![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
He is, of course, right. Pilots often do act on "voodoo" when it
comes to engines, and other flight details. Or at least on the tales their CFIs told them... some correct, some not. How many times have we had someone here say "I was told this", and half the replies are "but no, it's really that!" It's often hard to sort the wheat from the chaff, not least because there can be so much difference between airplanes. No, he is not right at all. There are a few "rules of thumb" that work for basic training aircraft--which are specifically manufactured to be tolerant of those practices. However, flying most modern trainers, you can improve both performance and economy if you operate them "by the book." The more sophisticated the engine, the more important important it is to operate "by the book." Geared engines and controllable props are excellent examples. In short, you are attempting to defend the idefensible. It's only fairly recently that researchers outside of the engine manufacturers really began looking into how the motors work in practice. And we needed those outside people because for a long time the manufacturers had conflicting advice, or no advice at all. If it seems strange at times to pilots, it must be doubly strange to a non-pilot. Anyway, we all know about GAMIjectors as one example of research. Here's an interesting read: That's not true. Most of this was known and documented during (and a lot of it prior to) World War II, and much of it is documented in old NACA reports. GAMIjectors are not an example of new research, but of the evolution of market forces. The relative costs of fuel, certification, and precision manufacturing reached a balance at which some investors saw an opportunity. I have no idea whether others saw the same opportunity at an earlier date and failed in their marketing, or simply ran out of money--but the underlying knowledge had already been in the public domain for decades. Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why does a prop ice up so apparently readily? | Mike Rapoport | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | November 8th 05 02:52 PM |
Ivo Prop on O-320 | Dave S | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 04 03:04 AM |
Prop Pitch Question | Eugene Wendland | Home Built | 2 | April 25th 04 03:22 AM |
PC flight simulators | Bjørnar Bolsøy | Military Aviation | 178 | December 14th 03 12:14 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |