Carb heat: my new policy. Any comments

[Tman]

Flying a lot of 152s and 172s with carb heat lately. When inbound, I've
been taught to pull the carb heat "on" downwind, hey actually use it as
a power control to slow the plane just a bit mid-field, and then more
importantly, just leave the thing on till clear of the runway and
cleaning up. No matter what the temp, humidity. And to have it on at
all times when the RPM is less than the green band. Kind of a preventative.

A few times I have been coming in on short final and needed a burst of
power due to a sudden downdraft, or needed to pour on a little juice
cause my approach was coming up just a bit short. Moving the throttle
forward 1/4 to 1/2 inch, i.e. giving it a little juice but certainly not
a go around type of thing, often times I would get a stumble, hicuup,
drop in RPM'S for 2-3 seconds before the horses responded.

Lot of convective turb lately and that power really comes in handy at
times on mid to short final. Kind of a shocker when the engine doesn't
respond quite nicely.

This has happened on a few birds, especially on hot days. I think
what's happening is the engine is just too rich, hey I've got the
mixture all the way in, it's hot (air less dense), and it's (way) hotter
with the carb heat on ( air much less dense), all enriching the mixture,
and when I put on a little power the accelerator pump in the carb
over-enriches the engine for just a little bit; causing the stumble.

Other pilots and the A&P just tell me to pour on the power a little slower.

I think I'm going to follow a new SOP. Turn the carb heat off on
mid-final. Reasoning: no carb, esp a warm one is going to ice up in 30
seconds, sets me up better for a go-around, and will prevent this
stumble business (I did test it out at altitude, and it prevents or at
least seriously mitigates the stumble).

thoughts?
T

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Tman" <x@x> wrote in message
. ..
> Flying a lot of 152s and 172s with carb heat lately. When inbound, I've
> been taught to pull the carb heat "on" downwind, hey actually use it as a
> power control to slow the plane just a bit mid-field, and then more
> importantly, just leave the thing on till clear of the runway and cleaning
> up. No matter what the temp, humidity. And to have it on at all times
> when the RPM is less than the green band. Kind of a preventative.
>
> A few times I have been coming in on short final and needed a burst of
> power due to a sudden downdraft, or needed to pour on a little juice cause
> my approach was coming up just a bit short. Moving the throttle forward
> 1/4 to 1/2 inch, i.e. giving it a little juice but certainly not a go
> around type of thing, often times I would get a stumble, hicuup, drop in
> RPM'S for 2-3 seconds before the horses responded.
>
> Lot of convective turb lately and that power really comes in handy at
> times on mid to short final. Kind of a shocker when the engine doesn't
> respond quite nicely.
>
> This has happened on a few birds, especially on hot days. I think what's
> happening is the engine is just too rich, hey I've got the mixture all the
> way in, it's hot (air less dense), and it's (way) hotter with the carb
> heat on ( air much less dense), all enriching the mixture, and when I put
> on a little power the accelerator pump in the carb over-enriches the
> engine for just a little bit; causing the stumble.
>
> Other pilots and the A&P just tell me to pour on the power a little
> slower.
>
> I think I'm going to follow a new SOP. Turn the carb heat off on
> mid-final. Reasoning: no carb, esp a warm one is going to ice up in 30
> seconds, sets me up better for a go-around, and will prevent this stumble
> business (I did test it out at altitude, and it prevents or at least
> seriously mitigates the stumble).
>
> thoughts?
> T

Shouldn't be a problem, but sometimes it happens.

Apply power a little slower.
or
Carry just a tiny bit of power on final. Sounds like you might be
approaching at cut off.
or
Bump a little power every 15 to 20 seconds to keep the engine clear.


Personally I wouldn't cut the carb heat.

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 6, 12:58*pm, Tman <x@x> wrote:
> Flying a lot of 152s and 172s with carb heat lately. *When inbound, I've
> been taught to pull the carb heat "on" downwind, hey actually use it as
> a power control to slow the plane just a bit mid-field, and then more
> importantly, just leave the thing on till clear of the runway and
> cleaning up. *No matter what the temp, humidity. *And to have it on at
> all times when the RPM is less than the green band. *Kind of a preventative.
>
> A few times I have been coming in on short final and needed a burst of
> power due to a sudden downdraft, or needed to pour on a little juice
> cause my approach was coming up just a bit short. *Moving the throttle
> forward 1/4 to 1/2 inch, i.e. giving it a little juice but certainly not
> a go around type of thing, often times I would get a stumble, hicuup,
> drop in RPM'S for 2-3 seconds before the horses responded.
>
> Lot of convective turb lately and that power really comes in handy at
> times on mid to short final. *Kind of a shocker when the engine doesn't
> respond quite nicely.
>
> This has happened on a few birds, especially on hot days. *I think
> what's happening is the engine is just too rich, hey I've got the
> mixture all the way in, it's hot (air less dense), and it's (way) hotter
> with the carb heat on ( air much less dense), all enriching the mixture,
> and when I put on a little power the accelerator pump in the carb
> over-enriches the engine for just a little bit; causing the stumble.
>
> Other pilots and the A&P just tell me to pour on the power a little slower.

[John Smith]

Tman wrote:

> Flying a lot of 152s and 172s with carb heat lately. When inbound, I've
> been taught to pull the carb heat "on" downwind, hey actually use it as
> a power control to slow the plane just a bit mid-field, and then more
> importantly, just leave the thing on till clear of the runway and
> cleaning up.

Never heard of this before.

> I think I'm going to follow a new SOP. Turn the carb heat off on
> mid-final.

Tha't what I've always been taught. Actually, I do it on short final.
There will come the day when you need full power for the go-around. Too
silly if you then have the carb heat on.

[Jon Woellhaf]

I was taught to push in the carb heat with my thumb while advancing the
throttle for a go-around.

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Tman wrote:
>
>> Flying a lot of 152s and 172s with carb heat lately. When inbound, I've
>> been taught to pull the carb heat "on" downwind, hey actually use it as a
>> power control to slow the plane just a bit mid-field, and then more
>> importantly, just leave the thing on till clear of the runway and
>> cleaning up.
>
> Never heard of this before.
>
>> I think I'm going to follow a new SOP. Turn the carb heat off on
>> mid-final.
>
> Tha't what I've always been taught. Actually, I do it on short final.
> There will come the day when you need full power for the go-around. Too
> silly if you then have the carb heat on.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Tman" <x@x> wrote in message
> . ..
>> Flying a lot of 152s and 172s with carb heat lately. When inbound, I've
>> been taught to pull the carb heat "on" downwind, hey actually use it as a
>> power control to slow the plane just a bit mid-field, and then more
>> importantly, just leave the thing on till clear of the runway and
>> cleaning up. No matter what the temp, humidity. And to have it on at
>> all times when the RPM is less than the green band. Kind of a
>> preventative.
>>
>> A few times I have been coming in on short final and needed a burst of
>> power due to a sudden downdraft, or needed to pour on a little juice
>> cause my approach was coming up just a bit short. Moving the throttle
>> forward 1/4 to 1/2 inch, i.e. giving it a little juice but certainly not
>> a go around type of thing, often times I would get a stumble, hicuup,
>> drop in RPM'S for 2-3 seconds before the horses responded.
>>
>> Lot of convective turb lately and that power really comes in handy at
>> times on mid to short final. Kind of a shocker when the engine doesn't
>> respond quite nicely.
>>
>> This has happened on a few birds, especially on hot days. I think what's
>> happening is the engine is just too rich, hey I've got the mixture all
>> the way in, it's hot (air less dense), and it's (way) hotter with the
>> carb heat on ( air much less dense), all enriching the mixture, and when
>> I put on a little power the accelerator pump in the carb over-enriches
>> the engine for just a little bit; causing the stumble.
>>
>> Other pilots and the A&P just tell me to pour on the power a little
>> slower.
>>
>> I think I'm going to follow a new SOP. Turn the carb heat off on
>> mid-final. Reasoning: no carb, esp a warm one is going to ice up in 30
>> seconds, sets me up better for a go-around, and will prevent this stumble
>> business (I did test it out at altitude, and it prevents or at least
>> seriously mitigates the stumble).
>>
>> thoughts?
>> T
>
> Shouldn't be a problem, but sometimes it happens.
>
> Apply power a little slower.
> or
> Carry just a tiny bit of power on final. Sounds like you might be
> approaching at cut off.
> or
> Bump a little power every 15 to 20 seconds to keep the engine clear.

Neither of which would do anything to prevent potential problems.

>
>
> Personally I wouldn't cut the carb heat.

