Extended full-power in small pistons

[Mxsmanic]

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?

[D***@yahoo.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
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?

On a sim, nothing.

[Beauciphus]

Post by Mxsmanic
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?

Anything over five minutes will cause the engine to explode.

[Viperdoc]

Post by Beauciphus
Anything over five minutes will cause the engine to explode.

Or, in some cases, like in Bonanzas, Barons, and R182's, the prop can
suddenly depart the aircraft. It is a well established problem from running
at max power for extended periods of time. The actual time it takes for this
to occur depends on a number of conditions, such as ambient temperature,
CHT, age and hours on the engine and oil, etc.

[Clark]

Post by Beauciphus

Post by Mxsmanic
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?

Anything over five minutes will cause the engine to explode.

But that's ok because the ejection seat fires automatically...

[Peter Dohm]

Post by Clark
But that's ok because the ejection seat fires automatically...

My back hurts!

Peter :-(

[Clark]

Post by Peter Dohm

Post by Clark
But that's ok because the ejection seat fires automatically...

My back hurts!

Well then you should only fly a Cirrus or a Remos in MSFS so your back won't
hurt when the BRS deploys in place of the ejection seats...

Gee, isn't that obvious to everybody?

[Monk]

Post by Mxsmanic
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 got a good chuckle out of all the other answers. You guys are so
bad. <g>

Here's my crack at answering this question. To operate the engine
above and beyond it's design will result in premature engine wear and
tear. Also at or above the design parameters, the engine is not
getting adequate lubrication and/or cooling, again resulting in
premature wear and tear or possibly even cause engine seizure. This
wear and tear will also shorten the Time Between Overhaul TBO.

Monk

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Monk
Here's my crack at answering this question. To operate the engine
above and beyond it's design will result in premature engine wear and
tear. Also at or above the design parameters, the engine is not
getting adequate lubrication and/or cooling, again resulting in
premature wear and tear or possibly even cause engine seizure. This
wear and tear will also shorten the Time Between Overhaul TBO.

Okay, thanks. The last POH I looked at (Bonanza or Baron, not sure which)
said that it was "not recommended," which sounded gentler than "forbidden,"
and implied that it just wasn't a good idea, but wouldn't necessarily cause a
catastrophic failure of the engine.

The POH also seems to imply that operating with full throttle at less than
maximum RPM is okay, and so is operating with maximum RPM but less than full
throttle. I think it also says something about not being at maximum EGT for
too long.

I was mainly worried that exceeding some mysterious limit would cause an
engine failure in flight.

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, your response again demonstrates your fundamental ignorance about
flying. Since when do throttle and RPM control EGT? What does EGT have to do
with engine performance and longevity? Since when do full throttle and RPM
produce maximum EGT?

It's a good thing you actually don't fly. The limitations in the POH
obviously would not make sense to you, since you don't have a grasp of the
fundamentals of engine operation.

[Clark]

Post by Viperdoc
Anthony, your response again demonstrates your fundamental ignorance
about flying. Since when do throttle and RPM control EGT? What does EGT
have to do with engine performance and longevity? Since when do full
throttle and RPM produce maximum EGT?
It's a good thing you actually don't fly. The limitations in the POH
obviously would not make sense to you, since you don't have a grasp of
the fundamentals of engine operation.

What a spurious argument to throw into the *mixture*! ;-)

[Flydive]

Post by Viperdoc
Anthony, your response again demonstrates your fundamental ignorance about
flying. Since when do throttle and RPM control EGT? What does EGT have to do
with engine performance and longevity? Since when do full throttle and RPM
produce maximum EGT?
It's a good thing you actually don't fly. The limitations in the POH
obviously would not make sense to you, since you don't have a grasp of the
fundamentals of engine operation.

In his post I don't read anything about RPM or throttle controlling EGT.

You should read more carefully before going all out on your attack.

Can't you guys just answer a question, even if from MX?
Maybe it would be useful for someone else.

[Maxwell]

"Flydive" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message news:495e667c$***@news.bluewin.ch...
| Viperdoc wrote:
| > Anthony, your response again demonstrates your fundamental ignorance
about
| > flying. Since when do throttle and RPM control EGT? What does EGT have
to do
| > with engine performance and longevity? Since when do full throttle and
RPM
| > produce maximum EGT?
| >
| > It's a good thing you actually don't fly. The limitations in the POH
| > obviously would not make sense to you, since you don't have a grasp of
the
| > fundamentals of engine operation.
| >
| >
| >
|
| In his post I don't read anything about RPM or throttle controlling EGT.
|
| You should read more carefully before going all out on your attack.
|
| Can't you guys just answer a question, even if from MX?
| Maybe it would be useful for someone else.

He specifically states power and prop settings which directly correlate to
RPM, Manifold Pressure and EGT.

And the question is being posed by Mx, which correlates directly to
bullshit.

I would think anyone who has actually operated a gas powered lawnmower or
weed eater would be smart enough to realize the issues with operating at
excessive power and RPM settings. Especially since he proclaims to be an
expert on everything from physics to breast feeding.

[Flydive]

Post by Maxwell
He specifically states power and prop settings which directly correlate to
RPM, Manifold Pressure and EGT.

Not the way I read it:

The POH also seems to imply that operating with full throttle at less than
maximum RPM is okay, and so is operating with maximum RPM but less than full
throttle. I think it also says something about not being at maximum EGT for
too long.

Post by Maxwell
And the question is being posed by Mx, which correlates directly to
bullshit.
I would think anyone who has actually operated a gas powered lawnmower or
weed eater would be smart enough to realize the issues with operating at
excessive power and RPM settings. Especially since he proclaims to be an
expert on everything from physics to breast feeding.

That might be, but just answering more bullshit doesn't help someone,
maybe a new pilot, interested in the answer.

It also doesn't help the newsgroup itself, which unfortunately looks
more and more dead, this been one of the reasons

[Viperdoc]

And what POH are you taking this information from? Are they the one from
Anthony's imagination?

And, what do max throttle and max RPM have to do with EGT, and what do these
have to do with CHT or engine life?

If you know the answer, give him one. Of course, there is no answer, since
his basic premise and assumptions show his ignorance about engines.

This, and any other newsgroup, are dynamic and are going where the threads
take them- they are not the Bible or the constitution- there is nothing
sacred or reverent about it, and there is no making it what you want or
think it should be.

[Flydive]

Post by Viperdoc
And what POH are you taking this information from? Are they the one from
Anthony's imagination?
And, what do max throttle and max RPM have to do with EGT, and what do these
have to do with CHT or engine life?
If you know the answer, give him one. Of course, there is no answer, since
his basic premise and assumptions show his ignorance about engines.
This, and any other newsgroup, are dynamic and are going where the threads
take them- they are not the Bible or the constitution- there is nothing
sacred or reverent about it, and there is no making it what you want or
think it should be.

I did not take it from any POH, I just copy/pasted what MX wrote, and in
that he doesn't say anything about RPM and throttle being related to EGT.
The RPM/Throttle and the max EGT are two separate statements.

RPMs do have something to do engine life, just try to run yours always
at 100%

Then of course you can read it the way it suit best your arguments.

I'm not trying to make this newsgroup the way i like it, but this is a
group about aviation and in general threads should be related to aviation.

Yes i see what kind of character is MX, but quite often his question and
related answers could be quite interesting for someone wanting to learn
about aviation.

It does no good to anybody to answer with insults or the usual "you
don't fly", "simboy" and so on, if not for the ego of the one trying to
come up first with a "wise" comment.

[Maxwell]

"Flydive" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message news:495e7ef4$***@news.bluewin.ch...
|
|
| I did not take it from any POH, I just copy/pasted what MX wrote, and in
| that he doesn't say anything about RPM and throttle being related to EGT.
| The RPM/Throttle and the max EGT are two separate statements.

But they are all still interrelated in reality, regardless of his question.

|
| RPMs do have something to do engine life, just try to run yours always
| at 100%
|
| Then of course you can read it the way it suit best your arguments.
|
| I'm not trying to make this newsgroup the way i like it, but this is a
| group about aviation and in general threads should be related to aviation.
|
| Yes i see what kind of character is MX, but quite often his question and
| related answers could be quite interesting for someone wanting to learn
| about aviation.

If someone else wants to know, then let someone else ask. Far too many of us
have had far too much of Mx.

|
| It does no good to anybody to answer with insults or the usual "you
| don't fly", "simboy" and so on, if not for the ego of the one trying to
| come up first with a "wise" comment.
|

If you believe that, then you need to spend a little more time trying to
rationalize with Mx. You may be an experience pilot or engineer, but this is
clearly Anthony 101 for you, and many of us have our PhD in his behavior.

[Flydive]

Post by Maxwell
|
|
| I did not take it from any POH, I just copy/pasted what MX wrote, and in
| that he doesn't say anything about RPM and throttle being related to EGT.
| The RPM/Throttle and the max EGT are two separate statements.
But they are all still interrelated in reality, regardless of his question.

Well before you were saying that RPM, throttle, and EGT were not
interrelated, now they are.(true)

Post by Maxwell
|
| RPMs do have something to do engine life, just try to run yours always
| at 100%
|
| Then of course you can read it the way it suit best your arguments.
|
| I'm not trying to make this newsgroup the way i like it, but this is a
| group about aviation and in general threads should be related to aviation.
|
| Yes i see what kind of character is MX, but quite often his question and
| related answers could be quite interesting for someone wanting to learn
| about aviation.
If someone else wants to know, then let someone else ask. Far too many of us
have had far too much of Mx.

Maybe that someone didn't think about that problem, but seeing the
question he would like to know the answer

Post by Maxwell
|
| It does no good to anybody to answer with insults or the usual "you
| don't fly", "simboy" and so on, if not for the ego of the one trying to
| come up first with a "wise" comment.
|
If you believe that, then you need to spend a little more time trying to
rationalize with Mx. You may be an experience pilot or engineer, but this is
clearly Anthony 101 for you, and many of us have our PhD in his behavior.

Is quite a while that I follow the NG, even if is true mostly lurking,
and I know MX and the way he behaves and I would sure not try to
rationalize with him. Still I believe that a correct answer to his
(eventually avoiding arguing his usual comeback) or anybody else
question would be more helpful to everybody than the usual name calling.

Just a thought.

[JJ]

Post by Flydive
It does no good to anybody to answer with insults or the usual "you
don't fly", "simboy" and so on, if not for the ego of the one trying to
come up first with a "wise" comment.

The wise course is just to killfile the person you are arguing with because he
does not understand the first rule of trolling, response is all.

JJ

[D***@yahoo.com]

Post by Flydive
I did not take it from any POH, I just copy/pasted what MX wrote, and in
that he doesn't say anything about RPM and throttle being related to EGT.
The RPM/Throttle and the max EGT are two separate statements.
RPMs do have something to do engine life, just try to run yours always
at 100%.

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.

Dan

[Mxsmanic]

Post by D***@yahoo.com
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?

[a]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by D***@yahoo.com
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.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by a
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.

[Viperdoc]

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.

[Flydive]

Post by Viperdoc
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.

Well actually you don't really do much more than that, actually most of
the time you don't even do that on modern jet engines apart from monitoring.

Post by Viperdoc
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.

Well still taking away workload from the pilot is not such a bad thing,
especially when flying single pilot in bad weather or other stressy
situations, and the trend on modern engine is toward that with
electronic engine management.

[Clark]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by a
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?

No it doesn't. There is no "modern pressure." Sorry. Concerning yourself
with temperatures is one thing, avoiding detonation is probably the most
important thing.

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

Oh horseshit. Why do you attempt to judge something with which you have no
experience? Once again your arrogance is astounding.

As Viperdoc said, setting the engine is part of flying. We learn it from
lesson one which, by the way, you've chosen not to take.

We spend countless hours learning how to fly and manage the aircraft. Why
do you think a question on usenet and a toy simulator can even begin to
relate to that? Go back to your sim world and stay the hell away from here.

[Mxsmanic]

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

Sorry, I meant manifold.

[Flydive]

Post by Clark
As Viperdoc said, setting the engine is part of flying. We learn it from
lesson one which, by the way, you've chosen not to take.
We spend countless hours learning how to fly and manage the aircraft. Why
do you think a question on usenet and a toy simulator can even begin to
relate to that? Go back to your sim world and stay the hell away from here.

As I said answering to Viperdoc, the trend is towards relieving the
pilot of the workload of managing the engine, which is not a bad thing.
It is true that with modern engine technology the aviation piston engine
is a bit behind times

[Viperdoc]

There is no question that it would be ideal to have an aircraft engine work
like a car engine, e.g. FADEC. However, complexity also adds further
possible failure modes. 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).

