My wife getting scared

Jay Honeck wrote:
This fear has faded somewhat, now that our kids are teenagers. When
they were in elementary school, Mary was VERY uncomfortable flying
without them (for some reason it's okay WITH them, which is pretty
odd, if you analyze it too much), because of the awful prospect of
them waiting a day or two for relatives to arrive.

I don't think that's odd, Jay. No parent wants anything bad to happen to
their kids, and most would give their own lives to save their children;
but there's also a purely gut instinct that if anything's going to
happen, you hope you're all together, especially when they're
elementary-school age and completely dependent on you. That's both
caring and selfish -- caring in that you KNOW what the aftermath is like
for those left behind (esp kids that age), and selfish in that you don't
want to go and leave them behind to have lives that you won't experience
with them. The redeeming thing is that once they're older and you KNOW
they'd be able to understand, care for themselves (with help) and be
okay if anything happened to you, you can be more okay with them moving
forward in your absence.

Not only is that a possibility if you fly (or fill in the blank with any
other activity), it's also a medical possibility, and we have way less
control over that, assuming we take reasonably good care of ourselves,
than we do over safety in activities. Don't we all know of someone who
was WAY too young when a terminal illness struck without warning and
took them?

On the plus side, this fear has made us VERY meticulous and careful
pilots. Preflights are NEVER omitted, fuel tanks are ALWAYS filled,
gas is ALWAYS tested, maintenance is ALWAYS done. Still, we all know
that "**** happens", and we could become statistics at some point.

Yep. I've been teased that my preflights are like 100-hr inspections. I
do everything you listed above, and it didn't stop the oil cooler from
failing.

Question: how often do you practice simulated engine failures over
places you aren't used to flying patterns? We'd done a simulated engine
failure approach *and landing* on a dirt strip two weeks prior to our
accident. Just having thought about and actually flown the procedure and
then critiqued it later (it went very well but there's always something
you may have done differently/better) may have saved a few precious
seconds in thinking/reacting in the actual emergency. We continue to
practice engine-outs frequently, and not over airports that we're
comfortable flying in and out of -- but it's surprising how many pilots
only do them during BFRs or when getting checked-out in a rental
aircraft.

I always fall back on two facts that comfort me:

1. You can either live, or wait to die. It's up to you.

2. Mary and I could be killed driving on the highway any day of the
week.

Although true, #2 doesn't usually do much to comfort anyone who is
worried about a loved one that flies.

My daughter flies, too. I didn't find out she was soloing until after
the fact, and I appreciate that she spared me -- there was also a method
to her madness as she knew that if I'd known, I'd have been there taking
pictures! But I understood. She's a CFI now and also just became an ATC.
We've flown together some, and I'm comfortable that she's a safe,
competent pilot (and a good CFI) ... but I admit that it's still easier
to hear about her flights after rather than before the fact!

Life is a terminal condition. No one is getting off of this planet
alive. It's up to each of us to make the best of our time here, and
-- in my world -- that means flying.

;-) -- a sentiment most of us agree with. The afternoon of our
accident, when we were driving back to the airport (plane was totaled),
we asked each other if we would fly again, and we both said "I don't
know." That feeling (sadness and uncertainty) lasted for two days. On
the third day, I awoke ANGRY and wanted to complete the flight that we'd
begun the day of the accident.

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

Shirl

Have survived ( just barely ) a engine loss/crash , I went back up as soon
as I could. It was a little bit easier for me as I had no memory of the
accident.

John

"Shirl" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
This fear has faded somewhat, now that our kids are teenagers. When
they were in elementary school, Mary was VERY uncomfortable flying
without them (for some reason it's okay WITH them, which is pretty
odd, if you analyze it too much), because of the awful prospect of
them waiting a day or two for relatives to arrive.