Because flight sim doesn't care either way.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Tman" <x@x> wrote in message
. ..
> Flying a lot of 152s and 172s with carb heat lately. When inbound, I've
> been taught to pull the carb heat "on" downwind, hey actually use it as a
> power control to slow the plane just a bit mid-field, and then more
> importantly, just leave the thing on till clear of the runway and cleaning
> up. No matter what the temp, humidity. And to have it on at all times
> when the RPM is less than the green band. Kind of a preventative.
>
> A few times I have been coming in on short final and needed a burst of
> power due to a sudden downdraft, or needed to pour on a little juice cause
> my approach was coming up just a bit short. Moving the throttle forward
> 1/4 to 1/2 inch, i.e. giving it a little juice but certainly not a go
> around type of thing, often times I would get a stumble, hicuup, drop in
> RPM'S for 2-3 seconds before the horses responded.
>
> Lot of convective turb lately and that power really comes in handy at
> times on mid to short final. Kind of a shocker when the engine doesn't
> respond quite nicely.
>
> This has happened on a few birds, especially on hot days. I think what's
> happening is the engine is just too rich, hey I've got the mixture all the
> way in, it's hot (air less dense), and it's (way) hotter with the carb
> heat on ( air much less dense), all enriching the mixture, and when I put
> on a little power the accelerator pump in the carb over-enriches the
> engine for just a little bit; causing the stumble.
>
> Other pilots and the A&P just tell me to pour on the power a little
> slower.
>
> I think I'm going to follow a new SOP. Turn the carb heat off on
> mid-final. Reasoning: no carb, esp a warm one is going to ice up in 30
> seconds, sets me up better for a go-around, and will prevent this stumble
> business (I did test it out at altitude, and it prevents or at least
> seriously mitigates the stumble).
>
> thoughts?
> T

What's going to happen if you actually do have carb ice which hasn't burned
off by the time you turn carb heat off? I'd much rather attempt a go around
with the carb heat initially on than attempt a go around with the lingering
effects of carb ice.

I have no idea what DA you're talking about, but what you're describing is
trying to correct a problem with the mixture by controlling it with the carb
heat. If you're landing at a high DA airport, you shouldn't have the
mixture full rich. Setting the mixture on downwind is the solution to the
problem. On a 152 or 172 you can also have your hand on the throttle with
your thumb on the carb heat. It should be a natural reaction to push both
in together or push the carb heat in first on a go around.

[terry]

On Sep 7, 2:58*am, Tman <x@x> wrote:
> Flying a lot of 152s and 172s with carb heat lately. *When inbound, I've
> been taught to pull the carb heat "on" downwind, hey actually use it as
> a power control to slow the plane just a bit mid-field, and then more
> importantly, just leave the thing on till clear of the runway and
> cleaning up. *No matter what the temp, humidity. *And to have it on at
> all times when the RPM is less than the green band. *Kind of a preventative.
>
> A few times I have been coming in on short final and needed a burst of
> power due to a sudden downdraft, or needed to pour on a little juice
> cause my approach was coming up just a bit short. *Moving the throttle
> forward 1/4 to 1/2 inch, i.e. giving it a little juice but certainly not
> a go around type of thing, often times I would get a stumble, hicuup,
> drop in RPM'S for 2-3 seconds before the horses responded.
>
> Lot of convective turb lately and that power really comes in handy at
> times on mid to short final. *Kind of a shocker when the engine doesn't
> respond quite nicely.
>
> This has happened on a few birds, especially on hot days. *I think
> what's happening is the engine is just too rich, hey I've got the
> mixture all the way in, it's hot (air less dense), and it's (way) hotter
> with the carb heat on ( air much less dense), all enriching the mixture,
> and when I put on a little power the accelerator pump in the carb
> over-enriches the engine for just a little bit; causing the stumble.
>
> Other pilots and the A&P just tell me to pour on the power a little slower.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
. ..
>I was taught to push in the carb heat with my thumb while advancing the
>throttle for a go-around.
>
> "John Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tman wrote:
>>
>>> Flying a lot of 152s and 172s with carb heat lately. When inbound, I've
>>> been taught to pull the carb heat "on" downwind, hey actually use it as
>>> a power control to slow the plane just a bit mid-field, and then more
>>> importantly, just leave the thing on till clear of the runway and
>>> cleaning up.
>>
>> Never heard of this before.
>>
>>> I think I'm going to follow a new SOP. Turn the carb heat off on
>>> mid-final.
>>
>> Tha't what I've always been taught. Actually, I do it on short final.
>> There will come the day when you need full power for the go-around. Too
>> silly if you then have the carb heat on.
>
>

Yeah, same here.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 6, 9:58*am, Tman <x@x> wrote:

> I think I'm going to follow a new SOP. *Turn the carb heat off on
> mid-final. *Reasoning: no carb, esp a warm one is going to ice up in 30
> seconds, sets me up better for a go-around, and will prevent this
> stumble business (I did test it out at altitude, and it prevents or at
> least seriously mitigates the stumble).

Don't put any money on that bet. I've had carbs freeze up on me during
stop-n-goes from the time it takes to kick off the heat to the time it
takes to pour on the coals. The carb can freeze in seconds.

-Robert, CFII

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:54:22 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Sep 6, 9:58*am, Tman <x@x> wrote:
>
>> I think I'm going to follow a new SOP. *Turn the carb heat off on
>> mid-final. *Reasoning: no carb, esp a warm one is going to ice up in 30
>> seconds, sets me up better for a go-around, and will prevent this
>> stumble business (I did test it out at altitude, and it prevents or at
>> least seriously mitigates the stumble).
>
>Don't put any money on that bet. I've had carbs freeze up on me during
>stop-n-goes from the time it takes to kick off the heat to the time it
>takes to pour on the coals. The carb can freeze in seconds.
>
>-Robert, CFII

I'm with you Bob.
I once thought I'd throttle back and poke under some mist and pop out
the other side and resume. when the power came off the revs started
dropping and dropping and dropping. I bunged on full carb heat and
then full throttle and still the revs kept dropping. out the corner of
the eye I noticed a shaft of sunlight and turned toward the hole in
the mist. about 2 seconds into the sunlight and I had full power back
again. when it happens it happens quickly.

now back to the op's description of a rev drop on opening the
throttle.
my bet is that the carb has been in service for quite a while and the
leather bucket seal on the accelerator pump is knackered. it isnt
giving the full squirt of fuel on acceleration. the other possibility
is that the little jet pipe has moved out of the centre venturi
position and the squirt isnt making it up into the inlet tubing.
far better me thinks that he doesnt wank on creating new procedures
and gets the a&p's to check the carby functioning.

Stealth Pilot

[Peter Dohm]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...

> I'm with you Bob.
> I once thought I'd throttle back and poke under some mist and pop out
> the other side and resume. when the power came off the revs started
> dropping and dropping and dropping. I bunged on full carb heat and
> then full throttle and still the revs kept dropping. out the corner of
> the eye I noticed a shaft of sunlight and turned toward the hole in
> the mist. about 2 seconds into the sunlight and I had full power back
> again. when it happens it happens quickly.
>
> now back to the op's description of a rev drop on opening the
> throttle.
> my bet is that the carb has been in service for quite a while and the
> leather bucket seal on the accelerator pump is knackered. it isnt
> giving the full squirt of fuel on acceleration. the other possibility
> is that the little jet pipe has moved out of the centre venturi
> position and the squirt isnt making it up into the inlet tubing.
> far better me thinks that he doesnt wank on creating new procedures
> and gets the a&p's to check the carby functioning.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Very interesting points, which I plan to keep in mind when I return to
flying.

The only thing that I can add is that the results might be more reliable if
the A&P is experienced in servicing carburetors--and possibly magnetoes as
well.

Peter
(Having seen some poor work from folks who should have known better)

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Lycomings, no problem with your plan at all. Continentals ice a bit more
> easily, and on a clear dry day, there won't be a problem either, though
> I'd be inclined to leave it on just a bit longer. I'd also get in the
> habit of pushing the carb heat in with the throttle if you go around..
>
> Bertie

Your a dumb ass. What next, practicing emergency landings by turning off the
fuel?

If you don't like an engines throttle response with carb heat on, turning
off the carb heat is NOT the solution. There are far too many safe ways to
deal with the issue, other than deviation from the POH.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 7, 5:53*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

> I'm with you Bob.
> I once thought I'd throttle back and poke under some mist and pop out
> the other side and resume. when the power came off the revs started
> dropping and dropping and dropping. I bunged on full carb heat and
> then full throttle and still the revs kept dropping. out the corner of
> the eye I noticed a shaft of sunlight and turned toward the hole in
> the mist. about 2 seconds into the sunlight and I had full power back
> again. *when it happens it happens quickly.

I lost the engine in the J-3 once during climb out. I had done a stop-
n-go and even though I was under full power I had picked up some carb
ice after turning off the carb heat in order to go. I got down to
about 200 feet before the power came back. Since then I've always done
stop-n-gos will carb heat on until I get a positive climb. I've not
had that problem since using that procedure. That procedure is in
conflict with the OPs. Now, it is true that a J-3 is going to freeze
up much faster than a Cherokee and somewhat faster than C-172 but it
just shows that it can happen very, very fast.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 6, 2:35*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Lycomings, no problem with your plan at all. Continentals ice a bit more
> easily, and on a clear dry day, there won't be a problem either,

That observation is in conflict with my experience. Everytime I've
gotten carb ice in the pattern has been on a clear day.

