100 RPM, product is 52500. 52.5/81 = 65% power, 130 hp

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> I can hardly believe that I am reading this thread, much less responding to
> it!

As usual, the questions are worthwhile. It's the answers to the answers. But
my reasoning was that a lot of pilots transitioning to complex airplanes have
these questions.

> There will still be a reduction in horsepower, but not nearly as
> much.

You're right with all you say, of course. In "real life", while one needs to
know what's going on behind the scenes, it still comes down to setting both
parameters (MP and RPM) to values that are "by the book".


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Newps]

chris wrote:


>
>
>And you need to pull the
> throttle back before pulling the prop control back, and vice versa for
> increasing RPM

Old wives tale.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> chris wrote:
>
>
>>
>> And you need to pull the
>> throttle back before pulling the prop control back, and vice versa for
>> increasing RPM
>
> Old wives tale.

Quite! Prop and mixture are all you ever need.

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

> For my Arrow, takeoff numbers 30" 2700 RPM, product 81000, 200 hp.
>

Wanna bet several of those horses have left the building over the
years?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Newps]

>
>
>>For my Arrow, takeoff numbers 30" 2700 RPM, product 81000,


What?

[JD]

On Jan 16, 9:52 am, "Paul kgyy" > wrote:
> Power is a linear function of the amount of air processed through the
> engine. The amount of air is a function of the product of manifold
> pressure and RPM.
>
> For my Arrow, takeoff numbers 30" 2700 RPM, product 81000, 200 hp.
>
> At 5000 ft, 25", 2400 RPM, product 60000. 60/81 = 74% power, 150 hp.
>
> If I reduce to 2100 RPM, product is 52500. 52.5/81 = 65% power, 130 hp

hmmm my Mooney's POH lists

5000ft / 25" / 2400 RPM = 154 HP / 77% power for a 200hp Lycoming IO -
360-A1A.

and it explicitly states to increase engine speed (RPM) before manifold
pressure and
conversely reduce manifold pressure before RPM. No wife tales in my POH
<grin>

[Morgans[_2_]]

Thomas!

What gives? You have been a leader of the don't answer HIM group. Now
this?

I don't get it, but I don't seem to get a lot of what goes on around here,
lately.

Just curious about the change of heart.
--
Jim in NC

[Kev]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> As usual, the questions are worthwhile. It's the answers to the answers. But
> my reasoning was that a lot of pilots transitioning to complex airplanes have
> these questions.

I think everyone appreciates the calm, thoughtful and useful responses.

Some people would simply ask, get one answer, and go away. The extra
questioning that Mx gives to some answers can be frustrating, but also
interesting, because it's the in-depth replies that really bring out
the piloting experiences we all like to hear about.

Just saying something is true isn't enough sometimes. As you yourself
recently wrote: "Argument by authority isn't really a good way to try
to convince intelligent people".

Regards and thanks,
Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Anno v. Heimburg writes:

> And the gearbox-metaphor is not very well suited because most cars don't
> have a contiously-variable transmission ...

FWIW, I did have a scooter with this type of transmission. It was a
bit bizarre, because if you opened the throttle wide open from a
standing start, the engine would speed up to its optimal RPM, and then
the transmission would continuously change ratios to keep the engine
at the same RPM as the scooter accelerated. You'd hear a constant
whirr from the engine, even though you were accelerating very rapidly.
It also provided good acceleration because of this, since the
(relatively small) engine was held at a single optimum speed.

> That is not the case with the constant-speed prop, you select a desired
> rpm, and the prop governor adjusts the load on the engine (by varying the
> prop pitch) to maintain that rpm, regardless of the actual power output of
> the engine (within the limits of the prop's abilities, of course).

So what do you gain with the prop adjustment? Just a reduction in
wear and tear and/or noise?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Why?

If you make the pitch twice as coarse and run it at half the speed, it
should still move the same amount of air.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> What happens when, in a car, you go from second gear to fifth gear?
> Unless you are going fast enough for fifth gear to be appropriate, the
> car will lug, and slow down. The point of car gearing is to keep the
> engine at its most efficient RPM range. While this is an extreme case,
> something similar happens with an airplane engine - if you lower the
> RPM, the pitch will become coarser (all other things being equal) and
> the engine will have a harder time (do more work) for each revolution.
> Each revolution pulls you through more air.

So ultimately why do you change the prop adjustment? At full power,
slowing the RPM just slows the aircraft down. So does reducing the
throttle. Why would I slow the RPM rather than reduce the throttle?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> What gives? You have been a leader of the don't answer HIM group. Now
> this?
>

I haven't, really. In fact, I have answered him way too much. As I said,
this question is of great interest to many readers, I think. So it
deserves an answer. His usual bickering and "I know better" stuff I'll
ignore.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

> The extra
> questioning
>

There's that - and then there'S MX.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jd,

> No wife tales in my POH
>

Ah, but there are many OWTs in POHs. They get at least half written by
company lawyers...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:42:31 -0800, chris wrote
(in article m>):

>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> chris writes:
>>
>>> Are you perhaps pulling the RPM back too much and seeing a decrease in
>>> airspeed?
>>
>> The redline RPM is about 2500, and I pull it back to about 2000-2200.
>> My IAS then drops by 10 kts or so. The engine is less noisy. I don't
>> adjust the throttle (which in most cases is fully forward) or mixture
>> (adjusted for slightly ROP). The fuel rate drops a lot with the RPM,
>> but the manifold pressure doesn't seem to move much, or I haven't
>> looked at it closely enough.
>>
>>> Takeoff and landing of course are with the prop set to full fine
>>
>> Yes, for take-off and landing I make sure the props and mixture are
>> set fully forward again.
>
> Manifold pressure is set by the throttle.. And you need to pull the
> throttle back before pulling the prop control back, and vice versa for
> increasing RPM
>

Um, well not quite. People get confused about that when learning to use a
constant speed prop. You pull the manifold pressure back to an inch less than
where you finally want it to be simply because when you then reduce the rpm
the manifold pressure has a tendency to increase by that amount. You do the
opposite when increasing rpm. Increase the rpm first and then the manifold
pressure so that you don't have to go back and adjust the manifold pressure
again. Has little to do with being kind to the engine and everything to do
with minimizing your fiddling with the controls.

[[email protected]]

It's a simulator. The sim probably isn't all that accurate and
may be translating the lower RPM into a lower airspeed, as a
fixed-pitch prop would.
It's MSFS, not some certified IFR simulator where things have
to closely approximate the real thing. We're arguing with a bogeyman.

Dan

[chris[_1_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Chris,
>
> > And you need to pull the
> > throttle back before pulling the prop control back, and vice versa for
> > increasing RPM
> >
>
> Uhm, well, good in principle, but not necessarily true.
>
> Example: You're in the climb after take-off, passing what you consider a
> safe altitude to start reducing power (1000 AGL for me). Many people are
> taught to pull back to 25/25 (IOW 25 MP and 2500 RPM). That is actually
> very hard on the engine. The reason is that you're in a high power, bad
> cooling situation (less cooling airflow in the climb at low airspeed).
> At full throttle, extra fuel is added to provide extra cooling. By
> pulling back to 25, you lose that. And most POHs allow you to pull back
> the RPM to 2500 and remain at full power. In the Tobago we fly, we pull
> back to 2450 (top of the green) while leaving the throttle at full.
>

OK, I stand corrected!! As I indicated in my first post I am a fixed
pitch pilot so I am quite short of knowledge in this area, and I am
always keen to learn more ...

[Jose]

> So ultimately why do you change the prop adjustment? At full power,
> slowing the RPM just slows the aircraft down. So does reducing the
> throttle. Why would I slow the RPM rather than reduce the throttle?

For better efficiency.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Paul kgyy]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Paul,
>
> > For my Arrow, takeoff numbers 30" 2700 RPM, product 81000, 200 hp.
> >
>
> Wanna bet several of those horses have left the building over the
> years?
>

At 1200SMOH, no argument, but the principle still holds :-)

[Danny Deger]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

snip

> So ultimately why do you change the prop adjustment? At full power,
> slowing the RPM just slows the aircraft down. So does reducing the
> throttle. Why would I slow the RPM rather than reduce the throttle?
>

A fixed prop optimized for takeoff would overspeed the engine at cruise
speed. With variable pitch, the prop can be flat for take and higher pitch
for cruise.