I don't think that's odd, Jay. No parent wants anything bad to happen to
their kids, and most would give their own lives to save their children;
but there's also a purely gut instinct that if anything's going to
happen, you hope you're all together, especially when they're
elementary-school age and completely dependent on you. That's both
caring and selfish -- caring in that you KNOW what the aftermath is like
for those left behind (esp kids that age), and selfish in that you don't
want to go and leave them behind to have lives that you won't experience
with them. The redeeming thing is that once they're older and you KNOW
they'd be able to understand, care for themselves (with help) and be
okay if anything happened to you, you can be more okay with them moving
forward in your absence.

Not only is that a possibility if you fly (or fill in the blank with any
other activity), it's also a medical possibility, and we have way less
control over that, assuming we take reasonably good care of ourselves,
than we do over safety in activities. Don't we all know of someone who
was WAY too young when a terminal illness struck without warning and
took them?

On the plus side, this fear has made us VERY meticulous and careful
pilots. Preflights are NEVER omitted, fuel tanks are ALWAYS filled,
gas is ALWAYS tested, maintenance is ALWAYS done. Still, we all know
that "**** happens", and we could become statistics at some point.

Yep. I've been teased that my preflights are like 100-hr inspections. I
do everything you listed above, and it didn't stop the oil cooler from
failing.

Question: how often do you practice simulated engine failures over
places you aren't used to flying patterns? We'd done a simulated engine
failure approach *and landing* on a dirt strip two weeks prior to our
accident. Just having thought about and actually flown the procedure and
then critiqued it later (it went very well but there's always something
you may have done differently/better) may have saved a few precious
seconds in thinking/reacting in the actual emergency. We continue to
practice engine-outs frequently, and not over airports that we're
comfortable flying in and out of -- but it's surprising how many pilots
only do them during BFRs or when getting checked-out in a rental
aircraft.

I always fall back on two facts that comfort me:

1. You can either live, or wait to die. It's up to you.

2. Mary and I could be killed driving on the highway any day of the
week.

Although true, #2 doesn't usually do much to comfort anyone who is
worried about a loved one that flies.

My daughter flies, too. I didn't find out she was soloing until after
the fact, and I appreciate that she spared me -- there was also a method
to her madness as she knew that if I'd known, I'd have been there taking
pictures! But I understood. She's a CFI now and also just became an ATC.
We've flown together some, and I'm comfortable that she's a safe,
competent pilot (and a good CFI) ... but I admit that it's still easier
to hear about her flights after rather than before the fact!

Life is a terminal condition. No one is getting off of this planet
alive. It's up to each of us to make the best of our time here, and
-- in my world -- that means flying.

;-) -- a sentiment most of us agree with. The afternoon of our
accident, when we were driving back to the airport (plane was totaled),
we asked each other if we would fly again, and we both said "I don't
know." That feeling (sadness and uncertainty) lasted for two days. On
the third day, I awoke ANGRY and wanted to complete the flight that we'd
begun the day of the accident.

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

Shirl

Question: how often do you practice simulated engine failures over
places you aren't used to flying patterns?

Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine has far
outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There is simply nothing
you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated
engine-out landings, so we do them very rarely.

We used to practice them regularly in rental birds...

;-)

My daughter flies, too. I didn't find out she was soloing until after
the fact, and I appreciate that she spared me -- there was also a method
to her madness as she knew that if I'd known, I'd have been there taking
pictures!

Hee hee! I even created a webpage for our son's solo flight, much to
his dismay. (Although I think he appreciates it now...)

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

Well, my mentor experienced an engine-out landing in a corn field. He
did it expertly, neither damaging himself nor the plane. He flew a
few times after that incident, perhaps to prove to himself that he
could (?), but to my knowledge (he lives in Texas now, so we've lost
touch) he's never flown again.

I think his wife -- an adamant anti-flyer -- had a lot to do with
that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Shirl:
Question: how often do you practice simulated engine failures over
places you aren't used to flying patterns?

Jay:
Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine has far
outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There is simply nothing
you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated
engine-out landings, so we do them very rarely.

