Extended full-power in small pistons

In rec.aviation.student buttman wrote:
On Jan 2, 9:11?am, "Viperdoc" wrote:
I would personally like to thank Anthony for supplying us with comedy so
early in the year- may he continue to demonstrate his ignorance throughout
the remainder of the new year and provide us with opportunities for further
enjoyment.

did this mxmanic guy kill you dog or something, you just always seem
so...mad when replying to his threads.

If you aren't familiar with the guy, go he

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=mxsmanic

He commonly exhibits extremely annoying behaviors including but not
limited to:

- Asking questions and then refusing to accept the answers.

- Selectively quoting posts when replying to eliminate inconvenient
context and, in extreme cases, make it look like someone said something
completely different from what they actually said.

- Refusing to distinguish between simulators and reality even when that
difference can be extremely significant, to the point of not even
mentioning the fact that his activities take place on a computer instead
of in the air.

- Denying the knowledge of highly experienced and intelligent posters,
while simultaneously acting like a top expert after light and frequently
erroneous reading.

Perhaps my favorite incident was when he called me a bad pilot after I
described how I have difficulty landing a simulated glider in X-Plane
using a $20 USB joystick as my only controller. He's pretty crazy
(although I find him amusing) and richly deserves every ounce of the scorn
which is heaped upon him every time he shows himself here.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Jan 2, 7:35*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Most "smaller" aircraft engines are certified to produce full
rated horsepower at full rated RPM for the full TBO of the engine.
Look up the TCDS sometime for any engine you want. See the FAA
website. If the POH specifies a five-minute limit at full throttle ort
full RPM or both, then that limit should be stuck with. If the POH
doesn't say it, then you'll likely find, in the cruise settings
charts, RPMs as high as redline and the fuel flows and airspeeds
expected for that setting. Fixed-pitch props are often designed so
that full throttle in level cruise will give redline RPM or something
very close to it. When we break in a new Lycoming, we operate it as
they say, which is with the last half-hour of the 3.5 hour flight at
redline RPM, which takes full throttle at around 5,000 feet. Sea level
will be similar, since the higher power generated there is absorbed by
the higher prop drag and thrust created.

Interesting.

I found the page I had looked at before, for the Bonanza. *It's a chart that
shows manifold pressure (from 20 to 25.5) vs. RPM (from 1700 to 2700). *On the
left side there's a shaded area that says "Not recommended for cruise power
settings." *There's a bell-shaped area in the middle that says "continuous
operation at peak EGT permitted." *There's a squared-off section on the right
(with 25 in. and 2500 RPM as its upper right corner) that says "Continuous
operation at EGTs hotter than 20° below peak EGT (rich side or lean side) is
not approved in this area."

First, what's the difference between "not recommended" and "not approved"? *I
have the feeling that this wording is not chosen at random. *What bad things
might happen in each of these areas of the chart?

Second, why would peak EGT be okay for certain pressures and RPMs, but not for
the highest combinations of RPM and pressure? *If it were just an issue of
exhaust heat alone, I'd expect no distinction to be made--peak EGT would
always be okay. *The fact that this isn't stated implies that peak EGT in
combination with certain pressures and RPMs implies other changes in the
engine state that are potentially bad or harmless--what might those be? Maybe
cylinder heat temperatures or something? Do aircraft normally have CHT gauges
in addition to (or in place of) EGT gauges?

Third, why doesn't the manual give a specific time limit? *How long does
temporary have to be before it becomes continuous? *What would be an example
of each?

Here is a clue. Peak egt is different for different power settings,
and too high an exhaust gas temperature can do bad things to valves
and pistons. Highest temps occur near peak power. We control the
temperature by adjusting the mixture so there is less than
stoichometric combustion to keep those temperatures controlled.

a writes:

Here is a clue. Peak egt is different for different power settings,
and too high an exhaust gas temperature can do bad things to valves
and pistons. Highest temps occur near peak power. We control the
temperature by adjusting the mixture so there is less than
stoichometric combustion to keep those temperatures controlled.

Hmm ... okay. Somehow I was thinking that peak EGT would always be the _same_
temperature, but that's not necessarily true--it would simply be the maximum
temperature for a specific situation. So the peak EGT for max pressure and
RPM would not necessarily be the same temperature as peak EGT for modern
pressure and RPM, and the former might be too high for internal components,
whereas the latter would not.

Does that make sense?

I'm amazed at all the complications of piston engines on small aircraft. Big
jets used to have a flight engineer with a whole panel of controls and
instruments, but they managed to eliminate that with various forms of
automatic and engine design changes. And yet the same has not happened on
small aircraft: you practically have to be a mechanic to be a pilot, at least
in small piston aircraft. It seems like a hazardous distraction--a pilot
should be able to dedicate himself to flying, not to tweaking an engine.

