Extended full-power in small pistons

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

As a sort of followup to my other post, for anyone still wondering why
everyone hates MX so much, this post is a perfect example. Notice how he:

- Snipped out what John was replying to, making the discussion vastly more
difficult to follow.

- Is combative and argumentative for absolutely no reason.

- Argues against something John did not actually say, but due to the
aforementioned snipping makes it look like John did say it. In this way he
makes himself look like a good guy and makes anyone he responds to look
like the bad guy, but only by completely twisting the other guy's words.

- And, the icing on the cake, after all that crappiness, he is still
wrong.

I've been posting on Usenet and other internet forums for a decade and a
half and in all those years I have *never* seen a troll as masterful, as
clever, or as infuriating as MX. As I said before, the reaction he gets in
here is absolutely justified.

(And yes, I do respond to him from time to time. But only when he's having
a rare reasonable moment, or when he's said something that's really
hilariously dumb.)

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

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

Seriously? You really can't grasp the difference? Are you completely daft?
(Yes.)

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.

If your engine fails in the wrong circumstances then you die.

And yet you can't see why a pilot might be more accepting of failure in
the former case than the latter?

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

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

There's a difference between simplifying something and eliminating it.

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.

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.

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

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

I really have to wonder if you realize just how unbelievably insulting
that statement is. If I didn't already view you as being an arrogant and
useless idiot I might get mad....

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.

Your obsession with people's "purpose" is bizarre and nonsensical.
Anything you do while piloting an airplane is "flying", whether it's
cruisng steadily or endlessly fiddling with the engine levers. People fly
for many reasons, and they don't have to meet your insane ideas of
"purpose" to do it.

By your definition, my purpose isn't "flying", it's interpreting weather,
finding lift, planning routes, etc.

By your definition, someone who uses his airplane to fly to meetings
doesn't have "flying" as his purpose, it's just incidental.

Someone who flies around to look at the scenery, ditto. Or enjoys the
challenge of IMC, or chatting with ATC, or the feeling they get from
performing aerobatics.

So, I ask you: what does one have to do in order for "flying" to be their
purpose? And why should anyone care?

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

On Jan 3, 10:10 am, wrote:
You may be exactly right. Somewhat irrelevant for me, since my 1978 Cessna
172N doesn't have an EGT gauge or cylinder head temp gauges. My POH says to
lean until the tach drops 25 to 50 RPM, which I've read is supposedly
somewhere slightly lean of peak. My partners say they lean until the tach
drops off, then twist the mixture knob back rich a couple of turns. I do the
25 RPM drop-off method, but I've always been worried I might be causing
damage to the engine, based on what I've read in some of the on-line
articles people on this group recommended. Or maybe my partners are damaging
the engine by doing it their way, if not just wasting some gas. I wish
there was a way to be absolutely sure.

Lycoming says you can lean your normally-aspirated engine
anyway you like if you're at or below 75% power without damaging it.
See your cruise charts. Detonation is seldom any risk at 75% or less.

Dan

This has always been his modus, yet even by his own admissions he is ugly
and a social outcast who can not find a meaningful job on either of two
continents. (go figure). Yet, he will never admit he is ever wrong, and is
the master of the half truth. Who in the world would ever want to work with
such a dork, let alone socialize with him?

At least he supplies comic relief. Never take anything he says as remotely
being true or sincere- it is all only his pathologic attempt at getting the
social attention he lacks in his real life. He is simply an internet
whack-a-mole.

Viperdoc writes:

Do you think a contemporary car can run without a computer?

Did I say that?

writes:

The increased reliability of car engines comes from materials and new
technologies, such as better valves and seats, better spark plugs, and
electronic ignition.

Yes, engineering.

Michael Ash writes:

I've been posting on Usenet and other internet forums for a decade and a
half and in all those years I have *never* seen a troll as masterful, as
clever, or as infuriating as MX.

That's because I'm not a troll.

John Smith writes:

... and electronic control. Electronic parts are usually much more
reliable than mechanical parts.

But when they are combined with software, the opposite may prove to be true.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
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.

Let's see now... You don't want to bother with the engine, you don't want to
hand fly the airplane, you don't want to experience the sensations of
flight, and you don't want the expense of real flying.

Doesn't sound like much fun to me.

You could save a bundle simply put an on-off switch on a black box that
reads "pretend I'm flying".