-Robert

[gpsman]

On Sep 6, 2:40*pm, a > wrote:>
> Best practice without a lot of experimentation is to follow the POH,

I hope I never let my rookie ass become so confident I consider
deviating from the POH based on my own anecdotal experience. Next
thing you know, you're an example of someone who made reasonable
conclusions except for a heretofore unknown exception.

There's a certain risk factor, also, I think, in deviating from one's
training and, I assume in this case, longtime practice.

The OP doesn't mention their typical strip, but I think they would be
best served by adhering to the POH and just aiming a little further
down the runway.
-----

- gpsman

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

gpsman wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2:40 pm, a > wrote:>
>> Best practice without a lot of experimentation is to follow the POH,
>
> I hope I never let my rookie ass become so confident I consider
> deviating from the POH based on my own anecdotal experience. Next
> thing you know, you're an example of someone who made reasonable
> conclusions except for a heretofore unknown exception.
>
> There's a certain risk factor, also, I think, in deviating from one's
> training and, I assume in this case, longtime practice.
>
> The OP doesn't mention their typical strip, but I think they would be
> best served by adhering to the POH and just aiming a little further
> down the runway.
> -----
>
> - gpsman

This is excellent advice and I add my voice to what you have said.
General aviation engines particularly Lycoming and Continental, handle
carb ice just differently enough that every aircraft POH should be
checked to see what the engine manufacturer recommends pertaining to the
use of carb heat, especially the exact circumstances where it is
recommended and the suggested procedure for it's use.
Pilots who alter the manufacturer's recommendations on the use of carb
heat anticipating a go around situation are potentially creating a
problem where no problem should exist.
There is no reason at all why a go around should necessitate an action
with carb heat that deviates from recommended procedure.
If you have to go around, simply follow recommended procedure.


--
Dudley Henriques

[RandyL[_2_]]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Tman wrote:
>

> There will come the day when you need full power for the go-around. Too
> silly if you then have the carb heat on.

Then again, how hard is it to shove in the carb heat knob while you advance
the throttle in a Cessna? They are right next to each other. I have always
just pushed in the carb heat handle at the same time as I advance the
throttle, not that difficult to do, even using the same hand.

Randy L.
--
Remember: Any landing that you can walk away from,
is a landing that you can be fined, sued, or prosecuted for.

[Tman]

Couple things I want to add to some of the (kind of) opinionated but
helpful replies in this thread.

My C152 POH, and this is a late -70s model, does not give a clear cut
protocol for use of carb heat. It basically says use it when icing is
possible or suspected. I think it's standard practice to pull it on
power reduction for approach, but as you can see from the replies here
there are a variety of standard practices. If I read the POH literally,
I'd say turning the heat off when on short final is not contrary to what
it says, and is not really more in line with its suggestions than
leaving it full on till clear of the runway or go-around power is
needed. Does one suspect carb ice in the last 30 seconds of approach?
Well there are some anecdotes in this thread that raise the possibility
of that, so maybe I won't do this practice anyways, but either way there
isn't a sentence in the POH that says to leave that carb heat on till
the wheels are on the ground.

By the way, the topic of leaning on downwind for approach under high
density altitude conditions was brought up in this thread. The C152 POH
is almost silent on that also. It talks about leaning in cruise,
leaning for max rpm in a full power static runup when over 3000 DA, and
to place the mixture rich or "for smooth operation" on approach. I've
been taught the former, but another very experienced CFI told me to lean
it out "an inch" and push it in only if you need to go around. Both
pieces of advice I'd say consistent with the POH text, and both different.

FYI, the engine stumble in the original post happens at about 2000 DA days.

Just to go off on this tangent, one CFI I has says absolutely avoid
operating your Cessna Lycoming less than 1,000 RPM -- not enough oil
pressure to lube up the beast, and in fact there is an examiner that
will demerit you if you taxi at less than 1000 RPM on your checkride.
Now another CFI is adamant about taxiing at minimum possible power -- to
save the brakes. Both very respectable experienced CFI's, both with
reasons for their suggestion. And both suggestions are "not contrary"
to the POH guideline. So sometimes you gotta use your brain to
determine a good SOP, and solicit info on the pros / cons / risks to
make your own decision. But I'm not bending any of the guidelines in
the thin POH.

And as far as taking it to the A&P... We've talked about this. He says,
well grasshopper, you go the mixture full rich, it's hot, and you punch
in the throttle -- this is a carb engine, they sometimes stumble. It's
also pretty accepted performance around here by some of the other more
experienced pilots -- there recommendation is in line with a few of the
posts here -- some combination of: don't pull the throttle to cutoff,
lean it out on downwind, push in the carb heat on short final, push the
throttle in more slowly, and/or don't worry about the momentary
hesitation / stumble , it'll get ya used to the power delay when you get
flying turbofans. That last one a little tongue in cheek....
T



Dudley Henriques wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 2:40 pm, a > wrote:>
>>> Best practice without a lot of experimentation is to follow the POH,
>>
>> I hope I never let my rookie ass become so confident I consider
>> deviating from the POH based on my own anecdotal experience. Next
>> thing you know, you're an example of someone who made reasonable
>> conclusions except for a heretofore unknown exception.

> This is excellent advice and I add my voice to what you have said.
> General aviation engines particularly Lycoming and Continental, handle
> carb ice just differently enough that every aircraft POH should be
> checked to see what the engine manufacturer recommends pertaining to the

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 8, 9:07*am, Tman <x@x> wrote:
> Couple things I want to add to some of the (kind of) opinionated but
> helpful replies in this thread.
>
> My C152 POH, and this is a late -70s model, does not give a clear cut
> protocol for use of carb heat. *It basically says use it when icing is
> possible or suspected. *I think it's standard practice to pull it on
> power reduction for approach, but as you can see from the replies here
> there are a variety of standard practices. *If I read the POH literally,
> I'd say turning the heat off when on short final is not contrary to what
> it says, and is not really more in line with its suggestions than
> leaving it full on till clear of the runway or go-around power is
> needed. *Does one suspect carb ice in the last 30 seconds of approach?
> Well there are some anecdotes in this thread that raise the possibility
> of that, so maybe I won't do this practice anyways, but either way there
> isn't a sentence in the POH that says to leave that carb heat on till
> the wheels are on the ground.
>
> By the way, the topic of leaning on downwind for approach under high
> density altitude conditions was brought up in this thread. *The C152 POH
> is almost silent on that also. *It talks about leaning in cruise,
> leaning for max rpm in a full power static runup when over 3000 DA, and
> to place the mixture rich or "for smooth operation" on approach. *I've
> been taught the former, but another very experienced CFI told me to lean
> it out "an inch" and push it in only if you need to go around. *Both
> pieces of advice I'd say consistent with the POH text, and both different..
>
> FYI, the engine stumble in the original post happens at about 2000 DA days.
>
> Just to go off on this tangent, one CFI I has says absolutely avoid
> operating your Cessna Lycoming less than 1,000 RPM -- not enough oil
> pressure to lube up the beast, and in fact there is an examiner that
> will demerit you if you taxi at less than 1000 RPM on your checkride.
> Now another CFI is adamant about taxiing at minimum possible power -- to
> save the brakes. *Both very respectable experienced CFI's, both with
> reasons for their suggestion. *And both suggestions are "not contrary"
> to the POH guideline. *So sometimes you gotta use your brain to
> determine a good SOP, and solicit info on the pros / cons / risks to
> make your own decision. *But I'm not bending any of the guidelines in
> the thin POH.
>
> And as far as taking it to the A&P... We've talked about this. *He says,
> well grasshopper, you go the mixture full rich, it's hot, and you punch
> in the throttle -- this is a carb engine, they sometimes stumble. *It's
> also pretty accepted performance around here by some of the other more
> experienced pilots -- there recommendation is in line with a few of the
> posts here -- some combination of: don't pull the throttle to cutoff,
> lean it out on downwind, push in the carb heat on short final, push the
> throttle in more slowly, and/or don't worry about the momentary
> hesitation / stumble , it'll get ya used to the power delay when you get
> flying turbofans. *That last one a little tongue in cheek....
> T
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > gpsman wrote:
> >> On Sep 6, 2:40 pm, a > wrote:>
> >>> Best practice without a lot of experimentation is to follow the POH,
>
> >> I hope I never let my rookie ass become so confident I consider
> >> deviating from the POH based on my own anecdotal experience. *Next
> >> thing you know, you're an example of someone who made reasonable
> >> conclusions except for a heretofore unknown exception.
> > This is excellent advice and I add my voice to what you have said.
> > General aviation engines particularly Lycoming and Continental, handle
> > carb ice just differently enough that every aircraft POH should be
> > checked to see what the engine manufacturer recommends pertaining to the

Take a look at your oil pressure gauge as you change RPMs. If it stays
acceptable, the engine manufacturer says there's enough oil pressure.

If you are running at low manifold pressures you have set up a
condition for carb icing, haven't you? I'd suggest it would be prudent
when landing to keep the carb heat on until touchdown, or until you
decide to go around. As has been pointed out here, carb heat and
throttle can be operated with one hand when advancing the throttle.
Why take the chance of growing some ice just when a deer runs on the
runway 500 feet in front of you while you're in the flare? Or, more
likely, someone has finished their run up and is taxiing out when
you're on short final? You have the carb heat on as insurance you'll
get power when you need it, don't cancel the policy prematurely.