Turbines have even less to control, but perhaps a few more dials to monitor.
It is all part of flying.

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?

[John Smith]

Post by Viperdoc
There is no question that it would be ideal to have an aircraft engine work
like a car engine, e.g. FADEC. However, complexity also adds further
possible failure modes.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Post by John Smith
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]

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Viperdoc
Do you think a contemporary car can run without a computer?

Did I say that?

[Clark]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by John Smith
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.

Horseshit. Compare electronic ignition with points and condenser.

If mxy would just get off his fat ass and actually do something in the world
then he might just learn that he doesn't know everything.

Since he won't get off his fat ass, the least he could do is go play with his
sim pals in a sim group. In other words, go away.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by John Smith
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.

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

The mechanical engineering and manufacturing abilities haven't changed
other than in increased automation.

[Monk]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by John Smith
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.

The increased reliability of car engines comes from materials and new
technologies, such as better valves and seats, better spark plugs, and
electronic ignition.
The mechanical engineering and manufacturing abilities haven't changed
other than in increased automation.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Not you in particular Jim, but all who have responded including
myself. I can't decide which is funnier, the fisherman or the catch?
<g>

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
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]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by John Smith
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.)

[Viperdoc]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Michael Ash
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.

[Bob Noel]

Post by John Smith

Post by Viperdoc
There is no question that it would be ideal to have an aircraft engine
work like a car engine, e.g. FADEC. However, complexity also adds
further possible failure modes.

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

If all other things are held constant, then simpler is usually more
reliable. Modern car engines have the benefit of much better
manufacturing techniques, better understanding of fatigue,
better oil, etc etc etc.

[John Smith]

Post by Bob Noel
If all other things are held constant, then simpler is usually more
reliable. Modern car engines have the benefit of much better
manufacturing techniques, better understanding of fatigue,
better oil, etc etc etc.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Post by John Smith
... 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]

Post by Viperdoc
There is no question that it would be ideal to have an aircraft engine work
like a car engine, e.g. FADEC. However, complexity also adds further
possible failure modes.

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.

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.

Post by Viperdoc
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?

Post by Viperdoc
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?

[Viperdoc]

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Viperdoc
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.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Viperdoc
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.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Viperdoc
An airplane will keep flying without a PFD, all of which require backup.

An airplane without any instruments will fly perfectly well. It's the pilot
who becomes the problem when instruments fail.

Post by Viperdoc
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.

True, that's one of the advantages of simulation. I'm not betting my life on
inadequately tested software.

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

Then why do you suggest that others answer the question? This seems
inconsistent.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

Two totally different things.

If the "glass cockpit" fails in VFR, it is little more than an irritant and
in IFR there are backups.

If the engine fails you are pretty much out of options.

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

Because real airplanes require different mixture and prop settings for
takeoff, climb, cruise, and decent whether that comes from FADEC or
discrete levers.

And since the cost of retrofitting an existing GA airplane engine far
exceeds the value of any advantage to the typical GA pilot, the only
FADEC engines will be in new airplanes where the incremental cost is
trivial.

[Michael Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic
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?

[Michael Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

[Mxsmanic]

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

I don't think there's anything idealistic about it. My guess is that
certification of engines is so extraordinarily expensive, and private plane
owners are so (relatively) poor, that nobody could afford to pay for a truly
modern piston engine. So the same designs are used for decades.

The situation is different with airlines, because they have more money and can
save more money. The economics favor advances in engine design and control,
and certification is much less of an expense.

At least that's my guess. But it does keep private pilots back in the 1940s.

Post by Michael Ash
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.

Yes, but you don't have to adjust mixture and timing as you drive. You don't
have to worry about the exhaust temperature. You have a cooling system that
doesn't vary dramatically in efficiency with your speed. And so on.

But automobile engines require virtually nothing in the way of certification.
This has become apparent in some cases when computer controls added to engines
have misbehaved, because manufacturers never bother to design and test them
adequately. The consequences of that would be much worse in the air.

Post by Michael Ash
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.

But glider pilots like going through the extra stuff, otherwise they wouldn't
be glider pilots. And you don't have to worry about an engine.

[Viperdoc]

Anthony:
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).

Your comments about soaring are also specious- you even know less about
gliders than powered flight.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Viperdoc
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.

