Flying with the Carb-Heat on for a long(er) tour?

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
I just want to take this opportunity to totally, 100%, and unreservedly
agree with Peter

I know you do that just to **** me off!

You get upset when people agree with you?

That explains a lot.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

Thanks everyone for your replies...

Next time I'll fly with the rpm I want, and use Carb Heat below the
green arc as the POH recommends.

BTW: the Bay Tour definitely causes 'Ohh's and 'Ahh's. Even the first
two times I went (no pax) it was tough to stay focused on
traffic/airspace and not just enjoy the view. PS: Now (with pax) I
won't touch a camera at all, and just scan for traffic - as I've seen
quite a bit of traffic going North/South between the GGB and KHAF -
not to mention the low flying tours around the GGB and San Francisco.

Cheers,
Noah

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
You get upset when people agree with you?

No, just Roger. I only get ****ed off because I know he's doing it to ****
me off.

(Smiley there. Just like in the last post, which you seemed to have
missed).

That explains a lot.

Like what?

Pete

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Peter,

echnically, at that altitude you
theoretically wouldn't need to, based on the POH.


Wrong. Most all POHs tell you to lean at any altitude AT CRUISE POWER
SETTINGS.

Wrong? Completely? So wrong that you found it so very important to follow
up to say so? Amazing. In any case...

Not all do. Many state or imply that leaning is not necessary below 3000'
or 5000', for example. And it may even be true that leaning isn't *really*
necessary, from an operational point of view. But engine will be much
happier if you do. I don't have the POH he's using, so I have no idea what
it says. My comments were offered purely in the hypothetical, so I don't
see how you can make an unqualified assertion that they were wrong.

My point is that, even if the POH says you don't need to lean, one ought to
anyway in this particular case. Do you disagree with the actual point, or
are you so hard up you find it necessary to critique embedded statements
that could be construed as being flatly incorrect, even when they aren't?

Pete

Peter,

Hey, your fuse is really short (so what else is new?) ;-)

You and I know that "Don't lean below xxxx feet" is one of the baddest,
wrongest, silliest (are those words?) OWTs (Old Wive's Tales) in
aviation. So, IMHO, we need to do all we can to keep it from getting
propagated. That's all I was trying to do.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Hey, your fuse is really short (so what else is new?) ;-)

Yes, I have a low tolerance for people like you who see a need to label a
person wrong, no matter how much you have to stretch your interpretation of
what they said to do it.

You and I know that "Don't lean below xxxx feet" is one of the baddest,
wrongest, silliest (are those words?) OWTs (Old Wive's Tales) in
aviation. So, IMHO, we need to do all we can to keep it from getting
propagated. That's all I was trying to do.

Not that I could tell. The ONLY thing your post claimed was that not all
POHs provide an altitude below which one doesn't lean the engine. Which is
true, but in no way contradicts anything I wrote.

You made no comment whatsoever regarding actual operations. You only
contested your perception of what I wrote (which wasn't accurate anyway).

Pete