![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay Honeck wrote:
He's an expert pilot, and a very experienced owner. He has hand-built several airplanes from scratch -- no "kit planes" for him. (His next project will be to recreate -- from photos only -- a 1916 aircraft that flew out of Grinnell, IA.) Cool. Sounds like an interesting, knowledgeable guy. Well, your engine has a limited number of those cycles in it. It's the same thing I explain to my 17 year old son: Yes, you can floor the car and spin the rear wheels a certain number of times, without harming the engine. Sooner or later, though, that kind of treatment *will* break something. Airplanes are no different. Cycling from full power to idle is just a bad thing to do with your engine. The engine was designed with the knowledge that in order to fly, the transition from full power to idle will have to be made at some point .... that in itself is not "a bad thing". If that's ALL you're constantly doing in every flight, then yes, I would agree with you, but that isn't what I meant by practicing simulated engine failures more often than every other year (during BFRs). Certainly a healthy engine can do them more often than that without being damaged. When my buddy's engine crapped out 700 hours before TBO, was it directly attributable to his doing a zillion touch & goes? Maybe, maybe not. But again, I wasn't talking about doing a zillion touch-n-goes, I was talking about practicing simulated engine failures often enough that *IF* the real thing occurs, you don't waste several precious seconds reacting, trying to remember the drill, or make any mistakes because you (not you personally) haven't flown enough power-off approaches/landings in the airplane you always fly. I don't know, but I can safely say that if he had simply let his engine run at a steady-state 2200 RPM, it would still be running today. No, you can't. Not doing touch-n-goes is not a guarantee that any engine will make it to TBO or still be running. It's hard to make ANY guarantees where engines are concerned...we do what the experts we know and respect recommend, and hope for the best, but even they don't make guarantees. THAT is an indication of the wear and tear inherent with full power/idle power engine management, versus cruise flight. I'm not disagreeing that there is wear and tear involved. But again, I also was not talking about a plane that ONLY does touch-n-goes. Of course cruise flight should make up the bulk of the time. Touch & goes aren't necessary to practice after your first 1000 or so landings, IMHO. If you don't have it down pat by then, a few more T&Gs isn't gonna help, and the beating your plane takes during the T&G process is something to be avoided. It isn't a matter of "having it down pat" -- most of us have landings down fairly pat by the time we get our ticket. But just because a person has done 1000 landings doesn't mean it's never necessary to practice touch-n-goes. Is there anyone who flies religiously once- or twice-a-week *without fail*, FOREVER? If so, they likely don't have to practice touch-n-goes. But who hasn't had to be off for a month or more once in a while due to other priorities in life or when a mechanical issue takes a month or more to resolve? When you get back in the air after a long period off, are your approaches and landings just as sharp as ever? If so, kudos to you! I'm not a professional pilot, and mine aren't always as good as they could be after I've been off for a month or more, and in those instances, three or four touch-n-goes is usually just what the doctor ordered. And once again, I'm not suggesting that EVERY flight should consist of touch-n-goes or include an engine-out practice. That's why airplane ads say stuff like "Never used as a trainer." That's not the only reason. "Trainers" take a lot more forms of abuse than just touch-n-goes. Engine out practice IS a good thing to do, however, and is why I do feel badly about my reluctance to do them. I'm thinking maybe we'll do some next time we go up, maybe at reduced (not idle) power... Good. As a friend, I'm glad to hear that. Optimally, in order to run the longest possible number of hours, you would never shut the engine off. I'll bet a Lycoming could run 10,000 hours easily if all you did was keep it running at 2000 RPM, and keep adding oil and gas. My mechanic was at my hangar this morning. I was picking his brain about this stuff. He said an airplane should be flown *at least* once a week to keep condensation/corrosion away (and other reasons but that being most important). He said Lycoming documentation actually states that an engine should be preserved (pickled) if it isn't going to be flown for 10 days or more, although no one does that. I've heard of pickling in extreme temps (cold) when not being flown *for an entire season*, but even then, seems a lot of people just let them sit. The person in the hangar across the taxiway from me was there for the first time this morning -- I'd never even seen or met him in the entire time I've been there. He said he hasn't flown in 2 years, and his C-180 hasn't either. It's having an annual now and he's about to begin flying again. It was not pickled, and I'll be interested to hear what was done in this annual, with that in mind. (I didn't ask why he was off for 2 years...guessing it might have been a medical issue.) But that's not "real world". Looking at trainers at big flight schools, they usually fly daily, often for many hours per day. And they usually get some pretty impressive time on their engines that way. (Hours-wise, not calendar-wise, of course.) We had a C-152 at our flight school. It had 13K hours on it when I got my ticket in it, and while it had its own little quirks, it obviously had been reliable. It was nearing 14K hours when a customer had an emergency, landed in the desert, flipped it onto its back and totaled it. Thankfully, they walked away. It had been a reliable, fun little bird. I do not know how many overhauls it had or if it went to TBO each time, but considering how much abuse it took doing T&Gs, spin training, being khablammed by people learning to land, and who-knows-what else customers put it through, it served everyone well and did Cessna proud. I just spent at least that much, too, and I'm sure as heck not going to intentionally abuse the engine. But I'm not going to skip some aspects of ongoing skill retention drills that I've seen the pay off firsthand in an emergency because I'm thinking about the $20K I just spent. Yep, I agree. You're the voice of experience here, which is why I'm engaged in this thread. I *am* worried about not practicing the procedures enough, but I just don't want to shorten the lifespan of a very expensive engine needlessly... Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out practice is "needlessly". Shirl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scared of mid-airs | Frode Berg | Piloting | 355 | August 20th 06 05:27 PM |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
The kids are scared, was Saddam evacuated | D. Strang | Military Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 10:36 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |