My wife getting scared

To a large extent, the outcome of this will depend on her perception
of you as a person. If you demonstrate a high level of caution and
competence in your flying (and when you drive together), her fears may
gradually abate.

My wife was pretty fearful of flying with me when I started again
after 30 years on the ground. However, after a fairly serious auto
accident on the freeway, she feels more secure to fly now, although
still has some reservations about IMC.

These problems are based more on perceptions than statistics, right or
wrong.

Jay,

Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
operation?


No. Why?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Shirl,

Well, ya got me there. But, of course, the odds of a real engine out
are (thankfully) quite small.

Yeah, I used to say that, too!


They still are, even thought you've experienced one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
operation?

No. Why?

I'm no thermodynamist, but I believe it's commonly accepted that
taking an internal combustion engine from steady state/low RPMs to
full power/high RPMs (as one would repeatedly do during touch & goes
and engine-out practice) is more harmful to the engine than simply
steady-state/mid-RPM power settings.

A rough analogy would be to think of drag racers versus rally car
engines. One lasts 20 to 30 seconds, the other lasts 1000 miles.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

I'm no thermodynamist,

......and owning your own hotel, it's an odds on bet you didn't sleep at
a Holiday Express last night ether!!!!!!!
:-))
D

--
Dudley Henriques

No offense, but you're making very bold, sweepingly general statements from
your personal little world view again, a trap you so often like to fall
into.

Perhaps (and, no offense, of course), but I believe I'm exposed to
more general aviation experiences, both personal and through the
hotel, in a month than you are in a year.

There are very good, very real reasons why some rentals (and more
partnerships) specify "no touch & goes" in their written agreements.
It's the hardest thing you can do to your aircraft in "normal" (non-
aerobatic) use, period.

Further, any student knows that a touch & go is a much more difficult
maneuver to perform than a full-stop landing. It's harder on the
equipment (ask your A&P about tires, brakes, wheel bearings, etc., on
aircraft that do a lot of touch & goes), and carries with it the
increased risk of a botched go-round, etc.

This is why, by the way, your insurance goes up if you tell them that
your airplane is being used for training purposes. Actuarial tables
don't lie, and your plane is more likely to be damaged while training
a new pilot.

I do believe this thread proves the old Usenet adage that "anyone will
argue anything". For you to be questioning the rather obvious fact
that high-power/low-power engine operations are harder on an aircraft
than steady-state engine operations illustrates a remarkable, um,
quality.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

A rough analogy would be to think of drag racers versus rally car
engines. One lasts 20 to 30 seconds, the other lasts 1000 miles.

That's *too* rough. Unlimited drag racers are blown to a jillion horsepower
and burning nitro. It ain't the cycles that breaks 'em, it's the internal
pressures.

I think you're just going on gut feeling, and you know...

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any
rational thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well
known.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

I do believe this thread proves the old Usenet adage that "anyone will
argue anything". For you to be questioning the rather obvious fact
that high-power/low-power engine operations are harder on an aircraft
than steady-state engine operations illustrates a remarkable, um,
quality.

It isn't obvious, Jay, and you haven't produced any evidence that it is a
fact. Maybe it *is* bad for an engine, but you haven't even said what damage
you think is being done.

Our insisting on evidence for a claim like that is not at all remarkable. I,
and I know Thomas, insist on empirical reasons for things we will believe.
Why does that seem strange?

Can't you find some empirical evidence to support your claim? If you can
produce some, I'll change the way I do some things. Otherwise, I'll keep
doing t&g's and simulated engine failures as much as always.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Jay Honeck wrote:

There are very good, very real reasons why some rentals (and more
partnerships) specify "no touch & goes" in their written agreements.
It's the hardest thing you can do to your aircraft in "normal" (non-
aerobatic) use, period.

Further, any student knows that a touch & go is a much more difficult
maneuver to perform than a full-stop landing. It's harder on the
equipment (ask your A&P about tires, brakes, wheel bearings, etc., on
aircraft that do a lot of touch & goes), and carries with it the
increased risk of a botched go-round, etc.

This is why, by the way, your insurance goes up if you tell them that
your airplane is being used for training purposes. Actuarial tables
don't lie, and your plane is more likely to be damaged while training
a new pilot.


The insurance goes up if you are using your plane for training because the
actuarial tables show that having people who don't know how to fly yet have
a higher than normal rate of accidents.

While I will agree that idle to firewall is marginally more taxing on the
engine, let's remember where this thread started. It started with you being
concerned about engine life and that it is reduced because of practicing
engine out landings. The T&G debate got added later.

It all boils down to the fact that you are not doing yourself or your
aircraft a favor by not practicing engine out landings. Even if it is just
one a month at the end of a normal flight, treat the landing as a failure in
the pattern. You will have ZERO added stress on the engine because you are
just going to idle a few minutes sooner. Hell, it is probably less net
stress on the engine.

I think you're just going on gut feeling, and you know...

So, you're saying that running your engine from 900 to 2700 RPM over
and over again is no worse for it than running at 2300 RPM all day?

My mechanic would love your business...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"