Danny Deger

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > The extra
> > questioning
>
> There's that - and then there'S MX.

ouch

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Tony]

The habit of backing off throttle first, then reducing prop RPM, and
the habit of increasing RPM first, then advancing the throttle, is one
of those things that can save wear and tear, and maybe an engine. Can
anyone offer a good logical reason to do it any other way?

Old wives tale or not, why do it any other way except to prove that you
can. Is there a circumstance where it would be a better way to manage
the engine?

On Jan 16, 2:26 pm, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Jd,
>
> > No wife tales in my POHAh, but there are many OWTs in POHs. They get at least half written by
> company lawyers...
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BT]

look at the POH for various MP and RPM settings and review the resulting TAS
and Fuel Flow.
ohh... you don't have a simulated POH for your simulated Be58
BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> When I change the prop setting on my (simulated) Baron 58, lowering
> the prop RPM, my airspeed drops. I thought that for a given throttle
> setting, the actual thrust produced by the powerplant was supposed to
> remain the same for a wide range of prop settings, because of
> automatic pitch changes made when I change the prop RPM. However,
> that doesn't seem to be the case. A lowering of the prop RPM also
> lowers airspeed, which implies a change in thrust. The fuel flow also
> diminishes, which implies a change in power (?).
>
> So, exactly what do I gain or lose by adjusting prop RPM when I'm
> cruising along? Why would I want to change it? Some sources I've
> read say that the prop makes less noise, which is surely true, but it
> seems that I can't lower the RPM without losing airspeed (and thus I
> must be losing power, right?).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BT]

No, it looses efficiency and you need more power to move a prop with coarser
pitch.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Why?
>
> If you make the pitch twice as coarse and run it at half the speed, it
> should still move the same amount of air.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dave[_3_]]

Once again the "maniac" posts a well thought question, and learned
pilots answer.

"He" probes for a deeper understanding, bringing out the best (this
time) or the worst in the group, and some of us learn a whole bunch.
(I will speak for myself here)

Thanks MX, Tom and others!

This is why I "check in" here almost every night...

Dave





On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:53:59 -0800, "BT" > wrote:

>look at the POH for various MP and RPM settings and review the resulting TAS
>and Fuel Flow.
>ohh... you don't have a simulated POH for your simulated Be58
>BT
>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> When I change the prop setting on my (simulated) Baron 58, lowering
>> the prop RPM, my airspeed drops. I thought that for a given throttle
>> setting, the actual thrust produced by the powerplant was supposed to
>> remain the same for a wide range of prop settings, because of
>> automatic pitch changes made when I change the prop RPM. However,
>> that doesn't seem to be the case. A lowering of the prop RPM also
>> lowers airspeed, which implies a change in thrust. The fuel flow also
>> diminishes, which implies a change in power (?).
>>
>> So, exactly what do I gain or lose by adjusting prop RPM when I'm
>> cruising along? Why would I want to change it? Some sources I've
>> read say that the prop makes less noise, which is surely true, but it
>> seems that I can't lower the RPM without losing airspeed (and thus I
>> must be losing power, right?).
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:39:01 -0800, wrote
(in article om>):

>
>
> It's a simulator. The sim probably isn't all that accurate and
> may be translating the lower RPM into a lower airspeed, as a
> fixed-pitch prop would.
> It's MSFS, not some certified IFR simulator where things have
> to closely approximate the real thing. We're arguing with a bogeyman.

Okay, looking at 22 inches MP for the Cessna 206H, standard day, 8000 feet
straight from the manual (from the days when I owned a 206):

RPM KTAS GPH

2500 139 15.6
2400 137 15.0
2300 133 14.5
2200 130 13.9
2100 126 13.2

Same pattern at all other altitudes, temperatures, and MPs. If you decrease
your RPM, your KTAS and fuel consumption decrease.

Actually, the simulator sounds pretty accurate to me.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:29:50 -0800, Mxsmanic wrote
(in article >):


>
> So what do you gain with the prop adjustment? Just a reduction in
> wear and tear and/or noise?

No, you get a lot more than that. If you had the manual for a Baron you would
see. But let us look at the Cessna 206H, a single engine plane with a
constant speed prop.

At 8000 feet, with 22 inches MP and 2500 RPM, you generate 69BPH and have an
airspeed of 139 KTAS and burn 15.6 GPH. At 2100 RPM you generate only 57 BPH
and have an airspeed of 126 KTAS and burn 13.2 GPH. This is interesting, in
that you get exactly these same numbers (57 BPH, 126 KTAS, and 13.2 GPH) if
you have 2200 RPM but only 21 inches MP. And it is only slightly different at
2300 RPM and 20 inches MP.

Obviously, a reduction in either MP or RPM reduces your horsepower, airspeed,
and fuel consumption.

If you were in a fixed prop Cessna 172, you would have your throttle full
forward on takeoff in order to generate maximum horsepower. You want to get
away from the ground as quickly as possible, both for safety and noise
abatement (the sound of crumpling metal annoys the neighbors). But because
the prop has a fixed pitch, you cannot increase RPM. You cannot increase MP
because you already gave it full throttle. As the airplane pitches up the
prop will slow down. So you no longer have full power. If only you could
reduce the pitch of the prop to keep it at 2700 rpm. Well, in a CSP plane,
you can do exactly that. A constant speed prop is a performance enhancement.
It allows you to use all the power the engine has, at least until you have
climbed high enough that you need to turbocharge the engine, anyway.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> The habit of backing off throttle first, then reducing prop RPM, and
> the habit of increasing RPM first, then advancing the throttle, is one
> of those things that can save wear and tear, and maybe an engine. Can
> anyone offer a good logical reason to do it any other way?

Can anyone offer a reason to do it this way? The fact that it is part
of legend is not a reason.

> Old wives tale or not, why do it any other way except to prove that you
> can.

Because old wives' tales are frequently in accurate and sometimes do
exactly the opposite of what they are held to do. Science is a better
source of guidance.

> Is there a circumstance where it would be a better way to manage
> the engine?

Is doing it this way any better than doing it another way?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> ohh... you don't have a simulated POH for your simulated Be58

Actually I do. Part of it is written especially for the simulation,
part of it comes from the POH of the real aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Chris,

> OK, I stand corrected!! As I indicated in my first post I am a fixed
> pitch pilot so I am quite short of knowledge in this area, and I am
> always keen to learn more ...
>

Go for the avweb.com columns of John Deakin on engine management.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

> At 1200SMOH, no argument, but the principle still holds :-)
>

Indeed it does ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Tony,

Yes, the principle is good. But...

> Old wives tale or not, why do it any other way except to prove that you
> can. Is there a circumstance where it would be a better way to manage
> the engine?
>

I described one in an earlier post: take-off. Also, I've seen CFIs insist
to reduce MP only to return it to the same value, just for an RPM
decrease of 100 or 200, with both RPM settings allowed for that MP.
That's ridiculous.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > ohh... you don't have a simulated POH for your simulated Be58
>
> Actually I do.
>

So read it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tony]

Thomas, I made no claim that one should not fly 'over square' as you
mentioned in the post you cited -- I did it routinely with the IO 360
pulling an M20 around. In fact, internal engine frictional losses in
the normal operating range vary as some positive function of RPM --
probably much worse than linear. Knowing that, the prudent pilot
cruises with the lowest RPM and highest MP that seems reasonable --
even if MP measured in inches of Hg exeeds the number produced by
dividing engine RPM by 100.

I suspect you will agree with me that when one pays for fuel and
repair, being kind to the hardware is a good idea. If one is going to
adjust both throttle and engine speed, I cannot think of a cirumstance
when following the commonly taught and used procedure of first reducing
throttle then rpm, or first advancing rpm then throttle, is not the
prudent technique. A PIC can do it differently, but why?

I am reminded, when techniques like this are called old wives tales, of
people who ignore the fine print in contracts, calling it 'boiler
plate." It's there because it's been shown to protect the interests of
someone, and that someone is very often not the person being asked to
sign the document.

Old wives are often right.

When one's 'flying' only distrubes large numbers of electrons in a
computer and a much smaller number of people in this newsgroup these
issues are not especially important, but as someone else suggested,
there are wannabe and low time pilot lurkers here. The pilots with real
world experience are doing them and low time pilots a service by not
only reciting conventional dogma but discussing its logic as well.

And besides that, it's fun.

Do you remember those commercials in the US where someone is either
piloting a swing wing, or doing an emergency operation and when asked
"Are you a pilot (or a doctor)" the answer is "No, but I stayed in a
Holiday Inn Express last night"?

Around here, we get arguements from someone who if asked "Are you a
pilot?" responds with "No, but I played MSFS last night."



On Jan 17, 3:43 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Tony,
>
> Yes, the principle is good. But...
>
> > Old wives tale or not, why do it any other way except to prove that you
> > can. Is there a circumstance where it would be a better way to manage
> > the engine?I described one in an earlier post: take-off. Also, I've seen CFIs insist
> to reduce MP only to return it to the same value, just for an RPM
> decrease of 100 or 200, with both RPM settings allowed for that MP.
> That's ridiculous.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Tony,

Ah, "oversquare" is obvious BS, we can agree on that (said the man coming
from the land of SI units, where the whole idea of oversquare goes away
when you use Pascal to measure MP ;-)).

> I cannot think of a cirumstance
> when following the commonly taught and used procedure of first reducing
> throttle then rpm, or first advancing rpm then throttle, is not the
> prudent technique.
>

Again, I mentioned two examples, one common, one maybe not so:

1. Take-off. Leave throttle at full and reduce RPM to 2500 is better for
the hardware in most cases than reducing to 25/2500.

2. Dogma. If you're reducing RPM by, say, 200 but leaving the MP at the
set value, it makes no sense to reduce MP, then reduce RPM, then increase
MP again. Yet some CFIs will insist you do it that way.

Here's a third: People flying the "full LOP regime" will often leave the
throttle at full for the whole flight, controlling engine power with RPM
and mixture alone. If you really know what you're doing, that's perfectly
safe and good on the equipment.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tony]

We are not disagreing on any point here. The 'dogma' about which
adjustment to make FIRST is if both throttle and prop are being
adjusted. The cases you mentioned are circumstances where the PIC has
decided to pull or push on ONLY one knob!

It's also worth mentioning that cowl flaps and CHTs are among a pilot's
best friends when stretching things.




On Jan 17, 8:44 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Tony,
>
> Ah, "oversquare" is obvious BS, we can agree on that (said the man coming
> from the land of SI units, where the whole idea of oversquare goes away
> when you use Pascal to measure MP ;-)).
>
> > I cannot think of a cirumstance
> > when following the commonly taught and used procedure of first reducing
> > throttle then rpm, or first advancing rpm then throttle, is not the
> > prudent technique.Again, I mentioned two examples, one common, one maybe not so:
>
> 1. Take-off. Leave throttle at full and reduce RPM to 2500 is better for
> the hardware in most cases than reducing to 25/2500.
>
> 2. Dogma. If you're reducing RPM by, say, 200 but leaving the MP at the
> set value, it makes no sense to reduce MP, then reduce RPM, then increase
> MP again. Yet some CFIs will insist you do it that way.
>
> Here's a third: People flying the "full LOP regime" will often leave the
> throttle at full for the whole flight, controlling engine power with RPM
> and mixture alone. If you really know what you're doing, that's perfectly
> safe and good on the equipment.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BDS[_2_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote

> Again, I mentioned two examples, one common, one maybe not so:
>
> 1. Take-off. Leave throttle at full and reduce RPM to 2500 is better for
> the hardware in most cases than reducing to 25/2500.

I'm not so sure about that - but I also don't really know. As you said,
these engines are fuel/air cooled, but as you ask for more power you also
produce more heat, and I suspect that the engine is actually less efficient
thermodynamically at full power than it is at reduced power. In other
words, as you approach full power you get increasingly more heat and less
actual BHP for that heat.

I wonder if the oversquare-phobia is a carry-over from adjustable-pitch
props where it was much easier to "lug" the engine (like driving in 4th gear
at low speed and heavy on the gas).

BDS

[Newps]

Tony wrote:

> The habit of backing off throttle first, then reducing prop RPM, and
> the habit of increasing RPM first, then advancing the throttle, is one
> of those things that can save wear and tear, and maybe an engine. Can
> anyone offer a good logical reason to do it any other way?



Can you offer a good reason TO do it that way?

[Doug[_1_]]

Take a look the POH or engine manual for the plane. Often you will see
oversquare settings and their corresponding fuel flow and percent
power. Obviously, if this is the case it is OK to run there. I actually
think that sticking to the published rpm/manifold is the best policy.
You KNOW that running the engine there is OK.

Note that if there are two or more settings of a certain percent power,
the setting with the lowest rpm gets the best fuel economy.

Some airplanes have a "redzone" on the tachometer indicating no
prolonged running the engine at that rpm.

Someone once posted that he called Lycoming to ask about vastly
oversquare running (like 1800 rpm and 25" mainifold) and if it was ok.
The engineer hemmed and hawed and said that Lycoming actually had never
tested the engine for long periods of time at those settings, but that
since it wasn't explicity restricted....well who knows? To me running
that low an rpm with that high a manifold pressure seems wrong. But I
can't actually proove it.

On a closing note, Lycoming recommends 1000 rpm immediately after
startup so you have enough oil pressure to cycle oil. Lycoming also
recommends no cooling faster than 50 degrees per minute (as I recall).
Best to stick with those guidelines also.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> Old wives are often right.

Not nearly as often as engineers are right.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> I'm not so sure about that - but I also don't really know. As you said,
> these engines are fuel/air cooled, but as you ask for more power you also
> produce more heat, and I suspect that the engine is actually less efficient
> thermodynamically at full power than it is at reduced power. In other
> words, as you approach full power you get increasingly more heat and less
> actual BHP for that heat.

In general, the greater the temperature gradients in a heat engine,
the more efficient the engine becomes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> So read it.

I have. But it doesn't go into much detail on the fine adjustments of
mixture, throttle, and prop, and their interactions. I think one
reason for this may be that many of the possible adjustments just
aren't that important. This would also explain why so many pilots can
depend on voodoo or tea leaves to determine how they make the
adjustments, and yet they never have any problems.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[chris[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
> > So read it.
>
> I have. But it doesn't go into much detail on the fine adjustments of
> mixture, throttle, and prop, and their interactions. I think one
> reason for this may be that many of the possible adjustments just
> aren't that important. This would also explain why so many pilots can
> depend on voodoo or tea leaves to determine how they make the
> adjustments, and yet they never have any problems.
>
> --


Now that sort of statement is only going to **** off the people who
have kindly answered your question!!!

For my money it is nice to know the in-depth stuff but it simply isn't
necessary to be an aeronautical expert just to fly a light aircraft!

[chris[_1_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Chris,
>
> > OK, I stand corrected!! As I indicated in my first post I am a fixed
> > pitch pilot so I am quite short of knowledge in this area, and I am
> > always keen to learn more ...
> >
>
> Go for the avweb.com columns of John Deakin on engine management.
>
> --


Hi, thanks for that - I didn't know about those columns, and the first
one I came across - the one I am reading right now is fascinating, so I
will keep on reading them..

Thanks heaps..

Chris

[Steve Foley]

"chris" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> This would also explain why so many pilots can
>> depend on voodoo or tea leaves to determine how they make the
>> adjustments, and yet they never have any problems.
>>
>> --
>
>
> Now that sort of statement is only going to **** off the people who
> have kindly answered your question!!!

That's the goal.

[Peter Dohm]

> >> This would also explain why so many pilots can
> >> depend on voodoo or tea leaves to determine how they make the
> >> adjustments, and yet they never have any problems.
> >>
> >> --
> >
> >
> > Now that sort of statement is only going to **** off the people who
> > have kindly answered your question!!!
>
> That's the goal.
>
>
Works rather well.

[Kev]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> > >> This would also explain why so many pilots can
> > >> depend on voodoo or tea leaves to determine how they make the
> > >> adjustments, and yet they never have any problems.
> > >>
> > > Now that sort of statement is only going to **** off the people who
> > > have kindly answered your question!!!

Why? Others here have already chalked up some popular methods to old
wives' tales (aka "voodoo").

Getting two pilots to agree on anything, especially engine management,
is an interesting exercise ;-)

> > That's the goal.
> >
> Works rather well.

I'd say it would only work with people who are insecure or
troublemakers.

Kev

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> > Now that sort of statement is only going to **** off the people who
>> > have kindly answered your question!!!
>>
>> That's the goal.
>>
>>
> Works rather well.

Is there any doubt as to what "HE" really is doing here, after this
exchange?

And yet many enable HIM to remain here, by responding to HIS posts.

I don't get it.
--
Jim in NC

[Tony]

As to a good reason for adjusting throttle and prop in the old wives
tale's way -- sure. Take either case to an extreme: prop is at 1950,
you're putzing along at 1000 feet, decide you want to climb, grab hold
of and advance the throttle. I suspect your engine will suffer a bit at
25 inches and 1950: the phrase popping a gasket comes to mind. Maybe
it's just me, but I really try to be kind to the hardware because if
something breaks it's my checkbook that gets pulled out.

On the other hand, push the prop to high RPMs, then advance the
throttle, and the toque has someplace to go.

Now how about an example where the old wives approach isn't appropiate?

It's the old deal: there's lots of ways that work some of the time, I
figure to try to really stack the odds in my favor.



On Jan 17, 11:04 am, Newps > wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> > The habit of backing off throttle first, then reducing prop RPM, and
> > the habit of increasing RPM first, then advancing the throttle, is one
> > of those things that can save wear and tear, and maybe an engine. Can
> > anyone offer a good logical reason to do it any other way?Can you offer a good reason TO do it that way?

[george]

chris wrote:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > > OK, I stand corrected!! As I indicated in my first post I am a fixed
> > > pitch pilot so I am quite short of knowledge in this area, and I am
> > > always keen to learn more ...
> > >
> >
> > Go for the avweb.com columns of John Deakin on engine management.
> >
> > --
>
>
> Hi, thanks for that - I didn't know about those columns, and the first
> one I came across - the one I am reading right now is fascinating, so I
> will keep on reading them..
>
> Thanks heaps..
>
And in this world of political correctness we also have noise abatement
which means reducing power after take off and reducing climb rate
(which,at that critical point, in my opinion is a silly thing to do)

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> As to a good reason for adjusting throttle and prop in the old wives
> tale's way -- sure. Take either case to an extreme: prop is at 1950,
> you're putzing along at 1000 feet, decide you want to climb, grab hold
> of and advance the throttle. I suspect your engine will suffer a bit at
> 25 inches and 1950: the phrase popping a gasket comes to mind. Maybe
> it's just me, but I really try to be kind to the hardware because if
> something breaks it's my checkbook that gets pulled out.

You suspect? So you don't really know? By what mecanism is a gasket
blown, and where did you learn this?

> Now how about an example where the old wives approach isn't appropiate?

Anywhere where the engineers don't back it up.

> It's the old deal: there's lots of ways that work some of the time, I
> figure to try to really stack the odds in my favor.

But if you don't know or can't explain the basis for your actions,
then basing them on long-standing urban legends is just as likely to
hurt you as it is to help you.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> Now that sort of statement is only going to **** off the people who
> have kindly answered your question!!!

I'm not trying to make friends, I'm trying to get down to the truth.
Nobody seems to agree on anything in this domain, and I have to wonder
why. It seems to be a part of aviation that is filled with mythology,
rumor, and urban legend, but few hard facts appear to circulate, and
for some reason the actual recommendations of the engine and aircraft
manufacturers are often discounted in favor of rumors, which doesn't
seem very rational (although it is a fairly typical human behavior).

> For my money it is nice to know the in-depth stuff but it simply isn't
> necessary to be an aeronautical expert just to fly a light aircraft!

Perhaps not, but it does seem that one must know a great deal about
engines, which I find bizarre.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose]

> I'm not trying to make friends, I'm trying to get down to the truth.
> Nobody seems to agree on anything in this domain, and I have to wonder
> why. It seems to be a part of aviation that is filled with mythology,
> rumor, and urban legend, but few hard facts appear to circulate, and
> for some reason the actual recommendations of the engine and aircraft
> manufacturers are often discounted in favor of rumors, which doesn't
> seem very rational (although it is a fairly typical human behavior).

There are a couple of reasons for this (besides ego). First, there are
many kinds of airplanes, and they are all different. Yes, they are all
basically the same (well, most of them anyway), but the differences can
bite if you're not aware of them. Stall charactaristics, engine design
and performance, wing shape, T- or conventional tail, canard... it goes
on. If you learn in one airplane, and from there "know" how airplanes
work, you may find that in a different airplane you know stuff that
ain't so.

There are rules of thumb developed to help bridge this - not running
oversquare is one of them. It's a convenient coincidence that the RPM
and MP numbers, in common units, line up the way they do, and line up
close to the edge of the envelope. Keeping undersquare is safe for most
(spam can) engines, running oversquare requires a peek at the POH to see
how much oversquare in this engine under these circumstances is ok. So
the rule of thumb gets taught, and it gets learned as a hard and fast rule.

Some limits and procedures are designed by lawyers. Consider the
Cirrus' spin recovery technique: pull the chute. I've never spun the
beast, but I bet it would recover conventionally if it didn't get too
far into the spin.

There is also some room for technique. There is no "best" power
setting, for example. What you use depends on what you want, and what
you're willing to give up. And whose airplane it is. :)

Also airplanes are expensive, and pilots are discouraged in a number of
ways from doing destructive testing on them. A lot of our knowledge
comes from the manuals (where the companies have done their own testing
and given us the digested results they choose), and the necessarily
limited experience of their own and their instructor, and authors of
books they've read.

In some cases the instrumentation just isn't good enough to achieve the
measurements you want. Some airplanes have no engine meters at all, you
pull back the mixture until the engine runs roughly, then you push it
back until it's smooth, then push it back "a little more". How much
more? However much your instructor taught you. (I've seen POHs that
are no better).

So why are the POHs not as good as they could be? I'm sure it's about
sales and liability. Anything that goes in a POH is fair game as "this
is why he crashed", right or wrong. If it's not there, there's nothing
to point to. And it costs money to do the research, so why not just
sell more airplanes by marketing instead?

So, us pilots are left to figure it out as best we can. Look at the
actual instruction booklet that came with the Piper J-3 cub, and see how
little it says.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Dohm]

> > > >> This would also explain why so many pilots can
> > > >> depend on voodoo or tea leaves to determine how they make the
> > > >> adjustments, and yet they never have any problems.
> > > >>
> > > > Now that sort of statement is only going to **** off the people who
> > > > have kindly answered your question!!!
>
> Why? Others here have already chalked up some popular methods to old
> wives' tales (aka "voodoo").
>
> Getting two pilots to agree on anything, especially engine management,
> is an interesting exercise ;-)
>
> > > That's the goal.
> > >
> > Works rather well.
>
> I'd say it would only work with people who are insecure or
> troublemakers.
>
There were multiple issues at work in this thread, but it seems to me that
most of the contributors made an effort to provide real information, to the
best of each of our abilities, to the many lurkers--many of whom are current
and future pilots looking for all the information they can obtain.

Actually, I am impressed that MSFS simulates this part of an airplane's
opereation. I would have though that it was beyond the scope of typical
training useage in a PC based simulator. I have no idea how accurate it
might be, but I do give them credit for including it.

As to the issue of Mxsmanic, I am amazed that the thread went as far as it
did before he saw most of the common proceedures as "voodoo or tea leaves."
Perhaps we all just provided sufficient dialog until all of the views were
known.

Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> Actually, I am impressed that MSFS simulates this part of an airplane's
> opereation. I would have though that it was beyond the scope of typical
> training useage in a PC based simulator. I have no idea how accurate it
> might be, but I do give them credit for including it.

Note that I'm using an add-on aircraft (Dreamfleet's Baron 58
simulation), which is vastly more authentic than the default
simulation. I don't know how much of the engine behavior is simulated
by MSFS, and how much is simulated specifically by this add-on. The
latter is renowned for its meticulous dedication to accuracy, though.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BDS]

"Jose" > wrote

> Some limits and procedures are designed by lawyers. Consider the
> Cirrus' spin recovery technique: pull the chute. I've never spun the
> beast, but I bet it would recover conventionally if it didn't get too
> far into the spin.

Not according to the test pilots:

"Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover,
according to the test pilots."

> So, us pilots are left to figure it out as best we can. Look at the
> actual instruction booklet that came with the Piper J-3 cub, and see how
> little it says.

You don't have to go back anywhere near that far - check out the POH for
something like a 1963 Mooney M20C.

BDS

[Tony]

Your actual airspeed drops from zero to zero!