"Michael Ash" wrote

If you aren't familiar with the guy, go he

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=mxsmanic

He commonly exhibits extremely annoying behaviors including but not
limited to:

- Asking questions and then refusing to accept the answers.

- Selectively quoting posts when replying to eliminate inconvenient
context and, in extreme cases, make it look like someone said something
completely different from what they actually said.

- Refusing to distinguish between simulators and reality even when that
difference can be extremely significant, to the point of not even
mentioning the fact that his activities take place on a computer instead
of in the air.

- Denying the knowledge of highly experienced and intelligent posters,
while simultaneously acting like a top expert after light and frequently
erroneous reading.

Perhaps my favorite incident was when he called me a bad pilot after I
described how I have difficulty landing a simulated glider in X-Plane
using a $20 USB joystick as my only controller. He's pretty crazy
(although I find him amusing) and richly deserves every ounce of the scorn
which is heaped upon him every time he shows himself here.

Well put!!!!!!

You mind if I use the above to answer people about MX? That sums it up
pretty well, although I am sure others could add their own illustration,
too.
--
Jim in NC

Anthony:

You are wrong again- which cylinder are you monitoring when you watch the
EGT? How about the CHT? Real jet pilots do more than push the levers forward
as well- just because you don't know or understand doesn't make it any less
important.

What make and model Bonanza? Is it NA, turbocharged or TN? What does it say
in the STC supplement?

Managing and monitoring the engines are part of flying, not a hazardous
distraction- you simply don't understand and are trying to extrapolate your
lack of reference to actual flying.

And, by your responses, you still don't understand even the most basic
concepts of running an engine, whether it's a turbine or piston driven.
Besides, it won't matter since all you do is play a game, so try to keep it
in perspective.

It doesn't matter to you or your imaginary passengers- there are no
consequences.

On Jan 2, 7:42*pm, Michael Ash wrote:

Perhaps my favorite incident was when he called me a bad pilot after I
described how I have difficulty landing a simulated glider in X-Plane
using a $20 USB joystick as my only controller. He's pretty crazy
(although I find him amusing) and richly deserves every ounce of the scorn
which is heaped upon him every time he shows himself here.

My favorite?

When he said he saw no difference between my vidoes posted on You Tube
and MSFX.

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:
I'm amazed at all the complications of piston engines on small aircraft. Big
jets used to have a flight engineer with a whole panel of controls and
instruments, but they managed to eliminate that with various forms of
automatic and engine design changes. And yet the same has not happened on
small aircraft: you practically have to be a mechanic to be a pilot, at least
in small piston aircraft. It seems like a hazardous distraction--a pilot
should be able to dedicate himself to flying, not to tweaking an engine.

This is the kind of amusing idealism that is common from someone not very
well versed in the real world.

I used to feel the same way, but reality simply is not cooperative in this
respect. Technology can compensate to some degree. You no longer need to
know very much about cars at all to own one (for which I am eternally
grateful). But you still need to know some things. The car can't protect
you against everything. You still have to think about when to get your oil
changed (even if the computer reminds you), you still have to know that
shifting into reverse while on the highway is not a good move, etc.

It's very rare for a person to be able to do anything meaningful as a 100%
pure experience. He always needs to be versatile and know many different
things to really perform well. A good pilot will incorporate these
"extraneous" things (even though they really aren't extraneous) into their
routine until they become automatic. They pose little or no distraction
from other tasks in this way.

If you think engine management is distracting, you should see what *I*
have to go through to stay aloft. All sorts of thinking going on there.
And yet I and every other glider pilot manages to fly the plane too.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In rec.aviation.student Morgans wrote:
Well put!!!!!!

Well shucks, thanks.

You mind if I use the above to answer people about MX? That sums it up
pretty well, although I am sure others could add their own illustration,
too.

Please feel free. I'm honored that you think it worthy of such.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In rec.aviation.student wrote:
On Jan 2, 7:42?pm, Michael Ash wrote:

Perhaps my favorite incident was when he called me a bad pilot after I
described how I have difficulty landing a simulated glider in X-Plane
using a $20 USB joystick as my only controller. He's pretty crazy
(although I find him amusing) and richly deserves every ounce of the scorn
which is heaped upon him every time he shows himself here.

My favorite?

When he said he saw no difference between my vidoes posted on You Tube
and MSFX.

That's pretty good.

I'm reminded me of that Calvin and Hobbes strip where he goes around
comparing reality with TV, reality losing at every turn. The colors aren't
as bright, the people are less attractive, and minutes at a time can go by
without a car chase, shoot-out, or sex scene.

Come to think of it, MX reminds me of Calvin, except without any of
Calvin's endearing parts. But the deliberate obtuseness, high capacity for
fantasy, and extremely high opinion of self seems very Calvinesque to me.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Clark writes:

No it doesn't. There is no "modern pressure." Sorry.

Sorry, I meant manifold.