Extended full-power in small pistons

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.

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.

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.

"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!!!!!!!!

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

"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 :-)))))

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.

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.

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

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 he

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