[Viperdoc]

"

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

[Michael Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

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

I don't think there's anything idealistic about it. My guess is that
certification of engines is so extraordinarily expensive, and private plane
owners are so (relatively) poor, that nobody could afford to pay for a truly
modern piston engine. So the same designs are used for decades.

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.

It's like saying "wouldn't it be great if everybody could just get
together in harmony and we wouldn't fight war no more". Well yes, it
would, but that sort of thinking is still hopelessly idealistic,
especially when you run with it instead of just having it as a passing
fancy.

Post by Mxsmanic
The situation is different with airlines, because they have more money and can
save more money. The economics favor advances in engine design and control,
and certification is much less of an expense.
At least that's my guess. But it does keep private pilots back in the 1940s.

Airliners may have better engine management systems but it's still there.
And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush. There are great
differences from one type of plane to another.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
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.

Yes, but you don't have to adjust mixture and timing as you drive. You don't
have to worry about the exhaust temperature. You have a cooling system that
doesn't vary dramatically in efficiency with your speed. And so on.

Yep, but my point is that you still have to think about it to *some*
extent. Try starting the car in -20 degree weather, then immediately
flooring it while in park and holding the pedal to the floor until the gas
runs out. This is going to do bad things. Try driving around in 1st gear
all the time, ditto, even though it will force an upshift at redline. Try
hooking up a big fat trailer to a small car and then driving up and down
big mountains at 70MPH, your transmission will be lucky to last the week.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
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.

But glider pilots like going through the extra stuff, otherwise they wouldn't
be glider pilots. And you don't have to worry about an engine.

And you think that no power pilots like engine management? 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.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Michael Ash
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.

Post by Michael Ash
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.

Post by Michael Ash
And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush.

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

Post by Michael Ash
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.

Post by Michael Ash
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.

Post by Michael Ash
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.

[Viperdoc]

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

And this comment comes from someone who doesn't know the relationships
between EGT, RPM, MP, and mixture, yet he can criticize people who actually
fly?

He asks a naive question, and then is critical of those who actually do fly
and understand how to use the controls?

Anthony, don't worry- just use the mouse and push the controls in as far as
they go on the screen- it won't matter. Or, use your cheap joystick and
achieve the same results.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

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

Post by Michael Ash
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.

Yes, and that design improvement is called the turbine engine.

Comparing anything to do with the turbine engines on airliners to the
piston engines in GA aircraft is pointless.

[Michael Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
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.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
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.

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
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....

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Michael Ash
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?

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
The situation is different with airlines, because they have more money and can
save more money. The economics favor advances in engine design and control,
and certification is much less of an expense.

Apples and oranges.

Private pilots don't generally fly airplanes with huge turbofan enginges.

Post by Mxsmanic
Yes, but you don't have to adjust mixture and timing as you drive. You don't
have to worry about the exhaust temperature. You have a cooling system that
doesn't vary dramatically in efficiency with your speed. And so on.

Apples and oranges.

Airplane engines are operated at near full power at all times, automobile
engines are seldom operated anywhere near full power.

Automobile engines typically operate at less than 4,000 feet while
airplane engines sans turbo operate to around 10,000 feet. Before the
days of modern fuel injection, people who lived in places like Denver
had different jets in the carb than people down in the flats since cars
didn't have mixture controls.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apples and oranges.

Mostly just a difference in economics, I suspect.

[Viperdoc]

Post by Mxsmanic
Mostly just a difference in economics, I suspect.

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

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apples and oranges.

Mostly just a difference in economics, I suspect.

You suspect incorrectly.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

That's because you don't know what you are talking about.

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

Turbines by their intrinsic design just don't have that many things you
can adjust in operation.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
It was the big radial piston engines that had the "whole panel of controls
and instruments".

Jets had them, too.

[Viperdoc]

Post by Mxsmanic
Jets had them, too.

How would you know- have you ever flown one?

[Clark]

Post by Viperdoc

Post by Mxsmanic
Jets had them, too.

How would you know- have you ever flown one?

And he'd never get near a piston engined plane since they're too scary.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
It was the big radial piston engines that had the "whole panel of controls
and instruments".

Jets had them, too.

Compare the stuff required to keep the 6 R-4360 radials running versus
the 4 turbojets on a B-36 and get back to us when you have a clue.

