Extended full-power in small pistons

[Mxsmanic]

The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and prop
settings should not be used for extended periods. What counts as an extended
period, and what happens to the engine if these recommended (or mandatory)
limits are exceeded?

[[email protected]]

On Jan 1, 2:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and prop
> settings should not be used for extended periods. *What counts as an extended
> period, and what happens to the engine if these recommended (or mandatory)
> limits are exceeded?

On a sim, nothing.

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and
> prop
> settings should not be used for extended periods. What counts as an
> extended
> period, and what happens to the engine if these recommended (or mandatory)
> limits are exceeded?

Anything over five minutes will cause the engine to explode.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

>
> Anything over five minutes will cause the engine to explode.

Or, in some cases, like in Bonanzas, Barons, and R182's, the prop can
suddenly depart the aircraft. It is a well established problem from running
at max power for extended periods of time. The actual time it takes for this
to occur depends on a number of conditions, such as ambient temperature,
CHT, age and hours on the engine and oil, etc.
>
>

[Peter Dohm]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
>
> But that's ok because the ejection seat fires automatically...
>
My back hurts!

Peter :-(

[Monk]

On Jan 1, 4:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and prop
> settings should not be used for extended periods. *What counts as an extended
> period, and what happens to the engine if these recommended (or mandatory)
> limits are exceeded?

I got a good chuckle out of all the other answers. You guys are so
bad. <g>

Here's my crack at answering this question. To operate the engine
above and beyond it's design will result in premature engine wear and
tear. Also at or above the design parameters, the engine is not
getting adequate lubrication and/or cooling, again resulting in
premature wear and tear or possibly even cause engine seizure. This
wear and tear will also shorten the Time Between Overhaul TBO.

Monk

[Tman[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and prop
> settings should not be used for extended periods. What counts as an extended
> period,

Depends; Is PIC renter, owner, or employee?

T

[Mxsmanic]

Monk writes:

> Here's my crack at answering this question. To operate the engine
> above and beyond it's design will result in premature engine wear and
> tear. Also at or above the design parameters, the engine is not
> getting adequate lubrication and/or cooling, again resulting in
> premature wear and tear or possibly even cause engine seizure. This
> wear and tear will also shorten the Time Between Overhaul TBO.

Okay, thanks. The last POH I looked at (Bonanza or Baron, not sure which)
said that it was "not recommended," which sounded gentler than "forbidden,"
and implied that it just wasn't a good idea, but wouldn't necessarily cause a
catastrophic failure of the engine.

The POH also seems to imply that operating with full throttle at less than
maximum RPM is okay, and so is operating with maximum RPM but less than full
throttle. I think it also says something about not being at maximum EGT for
too long.

I was mainly worried that exceeding some mysterious limit would cause an
engine failure in flight.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Anthony, your response again demonstrates your fundamental ignorance about
flying. Since when do throttle and RPM control EGT? What does EGT have to do
with engine performance and longevity? Since when do full throttle and RPM
produce maximum EGT?

It's a good thing you actually don't fly. The limitations in the POH
obviously would not make sense to you, since you don't have a grasp of the
fundamentals of engine operation.

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 2, 10:41*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and prop
> settings should not be used for extended periods. *What counts as an extended
> period, and what happens to the engine if these recommended (or mandatory)
> limits are exceeded?

TBF goes down.

Cheers

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and
> prop
> settings should not be used for extended periods. What counts as an
> extended
> period, and what happens to the engine if these recommended (or mandatory)
> limits are exceeded?

I guess I need to apologise for my previous remark. As it turns out, I mis
read the question.

My aircraft has large pistons, not small ones, and my remarks refer to
aircraft with large pistons, not small pistons.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

I would personally like to thank Anthony for supplying us with comedy so
early in the year- may he continue to demonstrate his ignorance throughout
the remainder of the new year and provide us with opportunities for further
enjoyment.

[buttman]

On Jan 2, 9:11*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> I would personally like to thank Anthony for supplying us with comedy so
> early in the year- may he continue to demonstrate his ignorance throughout
> the remainder of the new year and provide us with opportunities for further
> enjoyment.

did this mxmanic guy kill you dog or something, you just always seem
so...mad when replying to his threads.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

No, never mad- he is just a source of amusement.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> No, never mad- he is just a source of amusement.

Are you sure that is the impression you create?

[Flydive]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Anthony, your response again demonstrates your fundamental ignorance about
> flying. Since when do throttle and RPM control EGT? What does EGT have to do
> with engine performance and longevity? Since when do full throttle and RPM
> produce maximum EGT?
>
> It's a good thing you actually don't fly. The limitations in the POH
> obviously would not make sense to you, since you don't have a grasp of the
> fundamentals of engine operation.
>
>
>

In his post I don't read anything about RPM or throttle controlling EGT.

You should read more carefully before going all out on your attack.

Can't you guys just answer a question, even if from MX?
Maybe it would be useful for someone else.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Flydive" > wrote in message
...
| Viperdoc wrote:
| > Anthony, your response again demonstrates your fundamental ignorance
about
| > flying. Since when do throttle and RPM control EGT? What does EGT have
to do
| > with engine performance and longevity? Since when do full throttle and
RPM
| > produce maximum EGT?
| >
| > It's a good thing you actually don't fly. The limitations in the POH
| > obviously would not make sense to you, since you don't have a grasp of
the
| > fundamentals of engine operation.
| >
| >
| >
|
| In his post I don't read anything about RPM or throttle controlling EGT.
|
| You should read more carefully before going all out on your attack.
|
| Can't you guys just answer a question, even if from MX?
| Maybe it would be useful for someone else.

He specifically states power and prop settings which directly correlate to
RPM, Manifold Pressure and EGT.

And the question is being posed by Mx, which correlates directly to
bull****.

I would think anyone who has actually operated a gas powered lawnmower or
weed eater would be smart enough to realize the issues with operating at
excessive power and RPM settings. Especially since he proclaims to be an
expert on everything from physics to breast feeding.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
| Viperdoc writes:
|
| > No, never mad- he is just a source of amusement.
|
| Are you sure that is the impression you create?

It's not about creating an impression. It's all about laughing at an
ignorant, arrogant asshole.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

I am not worried about the impression I create, any more than the one you
create when you ask your inane questions and provide your own pedantic
responses, all in the face of absolutely no flying experience.

[Flydive]

Maxwell wrote:

> He specifically states power and prop settings which directly correlate to
> RPM, Manifold Pressure and EGT.

Not the way I read it:

The POH also seems to imply that operating with full throttle at less than
maximum RPM is okay, and so is operating with maximum RPM but less than full
throttle. I think it also says something about not being at maximum EGT for
too long.


>
> And the question is being posed by Mx, which correlates directly to
> bull****.
>
> I would think anyone who has actually operated a gas powered lawnmower or
> weed eater would be smart enough to realize the issues with operating at
> excessive power and RPM settings. Especially since he proclaims to be an
> expert on everything from physics to breast feeding.


That might be, but just answering more bull**** doesn't help someone,
maybe a new pilot, interested in the answer.

It also doesn't help the newsgroup itself, which unfortunately looks
more and more dead, this been one of the reasons

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

And what POH are you taking this information from? Are they the one from
Anthony's imagination?

And, what do max throttle and max RPM have to do with EGT, and what do these
have to do with CHT or engine life?

If you know the answer, give him one. Of course, there is no answer, since
his basic premise and assumptions show his ignorance about engines.

This, and any other newsgroup, are dynamic and are going where the threads
take them- they are not the Bible or the constitution- there is nothing
sacred or reverent about it, and there is no making it what you want or
think it should be.

[Flydive]

Viperdoc wrote:
> And what POH are you taking this information from? Are they the one from
> Anthony's imagination?
>
> And, what do max throttle and max RPM have to do with EGT, and what do these
> have to do with CHT or engine life?
>
> If you know the answer, give him one. Of course, there is no answer, since
> his basic premise and assumptions show his ignorance about engines.
>
> This, and any other newsgroup, are dynamic and are going where the threads
> take them- they are not the Bible or the constitution- there is nothing
> sacred or reverent about it, and there is no making it what you want or
> think it should be.
>
>


I did not take it from any POH, I just copy/pasted what MX wrote, and in
that he doesn't say anything about RPM and throttle being related to EGT.
The RPM/Throttle and the max EGT are two separate statements.

RPMs do have something to do engine life, just try to run yours always
at 100%

Then of course you can read it the way it suit best your arguments.

I'm not trying to make this newsgroup the way i like it, but this is a
group about aviation and in general threads should be related to aviation.

Yes i see what kind of character is MX, but quite often his question and
related answers could be quite interesting for someone wanting to learn
about aviation.

It does no good to anybody to answer with insults or the usual "you
don't fly", "simboy" and so on, if not for the ego of the one trying to
come up first with a "wise" comment.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Flydive" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| I did not take it from any POH, I just copy/pasted what MX wrote, and in
| that he doesn't say anything about RPM and throttle being related to EGT.
| The RPM/Throttle and the max EGT are two separate statements.

But they are all still interrelated in reality, regardless of his question.

|
| RPMs do have something to do engine life, just try to run yours always
| at 100%
|
| Then of course you can read it the way it suit best your arguments.
|
| I'm not trying to make this newsgroup the way i like it, but this is a
| group about aviation and in general threads should be related to aviation.
|
| Yes i see what kind of character is MX, but quite often his question and
| related answers could be quite interesting for someone wanting to learn
| about aviation.

If someone else wants to know, then let someone else ask. Far too many of us
have had far too much of Mx.

|
| It does no good to anybody to answer with insults or the usual "you
| don't fly", "simboy" and so on, if not for the ego of the one trying to
| come up first with a "wise" comment.
|

If you believe that, then you need to spend a little more time trying to
rationalize with Mx. You may be an experience pilot or engineer, but this is
clearly Anthony 101 for you, and many of us have our PhD in his behavior.