Keep in mind this is written by someone who flies an injected engine!

[Shirl]

a > wrote:
> If you are running at low manifold pressures you have set up a
> condition for carb icing, haven't you? I'd suggest it would be prudent
> when landing to keep the carb heat on until touchdown, or until you
> decide to go around. As has been pointed out here, carb heat and
> throttle can be operated with one hand when advancing the throttle.
> Why take the chance of growing some ice just when a deer runs on the
> runway 500 feet in front of you while you're in the flare? Or, more
> likely, someone has finished their run up and is taxiing out when
> you're on short final? You have the carb heat on as insurance you'll
> get power when you need it, don't cancel the policy prematurely.
>
>Keep in mind this is written by someone who flies an injected engine!

How fast does carb ice form? If you've had carb heat on from abeam the
numbers in the downwind, is ice going to form from short final to flare?
I usually leave mine on to touchdown, but a CFI-friend shuts off carb
heat when on short short-final in anticipation of a possible go-round.

Keep in mind this is written by someone who flies in Arizona!

[[email protected]]

On Sep 8, 7:07*am, Tman <x@x> wrote:
> Couple things I want to add to some of the (kind of) opinionated but
> helpful replies in this thread.
>
> My C152 POH, and this is a late -70s model, does not give a clear cut
> protocol for use of carb heat. *It basically says use it when icing is
> possible or suspected. *I think it's standard practice to pull it on
> power reduction for approach, but as you can see from the replies here
> there are a variety of standard practices. *If I read the POH literally,
> I'd say turning the heat off when on short final is not contrary to what
> it says, and is not really more in line with its suggestions than
> leaving it full on till clear of the runway or go-around power is
> needed. *Does one suspect carb ice in the last 30 seconds of approach?
> Well there are some anecdotes in this thread that raise the possibility
> of that, so maybe I won't do this practice anyways, but either way there
> isn't a sentence in the POH that says to leave that carb heat on till
> the wheels are on the ground.
>
> By the way, the topic of leaning on downwind for approach under high
> density altitude conditions was brought up in this thread. *The C152 POH
> is almost silent on that also. *It talks about leaning in cruise,
> leaning for max rpm in a full power static runup when over 3000 DA, and
> to place the mixture rich or "for smooth operation" on approach. *I've
> been taught the former, but another very experienced CFI told me to lean
> it out "an inch" and push it in only if you need to go around. *Both
> pieces of advice I'd say consistent with the POH text, and both different..
>
> FYI, the engine stumble in the original post happens at about 2000 DA days.
>
> Just to go off on this tangent, one CFI I has says absolutely avoid
> operating your Cessna Lycoming less than 1,000 RPM -- not enough oil
> pressure to lube up the beast, and in fact there is an examiner that
> will demerit you if you taxi at less than 1000 RPM on your checkride.
> Now another CFI is adamant about taxiing at minimum possible power -- to
> save the brakes. *Both very respectable experienced CFI's, both with
> reasons for their suggestion. *And both suggestions are "not contrary"
> to the POH guideline. *So sometimes you gotta use your brain to
> determine a good SOP, and solicit info on the pros / cons / risks to
> make your own decision. *But I'm not bending any of the guidelines in
> the thin POH.
>
> And as far as taking it to the A&P... We've talked about this. *He says,
> well grasshopper, you go the mixture full rich, it's hot, and you punch
> in the throttle -- this is a carb engine, they sometimes stumble. *It's
> also pretty accepted performance around here by some of the other more
> experienced pilots -- there recommendation is in line with a few of the
> posts here -- some combination of: don't pull the throttle to cutoff,
> lean it out on downwind, push in the carb heat on short final, push the
> throttle in more slowly, and/or don't worry about the momentary
> hesitation / stumble , it'll get ya used to the power delay when you get
> flying turbofans. *That last one a little tongue in cheek....
> T
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > gpsman wrote:
> >> On Sep 6, 2:40 pm, a > wrote:>
> >>> Best practice without a lot of experimentation is to follow the POH,
>
> >> I hope I never let my rookie ass become so confident I consider
> >> deviating from the POH based on my own anecdotal experience. *Next
> >> thing you know, you're an example of someone who made reasonable
> >> conclusions except for a heretofore unknown exception.
> > This is excellent advice and I add my voice to what you have said.
> > General aviation engines particularly Lycoming and Continental, handle
> > carb ice just differently enough that every aircraft POH should be
> > checked to see what the engine manufacturer recommends pertaining to the

If the POH says to lean for smooth operation on downwind,
then do it if the carb heat makes it stumble. These carbs are designed
to provide a rich mixture at sea level, and when the DA is higher than
that the fuel:air mix can become too rich to run properly. WE operate
at a 3000' airstrip and the DA is at 5000' or more almost all summer.
You learn something about mixture, and you learn about carb ice on
clear days, too.
Lycoming's service manuals call for an idle setting of 650-750
RPM. I think they know a little bit about lubrication and so on, a lot
more than that CFI knows about engines. 1000 RPM is way too high and
just burns out brakes. The only place 1000 RPM should be used is when
the engine has been started from a cold-soaked state, and the oil is
still thick enough that it doesn't throw onto the cylinder walls too
well. Once it's warmed up some it's OK. If the oil pressure is falling
off badly at 650 RPM, the engine's bearings or oil pump or both are
shot and it shouldn't be flying. While we're on the subject of
dragging the brakes to control speed, if you go on to get a Commercial
ticket and do that to expensive airplanes, you might find yourself
looking for another job. Overheated brakes have been known to set fire
to tires and the whole airplane goes up in smoke.
As far as approaches go, we use the "plan-for-abort-unless-
everything's-good" training. Most landing accidents are a result of a
refusal to go around when things aren't lining up properly. Airspeed,
altitude, track---everything must be within reason or we just don't
land. SO, the carb heat is left on until we accelerate to get out of
there, and we don't slam the throttle open, either. Besides risking
stumble or outright failure, it's hard on the engine when cylinder
pressures rise so high at low RPM. Take two seconds to open the
throttle unless things are really urgent.

Dan

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Tman wrote:

> I think I'm going to follow a new SOP. Turn the carb heat off on
> mid-final. Reasoning: no carb, esp a warm one is going to ice up in 30
> seconds, sets me up better for a go-around, and will prevent this
> stumble business (I did test it out at altitude, and it prevents or at
> least seriously mitigates the stumble).
>
> thoughts?
> T

Well that will make it easier on the crash investigators. They will see
the carb heat in the off position and mark it down to carb ice caused by
pilot error. Think of the money you will save the tax payers.

[RandyL[_2_]]

"Tman" <x@x> wrote in message
. ..
> Flying a lot of 152s and 172s with carb heat lately. When inbound, I've I
> think I'm going to follow a new SOP. Turn the carb heat off on mid-final.
> Reasoning: no carb, esp a warm one is going to ice up in 30 seconds, sets
> me up better for a go-around, and will prevent this stumble business (I
> did test it out at altitude, and it prevents or at least seriously
> mitigates the stumble).
>
> thoughts?
> T

Then again, how hard is it to shove in the carb heat knob while you advance
the throttle in a Cessna? They are right next to each other. I have always
just pushed in the carb heat knob at the same time as I advance the
throttle, not that difficult to do, even using the same hand.

Randy L.
--
Remember: Any landing that you can walk away from,
is a landing that you can be fined, sued, or prosecuted for.

[Stella Starr]

Tman wrote:
pretty accepted performance around here by some of the other more
> experienced pilots -- there recommendation is in line with a few of the
> posts here -- some combination of: don't pull the throttle to cutoff,
> lean it out on downwind, push in the carb heat on short final, push the
> throttle in more slowly, and/or don't worry about the momentary
> hesitation / stumble

Sounds pretty reasonable; you can't blame every engine stumble on carb
icing (or carb heat), and I remember watching a fellow student do
go-arounds and hearing the hiccup as he jammed in full power in the "go"
part of each touch-and-go.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Stella Starr wrote:
> Tman wrote:
> pretty accepted performance around here by some of the other more
>> experienced pilots -- there recommendation is in line with a few of
>> the posts here -- some combination of: don't pull the throttle to
>> cutoff, lean it out on downwind, push in the carb heat on short final,
>> push the throttle in more slowly, and/or don't worry about the
>> momentary hesitation / stumble
>
> Sounds pretty reasonable; you can't blame every engine stumble on carb
> icing (or carb heat), and I remember watching a fellow student do
> go-arounds and hearing the hiccup as he jammed in full power in the "go"
> part of each touch-and-go.

I'd say a vast amount of engine "hiccups" on a go around are caused not
by carb heat but rather by over aggressive use of throttle. SMOOTH is
the key word for throttle use on a go around. Aggressive throttle use
might get you a "hiccup" in a 150 Cessna. It might even cause an engine
failure. It can kill you in a high performance prop airplane.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Lycomings, no problem with your plan at all. Continentals ice a bit
>> more easily, and on a clear dry day, there won't be a problem either,
>> though I'd be inclined to leave it on just a bit longer. I'd also get
>> in the habit of pushing the carb heat in with the throttle if you go
>> around..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Your a dumb ass. What next, practicing emergency landings by turning
> off the fuel?
>
> If you don't like an engines throttle response with carb heat on,
> turning off the carb heat is NOT the solution.


