My wife getting scared

Shirl wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
Engines have vibration and resonances that vary with RPM. Running at a
constant RPM for long periods of time causes a certain wear pattern on
certain parts. Varying RPM over time induces different vibration an
part resonances and spreads the wear over different areas. This isn't a
bad, bad, bad thing.

My mechanic echoed this also. I was told even in cruise that it's a good
idea to vary the RPMs every 10 minutes or so.

I believe that is a good idea also. Constant RPM is great for engines
that will ALWAYS run at constant RPM (stationary generators, etc.).
However, for engines that must run across a range of RPMs, I believe it
is better to operate them across that full range as often as practical.

Matt

Engines have vibration and resonances that vary with RPM. Running at a
constant RPM for long periods of time causes a certain wear pattern on
certain parts. Varying RPM over time induces different vibration an
part resonances and spreads the wear over different areas. This isn't a
bad, bad, bad thing.

True enough. It is good for your engine to vary RPMs gradually and
gently.

In my experience, every mechanical thing last longer when treated
gently. This is why I (and others) take a full 3 or 4 seconds to
apply full power at take off, rather than simply slapping the throttle
lever to the stops. (I confess that I never worried about such things
as a renter...)

Young people -- especially young men -- take a long time to learn
this. (I know I did.) To illustrate this phenomenon, we need only
look at my riding lawn mower. For four years it ran perfectly with
me on board. This summer, my 16 (now 17) year old son took over the
hotel mowing duties. Within two weeks, the mower needed to be
repaired. Rough, abrupt usage of ANY mechanical equipment will
shorten its lifespan.

At the core I think we're talking about a matter of degree and
technique here. In my experience of doing engine out practice with
CFIs, we would get down to within a few hundred feet of the ground
(this in the wide-open Midwest, remember) and then quickly apply full-
power when we knew we had made (or not made) the chosen field.

I am going to try to practice them with a gentler technique next time
I fly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
In my experience, every mechanical thing last longer when treated
gently. This is why I (and others) take a full 3 or 4 seconds to
apply full power at take off, rather than simply slapping the throttle
lever to the stops. (I confess that I never worried about such things
as a renter...)

I do, too, but I did this as a renter, too. My dad was a carpenter -- he
insisted that we go easy on EVERYTHING! If we changed channels on the TV
"too fast", we were in trouble because that was considered "hard" on the
dial and the TV. Not to mention that everything in life generally
responds better when treated gently and with respect rather than being
manhandled!
;-)

Young people -- especially young men -- take a long time to learn
this. (I know I did.) To illustrate this phenomenon, we need only
look at my riding lawn mower. For four years it ran perfectly with
me on board. This summer, my 16 (now 17) year old son took over the
hotel mowing duties. Within two weeks, the mower needed to be
repaired. Rough, abrupt usage of ANY mechanical equipment will
shorten its lifespan.

I think part of this is learned and sinks in more once you start paying
for your own stuff and its associated maintenance out of your own
pocket, with money YOU have earned!

On Oct 1, 11:20 am, Jay Honeck wrote:
Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine has far
outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There is simply nothing
you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated
engine-out landings, so we do them very rarely.

We used to practice them regularly in rental birds...


Jay,
If you did practice emergency engine-out landing regularly in
rental birds, you must have believed that it was something useful, so
why doing it very rarely in your own bird?
I have stated it in a previous post (when you mentioned that you
did not practice short field landings in your bird either) that IMHO,
no amount of money is worth life or my limbs ;-). We spent $15K
overhauling our engine few years ago; the total cost including labor
was over $20K. I fly my Cardinal the same way as I flew training
school planes. We practiced emergency procedures and short field
landings regularly. Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number. I had only
done it once on my own after the training but plan to do it more
often. I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
maneuver can harm my engine. Even if it does shorten the life of my
engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
flawlessly all the time. I may never need to use the skill for real
but knowing that I am ready to do it in any situation boosts my
confidence tremendously. Besides, it is sheer exhilaration practicing
the maneuver. Definitely worth the price of the engine overhaul ;-)

Hai Longworth

"Longworth" wrote

Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number.

Sounds like it would be more fun than the best roller coaster ride!

I had only
done it once on my own after the training but plan to do it more
often. I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
maneuver can harm my engine. Even if it does shorten the life of my
engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
flawlessly all the time. I may never need to use the skill for real
but knowing that I am ready to do it in any situation boosts my
confidence tremendously. Besides, it is sheer exhilaration practicing
the maneuver. Definitely worth the price of the engine overhaul ;-)

It sounds like you do have your priorities in line, with the right
compromises of possible engine life sacrifice (a matter not clearly
established) and skills maintenance.

Doing a chop and drop when your engine isn't as hot as a firecracker should
not be harmful, in the least bit. Considerations of the towplane engine
long life is a good example, and one that is hard to argue with. They are
no doubt pretty hot when they start their rapid descent to pick up another
tow.

If one were to start the rapid drop (engine failure simulations) after
letting the engine cool a bit (by reducing power settings, or richening the
mixture, or both) and stabilize for a few minutes, the amount of additional
cooling from that power level, even in a worst case scenario, should not
cause a measurable increase in wear. It is mainly the hot piston cooling
more slowly than the cylinder bore, cutting down on the clearances, that can
increase wear. The stabilizing should eliminate that problem, all together.