[Flydive]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Flydive" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> |
> | I did not take it from any POH, I just copy/pasted what MX wrote, and in
> | that he doesn't say anything about RPM and throttle being related to EGT.
> | The RPM/Throttle and the max EGT are two separate statements.
>
> But they are all still interrelated in reality, regardless of his question.

Well before you were saying that RPM, throttle, and EGT were not
interrelated, now they are.(true)



>
> |
> | RPMs do have something to do engine life, just try to run yours always
> | at 100%
> |
> | Then of course you can read it the way it suit best your arguments.
> |
> | I'm not trying to make this newsgroup the way i like it, but this is a
> | group about aviation and in general threads should be related to aviation.
> |
> | Yes i see what kind of character is MX, but quite often his question and
> | related answers could be quite interesting for someone wanting to learn
> | about aviation.
>
> If someone else wants to know, then let someone else ask. Far too many of us
> have had far too much of Mx.

Maybe that someone didn't think about that problem, but seeing the
question he would like to know the answer


>
> |
> | It does no good to anybody to answer with insults or the usual "you
> | don't fly", "simboy" and so on, if not for the ego of the one trying to
> | come up first with a "wise" comment.
> |
>
> If you believe that, then you need to spend a little more time trying to
> rationalize with Mx. You may be an experience pilot or engineer, but this is
> clearly Anthony 101 for you, and many of us have our PhD in his behavior.

Is quite a while that I follow the NG, even if is true mostly lurking,
and I know MX and the way he behaves and I would sure not try to
rationalize with him. Still I believe that a correct answer to his
(eventually avoiding arguing his usual comeback) or anybody else
question would be more helpful to everybody than the usual name calling.

Just a thought.

[JJ[_2_]]

Flydive wrote:

> It does no good to anybody to answer with insults or the usual "you
> don't fly", "simboy" and so on, if not for the ego of the one trying to
> come up first with a "wise" comment.
>

The wise course is just to killfile the person you are arguing with because he
does not understand the first rule of trolling, response is all.

JJ

[[email protected]]

On Jan 2, 1:54 pm, Flydive > wrote:

> I did not take it from any POH, I just copy/pasted what MX wrote, and in
> that he doesn't say anything about RPM and throttle being related to EGT.
> The RPM/Throttle and the max EGT are two separate statements.
>
> RPMs do have something to do engine life, just try to run yours always
> at 100%.


Most "smaller" aircraft engines are certified to produce full
rated horsepower at full rated RPM for the full TBO of the engine.
Look up the TCDS sometime for any engine you want. See the FAA
website. If the POH specifies a five-minute limit at full throttle ort
full RPM or both, then that limit should be stuck with. If the POH
doesn't say it, then you'll likely find, in the cruise settings
charts, RPMs as high as redline and the fuel flows and airspeeds
expected for that setting. Fixed-pitch props are often designed so
that full throttle in level cruise will give redline RPM or something
very close to it. When we break in a new Lycoming, we operate it as
they say, which is with the last half-hour of the 3.5 hour flight at
redline RPM, which takes full throttle at around 5,000 feet. Sea level
will be similar, since the higher power generated there is absorbed by
the higher prop drag and thrust created.

Dan

[Paul kgyy]

As a few of the people who actually understand this stuff have pointed
out, continuous operation at full power does increase wear and tear.
It has little to do with EGT, because EGTs are generally quite low
under full power. A more serious issue is CHT.

A very common practice with the TCM IO520 is to leave the throttle at
full throughout the climb. This produces a good rich (cooling)
mixture and gets you up to cooler air quickly. Most pilots do reduce
RPM slightly to increase engine longevity and provide better cooling
(higher airspeeds also help here at the expense of rate of climb). A
lot of the turbo guys run 80-90% power at altitudes in the teens.

Mixture is used in cruise (and in climb) as a tool to manage CHT and
fuel consumption.

[Peter Dohm]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 10:41 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and
> prop
> settings should not be used for extended periods. What counts as an
> extended
> period, and what happens to the engine if these recommended (or mandatory)
> limits are exceeded?

TBF goes down.

Cheers

-------------

Actually, in the case of the smaller engines like the O-200 and O-325, I
would not hazard a guess about the effect on TBF; but I would certainly
expect that increased wear would decrease the TBO.

OTOH, let us not forget that this thread, like so many others, was started
by our favorite troll--who "flys" only simulations of turbojet powered
transport aircraft and sophisticated recip powered aircraft such as the
Beech Baron.

Therefore, keeping in mind that this is really a simulation, I respectfully
suggest the following: In the event that Anthony has exceeded the
manufacturer's powerplant recommendations, he should simulate the required
teardown inspection of his simulated engines by ceasing use of his simulator
for a month and further by donating two months of his gross income to the
the nearest church.

All the best.

Peter :-))))))

[a[_3_]]

On Jan 2, 6:56*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jan 2, 10:41 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and
> > prop
> > settings should not be used for extended periods. What counts as an
> > extended
> > period, and what happens to the engine if these recommended (or mandatory)
> > limits are exceeded?
>
> TBF goes down.
>
> Cheers
>
> -------------
>
> Actually, in the case of the smaller engines like the O-200 and O-325, I
> would not hazard a guess about the effect on TBF; but I would certainly
> expect that increased wear would decrease the TBO.
>
> OTOH, let us not forget that this thread, like so many others, was started
> by our favorite troll--who "flys" only simulations of turbojet powered
> transport aircraft and sophisticated recip powered aircraft such as the
> Beech Baron.
>
> Therefore, keeping in mind that this is really a simulation, I respectfully
> suggest the following: *In the event that Anthony has exceeded the
> manufacturer's powerplant recommendations, he should simulate the required
> teardown inspection of his simulated engines by ceasing use of his simulator
> for a month and further by donating two months of his gross income to the
> the nearest church.
>
> All the best.
>
> Peter *:-))))))

Remember also we pay 100 penny dollars for 100 octane low lead, and
100 penny dollars for overhaul costs. We are very careful about how we
run our IO 360. It sees full throttle a lot, but we manage rpm and
other things to reduce our real money costs. "Balls to the wall" on
takeoff to 500 feet agl most of the time, then we manage the engine
and airspeed as condtitions dictate. We baby the engine -- no shock
heating, no shock cooling, cowl flaps and cht are part of all that.

Only in extreme conditions (carrying a load of ice, of a downdraft
comes to mind) would we be operating at anywhere near the extreme
engine limits. Gee, real pilots read the same manuals and manager
their airplanes differently.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Most "smaller" aircraft engines are certified to produce full
> rated horsepower at full rated RPM for the full TBO of the engine.
> Look up the TCDS sometime for any engine you want. See the FAA
> website. If the POH specifies a five-minute limit at full throttle ort
> full RPM or both, then that limit should be stuck with. If the POH
> doesn't say it, then you'll likely find, in the cruise settings
> charts, RPMs as high as redline and the fuel flows and airspeeds
> expected for that setting. Fixed-pitch props are often designed so
> that full throttle in level cruise will give redline RPM or something
> very close to it. When we break in a new Lycoming, we operate it as
> they say, which is with the last half-hour of the 3.5 hour flight at
> redline RPM, which takes full throttle at around 5,000 feet. Sea level
> will be similar, since the higher power generated there is absorbed by
> the higher prop drag and thrust created.

Interesting.

I found the page I had looked at before, for the Bonanza. It's a chart that
shows manifold pressure (from 20 to 25.5) vs. RPM (from 1700 to 2700). On the
left side there's a shaded area that says "Not recommended for cruise power
settings." There's a bell-shaped area in the middle that says "continuous
operation at peak EGT permitted." There's a squared-off section on the right
(with 25 in. and 2500 RPM as its upper right corner) that says "Continuous
operation at EGTs hotter than 20° below peak EGT (rich side or lean side) is
not approved in this area."

First, what's the difference between "not recommended" and "not approved"? I
have the feeling that this wording is not chosen at random. What bad things
might happen in each of these areas of the chart?

Second, why would peak EGT be okay for certain pressures and RPMs, but not for
the highest combinations of RPM and pressure? If it were just an issue of
exhaust heat alone, I'd expect no distinction to be made--peak EGT would
always be okay. The fact that this isn't stated implies that peak EGT in
combination with certain pressures and RPMs implies other changes in the
engine state that are potentially bad or harmless--what might those be? Maybe
cylinder heat temperatures or something? Do aircraft normally have CHT gauges
in addition to (or in place of) EGT gauges?

Third, why doesn't the manual give a specific time limit? How long does
temporary have to be before it becomes continuous? What would be an example
of each?

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student buttman > wrote:
> On Jan 2, 9:11?am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>> I would personally like to thank Anthony for supplying us with comedy so
>> early in the year- may he continue to demonstrate his ignorance throughout
>> the remainder of the new year and provide us with opportunities for further
>> enjoyment.
>
> did this mxmanic guy kill you dog or something, you just always seem
> so...mad when replying to his threads.

If you aren't familiar with the guy, go here:

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=mxsmanic

He commonly exhibits extremely annoying behaviors including but not
limited to:

- Asking questions and then refusing to accept the answers.

- Selectively quoting posts when replying to eliminate inconvenient
context and, in extreme cases, make it look like someone said something
completely different from what they actually said.

- Refusing to distinguish between simulators and reality even when that
difference can be extremely significant, to the point of not even
mentioning the fact that his activities take place on a computer instead
of in the air.

- Denying the knowledge of highly experienced and intelligent posters,
while simultaneously acting like a top expert after light and frequently
erroneous reading.