Didn't say it was, fjukkktard.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:89362f56-85b0-46be-b33f-
:

> On Sep 6, 2:35*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Lycomings, no problem with your plan at all. Continentals ice a bit more
>> easily, and on a clear dry day, there won't be a problem either,
>
> That observation is in conflict with my experience. Everytime I've
> gotten carb ice in the pattern has been on a clear day.
>

But not a clear dry one.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Sep 8, 11:51 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> I'd say a vast amount of engine "hiccups" on a go around are caused not
> by carb heat but rather by over aggressive use of throttle. SMOOTH is
> the key word for throttle use on a go around. Aggressive throttle use
> might get you a "hiccup" in a 150 Cessna. It might even cause an engine
> failure. It can kill you in a high performance prop airplane.


The hiccup is only one part of the risk when shoving the
throttle in too fast, too. When high manifold pressures are applied at
low RPM, the cylinder pressures get much too high and detonation
becomes a danger. Broken pistons and rings and other cylinder parts
can all result from this, as can overloaded bearings. The propeller is
a very heavy flywheel and we can't expect the same acceleration we get
in our cars. Further, even old cars had variable ignition timing that
would drop the spark advance to 10 or 6 degrees BTDC during
acceleration to avoid detonation, but our LyConts don't have that and
are stuck at 20 or 25 or 28 or whatever degrees. The pilot will never
hear the pinging because of all the other racket, but it's there if
they get too rough with the throttle.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Sep 8, 11:51 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> I'd say a vast amount of engine "hiccups" on a go around are caused not
>> by carb heat but rather by over aggressive use of throttle. SMOOTH is
>> the key word for throttle use on a go around. Aggressive throttle use
>> might get you a "hiccup" in a 150 Cessna. It might even cause an engine
>> failure. It can kill you in a high performance prop airplane.
>
>
> The hiccup is only one part of the risk when shoving the
> throttle in too fast, too. When high manifold pressures are applied at
> low RPM, the cylinder pressures get much too high and detonation
> becomes a danger. Broken pistons and rings and other cylinder parts
> can all result from this, as can overloaded bearings. The propeller is
> a very heavy flywheel and we can't expect the same acceleration we get
> in our cars. Further, even old cars had variable ignition timing that
> would drop the spark advance to 10 or 6 degrees BTDC during
> acceleration to avoid detonation, but our LyConts don't have that and
> are stuck at 20 or 25 or 28 or whatever degrees. The pilot will never
> hear the pinging because of all the other racket, but it's there if
> they get too rough with the throttle.
>
> Dan

As a pilot of Warbirds through the years I've run into the problem
consistently when advising new pilots on how to handle these airplanes.
Some SE warbirds will actually torque roll if high MP is applied on a go
around with the prop in full increase (Low pitch/high RPM), if the power
is ham handed in with the airplane under about 120 with high AOA
involved in the power up equation.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 8, 12:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > That observation is in conflict with my experience. Everytime I've
> > gotten carb ice in the pattern has been on a clear day.
>
> But not a clear dry one.

Well ok. Dry in the sense of visible moisture; yes, no visible
moisture. However, we know that humidy is the key to carb ice so there
had to be some humidy. But what type of solution is that? You teach
students to subtract the dew point from the temp in order to decide
when to turn off carb heat. That just sounds complicated for little
gain.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 8, 9:55*am, "RandyL" > wrote:

> Then again, how hard is it to shove in the carb heat knob while you advance
> the throttle in a Cessna? They are right next to each other. I have always
> just pushed in the carb heat knob at the same time as I advance the
> throttle, not that difficult to do, even using the same hand.

Bingo. Why risk carb ice just to not have to remember to push the carb
heat in?

-Robert

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Sep 8, 9:55 am, "RandyL" > wrote:
>
>> Then again, how hard is it to shove in the carb heat knob while you advance
>> the throttle in a Cessna? They are right next to each other. I have always
>> just pushed in the carb heat knob at the same time as I advance the
>> throttle, not that difficult to do, even using the same hand.
>
> Bingo. Why risk carb ice just to not have to remember to push the carb
> heat in?
>
> -Robert

We have a similar thing going on right now in the Warbird community.
After the McKitrick go around torque roll mort in his P51 last year, we
have one very respected member of our community advocating making
approaches in the P51 Mustang using cruise settings on the prop instead
of the normal 2700RPM (Meto) setup used by pilots flying approach in
this airplane.
His theory is that on a go around, where torque is a huge issue on the
Mustang if power is misused, keeping the prop in cruise won't hurt the
engine if it's over boosted unintentionally and will deny the extremly
high torque moment associated with the application of too much power too
quickly.
He maintains this "safety valve" will help save lives.
I have a great respect for this pilot's opinion.....normally!
As someone involved in the Mustang community as a safety adviser, I find
his "theory" "interesting" to say the leat but I'm against it.
Doing this flies in the face of the normal Dash 1 approved go around
setup for the 51 which is to run the prop up to 2700 and DON'T ham hand
the throttle if needed! It as well inserts a "crutch" for pilots flying
this airplane that should NOT be needed. Proper checkout and proper
handling of the airplane is the right approach to saving lives in the
Mustang, NOT altering the way the airplane is normally flown to give
those pilots flying it a "safety valve".

I see a similarity in the approach to the two issues, the other being
the use of carb heat here.

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Sep 8, 5:11 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> Well ok. Dry in the sense of visible moisture; yes, no visible
> moisture. However, we know that humidy is the key to carb ice so there
> had to be some humidy. But what type of solution is that? You teach
> students to subtract the dew point from the temp in order to decide
> when to turn off carb heat. That just sounds complicated for little
> gain.

It's not complicated. If the temp and dewpoint are 3 or 5 or
8 degrees (Celcius) apart, ice is likely. If they're 25 degrees apart,
it's not. Anyone can print out the carb ice risk chart (Google "carb
ice") and stick it where it's handy.
Here in Canada, the regs say this:

"602.72 The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, before commencing a
flight, be familiar with the available weather information that is
appropriate to the intended flight."

I would imagine the FAA has something equivalent to that.

So some sort of weather information is mandatory, and that
would include temp and dewpoint. There's no excuse for being surprised
by carb ice. None at all. Like I tell my students, "You wouldn't dive
into water without making sure there were no hazards in it that might
injure you (hard or sharp pointy things under the surface, predators,
and so on) and that it wasn't one degree above freezing. Why would we
take off into air about which we know nothing?

Dan

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 11:51 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> I'd say a vast amount of engine "hiccups" on a go around are caused not
>>> by carb heat but rather by over aggressive use of throttle. SMOOTH is
>>> the key word for throttle use on a go around. Aggressive throttle use
>>> might get you a "hiccup" in a 150 Cessna. It might even cause an engine
>>> failure. It can kill you in a high performance prop airplane.
>>
>>
>> The hiccup is only one part of the risk when shoving the
>> throttle in too fast, too. When high manifold pressures are applied at
>> low RPM, the cylinder pressures get much too high and detonation
>> becomes a danger. Broken pistons and rings and other cylinder parts
>> can all result from this, as can overloaded bearings. The propeller is
>> a very heavy flywheel and we can't expect the same acceleration we get
>> in our cars. Further, even old cars had variable ignition timing that
>> would drop the spark advance to 10 or 6 degrees BTDC during
>> acceleration to avoid detonation, but our LyConts don't have that and
>> are stuck at 20 or 25 or 28 or whatever degrees. The pilot will never
>> hear the pinging because of all the other racket, but it's there if
>> they get too rough with the throttle.
>>
>> Dan
>
> As a pilot of Warbirds through the years I've run into the problem
> consistently when advising new pilots on how to handle these airplanes.
> Some SE warbirds will actually torque roll if high MP is applied on a go
> around with the prop in full increase (Low pitch/high RPM), if the power
> is ham handed in with the airplane under about 120 with high AOA involved
> in the power up equation.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Oh brother, here we go again.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Lycomings, no problem with your plan at all. Continentals ice a bit
>>> more easily, and on a clear dry day, there won't be a problem either,
>>> though I'd be inclined to leave it on just a bit longer. I'd also get
>>> in the habit of pushing the carb heat in with the throttle if you go
>>> around..
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Your a dumb ass. What next, practicing emergency landings by turning
>> off the fuel?
>>
>> If you don't like an engines throttle response with carb heat on,
>> turning off the carb heat is NOT the solution.
>
>
> Didn't say it was, fjukkktard.
>
>
> Bertie

Liar. Are you so stupid you can't follow a thread one post long.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 12:54 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > That observation is in conflict with my experience. Everytime I've
> > gotten carb ice in the pattern has been on a clear day.
>
> But not a clear dry one.