On Jan 16, 3:14 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> When I change the prop setting on my (simulated) Baron 58, lowering
> the prop RPM, my airspeed drops. I thought that for a given throttle
> setting, the actual thrust produced by the powerplant was supposed to
> remain the same for a wide range of prop settings, because of
> automatic pitch changes made when I change the prop RPM. However,
> that doesn't seem to be the case. A lowering of the prop RPM also
> lowers airspeed, which implies a change in thrust. The fuel flow also
> diminishes, which implies a change in power (?).
>
> So, exactly what do I gain or lose by adjusting prop RPM when I'm
> cruising along? Why would I want to change it? Some sources I've
> read say that the prop makes less noise, which is surely true, but it
> seems that I can't lower the RPM without losing airspeed (and thus I
> must be losing power, right?).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose]

> Not according to the test pilots:
>
> "Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover,
> according to the test pilots."

First I've heard of that. Where'd you find it?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Logajan]

Jose > wrote:
>> Not according to the test pilots:
>>
>> "Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover,
>> according to the test pilots."
>
> First I've heard of that. Where'd you find it?

A Google search indicates the quote came from this article:

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20

[Kev]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> As to the issue of Mxsmanic, I am amazed that the thread went as far as it
> did before he saw most of the common proceedures as "voodoo or tea leaves."
> Perhaps we all just provided sufficient dialog until all of the views were
> known.

He is, of course, right. Pilots often do act on "voodoo" when it
comes to engines, and other flight details. Or at least on the tales
their CFIs told them... some correct, some not. How many times have we
had someone here say "I was told this", and half the replies are "but
no, it's really that!" It's often hard to sort the wheat from the
chaff, not least because there can be so much difference between
airplanes.

It's only fairly recently that researchers outside of the engine
manufacturers really began looking into how the motors work in
practice. And we needed those outside people because for a long time
the manufacturers had conflicting advice, or no advice at all. If it
seems strange at times to pilots, it must be doubly strange to a
non-pilot. Anyway, we all know about GAMIjectors as one example of
research. Here's an interesting read:

http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/182558-1.html

Cheers, Kev

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Jose > wrote:
>>> Not according to the test pilots:
>>>
>>> "Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover,
>>> according to the test pilots."
>>
>> First I've heard of that. Where'd you find it?
>
> A Google search indicates the quote came from this article:
>
> http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20
>
Hardly seems definitive, to me. Company pilots, reciting the company
position.

Kinda' like a "he said she said" type of deal.

I'm pretty sure I have read that some owners have successfully spun and
recovered it.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Hardly seems definitive, to me. Company pilots, reciting the company
> position.
>
> Kinda' like a "he said she said" type of deal.
>
> I'm pretty sure I have read that some owners have successfully spun and
> recovered it.

Why don't you demonstrate, and then you can write an article about how
to do it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> But it doesn't go into much detail on the fine adjustments of
> mixture, throttle, and prop, and their interactions.

Of course it does. Read it. There are several pages of tables detailing
the settings.

> This would also explain why so many pilots can
> depend on voodoo or tea leaves to determine how they make the
> adjustments, and yet they never have any problems.

And you really wonder why people think you're a first-class asshole and
regret answering to your question EVERY TIME? It's because you are.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bds,

> "Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover,
> according to the test pilots."
>

Just by putting it in quotation marks, you don't make it a quote (which
in itself is quoting someone else - really funny). So which test pilot
said this when to whom?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> I'm pretty sure I have read that some owners have successfully spun and
> recovered it.
>

EASA certification required it, I've been told.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I'm not trying to make friends, I'm trying to get down to the truth.

No you're not. You have become bored with the topic after having gotten
the answers you sought - and now you start trying to destroy the thread
and this community with your obnoxious, childish behaviour - because
you're envious that there are people that are part of such communities,
in real life.

>Nobody seems to agree on anything in this domain,

Your reading comprehension really sucks.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kev]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
> > This would also explain why so many pilots can
> > depend on voodoo or tea leaves to determine how they make the
> > adjustments, and yet they never have any problems.
>
> And you really wonder why people think you're a first-class asshole and
> regret answering to your question EVERY TIME? It's because you are.

Oh mx definitely can sound that way. But in this case, if anyone else
had said it, there'd be virtually zero argument. With little or no
information in the old POHs, and pilots using techniques ranging from
LOP to ROP, then his observation is right... it seems like you can use
almost any adjustment incantation and the engine doesn't blow up :-)

Heck, just look at how much discussion is generated here about the
"right way" to adjust the engine. Not to mention that students are
rarely taught much about leaning / EGT / etc, partly because it's hard
to find definitive information. (Even though it's not hard to find
articles on the topic.). In the end, that's why we usually rely on
word-of-mouth from other pilots of the same aircraft type.

Cheers, Kev

[Kev]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Morgans,
>
> > I'm pretty sure I have read that some owners have successfully spun and
> > recovered it.
> >
> EASA certification required it, I've been told.

No idea if anyone's recovered from a spin or not, but the EASA approved
manual, page 3-19, states that spin recovery characteristics have not
been tested or certified.

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/servicecenters/TechPubs/pdf/POH/International/OnlineEASA11934-003SR20POH.pdf

The company line is that, while they tried to design to avoid spins,
the chute is the answer for loss of control:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/chutehappens/qa/index.html

Kev

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

> No idea if anyone's recovered from a spin or not, but the EASA approved
> manual, page 3-19, states that spin recovery characteristics have not
> been tested or certified.

Ah, thanks for that. Several people said Cirrus had to demonstrate conventional spin recovery for EASA,
but they couldn't provide a document. Now you have provided one tha proves the opposite. Excellent.

> The company line is that, while they tried to design to avoid spins,
> the chute is the answer for loss of control:

That's not only the company line. The chute is the basis for spin certification both for the FAA and (as
you pointed out) the EASA, accepted as an alternate method. It seems to work pretty well, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

> With little or no
> information in the old POHs,

Regarding MP and RPM combination, there's a ton of information even in
the oldest POH.

> and pilots using techniques ranging from
> LOP to ROP,

They have all been explained to him, in detail, with the factual
background and further reference. No voodoo about it.

> Heck, just look at how much discussion is generated here about the
> "right way" to adjust the engine.

So what? This is not "the definitive answer machine". It's a newsgroup.

> Not to mention that students are
> rarely taught much about leaning / EGT / etc, partly because it's hard
> to find definitive information.

That's not the reason, IMHO. Lazy instructors is more like it.

> In the end, that's why we usually rely on
> word-of-mouth from other pilots of the same aircraft type.

I sure wouldn't. Don't know many people that would, either.

I can't for the life of me understand why you defend him, but you gotta
do what you gotta do.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BDS[_2_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote
> Bds,
>
> > "Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover,
> > according to the test pilots."
> >
>
> Just by putting it in quotation marks, you don't make it a quote (which
> in itself is quoting someone else - really funny). So which test pilot
> said this when to whom?

Not sure what you mean - putting it in quotes credits a source other than
the writer. I felt it necessary considering all the threats of litigation
here for copyright infringement. :)

BDS

[BDS[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote

> Hardly seems definitive, to me. Company pilots, reciting the company
> position.
>
> Kinda' like a "he said she said" type of deal.
>
> I'm pretty sure I have read that some owners have successfully spun and
> recovered it.

I don't know - someone who just spent several hundred grand on a new
airplane and noticed that the manufacturer advised against intentional spins
and that the approved recovery technique involved destroying the airplane
probably wouldn't go out and intentionally spin theirs.

Then again, "virtually unrecoverable" isn't the same as "unrecoverable"
either, so apparently it is recoverable. The point is that the statement
"virtually unrecoverable" would seem to indicate that the aircraft doesn't
respond just like any other in terms of spin recovery.

That said, spins that end in crashes usually aren't intentional IMO, they're
inadvertent and at low (read that unrecoverable) altitudes, and that's a
whole different animal.

BDS

[Thomas Borchert]

Bds,

> Not sure what you mean -
>

What I mean is this: You say "Not accoding to the test pilots" and then
add a quote from a third person quoting those test pilots. That is
hearsay at its extreme, yet your first sentence makes it sound like
fact. Which is what I was taking issue with.

In that context, if there's any litigation to fear, it's because of
slander.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Dohm]

> > Now that sort of statement is only going to **** off the people who
> > have kindly answered your question!!!
>
> I'm not trying to make friends, I'm trying to get down to the truth.

Well, gosh, golly, aren't you the dedicated (not) little investigator!

> Nobody seems to agree on anything in this domain, and I have to wonder
> why. It seems to be a part of aviation that is filled with mythology,
> rumor, and urban legend, but few hard facts appear to circulate, and
> for some reason the actual recommendations of the engine and aircraft
> manufacturers are often discounted in favor of rumors, which doesn't
> seem very rational (although it is a fairly typical human behavior).
>
There is little need for hard facts to circulate. They are located and
preserved in appropriate places, where you have been directed from time to
time. Presuming, of course, that a troll can ever go anywhere away from his
bridge.