Perhaps my favorite incident was when he called me a bad pilot after I
described how I have difficulty landing a simulated glider in X-Plane
using a $20 USB joystick as my only controller. He's pretty crazy
(although I find him amusing) and richly deserves every ounce of the scorn
which is heaped upon him every time he shows himself here.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[a[_3_]]

On Jan 2, 7:35*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Most "smaller" aircraft engines are certified to produce full
> > rated horsepower at full rated RPM for the full TBO of the engine.
> > Look up the TCDS sometime for any engine you want. See the FAA
> > website. If the POH specifies a five-minute limit at full throttle ort
> > full RPM or both, then that limit should be stuck with. If the POH
> > doesn't say it, then you'll likely find, in the cruise settings
> > charts, RPMs as high as redline and the fuel flows and airspeeds
> > expected for that setting. Fixed-pitch props are often designed so
> > that full throttle in level cruise will give redline RPM or something
> > very close to it. When we break in a new Lycoming, we operate it as
> > they say, which is with the last half-hour of the 3.5 hour flight at
> > redline RPM, which takes full throttle at around 5,000 feet. Sea level
> > will be similar, since the higher power generated there is absorbed by
> > the higher prop drag and thrust created.
>
> Interesting.
>
> I found the page I had looked at before, for the Bonanza. *It's a chart that
> shows manifold pressure (from 20 to 25.5) vs. RPM (from 1700 to 2700). *On the
> left side there's a shaded area that says "Not recommended for cruise power
> settings." *There's a bell-shaped area in the middle that says "continuous
> operation at peak EGT permitted." *There's a squared-off section on the right
> (with 25 in. and 2500 RPM as its upper right corner) that says "Continuous
> operation at EGTs hotter than 20° below peak EGT (rich side or lean side) is
> not approved in this area."
>
> First, what's the difference between "not recommended" and "not approved"? *I
> have the feeling that this wording is not chosen at random. *What bad things
> might happen in each of these areas of the chart?
>
> Second, why would peak EGT be okay for certain pressures and RPMs, but not for
> the highest combinations of RPM and pressure? *If it were just an issue of
> exhaust heat alone, I'd expect no distinction to be made--peak EGT would
> always be okay. *The fact that this isn't stated implies that peak EGT in
> combination with certain pressures and RPMs implies other changes in the
> engine state that are potentially bad or harmless--what might those be? Maybe
> cylinder heat temperatures or something? Do aircraft normally have CHT gauges
> in addition to (or in place of) EGT gauges?
>
> Third, why doesn't the manual give a specific time limit? *How long does
> temporary have to be before it becomes continuous? *What would be an example
> of each?

Here is a clue. Peak egt is different for different power settings,
and too high an exhaust gas temperature can do bad things to valves
and pistons. Highest temps occur near peak power. We control the
temperature by adjusting the mixture so there is less than
stoichometric combustion to keep those temperatures controlled.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> Here is a clue. Peak egt is different for different power settings,
> and too high an exhaust gas temperature can do bad things to valves
> and pistons. Highest temps occur near peak power. We control the
> temperature by adjusting the mixture so there is less than
> stoichometric combustion to keep those temperatures controlled.

Hmm ... okay. Somehow I was thinking that peak EGT would always be the _same_
temperature, but that's not necessarily true--it would simply be the maximum
temperature for a specific situation. So the peak EGT for max pressure and
RPM would not necessarily be the same temperature as peak EGT for modern
pressure and RPM, and the former might be too high for internal components,
whereas the latter would not.

Does that make sense?

I'm amazed at all the complications of piston engines on small aircraft. Big
jets used to have a flight engineer with a whole panel of controls and
instruments, but they managed to eliminate that with various forms of
automatic and engine design changes. And yet the same has not happened on
small aircraft: you practically have to be a mechanic to be a pilot, at least
in small piston aircraft. It seems like a hazardous distraction--a pilot
should be able to dedicate himself to flying, not to tweaking an engine.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Michael Ash" > wrote

> If you aren't familiar with the guy, go here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=mxsmanic
>
> He commonly exhibits extremely annoying behaviors including but not
> limited to:
>
> - Asking questions and then refusing to accept the answers.
>
> - Selectively quoting posts when replying to eliminate inconvenient
> context and, in extreme cases, make it look like someone said something
> completely different from what they actually said.
>
> - Refusing to distinguish between simulators and reality even when that
> difference can be extremely significant, to the point of not even
> mentioning the fact that his activities take place on a computer instead
> of in the air.
>
> - Denying the knowledge of highly experienced and intelligent posters,
> while simultaneously acting like a top expert after light and frequently
> erroneous reading.
>
> Perhaps my favorite incident was when he called me a bad pilot after I
> described how I have difficulty landing a simulated glider in X-Plane
> using a $20 USB joystick as my only controller. He's pretty crazy
> (although I find him amusing) and richly deserves every ounce of the scorn
> which is heaped upon him every time he shows himself here.

Well put!!!!!!

You mind if I use the above to answer people about MX? That sums it up
pretty well, although I am sure others could add their own illustration,
too.
--
Jim in NC

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Anthony:

You are wrong again- which cylinder are you monitoring when you watch the
EGT? How about the CHT? Real jet pilots do more than push the levers forward
as well- just because you don't know or understand doesn't make it any less
important.

What make and model Bonanza? Is it NA, turbocharged or TN? What does it say
in the STC supplement?

Managing and monitoring the engines are part of flying, not a hazardous
distraction- you simply don't understand and are trying to extrapolate your
lack of reference to actual flying.

And, by your responses, you still don't understand even the most basic
concepts of running an engine, whether it's a turbine or piston driven.
Besides, it won't matter since all you do is play a game, so try to keep it
in perspective.

It doesn't matter to you or your imaginary passengers- there are no
consequences.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 2, 7:42*pm, Michael Ash > wrote:

> Perhaps my favorite incident was when he called me a bad pilot after I
> described how I have difficulty landing a simulated glider in X-Plane
> using a $20 USB joystick as my only controller. He's pretty crazy
> (although I find him amusing) and richly deserves every ounce of the scorn
> which is heaped upon him every time he shows himself here.

My favorite?

When he said he saw no difference between my vidoes posted on You Tube
and MSFX.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I'm amazed at all the complications of piston engines on small aircraft. Big
> jets used to have a flight engineer with a whole panel of controls and
> instruments, but they managed to eliminate that with various forms of
> automatic and engine design changes. And yet the same has not happened on
> small aircraft: you practically have to be a mechanic to be a pilot, at least
> in small piston aircraft. It seems like a hazardous distraction--a pilot
> should be able to dedicate himself to flying, not to tweaking an engine.

This is the kind of amusing idealism that is common from someone not very
well versed in the real world.

I used to feel the same way, but reality simply is not cooperative in this
respect. Technology can compensate to some degree. You no longer need to
know very much about cars at all to own one (for which I am eternally
grateful). But you still need to know some things. The car can't protect
you against everything. You still have to think about when to get your oil
changed (even if the computer reminds you), you still have to know that
shifting into reverse while on the highway is not a good move, etc.

It's very rare for a person to be able to do anything meaningful as a 100%
pure experience. He always needs to be versatile and know many different
things to really perform well. A good pilot will incorporate these
"extraneous" things (even though they really aren't extraneous) into their
routine until they become automatic. They pose little or no distraction
from other tasks in this way.

If you think engine management is distracting, you should see what *I*
have to go through to stay aloft. All sorts of thinking going on there.
And yet I and every other glider pilot manages to fly the plane too.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Morgans > wrote:
> Well put!!!!!!

Well shucks, thanks. :)

> You mind if I use the above to answer people about MX? That sums it up
> pretty well, although I am sure others could add their own illustration,
> too.

Please feel free. I'm honored that you think it worthy of such.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student > wrote:
> On Jan 2, 7:42?pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
>
>> Perhaps my favorite incident was when he called me a bad pilot after I
>> described how I have difficulty landing a simulated glider in X-Plane
>> using a $20 USB joystick as my only controller. He's pretty crazy
>> (although I find him amusing) and richly deserves every ounce of the scorn
>> which is heaped upon him every time he shows himself here.
>
> My favorite?
>
> When he said he saw no difference between my vidoes posted on You Tube
> and MSFX.

That's pretty good.

I'm reminded me of that Calvin and Hobbes strip where he goes around
comparing reality with TV, reality losing at every turn. The colors aren't
as bright, the people are less attractive, and minutes at a time can go by
without a car chase, shoot-out, or sex scene.

Come to think of it, MX reminds me of Calvin, except without any of
Calvin's endearing parts. But the deliberate obtuseness, high capacity for
fantasy, and extremely high opinion of self seems very Calvinesque to me.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> No it doesn't. There is no "modern pressure." Sorry.

Sorry, I meant manifold.

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> This is the kind of amusing idealism that is common from someone not very
> well versed in the real world.

I don't think there's anything idealistic about it. My guess is that
certification of engines is so extraordinarily expensive, and private plane
owners are so (relatively) poor, that nobody could afford to pay for a truly
modern piston engine. So the same designs are used for decades.

The situation is different with airlines, because they have more money and can
save more money. The economics favor advances in engine design and control,
and certification is much less of an expense.

At least that's my guess. But it does keep private pilots back in the 1940s.

> I used to feel the same way, but reality simply is not cooperative in this
> respect. Technology can compensate to some degree. You no longer need to
> know very much about cars at all to own one (for which I am eternally
> grateful). But you still need to know some things. The car can't protect
> you against everything. You still have to think about when to get your oil
> changed (even if the computer reminds you), you still have to know that
> shifting into reverse while on the highway is not a good move, etc.