Well ok. Dry in the sense of visible moisture; yes, no visible
moisture. However, we know that humidy is the key to carb ice so there
had to be some humidy. But what type of solution is that? You teach
students to subtract the dew point from the temp in order to decide
when to turn off carb heat. That just sounds complicated for little
gain.

-Robert

Exacty.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sep 8, 5:11 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> Well ok. Dry in the sense of visible moisture; yes, no visible
>> moisture. However, we know that humidy is the key to carb ice so there
>> had to be some humidy. But what type of solution is that? You teach
>> students to subtract the dew point from the temp in order to decide
>> when to turn off carb heat. That just sounds complicated for little
>> gain.
>
> It's not complicated. If the temp and dewpoint are 3 or 5 or
> 8 degrees (Celcius) apart, ice is likely. If they're 25 degrees apart,
> it's not. Anyone can print out the carb ice risk chart (Google "carb
> ice") and stick it where it's handy.
> Here in Canada, the regs say this:
>
> "602.72 The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, before commencing a
> flight, be familiar with the available weather information that is
> appropriate to the intended flight."
>
> I would imagine the FAA has something equivalent to that.
>
> So some sort of weather information is mandatory, and that
> would include temp and dewpoint. There's no excuse for being surprised
> by carb ice. None at all. Like I tell my students, "You wouldn't dive
> into water without making sure there were no hazards in it that might
> injure you (hard or sharp pointy things under the surface, predators,
> and so on) and that it wasn't one degree above freezing. Why would we
> take off into air about which we know nothing?
>
> Dan

You want to argue awareness of conditions to justify dropping carb heat,
when dropping carb heat is not necessary to solve the OP's issue?

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> We have a similar thing going on right now in the Warbird community. After
> the McKitrick go around torque roll mort in his P51 last year, we have one
> very respected member of our community advocating making approaches in the
> P51 Mustang using cruise settings on the prop instead of the normal
> 2700RPM (Meto) setup used by pilots flying approach in this airplane.
> His theory is that on a go around, where torque is a huge issue on the
> Mustang if power is misused, keeping the prop in cruise won't hurt the
> engine if it's over boosted unintentionally and will deny the extremly
> high torque moment associated with the application of too much power too
> quickly.
> He maintains this "safety valve" will help save lives.
> I have a great respect for this pilot's opinion.....normally!
> As someone involved in the Mustang community as a safety adviser, I find
> his "theory" "interesting" to say the leat but I'm against it.
> Doing this flies in the face of the normal Dash 1 approved go around setup
> for the 51 which is to run the prop up to 2700 and DON'T ham hand the
> throttle if needed! It as well inserts a "crutch" for pilots flying this
> airplane that should NOT be needed. Proper checkout and proper handling of
> the airplane is the right approach to saving lives in the Mustang, NOT
> altering the way the airplane is normally flown to give those pilots
> flying it a "safety valve".
>
> I see a similarity in the approach to the two issues, the other being the
> use of carb heat here.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Geeez Dudley, how the hell did you get from dropping carb heat on short
final, to an essay like this in only two posts?

Put the O2 mask back on.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Lonnie wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>> On Sep 8, 11:51 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd say a vast amount of engine "hiccups" on a go around are caused not
>>>> by carb heat but rather by over aggressive use of throttle. SMOOTH is
>>>> the key word for throttle use on a go around. Aggressive throttle use
>>>> might get you a "hiccup" in a 150 Cessna. It might even cause an engine
>>>> failure. It can kill you in a high performance prop airplane.
>>>
>>> The hiccup is only one part of the risk when shoving the
>>> throttle in too fast, too. When high manifold pressures are applied at
>>> low RPM, the cylinder pressures get much too high and detonation
>>> becomes a danger. Broken pistons and rings and other cylinder parts
>>> can all result from this, as can overloaded bearings. The propeller is
>>> a very heavy flywheel and we can't expect the same acceleration we get
>>> in our cars. Further, even old cars had variable ignition timing that
>>> would drop the spark advance to 10 or 6 degrees BTDC during
>>> acceleration to avoid detonation, but our LyConts don't have that and
>>> are stuck at 20 or 25 or 28 or whatever degrees. The pilot will never
>>> hear the pinging because of all the other racket, but it's there if
>>> they get too rough with the throttle.
>>>
>>> Dan
>> As a pilot of Warbirds through the years I've run into the problem
>> consistently when advising new pilots on how to handle these airplanes.
>> Some SE warbirds will actually torque roll if high MP is applied on a go
>> around with the prop in full increase (Low pitch/high RPM), if the power
>> is ham handed in with the airplane under about 120 with high AOA involved
>> in the power up equation.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Oh brother, here we go again.
>
>
Well hello Max. What took you so long? :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Lonnie wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> We have a similar thing going on right now in the Warbird community. After
>> the McKitrick go around torque roll mort in his P51 last year, we have one
>> very respected member of our community advocating making approaches in the
>> P51 Mustang using cruise settings on the prop instead of the normal
>> 2700RPM (Meto) setup used by pilots flying approach in this airplane.
>> His theory is that on a go around, where torque is a huge issue on the
>> Mustang if power is misused, keeping the prop in cruise won't hurt the
>> engine if it's over boosted unintentionally and will deny the extremly
>> high torque moment associated with the application of too much power too
>> quickly.
>> He maintains this "safety valve" will help save lives.
>> I have a great respect for this pilot's opinion.....normally!
>> As someone involved in the Mustang community as a safety adviser, I find
>> his "theory" "interesting" to say the leat but I'm against it.
>> Doing this flies in the face of the normal Dash 1 approved go around setup
>> for the 51 which is to run the prop up to 2700 and DON'T ham hand the
>> throttle if needed! It as well inserts a "crutch" for pilots flying this
>> airplane that should NOT be needed. Proper checkout and proper handling of
>> the airplane is the right approach to saving lives in the Mustang, NOT
>> altering the way the airplane is normally flown to give those pilots
>> flying it a "safety valve".
>>
>> I see a similarity in the approach to the two issues, the other being the
>> use of carb heat here.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Geeez Dudley, how the hell did you get from dropping carb heat on short
> final, to an essay like this in only two posts?
>
> Put the O2 mask back on.
>
>

Well hello again Maxie. Never get tired of seeing your deeply incisive,
informative and thoughtful posts. What's the deal with all the name
changes though. Can't seem to make any sense out of why you bother doing
it. Why not just post with the Maxwell moniker. Just wondering??
:-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 8, 5:53*pm, wrote:

> * * * * * * So some sort of weather information is mandatory, and that
> would include temp and dewpoint. There's no excuse for being surprised
> by carb ice. None at all. Like I tell my students, "You wouldn't dive
> into water without making sure there were no hazards in it that might
> injure you (hard or sharp pointy things under the surface, predators,
> and so on) and that it wasn't one degree above freezing. Why would we
> take off into air about which we know nothing?
>

An awareness of carb ice conditions is one thing; but you are
advocating teaching two different landing techniques as a result. To
me that is too complex for students and unnecessary. Just keep it
simple; use the same approach technique regardless of carb icing
conditions.

-Robert

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> Well hello again Maxie. Never get tired of seeing your deeply incisive,
> informative and thoughtful posts.

Well I wish I could say the same about you. But you always have to drift the
thread around until it all about you.

What's the deal with all the name
> changes though. Can't seem to make any sense out of why you bother doing
> it. Why not just post with the Maxwell moniker. Just wondering??
> :-))
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Only because the name Maxwell was too often forged. Maxwell was not my real
name, so who cares, I'll just take another.

I think thoughts and ideas are more important on the Usenet. But that's just
me.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Lycomings, no problem with your plan at all. Continentals ice a bit
>>>> more easily, and on a clear dry day, there won't be a problem either,
>>>> though I'd be inclined to leave it on just a bit longer. I'd also get
>>>> in the habit of pushing the carb heat in with the throttle if you go
>>>> around..
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Your a dumb ass. What next, practicing emergency landings by turning
>>> off the fuel?
>>>
>>> If you don't like an engines throttle response with carb heat on,
>>> turning off the carb heat is NOT the solution.
>>
>>
>> Didn't say it was, fjukkktard.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Liar. Are you so stupid you can't follow a thread one post long.

Hey Okie, crank up that one brain cell and explain how he ever proposed such
a solution to the problem you just pulled out of your a$$?

Pushing in the carb heat with the throttle on a go around is taught by, hmmm
let's see here 1,2,...251...carry the 4, uhm every friggin CFI on the face
of the earth to every 2 hr+ student pilot on the face of the earth (assuming
it was missed in the first hour).

Jeez you are one dumb-as-a-day-old-dog-turd Okie, and only prove over and
over again that you have exactly zip experience when it comes to planes that
don't have a 101 keyboard and a mouse attached as standard equipment. I can
see why you rarely offer anything of a substantive nature in this NG, which
in your case demonstrates rare intelligence because you can't possibly do
as much without stepping on your dork.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:DAlxk.733$Dj1.673@trnddc02...

