Union Thug wrote in news:1191867568.240364.167630
@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 8, 8:16 am, Jay Honeck wrote:

The tripping point in this discussion has been the absolute refusal
by
some participants to accept your last statement (and the point I've
been making) as true and correct.

The tripping point of Monty's post was that he seemed to feel that by
boasting about your qualifications it would somehow discredit other
posters (odd that he didnt mention his own qualifications ). You are
pretty well endowed, aviation wise (I for one admire your passion and
comitment to GA) , but Montie failed to explain how this makes your
posts any more relevant than anyone elses.


The gist of the thread *was* whether or not engine out practice was
worth the expense (and risk) of this added engine wear.
Unfortunately, that debate was lost in the muddle over whether the
wear was actually occurring.

The gist ought to be maintaining proficency with minimal wear and tear
on your plane. Lycoming recomends no more than 100 degrees per minute
temp decline in CHT. Those of you who fly with an engine analizer will
find that this not difficult to acomplish and still get the benefit of
practice. Take a look at glider tow operations. These guys do low
speed high power climbs and then dive back to the pattern to do it
again 4 to 5 times an hour all day long and most of them regularly
make it to recomended TBO (The careful ones). Ask them how it is done
sometime.


I did it once upon a time and we were restricted to a min of 1500 revs
(IIRC) during the initial descent. Before that we cracked a lot of jugs.
OTOH, we had a lot of aerobatic airplanes and most of them went well
beyond recommended TBO


Not to mention one extraordinary J-3 that just went on forever. I think
it did over 4,000 hours without even a top end and it lived in the
pattern.

bertie