Yes, but you don't have to adjust mixture and timing as you drive. You don't
have to worry about the exhaust temperature. You have a cooling system that
doesn't vary dramatically in efficiency with your speed. And so on.

But automobile engines require virtually nothing in the way of certification.
This has become apparent in some cases when computer controls added to engines
have misbehaved, because manufacturers never bother to design and test them
adequately. The consequences of that would be much worse in the air.

> If you think engine management is distracting, you should see what *I*
> have to go through to stay aloft. All sorts of thinking going on there.
> And yet I and every other glider pilot manages to fly the plane too.

But glider pilots like going through the extra stuff, otherwise they wouldn't
be glider pilots. And you don't have to worry about an engine.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote My favorite?

When he said he saw no difference between my vidoes posted on You Tube
and MSFX.

Yep. that's "special," no doubt.

One of the insights into his mind came when someone posted links to his
blog, and he wrote on and on about going places, to pick up his imaginary
passengers, to fly to imaginary destination, and then having to wait around
the airport until his passengers came back to leave.

He "really" thinks simming is just as good as going places, and better,
because it is less expensive, and safe. Reality, to him, is just a passing
introduction, but he has never become friends. Wow.
--
Jim in NC

[Flydive]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Anthony:
>
> You are wrong again- which cylinder are you monitoring when you watch the
> EGT? How about the CHT? Real jet pilots do more than push the levers forward
> as well- just because you don't know or understand doesn't make it any less
> important.
>

Well actually you don't really do much more than that, actually most of
the time you don't even do that on modern jet engines apart from monitoring.




> Managing and monitoring the engines are part of flying, not a hazardous
> distraction- you simply don't understand and are trying to extrapolate your
> lack of reference to actual flying.

Well still taking away workload from the pilot is not such a bad thing,
especially when flying single pilot in bad weather or other stressy
situations, and the trend on modern engine is toward that with
electronic engine management.

[Flydive]

Clark wrote:

>
> As Viperdoc said, setting the engine is part of flying. We learn it from
> lesson one which, by the way, you've chosen not to take.
>
> We spend countless hours learning how to fly and manage the aircraft. Why
> do you think a question on usenet and a toy simulator can even begin to
> relate to that? Go back to your sim world and stay the hell away from here.
>

As I said answering to Viperdoc, the trend is towards relieving the
pilot of the workload of managing the engine, which is not a bad thing.
It is true that with modern engine technology the aviation piston engine
is a bit behind times

[Viperdoc]

There is no question that it would be ideal to have an aircraft engine work
like a car engine, e.g. FADEC. However, complexity also adds further
possible failure modes. In reality, most piston engines simply require
setting the power for take off, then cruise, and finally descent. It is not
hard at all to do, nor does it add dramatically to the work load (and I have
two engines to consider in my plane).

Turbines have even less to control, but perhaps a few more dials to monitor.
It is all part of flying.

Rather than defend or justify Anthony's now increasing list of comebacks and
partial responses, or criticising the other posters, why not answer his
question?

[Viperdoc]

Anthony:
You are wrong again- most of the avionics in private planes are well
advanced over those found in airliners (ever see the cockpit of an MD-80
compared to a G-1000 Bonanza, of course not).

Your comments about soaring are also specious- you even know less about
gliders than powered flight.

[Viperdoc]

Actually, your premise about babying an engine may not be true. Is there
data that supports this "gentle" use of an engine adds to longevity?

My own plane, as well as others with the same type (an Extra 300) are
essentially operated in an on/off mode. It generally is full power (2700RPM
and full throttle) on TO, cruise to the practice area, and then on/off, with
no regard to shock cooling or heating- full power straight up, power off to
spin, then full power on the recovery. Gyroscopic maneuvers (with a
composite prop)- no problem with cranks.

Yet, with 400 hours of this operation on my plane (and many/many others
according to the reps), none have required an overhaul, with some up to
1,000h of similar operation.

Likewise, Lycoming and Continental always gave some hand waving response to
questions about running LOP, yet, Cirrus, with now many thousands of hours
of LOP operations now mandate operating in this realm.

So, a lot of what is considered "safe and prudent" operating may be more of
an old wive's tale, and not supported by actual data.

[John Smith]

Viperdoc wrote:
> There is no question that it would be ideal to have an aircraft engine work
> like a car engine, e.g. FADEC. However, complexity also adds further
> possible failure modes.

The old argument. Interesting, though, that modern car engines are much
more reliable than older (simpler) ones.

[a[_3_]]

On Jan 3, 9:21*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Actually, your premise about babying an engine may not be true. Is there
> data that supports this "gentle" use of an engine adds to longevity?
>
> My own plane, as well as others with the same type (an Extra 300) are
> essentially operated in an on/off mode. It generally is full power (2700RPM
> and full throttle) on TO, cruise to the practice area, and then on/off, with
> no regard to shock cooling or heating- full power straight up, power off to
> spin, then full power on the recovery. Gyroscopic maneuvers (with a
> composite prop)- no problem with cranks.
>
> Yet, with 400 hours of this operation on my plane (and many/many others
> according to the reps), none have required an overhaul, with some up to
> 1,000h of similar operation.
>
> Likewise, Lycoming and Continental always gave some hand waving response to
> questions about running LOP, yet, Cirrus, with now many thousands of hours
> of *LOP operations now mandate operating *in this realm.
>
> So, a lot of what is considered "safe and prudent" operating may be more of
> an old wive's tale, and not supported by actual data.

You could be right. Never the less, our TBO is determined by tach
hours, and we are happy to run at 1950 at altitude instead of 2600. It
could be a old wives tale, but rapid temp change does different things
to metals than does more gradual changes as well. We'll continue to
fly with a gentle hand -- it pleases us to do so, even if there's a
possibility it doesn't prolong engine life or reliability. I am pretty
persuaded it does, but can offer no evidence. It would be interesting
to have a mechanic examine enough engines flown with different flight
algrithyms to see if he could detect a difference or estimate service
life -- a single blind protocol, if you will.

[[email protected]]

On 3-Jan-2009, "Viperdoc" > wrote:

> Likewise, Lycoming and Continental always gave some hand waving response
> to
> questions about running LOP, yet, Cirrus, with now many thousands of hours
>
> of LOP operations now mandate operating in this realm.
>
> So, a lot of what is considered "safe and prudent" operating may be more
> of
> an old wive's tale, and not supported by actual data.

You might want to read through this article:

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/troubleshooting/resources/SSP700A.pdf

Scott Wilson

[Viperdoc]

There is a lot of "may", or "can" in their article, but no data. On the
other hand, Cirrus as well as the folks at TAT actually present data,
something that Lycoming and Continental have yet to produce.

I suspect that both companies are not interested in doing any testing or
changing their many year old operating instructions in order to limit their
liability exposure.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> This is the kind of amusing idealism that is common from someone not very
>> well versed in the real world.
>
> I don't think there's anything idealistic about it. My guess is that
> certification of engines is so extraordinarily expensive, and private plane
> owners are so (relatively) poor, that nobody could afford to pay for a truly
> modern piston engine. So the same designs are used for decades.

What a total non sequitur. The idealism was referring to your statement
that it would be great if pilots could just concentrate on the flying and
ignore the engine. Well it's true, it would be great, but there's this
little thing called reality which gets in the way.

It's like saying "wouldn't it be great if everybody could just get
together in harmony and we wouldn't fight war no more". Well yes, it
would, but that sort of thinking is still hopelessly idealistic,
especially when you run with it instead of just having it as a passing
fancy.

> The situation is different with airlines, because they have more money and can
> save more money. The economics favor advances in engine design and control,
> and certification is much less of an expense.
>
> At least that's my guess. But it does keep private pilots back in the 1940s.

Airliners may have better engine management systems but it's still there.
And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush. There are great
differences from one type of plane to another.

>> I used to feel the same way, but reality simply is not cooperative in this
>> respect. Technology can compensate to some degree. You no longer need to
>> know very much about cars at all to own one (for which I am eternally
>> grateful). But you still need to know some things. The car can't protect
>> you against everything. You still have to think about when to get your oil
>> changed (even if the computer reminds you), you still have to know that
>> shifting into reverse while on the highway is not a good move, etc.
>
> Yes, but you don't have to adjust mixture and timing as you drive. You don't
> have to worry about the exhaust temperature. You have a cooling system that
> doesn't vary dramatically in efficiency with your speed. And so on.

Yep, but my point is that you still have to think about it to *some*
extent. Try starting the car in -20 degree weather, then immediately
flooring it while in park and holding the pedal to the floor until the gas
runs out. This is going to do bad things. Try driving around in 1st gear
all the time, ditto, even though it will force an upshift at redline. Try
hooking up a big fat trailer to a small car and then driving up and down
big mountains at 70MPH, your transmission will be lucky to last the week.

>> If you think engine management is distracting, you should see what *I*
>> have to go through to stay aloft. All sorts of thinking going on there.
>> And yet I and every other glider pilot manages to fly the plane too.
>
> But glider pilots like going through the extra stuff, otherwise they wouldn't
> be glider pilots. And you don't have to worry about an engine.

And you think that no power pilots like engine management? From what I've
seen, for a significant proportion of these guys, getting maximum
performance out of the engine, minimizing fuel burn, holding CHT to the
exact right value, and tweaking that last few miles of range out of the
engine is an enormous thrill. I don't share in that enthusiasm myself but
it's definitely there in some guys.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[[email protected]]

On 3-Jan-2009, "Viperdoc" > wrote:

> I suspect that both companies are not interested in doing any testing or
> changing their many year old operating instructions in order to limit
> their
> liability exposure.