>>> Bertie
>>
>> Liar. Are you so stupid you can't follow a thread one post long.
>
> Hey Okie, crank up that one brain cell and explain how he ever proposed
> such a solution to the problem you just pulled out of your a$$?
>
> Pushing in the carb heat with the throttle on a go around is taught by,
> hmmm let's see here 1,2,...251...carry the 4, uhm every friggin CFI on the
> face of the earth to every 2 hr+ student pilot on the face of the earth
> (assuming it was missed in the first hour).
>
> Jeez you are one dumb-as-a-day-old-dog-turd Okie, and only prove over and
> over again that you have exactly zip experience when it comes to planes
> that don't have a 101 keyboard and a mouse attached as standard equipment.
> I can see why you rarely offer anything of a substantive nature in this
> NG, which in your case demonstrates rare intelligence because you can't
> possibly do as much without stepping on your dork.

Thanks for confirming that you can't either.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>
>> Well hello again Maxie. Never get tired of seeing your deeply incisive,
>> informative and thoughtful posts.
>
> Well I wish I could say the same about you. But you always have to drift
> the thread around until it all about you.
>
> What's the deal with all the name
>> changes though. Can't seem to make any sense out of why you bother doing
>> it. Why not just post with the Maxwell moniker. Just wondering??
>> :-))
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Only because the name Maxwell was too often forged. Maxwell was not my
> real name, so who cares, I'll just take another.
>
> I think thoughts and ideas are more important on the Usenet. But that's
> just me.

So in other words, you'd rather be known for your singular rock hard
stupidity rather than your first NG nym, which was a sock puppet to begin
with. Do you really expect your delusional and incoherent ramblings to be
interpreted as anything more than a monument to your stupidity?

[Mike[_22_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:DAlxk.733$Dj1.673@trnddc02...
>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Liar. Are you so stupid you can't follow a thread one post long.
>>
>> Hey Okie, crank up that one brain cell and explain how he ever proposed
>> such a solution to the problem you just pulled out of your a$$?
>>
>> Pushing in the carb heat with the throttle on a go around is taught by,
>> hmmm let's see here 1,2,...251...carry the 4, uhm every friggin CFI on
>> the face of the earth to every 2 hr+ student pilot on the face of the
>> earth (assuming it was missed in the first hour).
>>
>> Jeez you are one dumb-as-a-day-old-dog-turd Okie, and only prove over and
>> over again that you have exactly zip experience when it comes to planes
>> that don't have a 101 keyboard and a mouse attached as standard
>> equipment. I can see why you rarely offer anything of a substantive
>> nature in this NG, which in your case demonstrates rare intelligence
>> because you can't possibly do as much without stepping on your dork.
>
> Thanks for confirming that you can't either.

Ah yes, the old tried-and-true "I'm rubber, you're glue" line again.

I'm sure you think you're quite the wit for employing that defense and to
give credit where credit is due, you are half right.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:MLlxk.736$Dj1.292@trnddc02...
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> news:DAlxk.733$Dj1.673@trnddc02...
>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> Liar. Are you so stupid you can't follow a thread one post long.
>>>
>>> Hey Okie, crank up that one brain cell and explain how he ever proposed
>>> such a solution to the problem you just pulled out of your a$$?
>>>
>>> Pushing in the carb heat with the throttle on a go around is taught by,
>>> hmmm let's see here 1,2,...251...carry the 4, uhm every friggin CFI on
>>> the face of the earth to every 2 hr+ student pilot on the face of the
>>> earth (assuming it was missed in the first hour).
>>>
>>> Jeez you are one dumb-as-a-day-old-dog-turd Okie, and only prove over
>>> and over again that you have exactly zip experience when it comes to
>>> planes that don't have a 101 keyboard and a mouse attached as standard
>>> equipment. I can see why you rarely offer anything of a substantive
>>> nature in this NG, which in your case demonstrates rare intelligence
>>> because you can't possibly do as much without stepping on your dork.
>>
>> Thanks for confirming that you can't either.
>
> Ah yes, the old tried-and-true "I'm rubber, you're glue" line again.
>
> I'm sure you think you're quite the wit for employing that defense and to
> give credit where credit is due, you are half right.

Then address the issue, dumb ass.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Lonnie wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well hello again Maxie. Never get tired of seeing your deeply incisive,
>> informative and thoughtful posts.
>
> Well I wish I could say the same about you. But you always have to drift the
> thread around until it all about you.
>
> What's the deal with all the name
>> changes though. Can't seem to make any sense out of why you bother doing
>> it. Why not just post with the Maxwell moniker. Just wondering??
>> :-))
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Only because the name Maxwell was too often forged. Maxwell was not my real
> name, so who cares, I'll just take another.
>
> I think thoughts and ideas are more important on the Usenet. But that's just
> me.
>
>
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

On thread creep; there are actually two entirely seperate issues in
play with this thread as I see it. One of the issues, and one that has
been addressed by others as well as myself, is the issue of changing or
altering a normal and or published procedure, in this case as the
initial poster put it, "setting up a new SOP".
What I'm dealing with is simply the "changing of normal procedure" issue.
FWIW, I usually draw examples from either past or present personal
experience when posting on these forums. I'm sorry you have chosen to
see this as my "blowing my own horn". I assure you this is not now nor
has it ever been my intention to do that.
It's an unfortunate byproduct of Usenet that there will be those who for
one reason or another, find someone as you appear to have found me.
Sorry you feel this way. I'm fairly certain that under different
circumstances, we might have had useful aviation related information to
share with each other.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
>
> On thread creep; there are actually two entirely seperate issues in play
> with this thread as I see it. One of the issues, and one that has been
> addressed by others as well as myself, is the issue of changing or
> altering a normal and or published procedure, in this case as the initial
> poster put it, "setting up a new SOP".
> What I'm dealing with is simply the "changing of normal procedure" issue.
> FWIW, I usually draw examples from either past or present personal
> experience when posting on these forums. I'm sorry you have chosen to see
> this as my "blowing my own horn". I assure you this is not now nor has it
> ever been my intention to do that.
> It's an unfortunate byproduct of Usenet that there will be those who for
> one reason or another, find someone as you appear to have found me.
> Sorry you feel this way. I'm fairly certain that under different
> circumstances, we might have had useful aviation related information to
> share with each other.
>

Sorry, but that wasn't much help.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:MLlxk.736$Dj1.292@trnddc02...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:DAlxk.733$Dj1.673@trnddc02...
>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar. Are you so stupid you can't follow a thread one post long.
>>>>
>>>> Hey Okie, crank up that one brain cell and explain how he ever proposed
>>>> such a solution to the problem you just pulled out of your a$$?
>>>>
>>>> Pushing in the carb heat with the throttle on a go around is taught by,
>>>> hmmm let's see here 1,2,...251...carry the 4, uhm every friggin CFI on
>>>> the face of the earth to every 2 hr+ student pilot on the face of the
>>>> earth (assuming it was missed in the first hour).
>>>>
>>>> Jeez you are one dumb-as-a-day-old-dog-turd Okie, and only prove over
>>>> and over again that you have exactly zip experience when it comes to
>>>> planes that don't have a 101 keyboard and a mouse attached as standard
>>>> equipment. I can see why you rarely offer anything of a substantive
>>>> nature in this NG, which in your case demonstrates rare intelligence
>>>> because you can't possibly do as much without stepping on your dork.
>>>
>>> Thanks for confirming that you can't either.
>>
>> Ah yes, the old tried-and-true "I'm rubber, you're glue" line again.
>>
>> I'm sure you think you're quite the wit for employing that defense and to
>> give credit where credit is due, you are half right.
>
> Then address the issue, dumb ass.

I already did, you subliterate Okie, and well before your ad nauseum "Yes,
exactly" responses to posts you had no hope of comprehending.

Intelligence may have its limits, but you're a living testament to the fact
that stupidity doesn't.

[Lonnie[_3_]]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:Sfmxk.889$Wd.350@trnddc01...
> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> news:MLlxk.736$Dj1.292@trnddc02...
>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>>> news:DAlxk.733$Dj1.673@trnddc02...
>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liar. Are you so stupid you can't follow a thread one post long.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Okie, crank up that one brain cell and explain how he ever
>>>>> proposed such a solution to the problem you just pulled out of your
>>>>> a$$?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pushing in the carb heat with the throttle on a go around is taught
>>>>> by, hmmm let's see here 1,2,...251...carry the 4, uhm every friggin
>>>>> CFI on the face of the earth to every 2 hr+ student pilot on the face
>>>>> of the earth (assuming it was missed in the first hour).
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeez you are one dumb-as-a-day-old-dog-turd Okie, and only prove over
>>>>> and over again that you have exactly zip experience when it comes to
>>>>> planes that don't have a 101 keyboard and a mouse attached as standard
>>>>> equipment. I can see why you rarely offer anything of a substantive
>>>>> nature in this NG, which in your case demonstrates rare intelligence
>>>>> because you can't possibly do as much without stepping on your dork.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for confirming that you can't either.
>>>
>>> Ah yes, the old tried-and-true "I'm rubber, you're glue" line again.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you think you're quite the wit for employing that defense and
>>> to give credit where credit is due, you are half right.
>>
>> Then address the issue, dumb ass.
>
> I already did, you subliterate Okie, and well before your ad nauseum "Yes,
> exactly" responses to posts you had no hope of comprehending.
>
> Intelligence may have its limits, but you're a living testament to the
> fact that stupidity doesn't.