I just had a major engine overhaul done (Lycoming O-320) by a reputable
place. We're still in the break-in phase (15 hours to first oil change,
25 hours with no unusual airwork or touch-n-goes). I'm going to call and
ask the engine shop what their thoughts are about simulated engine
failures harming a healthy engine.

We used to practice them regularly in rental birds...

I used to work at a flight school. It's amazing what people do in rental
birds that they wouldn't THINK of doing in their own! That said, those
airplanes are doing slow flight, stalls, engine-out practices and even
spin training (in some), and they keep faithfully building hours. Yes,
they are inspected every 100 hours and maintained reasonably well --
i.e., if it's necessary, yes; if it's optional, no -- but flight
school/rental airplanes aren't babied like privately-owned airplanes,
and in fact, they do all the things people say are "the worst thing you
can do to an engine" on a regular basis, yet most of them just keep on
ticking. Most get FLOWN a lot more often than privately-owned aircraft,
but doesn't seem that alone would make up for all the time they spend
doing "the worst possible things".

Will let you know what they say.

Jay's wrote:
"Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine
has far outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There
is simply nothing you can do to your engine (in normal use)
that is worse than simulated engine-out landings, so we do
them very rarely."

I called the overhaul shop that just did a major engine overhaul on my
Lycoming O-320. First, these guys have been there for years and came
highly recommended by several independent sources in my search for a
reputable place to take the engine. I posed the question -- "How harmful
to a healthy engine is simulated engine failure practice?" I told him
that it was said that simulated engine-out practice is the worst thing
you can do to your engine.

He said he disagrees and assumed your concern was probably about shock
cooling, but said that while everyone needs to be aware of that, it is
of much greater concern with high-performance, turbo-charged engines
where people chop power and dive for the ground. With the 0-320, he said
in colder areas (I'm in AZ), you would use carb heat, and of course he
recommended what all CFIs I've ever flown with have done -- "clear" the
engine by adding some power for a few seconds one or two times during
the power-off glide/descent. Yes, that takes a little of the "reality"
out of the drill, but it is, in fact, practice/simulated.

He went on to say that if it were THAT easy to damage the engine by
pulling the power back to idle, how about when you pull the power abeam
the numbers and the hot engine is at idle through the rest of the
approach, landing and taxi and then is shut down completely (standard
practice every time for some)? He commented that it would be tricky to
just shut down a hot engine without damaging it if pulling power back to
idle is all it would take to do so.

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.

I'm just the messenger on this one, not a mechanic, and being a girl, I
did not grow up tinkering with engines. But I dealt regularly with the
mechanics when I worked at the flight school, and I never heard them or
any that have worked on my airplane(s) say anything about simulated
engine failures being potentially dangerous to the engines.

Shirl

Shirl wrote:
Jay's wrote:
"Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine
has far outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There
is simply nothing you can do to your engine (in normal use)
that is worse than simulated engine-out landings, so we do
them very rarely."

I called the overhaul shop that just did a major engine overhaul on my
Lycoming O-320. First, these guys have been there for years and came
highly recommended by several independent sources in my search for a
reputable place to take the engine. I posed the question -- "How harmful
to a healthy engine is simulated engine failure practice?" I told him
that it was said that simulated engine-out practice is the worst thing
you can do to your engine.

He said he disagrees and assumed your concern was probably about shock
cooling, but said that while everyone needs to be aware of that, it is
of much greater concern with high-performance, turbo-charged engines
where people chop power and dive for the ground. With the 0-320, he said
in colder areas (I'm in AZ), you would use carb heat, and of course he
recommended what all CFIs I've ever flown with have done -- "clear" the
engine by adding some power for a few seconds one or two times during
the power-off glide/descent. Yes, that takes a little of the "reality"
out of the drill, but it is, in fact, practice/simulated.

He went on to say that if it were THAT easy to damage the engine by
pulling the power back to idle, how about when you pull the power abeam
the numbers and the hot engine is at idle through the rest of the
approach, landing and taxi and then is shut down completely (standard
practice every time for some)? He commented that it would be tricky to
just shut down a hot engine without damaging it if pulling power back to
idle is all it would take to do so.