OTOH, this forum is more like a 24 hour airport coffee shop. Since we fail
to meet your esteemed intellectual standard, you are free to leave at any
time. Please stop at the register and pay your tab on the way out...

> > For my money it is nice to know the in-depth stuff but it simply isn't
> > necessary to be an aeronautical expert just to fly a light aircraft!
>
> Perhaps not, but it does seem that one must know a great deal about
> engines, which I find bizarre.
>
If you look in the mirror, you will see something REALLY bizarre!

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

> He is, of course, right. Pilots often do act on "voodoo" when it
> comes to engines, and other flight details. Or at least on the tales
> their CFIs told them... some correct, some not. How many times have we
> had someone here say "I was told this", and half the replies are "but
> no, it's really that!" It's often hard to sort the wheat from the
> chaff, not least because there can be so much difference between
> airplanes.
>
No, he is not right at all. There are a few "rules of thumb" that work for
basic training aircraft--which are specifically manufactured to be tolerant
of those practices. However, flying most modern trainers, you can improve
both performance and economy if you operate them "by the book."

The more sophisticated the engine, the more important important it is to
operate "by the book." Geared engines and controllable props are excellent
examples.

In short, you are attempting to defend the idefensible.

> It's only fairly recently that researchers outside of the engine
> manufacturers really began looking into how the motors work in
> practice. And we needed those outside people because for a long time
> the manufacturers had conflicting advice, or no advice at all. If it
> seems strange at times to pilots, it must be doubly strange to a
> non-pilot. Anyway, we all know about GAMIjectors as one example of
> research. Here's an interesting read:
>
That's not true. Most of this was known and documented during (and a lot of
it prior to) World War II, and much of it is documented in old NACA reports.

GAMIjectors are not an example of new research, but of the evolution of
market forces. The relative costs of fuel, certification, and precision
manufacturing reached a balance at which some investors saw an opportunity.
I have no idea whether others saw the same opportunity at an earlier date
and failed in their marketing, or simply ran out of money--but the
underlying knowledge had already been in the public domain for decades.

Peter

[Newps]

>>He is, of course, right.


It's a gad damn stupid question to begin with. Does changing prop pitch
affect speed? If it didn't we'd be well on our way to a perpetual
motion machine.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Then again, "virtually unrecoverable" isn't the same as "unrecoverable"
> either, so apparently it is recoverable.

It more likely means that no recovery has been found. The fact that
none has been found doesn't mean that none exists, but it's enough to
say "virtually unrecoverable." Now all that's needed is for someone
to step forward and prove a recovery technique.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> In that context, if there's any litigation to fear, it's because of
> slander.

Only if he said it out loud.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> Well, gosh, golly, aren't you the dedicated (not) little investigator!

I'll leave that determination to the reader.

I don't like being wrong, and I've been given incorrect information
far too often in my life. I therefore press for supporting reasoning
and facts whenever anyone makes an isolated assertion about anything.
Trust no one.

> There is little need for hard facts to circulate.

Perhaps. As I've said, the reality seems to be that these adjustments
generally aren't that important; one can fly safely with or without
them. That might also explain why so much mythology and urban legend
persist on these topics--since they are not safety-of-life issues, the
truth tends to remain buried among endless rumors.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Oh mx definitely can sound that way. But in this case, if anyone else
> had said it, there'd be virtually zero argument. With little or no
> information in the old POHs, and pilots using techniques ranging from
> LOP to ROP, then his observation is right... it seems like you can use
> almost any adjustment incantation and the engine doesn't blow up :-)

That's pretty much the logical conclusion.

If certain procedures were dangerous, they would rapidly be sifted out
by natural selection. Word would get around quickly, NTSB reports
would accumulate, and that procedure would rapidly be abandoned. The
fact that this is not happening in the domain under discussion very
strongly implies that just about any procedure is safe.

How many accidents have been caused by shock cooling? How many have
been caused by any particular LOP or ROP setting? How many have been
caused by small adjustments in props?

> Heck, just look at how much discussion is generated here about the
> "right way" to adjust the engine. Not to mention that students are
> rarely taught much about leaning / EGT / etc, partly because it's hard
> to find definitive information. (Even though it's not hard to find
> articles on the topic.). In the end, that's why we usually rely on
> word-of-mouth from other pilots of the same aircraft type.

And in the final analysis, it apparently doesn't make any difference,
so it gives pilots something to argue about forever.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Regarding MP and RPM combination, there's a ton of information even in
> the oldest POH.

Then why is there no consensus?

> They have all been explained to him, in detail, with the factual
> background and further reference. No voodoo about it.

No, all I've seen is argument and widely varying points of view.

Nobody really has the answers, although many would like to give the
impression that they do.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[george]

Morgans wrote:

> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Jose > wrote:
> >>> Not according to the test pilots:
> >>>
> >>> "Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover,
> >>> according to the test pilots."
> >>
> >> First I've heard of that. Where'd you find it?
> >
> > A Google search indicates the quote came from this article:
> >
> > http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20
> >
> Hardly seems definitive, to me. Company pilots, reciting the company
> position.

As I read the article there's a phrase there that worries me.
About if the parachute is deployed in a spin 'the cords may not take
the strain of the high speed'
In a spin ???????????????????????

[Jose]

> As I've said, the reality seems to be that these adjustments
> generally aren't that important; one can fly safely with or without
> them.

Did I just hear Mx say "one can fly safely..."?

Take a demo flight. Safely. :)

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Dohm]

> > As I've said, the reality seems to be that these adjustments
> > generally aren't that important; one can fly safely with or without
> > them.
>
> Did I just hear Mx say "one can fly safely..."?
>
> Take a demo flight. Safely. :)
>
> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

The really amazing part is that he openly admitted that he is trolling.

Peter

[Jose]

> The really amazing part is that he openly admitted that he is trolling.

No, considering the treatment he has gotten, I'm not surprised at all.
If everyone would be happy that everyone else is simply making their own
decisions, all would be ok. But people want to tell others what to do.

That's where it comes apart.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[A Lieberma]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in news:i4Yrh.4800$FL5.1931
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:

> The really amazing part is that he openly admitted that he is trolling.

Even more amazing is we keep feeding him....... We need to band together
and stop feeding the troll.

Allen

[A Lieberma]

Jose > wrote in news:WHYrh.24581$sR.12155
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

>> The really amazing part is that he openly admitted that he is
trolling.
>
> No, considering the treatment he has gotten, I'm not surprised at all.
> If everyone would be happy that everyone else is simply making their
own
> decisions, all would be ok. But people want to tell others what to do.

Lez C, let me guess... you say it's ok to yell fire when there is no
fire. (causes chaos)

Lez C, let me guess... it's ok for a smoker to blow smoke in a non
smoker's face... (causes discomfort)

Lez C, let me guess... it's ok to troll an aviation newsgroup....
(causes discord)

Guess what, people disagree with you, you don't like it, move on. If you
like Mx, email him directly, and save us the crap.

Peer pressure works wonders, you don't like it, then either move on or
wake up and smell the coffee. Mx is a troll. His RESPONSES are nothing
short of disrespectful to those that have been there and done it.

> That's where it comes apart.

On the contrary, it comes together. The more that stop responding to Mx,
the more peace and tranquility we can bring back to the groups.

Peace out....

Allen

[Jose]

> Lez C, let me guess... you say it's ok to yell fire when there is no
> fire. (causes chaos)

No, but not because it "causes chaos" but because it causes and
immediately dangerous situation (a stampede towards the door). It's
also not parallel to here.

> Lez C, let me guess... it's ok for a smoker to blow smoke in a non
> smoker's face... (causes discomfort)

No, that is a direct act of assault. But it's ok for a smoker to smoke
in a smoking section of a bar. This newsgroup isn't a "non-smoking"
section. Moderated groups are.

> Lez C, let me guess... it's ok to troll an aviation newsgroup....
> (causes discord)

No. We're getting closer. He's been called a troll, that doesn't make
him one. The claim is he's said he's a troll. I haven't seen his
claim, and even saying so doesn't make it so. But... is the discord
caused by the troll, or by the reaction? Count the posts of reaction
compared to the originating posts.

Trolling is also easy to quell. Simply silently ignore the alleged
troll. Silently ignore the threads he starts. (The key is "silently").

