Extended full-power in small pistons

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

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

"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 :-))))))

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.

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.

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.

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/supp...es/SSP700A.pdf

Scott Wilson

"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.

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.

"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 :-)))))