You're a liar.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:Sfmxk.889$Wd.350@trnddc01...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> news:MLlxk.736$Dj1.292@trnddc02...
>>>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:DAlxk.733$Dj1.673@trnddc02...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liar. Are you so stupid you can't follow a thread one post long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey Okie, crank up that one brain cell and explain how he ever
>>>>>> proposed such a solution to the problem you just pulled out of your
>>>>>> a$$?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pushing in the carb heat with the throttle on a go around is taught
>>>>>> by, hmmm let's see here 1,2,...251...carry the 4, uhm every friggin
>>>>>> CFI on the face of the earth to every 2 hr+ student pilot on the face
>>>>>> of the earth (assuming it was missed in the first hour).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeez you are one dumb-as-a-day-old-dog-turd Okie, and only prove over
>>>>>> and over again that you have exactly zip experience when it comes to
>>>>>> planes that don't have a 101 keyboard and a mouse attached as
>>>>>> standard equipment. I can see why you rarely offer anything of a
>>>>>> substantive nature in this NG, which in your case demonstrates rare
>>>>>> intelligence because you can't possibly do as much without stepping
>>>>>> on your dork.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for confirming that you can't either.
>>>>
>>>> Ah yes, the old tried-and-true "I'm rubber, you're glue" line again.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you think you're quite the wit for employing that defense and
>>>> to give credit where credit is due, you are half right.
>>>
>>> Then address the issue, dumb ass.
>>
>> I already did, you subliterate Okie, and well before your ad nauseum
>> "Yes, exactly" responses to posts you had no hope of comprehending.
>>
>> Intelligence may have its limits, but you're a living testament to the
>> fact that stupidity doesn't.
>
> You're a liar.

How do I know you're not lying?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Lonnie wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
>>
>> On thread creep; there are actually two entirely seperate issues in play
>> with this thread as I see it. One of the issues, and one that has been
>> addressed by others as well as myself, is the issue of changing or
>> altering a normal and or published procedure, in this case as the initial
>> poster put it, "setting up a new SOP".
>> What I'm dealing with is simply the "changing of normal procedure" issue.
>> FWIW, I usually draw examples from either past or present personal
>> experience when posting on these forums. I'm sorry you have chosen to see
>> this as my "blowing my own horn". I assure you this is not now nor has it
>> ever been my intention to do that.
>> It's an unfortunate byproduct of Usenet that there will be those who for
>> one reason or another, find someone as you appear to have found me.
>> Sorry you feel this way. I'm fairly certain that under different
>> circumstances, we might have had useful aviation related information to
>> share with each other.
>>
>
> Sorry, but that wasn't much help.
>
>
>

For once you're right.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:41382e98-ee2e-45a8-
:

> On Sep 8, 12:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > That observation is in conflict with my experience. Everytime I've
>> > gotten carb ice in the pattern has been on a clear day.
>>
>> But not a clear dry one.
>
> Well ok. Dry in the sense of visible moisture; yes, no visible
> moisture. However, we know that humidy is the key to carb ice so there
> had to be some humidy. But what type of solution is that? You teach
> students to subtract the dew point from the temp in order to decide
> when to turn off carb heat. That just sounds complicated for little
> gain.

Yeah, of course.I wasn't offering it as a solution, though. My statement
was a bit vaue, though.
Here's what I actually do. With a small continental I would pull the
carb heat on downwind a good bit before I pulled the power. I'd leave it
on through the approach and kncok it off very short finals, when I have
a moment to knock i off. If I thought it was a good day for carb ice, I
might leave it on through the landing. If I'm not flying that particular
airplane a lot, I might forget, but I do make a rule of locating it in
relation to the throttle so that I can push it off if I have to go
around. Most airplanes have it arranged so that it's easy to do that
with the notable exception of quadrant cherokees. Stearmans are also a
PITA if you're in the rear cockpit. If reaching it without distracting
yourself form the primary task of flying the airplane is a problem, I
either get rid of it early on if the engine is not particularly
susceptible, like a cherokee, for instnace, or I'd just leave it on and
live with the performance decrement, like in a W670 powered Stearman.
Better 90% power than none at all.
I used to fly a lot of old airplanes and carb heat was always applied
often so I haven't gotten it very often at all. I have gotten it a few
tims with Continentals, Wrights and Pratts, but I can't remember a
single instance of carb ice on a modern Lycoming. Not to say it couldn't
happen.

Bertie


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> > wrote in message
> news:ea6628f5-c97a-4d45-814d-1b94063932c3
@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 8, 5:11 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>> Well ok. Dry in the sense of visible moisture; yes, no visible
>>> moisture. However, we know that humidy is the key to carb ice so
there
>>> had to be some humidy. But what type of solution is that? You teach
>>> students to subtract the dew point from the temp in order to decide
>>> when to turn off carb heat. That just sounds complicated for little
>>> gain.
>>
>> It's not complicated. If the temp and dewpoint are 3 or 5 or
>> 8 degrees (Celcius) apart, ice is likely. If they're 25 degrees
apart,
>> it's not. Anyone can print out the carb ice risk chart (Google "carb
>> ice") and stick it where it's handy.
>> Here in Canada, the regs say this:
>>
>> "602.72 The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, before commencing
a
>> flight, be familiar with the available weather information that is
>> appropriate to the intended flight."
>>
>> I would imagine the FAA has something equivalent to that.
>>
>> So some sort of weather information is mandatory, and that
>> would include temp and dewpoint. There's no excuse for being
surprised
>> by carb ice. None at all. Like I tell my students, "You wouldn't dive
>> into water without making sure there were no hazards in it that might
>> injure you (hard or sharp pointy things under the surface, predators,
>> and so on) and that it wasn't one degree above freezing. Why would we
>> take off into air about which we know nothing?
>>
>> Dan
>
> You want to argue awareness of conditions to justify dropping carb
heat,
> when dropping carb heat is not necessary to solve the OP's issue?
>

You're an idiot, control freak boi.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in news:tUTwk.37828$Fr1.10841
@newsfe03.iad:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Lycomings, no problem with your plan at all. Continentals ice a bit
>>>> more easily, and on a clear dry day, there won't be a problem
either,
>>>> though I'd be inclined to leave it on just a bit longer. I'd also
get
>>>> in the habit of pushing the carb heat in with the throttle if you
go
>>>> around..
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Your a dumb ass. What next, practicing emergency landings by turning
>>> off the fuel?
>>>
>>> If you don't like an engines throttle response with carb heat on,
>>> turning off the carb heat is NOT the solution.
>>
>>
>> Didn't say it was, fjukkktard.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Liar. Are you so stupid you can't follow a thread one post long.
>

Yeh, right wannabe boi..



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Sep 8, 12:54 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > That observation is in conflict with my experience. Everytime I've
>> > gotten carb ice in the pattern has been on a clear day.
>>
>> But not a clear dry one.
>
> Well ok. Dry in the sense of visible moisture; yes, no visible
> moisture. However, we know that humidy is the key to carb ice so there
> had to be some humidy. But what type of solution is that? You teach
> students to subtract the dew point from the temp in order to decide
> when to turn off carb heat. That just sounds complicated for little
> gain.
>

You're an idiot, Maxie.



Go play wiht your guns.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Lonnie" <@_#~#@.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:DAlxk.733$Dj1.673@trnddc02...
>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Liar. Are you so stupid you can't follow a thread one post long.
>>
>> Hey Okie, crank up that one brain cell and explain how he ever
>> proposed such a solution to the problem you just pulled out of your
>> a$$?
>>
>> Pushing in the carb heat with the throttle on a go around is taught
>> by, hmmm let's see here 1,2,...251...carry the 4, uhm every friggin
>> CFI on the face of the earth to every 2 hr+ student pilot on the face
>> of the earth (assuming it was missed in the first hour).
>>
>> Jeez you are one dumb-as-a-day-old-dog-turd Okie, and only prove over
>> and over again that you have exactly zip experience when it comes to
>> planes that don't have a 101 keyboard and a mouse attached as
>> standard equipment. I can see why you rarely offer anything of a
>> substantive nature in this NG, which in your case demonstrates rare
>> intelligence because you can't possibly do as much without stepping
>> on your dork.
>
> Thanks for confirming that you can't either.
>
>
>
>

For ****'s sake Maxie, you can't even do a decent IKYABWAI post.



Bertie

[Alan Gerber]

Jon Woellhaf > wrote:
> I was taught to push in the carb heat with my thumb while advancing the
> throttle for a go-around.

That won't work so well in a Piper. You need to do one, then the other.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Alan Gerber]

terry > wrote:
> On short final when sure of
> making it in, we turn off carby heat so we are ready to do a quick go
> around if a kangaroo hops onto the runway. But I guess you guys dont
> have kangaroos. :<)

We have some in the zoos, but they don't usually make it out to the
airports.

What we do have, though, is deer. I just did a go-around yesterday
because they were having dinner right at the edge of the runway.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com