> Guess what, people disagree with you, you don't like it, move on. If you
> like Mx, email him directly, and save us the crap.

Guess what, I will respond to whomever I choose. If you don't like it,
ignore me, and stop the crap.

> Peer pressure works wonders, you don't like it, then either move on or
> wake up and smell the coffee. Mx is a troll. His RESPONSES are nothing
> short of disrespectful to those that have been there and done it.

I do not believe he is as he is painted by the mob.

Further, I find the highest quantity of disrespect comes from the
regulars here. I have not found him to be personally insulting, nor has
he stooped to the level of diatribe and ad hominum which many (otherwise
respected) long time posters have descended to.

When I examine (the factual content of) his posts, compared with (the
factual content of) responses to him, he comes out even. Even well
respected posters here have posted some howlers, which do not get the
disrespect those putative facts deserve. It seems people will go to any
lengths to insult and denegrate Mx.

I think that a large part of the problem is that Mx does not express
himself well, and few here have the patience and willingness to see
through what he has written to understand the root of what he is asking.
This sometimes takes a few go-arounds, but it can be done. The times
I believe I have been successful, I do not get any positive feedback
from him, but that's ok. I can see from the fact that the line of
questioning ends, that I have satisfactorily answered his concerns.
Sometimes one must read between the lines.

Those that don't feel so inclined, won't. And if they did that, and
nothing else, the "problem" would go away, even if the "problem poster"
doesn't. Ask yourself whether you want the problem to go away, or the
poster. The answer may be revealing.

> The more that stop responding to Mx, the more peace
> and tranquility we can bring back to the groups.

Ignore poster
Ignore thread
Ignore if "subject contains..."

Those tools are as powerful as google.

And about google... these newsgroups are not a classroom, they are not a
town meeting, they are not a lot of things. What they are, are
conversations. There is almost =nothing= that has been discussed in
these groups (even before Mx) that couldn't be found on google.

And about simming vs reality... Mx has stated that he likes to
pretend-fly, but does not want to fly for real in any way, shape, or
form. I happen not to share his sentiment, but don't fault him for it.
I have an in-law who likes war re-enactments. He (and the entire
group) aims for as much realism as possible, within the limits of the
game. He's run up huge bills on Ebay getting authentic gear, spends
many of his weekends away from home pretending to be in a Russian
encampment in the middle of winter, driving real tanks and army jeeps,
and whatnot. However, he has absolutly =no= interest in =actually=
joining the armed forces and =actually= fighting a =real= war, with real
bullets and real bombs.

I can understand this. I suspect most here can too.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Beckman]

(I shouldn't post this...I shouldn't post this...I shouldn't post this...Aw
Hell...)

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> Lez C, let me guess... you say it's ok to yell fire when there is no
>> fire. (causes chaos)
>
> No, but not because it "causes chaos" but because it causes and
> immediately dangerous situation (a stampede towards the door). It's also
> not parallel to here.

It may not be germain to r.a.p. but it most certainly is for r.a.s. His
misinformed opinions (stated as facts) could be potentially dangerous and
get someone hurt (or worse.) This discussion (and every claim he makes)
should not be cross posted to r.a.s.

We're all big boy and girl pilots in r.a.p. who can talk it, walk it and BS
about it as well. We can take responsiblity for our own actions but (IMO)
student pilots deserve a more honest shake and a little more in the way of
filtration. Granted, no one should ever accept anything from usenet as
gospel but all it would take is just one post-solo student, out on their own
in the practice area who has one of the Albatross's little gems pop into his
or her head and tries to do something that he says is the way it should be
done and...

<Snip Smoking References... I'm now smoke-free since 12/7/05...but I defend
people's right to do it...)

>> Lez C, let me guess... it's ok to troll an aviation newsgroup....
>> (causes discord)
>
>No. We're getting closer. He's been called a troll, that doesn't make him
>one. The claim is he's said he's a troll. I haven't seen his claim, and
>even saying so >doesn't make it so. But... is the discord caused by the
>troll, or by the reaction? Count the posts of reaction compared to the
>originating posts.

The reaction(s) is/are the direct result of his being unable to accept the
answers he is being given. Dunno about you, but I was taught to say please
and thank you when asking for help and receiving same. I was also taught
that it's rude to call people stupid or ignorant or to tell them that they
are liars. In essence, this is what he does. I'm reminded of the line from
"A Few Good Men" where Nicholson berates Cruise along the lines of "You
sleep under the blanket of freedom that I provide then have the gaul to
question the manner in which I provide it."

If he feels that the information provided is incorrect, he is free to persue
the answers in the same manner and from the exact same materials we all use:
the AIM/FAR and the multiple ACs provided on the web, by the FAA, FREE OF
F*CKING CHARGE!!! This, it would seem, is also part of his disdain for
aviation and for pilots because he is unwilling (beligerantly so...) to go
do any research on his own. He's right, he's always right, he knows he's
always right and he doesn't hesitate to tell all of us that he's always
right. It is as impossible to hold a discussion with someone who knows it
all as it is to have one with someone who knows nothing (and in this case,
IMO, he fits both catagories.)

>Trolling is also easy to quell. Simply silently ignore the alleged troll.
>Silently ignore the threads he starts. (The key is "silently").

Thread hijacking is not, however. Personally, this is the thing that irks
me the most. Especially over on r.a.s. I'm still a very new pilot. I
still have questions but I hesitate to post them because I don't want or
need his input on anything and any quality information will be lost in the
noise he causes. IMO he's all but detroyed r.a.p. and is a huge negative
effect on r.a.s. I may be wrong, but the posting activity on r.a.s. has
dropped to nil of late and I think he's a big reason. New students see the
rancor and discord that he causes and run like hell. I know I would if I
were just starting out.

>>Guess what, people disagree with you, you don't like it, move on. If you
>>like Mx, email him directly, and save us the crap.
>
> Guess what, I will respond to whomever I choose. If you don't like it,
> ignore me, and stop the crap.
>
>> Peer pressure works wonders, you don't like it, then either move on or
>> wake up and smell the coffee. Mx is a troll. His RESPONSES are nothing
>> short of >>disrespectful to those that have been there and done it.
>
>I do not believe he is as he is painted by the mob.

I have to come down firmly in the "He's as Troll as Troll can be" camp...

>Further, I find the highest quantity of disrespect comes from the regulars
>here. I have not found him to be personally insulting, nor has he stooped
>to the level of >diatribe and ad hominum which many (otherwise respected)
>long time posters have descended to.

Well I can't speak for you, but I happen to be very insulted by his
incessant blather regarding the negatives of GA. This is, for me, the root
of why he needs to be cast out. Why, in the name of all that is holy, would
you purposly come to any of the r.a.*. groups (and especially r.a.s.) and
attempt to convince all and sundry that flying is bad? For the love of God,
why?!!!? And in doing so, why should anyone who is doing this be given
anything but short shrift? In my mind, it's no different than walking into
a fundamentalist church and telling the congregation that their preacher is
lying, God doesn't exsist, Mary was a crack whore, Jesus was her pimp and
they're all going to Hell. They're certainly not going to give the time of
day to someone who is trying to tear down that in which they belive to be
true so why should we?

r.a.p. is our church. Flying is our religion. Gilespie McGee's poem
doesn't end with "...put out my hand and touched the face of Microsoft."

>When I examine (the factual content of) his posts, compared with (the
>factual content of) responses to him, he comes out even. Even well
>respected posters here >have posted some howlers, which do not get the
>disrespect those putative facts deserve. It seems people will go to any
>lengths to insult and denegrate Mx.

The major difference: The "well respected posters" you speak of have never
been preceeded a post with the disclaimer: "Ich Bin Ein Flight Simmer..."
If you're going to talk the talk, you need to have at least taken one small
step toward the walk dontcha think?

>I think that a large part of the problem is that Mx does not express
>himself well, and few here have the patience and willingness to see through
>what he has written to >understand the root of what he is asking. This
>sometimes takes a few go-arounds, but it can be done. The times I believe
>I have been successful, I do not get any >positive feedback from him, but
>that's ok. I can see from the fact that the line of questioning ends, that
>I have satisfactorily answered his concerns. Sometimes one must read
>between the lines.

Which one does how when one only has black letters on a white screen (or at
best, a smiley?) Sorry Jose, but if you're expending that much mental
energy on trying to find "deeper meaning" in his words, you're wasting your
time.

>Those that don't feel so inclined, won't. And if they did that, and
>nothing else, the "problem" would go away, even if the "problem poster"
>doesn't. Ask yourself >whether you want the problem to go away, or the
>poster. The answer may be revealing.

