My wife getting scared

BTW, did your 540 overhaul only cost $20k? That sounds like a steal!

Well, that was 5 years ago now, so figure 20% higher today.

And, the guy is just a gem. He's fair, and incredibly knowledgable...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Shirl wrote:

I'd be interested to know, of those who survive engine failures or other
occurrences that bring airplanes down, what percentage give up flying.


I had a low altitude engine failure in my first plane (it was totalled). I
never seriously contemplated quitting. Three days after I was released from
the hospital, I joined a flying club and got checked out in one of their
planes. That was 14 yrs. and about 1800 flying hours ago.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Jay Honeck wrote:
There was a Cherokee
235 that crashed last year after the wings departed the fuselage, thus
far for reasons unknown. Did the pilot yank the yoke back in his lap
at redline? Or was it just metal fatigue in our old fleet, like the
Grumman seaplane in Florida?


I know the final report isn't out on that accident, but the preliminaries
showed obvious signs of overstress failures to both the wings and the tail.
It is not unusual for wings to come off of a GA plane when control is lost
(as seems to be the case in the Cherokee 235) and the recovery is done
improperly ( which is often the case if the pilot has had no aerobatic
training or extensive unusual attitude recovery training).

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

"Longworth" wrote

Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number.

Sounds like it would be more fun than the best roller coaster ride!

I had only
done it once on my own after the training but plan to do it more
often. I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
maneuver can harm my engine. Even if it does shorten the life of my
engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
flawlessly all the time. I may never need to use the skill for real
but knowing that I am ready to do it in any situation boosts my
confidence tremendously. Besides, it is sheer exhilaration practicing
the maneuver. Definitely worth the price of the engine overhaul ;-)

It sounds like you do have your priorities in line, with the right
compromises of possible engine life sacrifice (a matter not clearly
established) and skills maintenance.

Doing a chop and drop when your engine isn't as hot as a firecracker should
not be harmful, in the least bit. Considerations of the towplane engine
long life is a good example, and one that is hard to argue with. They are
no doubt pretty hot when they start their rapid descent to pick up another
tow.

If one were to start the rapid drop (engine failure simulations) after
letting the engine cool a bit (by reducing power settings, or richening the
mixture, or both) and stabilize for a few minutes, the amount of additional
cooling from that power level, even in a worst case scenario, should not
cause a measurable increase in wear. It is mainly the hot piston cooling
more slowly than the cylinder bore, cutting down on the clearances, that can
increase wear. The stabilizing should eliminate that problem, all together.

The concern of hitting the throttle for a go around may be a concern,
although it is hard to see why that is any harder on the engine as the
takeoff full power applications. If that go around full power is what
concerns you, (or Jay) don't do a go around, except for the occasional
practice, (or real go-around) then just do the full stop, taxi back and
takeoff after everything is nicely cooled down.

I agree with the people that are saying that the practice of emergency
engine failures would have to be a good thing to practice. Doing it
carefully as to not damage your engine would seem to be prudent. Not doing
them may be not prudent.
--
Jim in NC

"Big John" wrote

Continued to fly GA and instruct, after retirement, until came down
with A-Fib which I felt it was not then safe for me to fly.

Now get my kicks from reading and posting to users groups )

Do you ever get the chance (or have the desire) to go up with friends and
knock about a bit?
--
Jim in NC

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news
Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
given time and place.
It ain't much......but it helps!

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

You are exactly right.

I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in late
1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been relieved
on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in, even the
replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I had an
instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go crash in
the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we
did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45
minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option.
Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew. The
GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. G

Goes to show, you CAN handle a bad situation, IF you remember your training.

Regards,
Paul
PS Sorry about the misplaced thanks!!

Paul Riley wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news
Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
given time and place.
It ain't much......but it helps!

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

You are exactly right.

I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in late
1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been relieved
on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in, even the
replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I had an
instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go crash in
the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we
did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45
minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option.
Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew. The
GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. G

Goes to show, you CAN handle a bad situation, IF you remember your training.

Regards,
Paul
PS Sorry about the misplaced thanks!!



Reminds me of that great line from Fate Is The Hunter by Ernie Gann.
With engines going out one by one on their DC6 on the GCA into Thule I
think it was, the pilot (Rod Taylor) is happily singing away with "Blue
Moon". It's 0-0 and the co-pilot, realizing that they only will have one
shot at the landing is REALLY getting worried. Finally he can't stand it
any longer and interrupts Taylor's singing;
"How the hell can you be so damn calm?"
"Don't worry" says Taylor, "The runway will be there".
"Suppose we screw up the approach. Suppose the radar is off a degree or
two. Suppose the controller is tired. How the HELL are you so certain
the damn runway will actually be there?"
Taylor stops singing just as the number 3 goes dry on fuel. He looks
over laughing at the Co-Pilot and says quietly with a smile,
"Because it HAS to be there, that's why!".
Then they break out and make the landing.
You have to love this story. Gann could really put a flying yarn
together sitting on that mountaintop home of his.
D

--
Dudley Henriques

Jay Honeck wrote:
You may not agree, and maybe your mechanic doesn't agree ... but as said
in an earlier post, if you think about all the airplanes in flight
schools that are doing simulated engine failures far more frequently
than we would (some much more powerful than an 0-320 ... I can't
remember what engine you have), there would be many more engine problems
in rental/school airplanes than there are if there's nothing worse for
an engine than simulated engine-outs.

My mechanic -- a guy with over 40 years of experience as an IA, A&P,
grand champion home builder, and owner of an engine and prop shop --
says it this way:

The average privately owned GA aircraft is flown AT MOST once a week.
As a result, rust (from inactivity) is the #1 killer of the average,
privately owned GA engine. Many don't make TBO because of
inactivity.