You may be exactly right. Somewhat irrelevant for me, since my 1978 Cessna
172N doesn't have an EGT gauge or cylinder head temp gauges. My POH says to
lean until the tach drops 25 to 50 RPM, which I've read is supposedly
somewhere slightly lean of peak. My partners say they lean until the tach
drops off, then twist the mixture knob back rich a couple of turns. I do the
25 RPM drop-off method, but I've always been worried I might be causing
damage to the engine, based on what I've read in some of the on-line
articles people on this group recommended. Or maybe my partners are damaging
the engine by doing it their way, if not just wasting some gas. I wish
there was a way to be absolutely sure.
Scott Wilson

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I'm amazed at all the complications of piston engines on small aircraft. Big
> jets used to have a flight engineer with a whole panel of controls and
> instruments, but they managed to eliminate that with various forms of
> automatic and engine design changes. And yet the same has not happened on
> small aircraft: you practically have to be a mechanic to be a pilot, at least
> in small piston aircraft. It seems like a hazardous distraction--a pilot
> should be able to dedicate himself to flying, not to tweaking an engine.

That's because you don't know what you are talking about.

It was the big radial piston engines that had the "whole panel of controls
and instruments".

Turbines by their intrinsic design just don't have that many things you
can adjust in operation.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:

> The situation is different with airlines, because they have more money and can
> save more money. The economics favor advances in engine design and control,
> and certification is much less of an expense.

Apples and oranges.

Private pilots don't generally fly airplanes with huge turbofan enginges.

> Yes, but you don't have to adjust mixture and timing as you drive. You don't
> have to worry about the exhaust temperature. You have a cooling system that
> doesn't vary dramatically in efficiency with your speed. And so on.

Apples and oranges.

Airplane engines are operated at near full power at all times, automobile
engines are seldom operated anywhere near full power.

Automobile engines typically operate at less than 4,000 feet while
airplane engines sans turbo operate to around 10,000 feet. Before the
days of modern fuel injection, people who lived in places like Denver
had different jets in the carb than people down in the flats since cars
didn't have mixture controls.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:
>
> On 3-Jan-2009, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>
>> I suspect that both companies are not interested in doing any testing or
>> changing their many year old operating instructions in order to limit
>> their
>> liability exposure.
>
> You may be exactly right. Somewhat irrelevant for me, since my 1978 Cessna
> 172N doesn't have an EGT gauge or cylinder head temp gauges. My POH says to
> lean until the tach drops 25 to 50 RPM, which I've read is supposedly
> somewhere slightly lean of peak. My partners say they lean until the tach
> drops off, then twist the mixture knob back rich a couple of turns. I do the
> 25 RPM drop-off method, but I've always been worried I might be causing
> damage to the engine, based on what I've read in some of the on-line
> articles people on this group recommended. Or maybe my partners are damaging
> the engine by doing it their way, if not just wasting some gas. I wish
> there was a way to be absolutely sure.
> Scott Wilson

There is; it is called an engine analyzer.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
.. .
>
> On 3-Jan-2009, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>
>> I suspect that both companies are not interested in doing any testing or
>> changing their many year old operating instructions in order to limit
>> their
>> liability exposure.
>
> You may be exactly right. Somewhat irrelevant for me, since my 1978 Cessna
> 172N doesn't have an EGT gauge or cylinder head temp gauges. My POH says
> to
> lean until the tach drops 25 to 50 RPM, which I've read is supposedly
> somewhere slightly lean of peak. My partners say they lean until the tach
> drops off, then twist the mixture knob back rich a couple of turns. I do
> the
> 25 RPM drop-off method, but I've always been worried I might be causing
> damage to the engine, based on what I've read in some of the on-line
> articles people on this group recommended. Or maybe my partners are
> damaging
> the engine by doing it their way, if not just wasting some gas. I wish
> there was a way to be absolutely sure.
> Scott Wilson

I don't know about the 172N, but the manual for the 152 had a very similar
recommendation for lean operation--but it was stated for 60% power (and was
obviously appropriate for less than 60% as well).

What does your POH say about the power setting?

Peter

[[email protected]]

On 3-Jan-2009, wrote:

> There is; it is called an engine analyzer.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Ah yes, the Holy Grail of operating an engine. Not in our budget
unfortunately; our airplane is completely original, including paint,
interior and the original Cessna avionics. The best thing about our airplane
is that we have a little less than 2600 total hours on it, and she's been
hangared all her life so she's in remarkably good condition. But, we need to
upgrade the radios and transponder before we start looking at engine
analyzers. Guess I should've been more clear; I wish there were a way to be
more sure of operating the engine properly without an analyzer. Thanks for
the thought, though!
Scott Wilson

[Frank Olson]

Clark wrote:
> "Beauciphus" > wrote in news:Qpo7l.250572$Mh5.22990
> @bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and
>>> prop
>>> settings should not be used for extended periods. What counts as an
>>> extended
>>> period, and what happens to the engine if these recommended (or mandatory)
>>> limits are exceeded?
>> I guess I need to apologise for my previous remark. As it turns out, I mis
>> read the question.
>>
>> My aircraft has large pistons, not small ones, and my remarks refer to
>> aircraft with large pistons, not small pistons.
>>
> braggart!
>
>


Hey... In aviation, the size of your piston counts.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> There is no question that it would be ideal to have an aircraft engine work
> like a car engine, e.g. FADEC. However, complexity also adds further
> possible failure modes.

True, but nowadays most of the complexity is in the G1000, not the engines.
I'd trust a FADEC in an airliner long before I'd trust a G1000. Many glass
cockpits are far too complex and far too poorly tested.

It's odd that pilots would object to a more modern engine on the one hand, but
are more than willing to install the iffy technology of a glass cockpit.

> In reality, most piston engines simply require
> setting the power for take off, then cruise, and finally descent. It is not
> hard at all to do, nor does it add dramatically to the work load (and I have
> two engines to consider in my plane).

So losing things like mixture and prop control really wouldn't take anything
away from the pilot, anyway. So why not do it?

> Rather than defend or justify Anthony's now increasing list of comebacks and
> partial responses, or criticising the other posters, why not answer his
> question?

Why haven't you answered the question yourself?

[Mxsmanic]

John Smith writes:

> The old argument. Interesting, though, that modern car engines are much
> more reliable than older (simpler) ones.

That reliability doesn't come from the computers, it comes from improved
mechanical engineering and manufacturing.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> You are wrong again- most of the avionics in private planes are well
> advanced over those found in airliners (ever see the cockpit of an MD-80
> compared to a G-1000 Bonanza, of course not).

Airliners set a higher standard for safety. I definitely would not want to
see a G1000 anywhere near an airliner flight deck.

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> What a total non sequitur. The idealism was referring to your statement
> that it would be great if pilots could just concentrate on the flying and
> ignore the engine. Well it's true, it would be great, but there's this
> little thing called reality which gets in the way.

Reality didn't seem to get in the way of simplification in airliners. You
don't see too many flight engineers these days.

> Airliners may have better engine management systems but it's still there.

Yes, but it's done by computer, not the pilots, and design improvements have
made management less necessary.

> And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush.

I don't. There are plenty of smart ones around.

> Yep, but my point is that you still have to think about it to *some*
> extent.

That doesn't justify having to think about it to a _large_ extent.

> And you think that no power pilots like engine management?

Oh, I'm sure there are a few. There's always someone in the neighborhood with
his car up on blocks, and I'm sure aviation is the same way.

> From what I've
> seen, for a significant proportion of these guys, getting maximum
> performance out of the engine, minimizing fuel burn, holding CHT to the
> exact right value, and tweaking that last few miles of range out of the
> engine is an enormous thrill. I don't share in that enthusiasm myself but
> it's definitely there in some guys.

So flying isn't really their purpose, it's just incidental.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Apples and oranges.

Mostly just a difference in economics, I suspect.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It was the big radial piston engines that had the "whole panel of controls
> and instruments".

Jets had them, too.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:
>
> On 3-Jan-2009, wrote:
>
>> There is; it is called an engine analyzer.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Ah yes, the Holy Grail of operating an engine. Not in our budget
> unfortunately; our airplane is completely original, including paint,
> interior and the original Cessna avionics. The best thing about our airplane
> is that we have a little less than 2600 total hours on it, and she's been
> hangared all her life so she's in remarkably good condition. But, we need to
> upgrade the radios and transponder before we start looking at engine
> analyzers. Guess I should've been more clear; I wish there were a way to be
> more sure of operating the engine properly without an analyzer. Thanks for
> the thought, though!
> Scott Wilson

Unfortunately monitoring CHT and EGT on all cylinders is the only way to be
absolutely sure.

Monitoring a single cylinder IMHO is a waste of time and money.

Using the POH leaning method won't achieve either maximum power or
economy, but it will be close enough and it will be safe.

The other plus for monitoring all cylinders is if a problem is developing,
it will usually show up on the monitor before any other symptoms become
noticable.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> That reliability doesn't come from the computers, it comes from improved
> mechanical engineering and manufacturing.

Do you think a contemporary car can run without a computer?- if so, you're
as ignorant about cars as you are about aviation.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> True, but nowadays most of the complexity is in the G1000, not the
> engines.
> I'd trust a FADEC in an airliner long before I'd trust a G1000. Many
> glass
> cockpits are far too complex and far too poorly tested.

An airplane will keep flying without a PFD, all of which require backup. It
will not keep flying without an engine- another example of your flawed
logic.
>
> It's odd that pilots would object to a more modern engine on the one hand,
> but
> are more than willing to install the iffy technology of a glass cockpit.

In your limited opinion it is iffy technology, but it doesn't matter anyway,
since you'll never use it other than in a game.
>
>> In reality, most piston engines simply require
>> setting the power for take off, then cruise, and finally descent. It is
>> not
>> hard at all to do, nor does it add dramatically to the work load (and I
>> have
>> two engines to consider in my plane).
>
> So losing things like mixture and prop control really wouldn't take
> anything
> away from the pilot, anyway. So why not do it?