Survey Says: The Poster...definately The Poster.

>> The more that stop responding to Mx, the more peace and tranquility we
>> can bring back to the groups.
>
> Ignore poster
> Ignore thread
> Ignore if "subject contains..."

> Those tools are as powerful as google.

See my point above re: Thread Hijacking...

>And about google... these newsgroups are not a classroom, they are not a
>town meeting, they are not a lot of things. What they are, are
>conversations. There is >almost =nothing= that has been discussed in these
>groups (even before Mx) that couldn't be found on google.

Not to pick nits but there's this other newsgroup called
rec.aviation.STUDENT. Student implies education so in a sense, at least
r.a.s. is a "classroom" of sorts.

Oh, and as for Google, people here have begged, pleaded, cajoled, posted
links and done everything but get on a plane to France and hand deliver a
copy of the AIM/FAR! with the answers to his questions. There is only so
much goodwill and/or energy worth expending before you finally have to throw
up your hands and say "WTF, Over?"

>And about simming vs reality... Mx has stated that he likes to pretend-fly,
>but does not want to fly for real in any way, shape, or form. I happen not
>to share his >sentiment, but don't fault him for it.

Nor do I. I enjoy FS (I know you've seen me post on that board...) and have
had a version of it since it ran in green wire-form, but r.a.* is not the
place for discussing it. There are two flight-sim specific newsgroups that
I know of and one of them is **specifically chartered** for the discussion
of issues relating to Microsoft Flight Simulator.

>I have an in-law who likes war re-enactments. He (and the entire group)
>aims for as much realism as possible, within the limits of the game. He's
>run up huge bills >on Ebay getting authentic gear, spends many of his
>weekends away from home pretending to be in a Russian encampment in the
>middle of winter, driving real tanks >and army jeeps, and whatnot.
>However, he has absolutly =no= interest in =actually= joining the armed
>forces and =actually= fighting a =real= war, with real bullets >and real
>bombs.

But, does he actively seek out newsgroups related to veterans affairs or
even military matters and bombard them with posts about how much more
accurate are his wargames versus what real war is like? Does he tell them
how wrong they were to fight in wars? Does he tell them that the only
reason they fought is because people with more money didn't have to? Does
he tell them that their buddies didn't die the right way because that's not
how they die in his wargames? If someone ever disrepected my father that
way, I'd personally load the gun and shoot them myself so that they may get
a more accurate perspective.

Don't try to tell me that this is apples and oranges because it's exactly
the same damn thing...ignorance (note the lower case "i") combined with a
complete and utter lack of respect for the knowledge and accomplishments of
others.

>I can understand this. I suspect most here can too.

Sorry Dude, I'm not one of them...

I'm as done with him as I can be. And, I'm very sorry Jose, but as one of
his biggest appologists, I'm done with you as well. I bid you peace, safe
flights and blue skies but "Buh Bye..."

Jay Beckman
Private Pilot - SEL
Chandler, AZ

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Jose wrote:
> Trolling is also easy to quell. Simply silently ignore the alleged
> troll. Silently ignore the threads he starts. (The key is "silently").


Don't tell us what to do. We'll answer whomever we please. <snicker>


>> Guess what, people disagree with you, you don't like it, move on. If you
>> like Mx, email him directly, and save us the crap.
>
> Guess what, I will respond to whomever I choose. If you don't like it,
> ignore me, and stop the crap.


You've got a deal there.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> I'm as done with him as I can be. And, I'm very sorry Jose, but as one of
> his biggest appologists, I'm done with you as well. I bid you peace, safe
> flights and blue skies but "Buh Bye..."


I'm proud of you, me boy. <G> I've been killfiling both The Albatross and
those who defend him for a while now but I just added Jose to the list myself a
few moments before I read your well crafted statement. Jose no longer exists in
my world either. If he'll spout that kind of crap about MX, there's no telling
how wrong he is about everything else.

Well done. I imagine there are several others here who'd agree with you.
They're the brighter ones.... <G>




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Jose]

> It may not be germain to r.a.p. but it most certainly is for r.a.s. His
> misinformed opinions (stated as facts) could be potentially dangerous and
> get someone hurt (or worse.)

This is true, but still not like shouting "fire" in a theater. In any
newsgroup there is time for reflection and discussion.

> The reaction(s) is/are the direct result of his being unable to accept the
> answers he is being given.

He is not totally without foundation there. He also does eventually
seem to accept them if they are presented sufficiently clearly (taking
into account that the things he actually says are not quite the things
he thinks he is saying).

> Thread hijacking is not, however.

Sure it is. Change the subject line.

> I still have questions but I
> hesitate to post them because I don't want or
> need his input on anything

Kill file.

> and attempt to convince all and sundry that flying is bad?

He doesn't. He merely states (in response to suggestions that he take a
lesson) his reasons why he won't. He has not gone on a campaign here.

> r.a.p. is our church.

That's taking it a bit too far, no?

> The major difference: The "well respected posters" you speak of have never
> been preceeded a post with the disclaimer: "Ich Bin Ein Flight Simmer..."

That gives them the right to bleat out completely false information
without being taken to task?

> Which one does how when one only has black letters on a white screen (or at
> best, a smiley?) Sorry Jose, but if you're expending that much mental
> energy on trying to find "deeper meaning" in his words, you're wasting your
> time.

IT doesn't really take all that much, except patience, and a lack of
inclination to lash out personally at people. Maybe it helps that I've
also been such a target in the past.

> Survey Says: The Poster...definately The Poster.

Alas, that's a symptom what's wrong with the world. The same could be
said for "the drug problem" and "the terrorism problem". Misidentifying
the problem only preserves a bad situation.

> There is only so much goodwill and/or energy
> worth expending before you finally have to throw
> up your hands and say "WTF, Over?"

So do that. There are those here who want to lead a lynching though. I
think that's not only inappropriate, it =becomes= the problem.

> But, does he actively seek out newsgroups related to veterans affairs or
> even military matters and bombard them with posts about how much more
> accurate are his wargames versus what real war is like? Does he tell them
> how wrong they were to fight in wars? Does he tell them that the only
> reason they fought is because people with more money didn't have to? Does
> he tell them that their buddies didn't die the right way because that's not
> how they die in his wargames?

I won't speak for him or other war gamers. I was addressing only the
point that some here can't understand not wanting to do the real thing.

> I'm very sorry Jose, but as one of
> his biggest appologists, I'm done with you as well.

I'm not an apologist =for= him. I am an apologist (I suppose) =against=
the mob mentality that has resulted from his visit. This mob mentality
is completely under our control.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_6_]]

"Jose" > wrote

> Guess what, I will respond to whomever I choose. If you don't like it,
> ignore me, and stop the crap.
>
Done. You are a piece of crap, as it turns out, anyway.

Let me get this accurate. A dumbass piece.

I had you blocked for a long time, then not. I can't imagine why I would
have changed my mind, now.

I hope you and your ilk enjoy your conversations with MX. I further hope
that those tired of MX will stop responding, and block MX and anyone who
responds to him. Get that? Anyone who responds to him.

I know more than one person who has taken up that strategy. Add me to it.

If everyone follows this proceedure, soon it will be just the clueless
conversing with MX, king of the clueless. They deserve each other.
--
Jim in NC

[A Lieberma]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> I hope you and your ilk enjoy your conversations with MX. I further
> hope that those tired of MX will stop responding, and block MX and
> anyone who responds to him. Get that? Anyone who responds to him.
>
> I know more than one person who has taken up that strategy. Add me to
> it.
>
> If everyone follows this proceedure, soon it will be just the clueless
> conversing with MX, king of the clueless. They deserve each other.

Amen Jim!

Out of respect of the majority opinion of the groups, common sense would be
if to either followup their replies to the simmer groups (He is simming,
not flying) or private email if they so desired conversation.

But as always, there is always that one or two in a crowd that makes it bad
for the rest of us......

Allen

[Kev]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Kev,
> > The company line is that, while they tried to design to avoid spins,
> > the chute is the answer for loss of control:
>
> That's not only the company line. The chute is the basis for spin certification both for the FAA and (as
> you pointed out) the EASA, accepted as an alternate method. It seems to work pretty well, too.

I did run across one quote from the Cirrus president, who said he
"wished they'd demonstrated a normal spin recovery to the FAA".
That's interesting, because it sounds like it's at least possible.

Cheers,
Kev