Touch & goes are the #1 worst thing you can do to your engine. Flight
school planes do them all day long, but it's because they are flown
daily, sometimes 8 hours per day, and they therefore NEVER experience
the ravages of inactivity. Therefore, although it's STILL the worst
thing you can do, the engines often make it to TBO simply because they
are flown all day, every day.

Engine out practice is essentially the same engine management
procedure as a touch & go. Long periods of high power, followed by
suddenly low RPM, followed by a sudden application of power at the
end. Bad, bad, bad.

I don't believe the data supports this as being bad, bad, bad.

Matt

My mechanic -- a guy with over 40 years of experience as an IA, A&P,
grand champion home builder, and owner of an engine and prop shop --

Is he a pilot? airplane owner?

He's an expert pilot, and a very experienced owner. He has hand-built
several airplanes from scratch -- no "kit planes" for him. (His next
project will be to recreate -- from photos only -- a 1916 aircraft
that flew out of Grinnell, IA.)

They make it to TBO because they are flown many hours per week, the
numbers add up fast, and they are monitored, inspected and maintained
every 100 hours (which might be every other month) ... not simply
because flying them every day enables the engine to withstand doing the
"worst" possible thing 75% of the time it is in use.

Correct. That's what I was aiming to say, even it if didn't come out
quite right.

And you do half of that every time you take off and land. That doesn't
damage your engine, but the one extra application of power during a
touch-n-go or go-around is going to do your engine in?

Well, your engine has a limited number of those cycles in it. It's
the same thing I explain to my 17 year old son: Yes, you can floor
the car and spin the rear wheels a certain number of times, without
harming the engine. Sooner or later, though, that kind of treatment
*will* break something.

Airplanes are no different. Cycling from full power to idle is just a
bad thing to do with your engine.

Plenty of people practice touch-n-goes in their own airplanes ... if
they are THAT damaging to an engine, we'd be hearing of this engine
damage all the time. People with Cubs or other small tailwheels are out
doing touch-n-goes ALL THE TIME...doesn't seem to bother their engines.

Is this damage something you can quantify? When my buddy's engine
crapped out 700 hours before TBO, was it directly attributable to his
doing a zillion touch & goes?

I don't know, but I can safely say that if he had simply let his
engine run at a steady-state 2200 RPM, it would still be running
today. THAT is an indication of the wear and tear inherent with full
power/idle power engine management, versus cruise flight.

I understand and agree about inactivity and that most privately-owned
airplanes aren't flown enough. But you're saying that an engine that
flies for 8 hours/month and does touch-n-goes/engine-out practice during
ONE of those hours is more likely to be damaged than an engine that
flies 80 hours a month and does the damaging maneuvers during 60 of
those hours. If it's THAT bad, subjecting it to 60 hours a month would
still take a heavy toll even it flies every day.

I would agree with that. Full power/idle power cycles are very hard
on engines -- and that is what you're doing in a touch & go.

In fact, wasn't part of your training getting so familiar with
the airplane that you know how it acts and reacts to as many different
conditions/configurations as possible? How can you do that if you're
afraid that touch-n-goes or simulated engine failures are going to ruin
the engine?

Touch & goes aren't necessary to practice after your first 1000 or so
landings, IMHO. If you don't have it down pat by then, a few more
T&Gs isn't gonna help, and the beating your plane takes during the T&G
process is something to be avoided.

That's why airplane ads say stuff like "Never used as a trainer."

Engine out practice IS a good thing to do, however, and is why I do
feel badly about my reluctance to do them. I'm thinking maybe we'll
do some next time we go up, maybe at reduced (not idle) power...

I've never seen anything in my engine documentation that says it was
designed to be run every day.

Optimally, in order to run the longest possible number of hours, you
would never shut the engine off. I'll bet a Lycoming could run 10,000
hours easily if all you did was keep it running at 2000 RPM, and keep
adding oil and gas.

But that's not "real world". Looking at trainers at big flight
schools, they usually fly daily, often for many hours per day. And
they usually get some pretty impressive time on their engines that
way. (Hours-wise, not calendar-wise, of course.)

I just spent at least that much, too, and I'm sure as heck not going to
intentionally abuse the engine. But I'm not going to skip some aspects
of ongoing skill retention drills that I've seen the pay off firsthand
in an emergency because I'm thinking about the $20K I just spent.

Yep, I agree. You're the voice of experience here, which is why I'm
engaged in this thread. I *am* worried about not practicing the
procedures enough, but I just don't want to shorten the lifespan of a
very expensive engine needlessly...

In skating, we used to teach students that they could expect to lose up
to 25% of their actual ability/competence during their 4 minute routine
in a competition due to nerves and pressure; so if they wanted to show
the judges 100% of their capabilities, they have to be skating at 125%
in the weeks prior to the competition. I don't know if those numbers
translate to flying, but I think the concept itself does. I would hate
to lose a percentage of my ability in an actual emergency if I was only
at 80% to begin with. YMMV, of course. Everyone's different.

Agree. Staying sharp is your best defense.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
So, I've seen scads of real-life experience that says that shock cooling
is just not real. The real part is people who don't practice engine-out
landings and then crumple an airplane botching the real thing.

I don't believe shock cooling exists, either. Or, if it does, it's
fairly insignificant.

But I do believe that repeated and sudden applications of full power
are harder on an engine than steady-state operation. Touch & goes
and engine out practice require this type of engine operation.

Engines have vibration and resonances that vary with RPM. Running at a
constant RPM for long periods of time causes a certain wear pattern on
certain parts. Varying RPM over time induces different vibration an
part resonances and spreads the wear over different areas. This isn't a
bad, bad, bad thing.

Matt