I never said we should or should not do it- another example of your twisted
responses.
>
>> Rather than defend or justify Anthony's now increasing list of comebacks
>> and
>> partial responses, or criticising the other posters, why not answer his
>> question?
>
> Why haven't you answered the question yourself?

Because the premise of your question was incorrect, and you are a non
sequitor.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

"
>
> Airliners set a higher standard for safety. I definitely would not want
> to
> see a G1000 anywhere near an airliner flight deck.

Again, another unsubstantiated opinion that comes from zero experience.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> Mostly just a difference in economics, I suspect.

Considering you will never pilot an ultralight let alone a 74, the point is
moot.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> Jets had them, too.

How would you know- have you ever flown one?

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> So flying isn't really their purpose, it's just incidental.

And this comment comes from someone who doesn't know the relationships
between EGT, RPM, MP, and mixture, yet he can criticize people who actually
fly?

He asks a naive question, and then is critical of those who actually do fly
and understand how to use the controls?

Anthony, don't worry- just use the mouse and push the controls in as far as
they go on the screen- it won't matter. Or, use your cheap joystick and
achieve the same results.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:

> It's odd that pilots would object to a more modern engine on the one hand, but
> are more than willing to install the iffy technology of a glass cockpit.

Two totally different things.

If the "glass cockpit" fails in VFR, it is little more than an irritant and
in IFR there are backups.

If the engine fails you are pretty much out of options.

> So losing things like mixture and prop control really wouldn't take anything
> away from the pilot, anyway. So why not do it?

Because real airplanes require different mixture and prop settings for
takeoff, climb, cruise, and decent whether that comes from FADEC or
discrete levers.

And since the cost of retrofitting an existing GA airplane engine far
exceeds the value of any advantage to the typical GA pilot, the only
FADEC engines will be in new airplanes where the incremental cost is
trivial.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Apples and oranges.
>
> Mostly just a difference in economics, I suspect.

You suspect incorrectly.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:

> Reality didn't seem to get in the way of simplification in airliners. You
> don't see too many flight engineers these days.
>
>> Airliners may have better engine management systems but it's still there.
>
> Yes, but it's done by computer, not the pilots, and design improvements have
> made management less necessary.

Yes, and that design improvement is called the turbine engine.

Comparing anything to do with the turbine engines on airliners to the
piston engines in GA aircraft is pointless.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It was the big radial piston engines that had the "whole panel of controls
>> and instruments".
>
> Jets had them, too.

Compare the stuff required to keep the 6 R-4360 radials running versus
the 4 turbojets on a B-36 and get back to us when you have a clue.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Noel[_2_]]

John Smith wrote:
> Viperdoc wrote:
>> There is no question that it would be ideal to have an aircraft engine
>> work like a car engine, e.g. FADEC. However, complexity also adds
>> further possible failure modes.
>
> The old argument. Interesting, though, that modern car engines are much
> more reliable than older (simpler) ones.

If all other things are held constant, then simpler is usually more
reliable. Modern car engines have the benefit of much better
manufacturing techniques, better understanding of fatigue,
better oil, etc etc etc.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Smith writes:
>
>> The old argument. Interesting, though, that modern car engines are much
>> more reliable than older (simpler) ones.
>
> That reliability doesn't come from the computers, it comes from improved
> mechanical engineering and manufacturing.

The increased reliability of car engines comes from materials and new
technologies, such as better valves and seats, better spark plugs, and
electronic ignition.

The mechanical engineering and manufacturing abilities haven't changed
other than in increased automation.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Monk]

On Jan 3, 4:45*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > John Smith writes:
>
> >> The old argument. Interesting, though, that modern car engines are much
> >> more reliable than older (simpler) ones.
>
> > That reliability doesn't come from the computers, it comes from improved
> > mechanical engineering and manufacturing.
>
> The increased reliability of car engines comes from materials and new
> technologies, such as better valves and seats, better spark plugs, and
> electronic ignition.
>
> The mechanical engineering and manufacturing abilities haven't changed
> other than in increased automation.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Not you in particular Jim, but all who have responded including
myself. I can't decide which is funnier, the fisherman or the catch?
<g>

[John Smith]

Bob Noel wrote:
> If all other things are held constant, then simpler is usually more
> reliable. Modern car engines have the benefit of much better
> manufacturing techniques, better understanding of fatigue,
> better oil, etc etc etc.

.... and electronic control. Electronic parts are usually much more
reliable than mechanical parts.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Smith writes:
>
>> The old argument. Interesting, though, that modern car engines are much
>> more reliable than older (simpler) ones.
>
> That reliability doesn't come from the computers, it comes from improved
> mechanical engineering and manufacturing.

As a sort of followup to my other post, for anyone still wondering why
everyone hates MX so much, this post is a perfect example. Notice how he:

- Snipped out what John was replying to, making the discussion vastly more
difficult to follow.

- Is combative and argumentative for absolutely no reason.

- Argues against something John did not actually say, but due to the
aforementioned snipping makes it look like John did say it. In this way he
makes himself look like a good guy and makes anyone he responds to look
like the bad guy, but only by completely twisting the other guy's words.

- And, the icing on the cake, after all that crappiness, he is still
wrong.

I've been posting on Usenet and other internet forums for a decade and a
half and in all those years I have *never* seen a troll as masterful, as
clever, or as infuriating as MX. As I said before, the reaction he gets in
here is absolutely justified.

(And yes, I do respond to him from time to time. But only when he's having
a rare reasonable moment, or when he's said something that's really
hilariously dumb.)

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> It's odd that pilots would object to a more modern engine on the one hand, but
> are more than willing to install the iffy technology of a glass cockpit.

Seriously? You really can't grasp the difference? Are you completely daft?
(Yes.)

If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
failure is at worst an annoyance.

If your engine fails in the wrong circumstances then you die.

And yet you can't see why a pilot might be more accepting of failure in
the former case than the latter?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> What a total non sequitur. The idealism was referring to your statement
>> that it would be great if pilots could just concentrate on the flying and
>> ignore the engine. Well it's true, it would be great, but there's this
>> little thing called reality which gets in the way.
>
> Reality didn't seem to get in the way of simplification in airliners. You
> don't see too many flight engineers these days.

There's a difference between simplifying something and eliminating it.

>> Airliners may have better engine management systems but it's still there.
>
> Yes, but it's done by computer, not the pilots, and design improvements have
> made management less necessary.

Not all of it is done by the computer. The pilots still have to know how
the stuff works and how to run it. It is largely to the point where they
can push the lever and get the power, but not 100%. If you believe
otherwise, just look at the circumstances surrounding the recent 777 crash
at Heathrow. The computers didn't save those pilots from a dual flameout
on short final.

>> And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush.
>
> I don't. There are plenty of smart ones around.

I really have to wonder if you realize just how unbelievably insulting
that statement is. If I didn't already view you as being an arrogant and
useless idiot I might get mad....

>> From what I've
>> seen, for a significant proportion of these guys, getting maximum
>> performance out of the engine, minimizing fuel burn, holding CHT to the
>> exact right value, and tweaking that last few miles of range out of the
>> engine is an enormous thrill. I don't share in that enthusiasm myself but
>> it's definitely there in some guys.
>
> So flying isn't really their purpose, it's just incidental.

Your obsession with people's "purpose" is bizarre and nonsensical.
Anything you do while piloting an airplane is "flying", whether it's
cruisng steadily or endlessly fiddling with the engine levers. People fly
for many reasons, and they don't have to meet your insane ideas of
"purpose" to do it.

By your definition, my purpose isn't "flying", it's interpreting weather,
finding lift, planning routes, etc.

By your definition, someone who uses his airplane to fly to meetings
doesn't have "flying" as his purpose, it's just incidental.

Someone who flies around to look at the scenery, ditto. Or enjoys the
challenge of IMC, or chatting with ATC, or the feeling they get from
performing aerobatics.

So, I ask you: what does one have to do in order for "flying" to be their
purpose? And why should anyone care?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[[email protected]]

On Jan 3, 10:10 am, wrote:
> You may be exactly right. Somewhat irrelevant for me, since my 1978 Cessna
> 172N doesn't have an EGT gauge or cylinder head temp gauges. My POH says to
> lean until the tach drops 25 to 50 RPM, which I've read is supposedly
> somewhere slightly lean of peak. My partners say they lean until the tach
> drops off, then twist the mixture knob back rich a couple of turns. I do the
> 25 RPM drop-off method, but I've always been worried I might be causing
> damage to the engine, based on what I've read in some of the on-line
> articles people on this group recommended. Or maybe my partners are damaging
> the engine by doing it their way, if not just wasting some gas. I wish
> there was a way to be absolutely sure.

Lycoming says you can lean your normally-aspirated engine
anyway you like if you're at or below 75% power without damaging it.
See your cruise charts. Detonation is seldom any risk at 75% or less.

Dan

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

This has always been his modus, yet even by his own admissions he is ugly
and a social outcast who can not find a meaningful job on either of two
continents. (go figure). Yet, he will never admit he is ever wrong, and is
the master of the half truth. Who in the world would ever want to work with
such a dork, let alone socialize with him?

At least he supplies comic relief. Never take anything he says as remotely
being true or sincere- it is all only his pathologic attempt at getting the
social attention he lacks in his real life. He is simply an internet
whack-a-mole.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Do you think a contemporary car can run without a computer?

Did I say that?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The increased reliability of car engines comes from materials and new
> technologies, such as better valves and seats, better spark plugs, and
> electronic ignition.

Yes, engineering.

