Extended full-power in small pistons

John Smith writes:

The old argument. Interesting, though, that modern car engines are much
more reliable than older (simpler) ones.

That reliability doesn't come from the computers, it comes from improved
mechanical engineering and manufacturing.

Viperdoc writes:

You are wrong again- most of the avionics in private planes are well
advanced over those found in airliners (ever see the cockpit of an MD-80
compared to a G-1000 Bonanza, of course not).

Airliners set a higher standard for safety. I definitely would not want to
see a G1000 anywhere near an airliner flight deck.

Michael Ash writes:

What a total non sequitur. The idealism was referring to your statement
that it would be great if pilots could just concentrate on the flying and
ignore the engine. Well it's true, it would be great, but there's this
little thing called reality which gets in the way.

Reality didn't seem to get in the way of simplification in airliners. You
don't see too many flight engineers these days.

Airliners may have better engine management systems but it's still there.

Yes, but it's done by computer, not the pilots, and design improvements have
made management less necessary.

And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush.

I don't. There are plenty of smart ones around.

Yep, but my point is that you still have to think about it to *some*
extent.

That doesn't justify having to think about it to a _large_ extent.

And you think that no power pilots like engine management?

Oh, I'm sure there are a few. There's always someone in the neighborhood with
his car up on blocks, and I'm sure aviation is the same way.

From what I've
seen, for a significant proportion of these guys, getting maximum
performance out of the engine, minimizing fuel burn, holding CHT to the
exact right value, and tweaking that last few miles of range out of the
engine is an enormous thrill. I don't share in that enthusiasm myself but
it's definitely there in some guys.

So flying isn't really their purpose, it's just incidental.

writes:

Apples and oranges.

Mostly just a difference in economics, I suspect.

writes:

It was the big radial piston engines that had the "whole panel of controls
and instruments".

Jets had them, too.

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.

That reliability doesn't come from the computers, it comes from improved
mechanical engineering and manufacturing.

Do you think a contemporary car can run without a computer?- if so, you're
as ignorant about cars as you are about aviation.

True, but nowadays most of the complexity is in the G1000, not the
engines.
I'd trust a FADEC in an airliner long before I'd trust a G1000. Many
glass
cockpits are far too complex and far too poorly tested.

An airplane will keep flying without a PFD, all of which require backup. It
will not keep flying without an engine- another example of your flawed
logic.

It's odd that pilots would object to a more modern engine on the one hand,
but
are more than willing to install the iffy technology of a glass cockpit.

In your limited opinion it is iffy technology, but it doesn't matter anyway,
since you'll never use it other than in a game.

In reality, most piston engines simply require
setting the power for take off, then cruise, and finally descent. It is
not
hard at all to do, nor does it add dramatically to the work load (and I
have
two engines to consider in my plane).

So losing things like mixture and prop control really wouldn't take
anything
away from the pilot, anyway. So why not do it?

I never said we should or should not do it- another example of your twisted
responses.

Rather than defend or justify Anthony's now increasing list of comebacks
and
partial responses, or criticising the other posters, why not answer his
question?

Why haven't you answered the question yourself?

Because the premise of your question was incorrect, and you are a non
sequitor.

"

Airliners set a higher standard for safety. I definitely would not want
to
see a G1000 anywhere near an airliner flight deck.

Again, another unsubstantiated opinion that comes from zero experience.

Mostly just a difference in economics, I suspect.

Considering you will never pilot an ultralight let alone a 74, the point is
moot.