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.

I'm just the messenger on this one, not a mechanic, and being a girl, I
did not grow up tinkering with engines. But I dealt regularly with the
mechanics when I worked at the flight school, and I never heard them or
any that have worked on my airplane(s) say anything about simulated
engine failures being potentially dangerous to the engines.

Your mechanic is a wise man (or woman!).

Matt

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.

Are the engines designed to take this kind of abuse? Sure. But they
were designed to be run daily, not weekly, too. And when you are
paying something in the range of $20,000 for an overhaul (as we did
for our O-540) we don't generally make a practice of stressing the
engine any more than necessary.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Bad, bad, bad.

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.

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've heard many owners and mechanics agree that the worst possible thing
you can do to an airplane engine is to NOT FLY IT; I've never heard
anyone say that privately owned airplanes aren't flown enough to do
touch-n-goes or simulated engine failures without risking damage to the
engine. 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?

Are the engines designed to take this kind of abuse? Sure. But they
were designed to be run daily, not weekly, too.

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

And when you are
paying something in the range of $20,000 for an overhaul (as we did
for our O-540) we don't generally make a practice of stressing the
engine any more than necessary.

And as an airplane owner, that's your choice and your right.

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.

Maybe your reactions in a real engine emergency today would be just as
sharp and accurate as they were when you'd been practicing engine-outs
frequently in your private pilot training in school airplanes. I'm not
good enough to maintain that level of competence if I don't continue to
practice it every so often.

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.

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"

On Oct 2, 12:27 am, Jay Honeck wrote:

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.

Are the engines designed to take this kind of abuse? Sure. But they
were designed to be run daily, not weekly, too. And when you are
paying something in the range of $20,000 for an overhaul (as we did
for our O-540) we don't generally make a practice of stressing the
engine any more than necessary.
--

Interesting points you bring up here Jay. I've had similar
conversations with the maintenance mgr at the flight school I taught
at a few years back. As the consumate gearhead, I'm always picking up
data points from mechanics & operators/pilots and attempting to
separate real usable advice from the old wives' tales (and outright
BS) which seem to be prevalent in aviation.

Letting a plane sit idle is bad as it invites corrosion & seals drying
out etc. Starting the engine and letting it run for a 10 minutes
(thinking you're helping by circulating oil) and shutting it down is
even worse, as all that does is introduce more moisture into the
engine. You can't get an engine up to operating temp without flying
it, which will evaporate moisture in the crankcase. Flying is the only
way to properly excercise all the plane's systems IMHO.

Touch & go landings are probably harder on an engine than cruise
flight because of the short cycle heat/cool effect from full power/low
airspeed flight followed by reduced/idle power (repeat ad nauseum) I
think this is much less an issue in a low HP engine like the 160/180HP
O-320/O-360 or even the 200hp IO-360. I'd never do T&G with a high HP
plane like a Saratoga/C210/Bonanza because those engines generate more
heat (I'm told) because of their higher power output, and air cooled
engines can only dissipate so much heat effectively. I have talked to
one pilot who did T&G landings somewhat regularly in a Turbo Bonanza,
which made me cringe. I doubt that engine made it to TBO with its
original cylinders. For those planes, full stop & taxi back landings
are preferred. They also eliminate the possibility of grabbing the
gear handle instead of the flaps when cleaning up the plane on the go.
(seen this happen a few times with predictable results)

After hearing all the stories and warnings about shock cooling, I've
come to understand it's an issue mainly with turbo'd high HP engines
(Duke, 421, P-Navajo) that operate in the flight levels where the
cooling effect is not great. A "chop n drop" approach without careful
CHT monitoring can cost big $$$ if cylinders cool too fast and warp.
This just isn't a problem in a low HP, non-turbo'd aircraft IMO. It
doesn't mean you can be ham-fisted when operating your engine, just
that there's a bigger margin for error with a lower performance acft.

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

Will