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> I've been posting on Usenet and other internet forums for a decade and a
> half and in all those years I have *never* seen a troll as masterful, as
> clever, or as infuriating as MX.

That's because I'm not a troll.

[Mxsmanic]

John Smith writes:

> ... and electronic control. Electronic parts are usually much more
> reliable than mechanical parts.

But when they are combined with software, the opposite may prove to be true.

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> you practically have to be a mechanic to be a pilot, at least
> in small piston aircraft. It seems like a hazardous distraction--a pilot
> should be able to dedicate himself to flying, not to tweaking an engine.

Let's see now... You don't want to bother with the engine, you don't want to
hand fly the airplane, you don't want to experience the sensations of
flight, and you don't want the expense of real flying.

Doesn't sound like much fun to me.

You could save a bundle simply put an on-off switch on a black box that
reads "pretend I'm flying".

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> An airplane will keep flying without a PFD, all of which require backup.

An airplane without any instruments will fly perfectly well. It's the pilot
who becomes the problem when instruments fail.

> In your limited opinion it is iffy technology, but it doesn't matter anyway,
> since you'll never use it other than in a game.

True, that's one of the advantages of simulation. I'm not betting my life on
inadequately tested software.

> Because the premise of your question was incorrect, and you are a non
> sequitor.

Then why do you suggest that others answer the question? This seems
inconsistent.

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> That's because I'm not a troll.

And you've never had a blog either.

Both are false statements.

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
> window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
> failure is at worst an annoyance.

A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. If the glass fails,
they die.

> If your engine fails in the wrong circumstances then you die.

See above.

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. If the glass
> fails,
> they die.

Nope. Never happens.

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> Not all of it is done by the computer. The pilots still have to know how
> the stuff works and how to run it. It is largely to the point where they
> can push the lever and get the power, but not 100%. If you believe
> otherwise, just look at the circumstances surrounding the recent 777 crash
> at Heathrow. The computers didn't save those pilots from a dual flameout
> on short final.

So what was the cause? Has a final report come out?

> I really have to wonder if you realize just how unbelievably insulting
> that statement is.

To whom?

> Your obsession with people's "purpose" is bizarre and nonsensical.

Purpose is what motivates behavior. It's hard to overemphasize its
importance.

> Anything you do while piloting an airplane is "flying", whether it's
> cruisng steadily or endlessly fiddling with the engine levers.

So going to the toilet or galley qualifies as flying? In that case, I have
flown airplanes.

> So, I ask you: what does one have to do in order for "flying" to be their
> purpose? And why should anyone care?

Why do you ask the question if you don't know why anyone should care?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You suspect incorrectly.

Enlighten me.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> How would you know- have you ever flown one?

The miracle of photography, which eliminates the need to see everything in the
world in person.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The increased reliability of car engines comes from materials and new
>> technologies, such as better valves and seats, better spark plugs, and
>> electronic ignition.
>
> Yes, engineering.

To some degree, but not mechanical engineering which is what you stated and
snipped.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Smith writes:
>
>> ... and electronic control. Electronic parts are usually much more
>> reliable than mechanical parts.
>
> But when they are combined with software, the opposite may prove to be true.

And it may not, which makes your post pointless.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> An airplane will keep flying without a PFD, all of which require backup.
>
> An airplane without any instruments will fly perfectly well. It's the pilot
> who becomes the problem when instruments fail.

A ridiculous, childish line of reasoning.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
>> window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
>> failure is at worst an annoyance.
>
> A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. If the glass fails,
> they die.

Babbling nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Purpose is what motivates behavior. It's hard to overemphasize its
> importance.

Not for you where it has become an obsession.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You suspect incorrectly.
>
> Enlighten me.

The attempt was made; you are too dense to understand.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> How would you know- have you ever flown one?
>
> The miracle of photography, which eliminates the need to see everything in
> the
> world in person.

Wow!!!!!!!!

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:
>>
>> On 3-Jan-2009, wrote:
>>
>>> There is; it is called an engine analyzer.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Ah yes, the Holy Grail of operating an engine. Not in our budget
>> unfortunately; our airplane is completely original, including paint,
>> interior and the original Cessna avionics. The best thing about our
>> airplane
>> is that we have a little less than 2600 total hours on it, and she's been
>> hangared all her life so she's in remarkably good condition. But, we need
>> to
>> upgrade the radios and transponder before we start looking at engine
>> analyzers. Guess I should've been more clear; I wish there were a way to
>> be
>> more sure of operating the engine properly without an analyzer. Thanks
>> for
>> the thought, though!
>> Scott Wilson
>
> Unfortunately monitoring CHT and EGT on all cylinders is the only way to
> be
> absolutely sure.
>
> Monitoring a single cylinder IMHO is a waste of time and money.
>
> Using the POH leaning method won't achieve either maximum power or
> economy, but it will be close enough and it will be safe.
>
> The other plus for monitoring all cylinders is if a problem is developing,
> it will usually show up on the monitor before any other symptoms become
> noticable.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

IIRC, that last was the primary benefit that was originally advertised long
ago.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Frank Olson" > wrote in message
...
> Clark wrote:
>> "Beauciphus" > wrote in news:Qpo7l.250572$Mh5.22990
>> @bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and
>>>> prop
>>>> settings should not be used for extended periods. What counts as an
>>>> extended
>>>> period, and what happens to the engine if these recommended (or
>>>> mandatory)
>>>> limits are exceeded?
>>> I guess I need to apologise for my previous remark. As it turns out, I
>>> mis read the question.
>>>
>>> My aircraft has large pistons, not small ones, and my remarks refer to
>>> aircraft with large pistons, not small pistons.
>> braggart!
>>
>>
>
>
> Hey... In aviation, the size of your piston counts.

And not just in aviation, or so I'm told...

Peter :-)))))

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> You could save a bundle simply put an on-off switch on a black box that
> reads "pretend I'm flying".

But that's what he does, and is why he doesn't have a life and is a loser.
>
>

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> Did I say that?

Yes, since a contemporary car can not run without a computer, and neither
can a commercial jet. Your arguments are specious and circular, as you
boringly always resort when you don't know the answers. You are a great
source of amusement, much like a carnival shooting gallery or a wind up toy.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
>> window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
>> failure is at worst an annoyance.
>
> A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. If the glass fails,
> they die.

Oh no you don't. I'm not going to give you a pass on this one. There are
serious problems with this response and I object strongly.

First, I'm going to have to ask you for some kind of cite for your
statement. Because quite frankly I don't believe it. IFR training involves
a lot of simulated instrument failures, and steam gauges are not exactly
difficult to use.

Second even if we take your statement at face value (which I repeat that I
do not!) there is the small problem that you are simply assuming, without
any evidence or even a simple statement that you're doing it, that the
pilots who object to more modern engines but who accept glass cockpits are
the same pilots who are die when their glass cockpits fail.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> Not all of it is done by the computer. The pilots still have to know how
>> the stuff works and how to run it. It is largely to the point where they
>> can push the lever and get the power, but not 100%. If you believe
>> otherwise, just look at the circumstances surrounding the recent 777 crash
>> at Heathrow. The computers didn't save those pilots from a dual flameout
>> on short final.
>
> So what was the cause? Has a final report come out?

No final report yet, but everything indicates that the loss of engine
power was due to ice in the fuel system, which in turn was due to flying
through unusually cold air.

>> I really have to wonder if you realize just how unbelievably insulting
>> that statement is.
>
> To whom?

You really are the master of destroying context. It's quite astounding.
I'm guessing it's not deliberate, but this kind of thing really looks
extremely sneaky and underhanded. To snip out the supposedly insulting
statement while it's still being discussed is quite simply unacceptable
and makes it look like you're trying to hide it.

So let's restore the thing to its original glory, right here:

>> And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush.
>
> I don't. There are plenty of smart ones around.

Since you're apparently incapable of understanding irony or subtlety
despite supposedly being at least occasionally an ESL teacher, I guess
I'll have to spell out why this is such a terrible thing to say. The
combination of "There are plenty of smart ones" with "I don't paint them
all with the same brush" heavily implies that the brush you're using right
now is the "stupid" brush.

In other words, in the above exchange, you called every private pilot you
talk to "stupid", and implied to a somewhat lesser extent that a lot of
private pilots in general are stupid. And then to really spell it out very
plainly, this implication that the people you're talking to are stupid is
highly insulting.

>> Your obsession with people's "purpose" is bizarre and nonsensical.
>
> Purpose is what motivates behavior. It's hard to overemphasize its
> importance.

Non sequitur. Purpose is important to one's self. Purpose is important
when trying to analyze why someone does something. Purpose is not
important in the sense of continually bringing it up for no reason.

>> Anything you do while piloting an airplane is "flying", whether it's
>> cruisng steadily or endlessly fiddling with the engine levers.
>
> So going to the toilet or galley qualifies as flying? In that case, I have
> flown airplanes.

Ah right, reading comprehension, alongside logic and being nice to people,
is one of those skills you inexplicably lack despite acting as though
you're very smart.

I said "piloting". If you've piloted an airplane while going to the toilet
or galley then yeah, you've flown airplanes. But somehow I doubt that's
the case.

>> So, I ask you: what does one have to do in order for "flying" to be their
>> purpose? And why should anyone care?
>
> Why do you ask the question if you don't know why anyone should care?

Because you bring it up all the time as if it were some sort of flaw and
it's annoying.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> No final report yet, but everything indicates that the loss of engine
> power was due to ice in the fuel system, which in turn was due to flying
> through unusually cold air.

So it wasn't really anyone's fault? What's the recommended solution?

> You really are the master of destroying context. It's quite astounding.
> I'm guessing it's not deliberate, but this kind of thing really looks
> extremely sneaky and underhanded.