[Beauciphus]

Post by Mxsmanic
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".

[Tman]

Post by Mxsmanic
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

[Nomen Nescio]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Post by Mxsmanic
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?

It disrupts the space/time continuum.

[WingFlaps]

Post by Mxsmanic
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

[Peter Dohm]

Post by Mxsmanic
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 :-))))))

[a]

Post by WingFlaps

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

[Viperdoc]

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.

[a]

Post by Viperdoc
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.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Viperdoc
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/support/troubleshooting/resources/SSP700A.pdf

Scott Wilson

[Viperdoc]

There is a lot of "may", or "can" in their article, but no data. On the
other hand, Cirrus as well as the folks at TAT actually present data,
something that Lycoming and Continental have yet to produce.

I suspect that both companies are not interested in doing any testing or
changing their many year old operating instructions in order to limit their
liability exposure.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Viperdoc
I suspect that both companies are not interested in doing any testing or
changing their many year old operating instructions in order to limit their
liability exposure.

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.
Scott Wilson

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by Viperdoc
I suspect that both companies are not interested in doing any testing or
changing their many year old operating instructions in order to limit their
liability exposure.

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.
Scott Wilson

There is; it is called an engine analyzer.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
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

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
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.

[Peter Dohm]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by Viperdoc
I suspect that both companies are not interested in doing any testing or
changing their many year old operating instructions in order to limit their
liability exposure.

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.
Scott Wilson

I don't know about the 172N, but the manual for the 152 had a very similar
recommendation for lean operation--but it was stated for 60% power (and was
obviously appropriate for less than 60% as well).

What does your POH say about the power setting?

Peter

[D***@yahoo.com]

Post by a***@yahoo.com
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

[Beauciphus]

Post by Mxsmanic
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]

Post by Beauciphus

Post by Mxsmanic
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!

[Frank Olson]

Post by Clark

Post by Beauciphus

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

[Clark]

Post by Frank Olson

Post by Clark

Post by Beauciphus

Post by Mxsmanic
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.

My pistons may be smaller but I've got more of 'em.

[Viperdoc]

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.

[buttman]

Post by Viperdoc
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.

[Viperdoc]

No, never mad- he is just a source of amusement.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Viperdoc
No, never mad- he is just a source of amusement.

Are you sure that is the impression you create?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| Viperdoc writes:
|
| > No, never mad- he is just a source of amusement.
|
| Are you sure that is the impression you create?

It's not about creating an impression. It's all about laughing at an
ignorant, arrogant asshole.

[Viperdoc]

I am not worried about the impression I create, any more than the one you
create when you ask your inane questions and provide your own pedantic
responses, all in the face of absolutely no flying experience.

[Michael Ash]

Post by buttman

Post by Viperdoc
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 here:

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.

[Morgans]

Post by Michael Ash
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=mxsmanic
He commonly exhibits extremely annoying behaviors including but not
- 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.

[Michael Ash]

Post by Morgans
Well put!!!!!!

Well shucks, thanks. :)

Post by Morgans
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.

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by Michael Ash
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.

[Michael Ash]

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by Michael Ash
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.

[Morgans]

<***@gmail.com> wrote My favorite?

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

Yep. that's "special," no doubt.

One of the insights into his mind came when someone posted links to his
blog, and he wrote on and on about going places, to pick up his imaginary
passengers, to fly to imaginary destination, and then having to wait around
the airport until his passengers came back to leave.

He "really" thinks simming is just as good as going places, and better,
because it is less expensive, and safe. Reality, to him, is just a passing
introduction, but he has never become friends. Wow.

[Paul kgyy]

As a few of the people who actually understand this stuff have pointed
out, continuous operation at full power does increase wear and tear.
It has little to do with EGT, because EGTs are generally quite low
under full power. A more serious issue is CHT.

A very common practice with the TCM IO520 is to leave the throttle at
full throughout the climb. This produces a good rich (cooling)
mixture and gets you up to cooler air quickly. Most pilots do reduce
RPM slightly to increase engine longevity and provide better cooling
(higher airspeeds also help here at the expense of rate of climb). A
lot of the turbo guys run 80-90% power at altitudes in the teens.

Mixture is used in cruise (and in climb) as a tool to manage CHT and
fuel consumption.