Perhaps all the evil you see is in your own interpretation of what you read.

> >> And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush.
> >
> > I don't. There are plenty of smart ones around.
>
> Since you're apparently incapable of understanding irony or subtlety
> despite supposedly being at least occasionally an ESL teacher, I guess
> I'll have to spell out why this is such a terrible thing to say. The
> combination of "There are plenty of smart ones" with "I don't paint them
> all with the same brush" heavily implies that the brush you're using right
> now is the "stupid" brush.

No, it simply states that I make a distinction between smart and stupid
pilots, so I'm not painting them all with the same brush.

> In other words, in the above exchange, you called every private pilot you
> talk to "stupid", and implied to a somewhat lesser extent that a lot of
> private pilots in general are stupid.

I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion.

> And then to really spell it out very
> plainly, this implication that the people you're talking to are stupid is
> highly insulting.

Some people see everything as an insult. I have no control over that; it is a
consequence of their own psychology, not anything that I do.

For example, if you tell one person that she looks nice today, she might say
"Thank you." If you tell another person that she looks nice today, she might
say "What was wrong with the way I looked yesterday?" The problem is at the
receiving end, not the sending end.

If I say, "it's difficult for me to deal with stupid people," and someone says
to me, "you're calling me stupid?" chances are that he thinks of himself as
stupid, and so he assumes that everyone else considers him stupid as well.
That's his psychological problem, not mine.

> Ah right, reading comprehension, alongside logic and being nice to people,
> is one of those skills you inexplicably lack despite acting as though
> you're very smart.

What makes you think that I'm acting?

> > Why do you ask the question if you don't know why anyone should care?
>
> Because you bring it up all the time as if it were some sort of flaw and
> it's annoying.

So you obviously care about it. In that case, why did you say that you don't
know why anyone should care?

[Mxsmanic]

Beauciphus writes:

> Let's see now... You don't want to bother with the engine, you don't want to
> hand fly the airplane ...

You're half right. I don't like fooling around with the engine. I don't mind
hand-flying the airplane, within reason, but on long trips it can get old, and
when flying IFR it can get mighty busy.

> ... you don't want to experience the sensations of
> flight, and you don't want the expense of real flying.

There's a lot to flight besides physical sensations. I'm not surprised that
private pilots emphasize the sensations, since they certainly don't have the
exposure to systems and procedures, but it surprises me when some of them have
such difficulty understanding any viewpoints on the topic other than their
own.

> Doesn't sound like much fun to me.

Thank you for the illustration. See above.

> You could save a bundle simply put an on-off switch on a black box that
> reads "pretend I'm flying".

That would not provide the parts that I find satisfying.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Anthony, you've stated all of the above before. You need to try to remember
that you don't fly at all, IFR or VFR. You obviously don't know even the
basics of engine management, which is a big part of flying, whether in jets
or pistons.

You've stated you don't like stupid people, but here's a clue: the rest of
the posters here think you're the one who's stupid, and by repeatedly
demonstrating it to everyone, it becomes more and more obvious.

However, please keep posting, since you are a great source of amusement.

[Viperdoc]

>
> wouldn't it be great if you all would save your breath in answering this
> idiot?

Not really, he's a great source of amusement.

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, it's simply amazing how you can persist in demonstrating your
stupidity, yet keep coming back for more. It's no wonder you have such
difficulty finding friends or gainful employment

[Viperdoc]

I have an engine analyzer in my twin, and it is extremely useful for
monitoring CHT on those hot days, as well as finding out the bad plug that
occasionally occurs on runup. I always run LOP in cruise, and can generally
get down to around 25gph at 8-10k and 174KTAS. I need to adjust my GAMI
injectors, since the cylinders all don't peak at quite the same fuel flow.

It may not be as useful in a 172, but for IO 470's or larger an dngine
analyzer may make more sense. On the other hand, I also have an AEIO 540
Lycoming, and even without GAMI injectors, the engine peaks symmetrically,
probably due to better fuel flow in the Lycoming versus the Continental.

[Martin Hotze[_3_]]

Viperdoc schrieb:
>> wouldn't it be great if you all would save your breath in answering this
>> idiot?
>
> Not really, he's a great source of amusement.

then move on and take him with you to the appropriate group.

[Viperdoc]

What group would you suggest, since this one no longer involves flying?

[[email protected]]

On Jan 4, 1:55*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:


> There's a lot to flight besides physical sensations. *

Enlighten us?????

[Bob Noel[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> What group would you suggest, since this one no longer involves flying?
>
>
any alt.* group that welcomes trolls and the, er, posters,
that encourage them, just as long as it's not a
rec.aviation. group.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 4, 6:25Â*am, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> Beauciphus schrieb:
>
> > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> That's because I'm not a troll.
>
> > And you've never had a blog either.
>
> > Both are false statements.
>
> wouldn't it be great if you all would save your breath in answering this
> idiot?

Mx is famous for his assumptive knowledge. The definition of
assumption follows:


as·sump·tion [ ə súmpshən ] (plural as·sump·tions)

noun
Definition:

1. something taken for granted: something that is believed to be true
without proof

2. belief without proof: the belief that something is true without
having any proof

3. act of undertaking something: the act of taking something upon
yourself

4. acceptance of responsibility for something: the act of taking over
responsibility for something

5. inclination to high expectations: the tendency to expect too much

6. logic unproved starting point: something taken as a starting point
of a logical proof rather than given as a premise

[13th century. < Latin assumption-< assumpt-, past participle of
assumere (see assume)]

Consider points 1, 2, and 6. Mx assumes he knows everything
already and is therefore unteachable. There's no refuting him, so
there's no point arguing. He's either just trolling for reactions, or
has a complex of some sort. Why do we bother?

Dan

[george]

On Jan 4, 5:49*pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Michael Ash writes:
>
> >> If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
> >> window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
> >> failure is at worst an annoyance.
>
> > A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. *If the glass fails,
> > they die.
>
> Oh no you don't. I'm not going to give you a pass on this one. There are
> serious problems with this response and I object strongly.
>
> First, I'm going to have to ask you for some kind of cite for your
> statement. Because quite frankly I don't believe it. IFR training involves
> a lot of simulated instrument failures, and steam gauges are not exactly
> difficult to use.

In the mad world that anthony occupies there is no need for training
for eventualities.
Hell, ASI, Altimeter and Compass will get you to where you need to go


> Second even if we take your statement at face value (which I repeat that I
> do not!) there is the small problem that you are simply assuming, without
> any evidence or even a simple statement that you're doing it, that the
> pilots who object to more modern engines but who accept glass cockpits are
> the same pilots who are die when their glass cockpits fail.


Anthony doesn't fly and knows nothing of the training we all go
through

[a[_3_]]

On Jan 4, 3:05*pm, Clark > wrote:
> " > wrote in news:e4986c47-c8e5-42b2-b6ae-
> :
>
> > On Jan 4, 1:55*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >> There's a lot to flight besides physical sensations. *
>
> > Enlighten us?????
> f
> The only thing mxy can enlighten us on is the depth of his illness. He does
> it by demonstration.
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

What Anthony does not seem to understand is it does not take much
training to learn to fly an airplane in ordinary circumstances. At
least two thirds of the training hours, and much of the time spent
with another pilot active in the right seat, are devoted to learning
how to fly the airplane when things are not going as they should. In
our case, we are much harder on ourselves than a CFI is. You want
unusual attitudes and combinations of failures? -- come into my parlor
said the spider to the fly. The thing is, that is true with many of
our pilot friends, too. He, on the other hand, simply restarts his
game.

[Peter Dohm]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Michael Ash writes:
>>
>>> If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
>>> window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
>>> failure is at worst an annoyance.
>>
>> A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. If the glass
>> fails, they die.
>>
>>> If your engine fails in the wrong circumstances then you die.
>>
>> See above.
>
> And mxy claims he isn't a troll....rotflmao
>
> Even funnier is how mxy never understands when is is trolled in turn. It
> (mxy) is just hilarious.
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

He is actually an extremely effective troll, and presumably "doing schtick"

There used to be a "sig" but I forgot it

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student a > wrote:
> What Anthony does not seem to understand is it does not take much
> training to learn to fly an airplane in ordinary circumstances. At
> least two thirds of the training hours, and much of the time spent
> with another pilot active in the right seat, are devoted to learning
> how to fly the airplane when things are not going as they should. In
> our case, we are much harder on ourselves than a CFI is. You want
> unusual attitudes and combinations of failures? -- come into my parlor
> said the spider to the fly. The thing is, that is true with many of
> our pilot friends, too. He, on the other hand, simply restarts his
> game.

Yep, exactly right. Any pilot who can't handle a failure is going to die
from it. Avoiding fancy-pants glass panels may extend his life a bit more
but it is not going to save him. The answer to G1000 reliability concerns
isn't to stick with ancient instruments, it's to maintain your necessary
ability to fly safely on backups.

As the readers of this group know, I had an instrument failure a few weeks
ago. It wasn't due to fancy computer-driven avionics, but rather a simple,
foolish assembly mistake. Combined with other factors it resulted in a
very exciting landing, but thanks to my training I had a successful
outcome.

Pilots must train for equipment outages and they do train for equipment
outages. Some may not, but the answer that is to start training for them,
not to avoid computerized avionics.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Any real pilot would agree with you- remember these responses are due to
Anthony's trolling, and nothing more. We also know he is not a pilot and has
never flown, so he is simply looking for attention again.

[Beauciphus]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> so he is simply looking for attention again.

And getting it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> The POH for a number of small piston aircraft warn that high power and
> prop settings should not be used for extended periods. What counts as
> an extended period, and what happens to the engine if these
> recommended (or mandatory) limits are exceeded?
>

You;'re an idiot



Bertie