The concern of hitting the throttle for a go around may be a concern,
although it is hard to see why that is any harder on the engine as the
takeoff full power applications. If that go around full power is what
concerns you, (or Jay) don't do a go around, except for the occasional
practice, (or real go-around) then just do the full stop, taxi back and
takeoff after everything is nicely cooled down.

I agree with the people that are saying that the practice of emergency
engine failures would have to be a good thing to practice. Doing it
carefully as to not damage your engine would seem to be prudent. Not doing
them may be not prudent.
--
Jim in NC

Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number.

I've done that a few times, with and without an instructor, and it's
REALLY fun! Not something you want to do at a busy field full of
NORDO planes, however.

I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
maneuver can harm my engine.

I don't think the maneuver you describe will harm your engine, as it
only includes cutting the power to idle. I have no statistics to back
this up, but I think it's the application of full power from idle (as
in a go-round, touch and go, or engine out emergency landing practice)
that causes the most wear and tear.

Even if it does shorten the life of my
engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
flawlessly all the time. I may never need to use the skill for real
but knowing that I am ready to do it in any situation boosts my
confidence tremendously. Besides, it is sheer exhilaration practicing
the maneuver. Definitely worth the price of the engine overhaul ;-)

I'm not putting myself, my engine, or my plane at increased risk
because it's exhilarating. The maneuver you describe, while not
aerobatic, is a relatively high-risk maneuver in that it takes place
directly over the airport, and involves a completely non-standard
approach to landing. Almost all mid-airs occur near an airport, and
this maneuver can end badly if not executed properly.

Which brings up another interesting line of thought. How many actual
accidents occur whilst practicing these kinds of maneuvers? When
does practicing engine out (for example) landings cause more problems
than it fixes?

For example, spin training was eliminated from the Private training
because it was determined that more pilots were being killed by
teaching it than could be saved by teaching it. The debate about this
decision still rages on today, but it can be extended to many parts of
flight training.

Another example, not quite so cut & dry: There is no doubt that touch
& goes are more risky than full-stop landings, and there has been some
debate about eliminating them from training. The added cost (in
hours) to the student is really the sole reason for keeping them in
the syllabus, and (as a result) a small-but-real number of students
die each year doing them.

So I must ask: When does the risk outweigh the benefit?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

snip

Another example, not quite so cut & dry: There is no doubt that touch
& goes are more risky than full-stop landings, and there has been some
debate about eliminating them from training. The added cost (in
hours) to the student is really the sole reason for keeping them in
the syllabus, and (as a result) a small-but-real number of students
die each year doing them.

Oh, I'm not sure of that.

How about touch & goes on a 172 on a 10,000 X 200 runway with 1,000
foot overrun at each end?

However I don't do touch & goes.

I come to a full stop, clean up the airplane, then critique the
last landing and ponder what I need to do next time to make it
better while taxiing back.

I see lots of people doing touch & goes repeating the exact same,
less than optimal (to put it mildly) thing each and every time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jay,
I did put a smiley behind my comment about practicing emergency
spiral landing being fun and worth the cost of my engine overhaul.
It is clear that our main objective for obtaining the training and
frequent practice is safety. I would never jeopardize my life or harm
my bird just to have fun!

I have over 700hrs with thousands of takeoffs/landings. We average
about 250hrs a year and fly pretty much every week year around. Aside
from several long cross country trips a year, most of our hours are
practice flights either on our own or with instructors. We try to mix
instrument practices with visual flight maneuvers. Safety is always
our utmost concern. We don't do any non-traditional patternworks
without asking for tower permission or making clear and frequent
announcement at uncontrolled fields. We also don't do unsual
patternworks at busy airports or during busy time. One of our
favorite practice spot is Sullivan County airport (MSV) with 6300x150'
runway. At its busiest time, there are usually no more than 2 or 3
planes in the pattern. We always learn something new from a new
instructors, always find room for improvements in our flying skills,
and never feel that we are good enough that no practices are needed.

I fully expect that the pilots who go out for their practices
would take the same kind of precaution and they do so for safety and
not for thrill seeking.

I don't know the accident statistics of training or practice
flights but at the start of my flight training in 2001, I spent many
hours reading NTSB reports. As I recall, I would not go flying at a
new airport without checking the reports. Anyway, I recalled there
was only a handful of accidents occurred during flight training or
practices. Lack of skills, lack of preparation etc. were the major
contribution factors.

Hai Longworth

Jay Honeck wrote:
Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number.

I've done that a few times, with and without an instructor, and it's
REALLY fun! Not something you want to do at a busy field full of
NORDO planes, however.

I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
maneuver can harm my engine.

I don't think the maneuver you describe will harm your engine, as it
only includes cutting the power to idle. I have no statistics to back
this up, but I think it's the application of full power from idle (as
in a go-round, touch and go, or engine out emergency landing practice)
that causes the most wear and tear.

But unless you're SO confident in your ability that you know it's ALWAYS
going to turn out right -- and of course that's what we all strive for
and usually accomplish -- you can't guarantee that it's *only* going to
include cutting power to idle. If you misjudge something and/or it
doesn't turn out as planned, you execute a go-round, don't you? So now
it includes full power from idle. I'm not saying you shouldn't be aware
of or concerned about wear and tear, but doesn't there need to be some
reasonable exchange of wear and tear for competency assurance?

Even if it does shorten the life of my
engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
flawlessly all the time.

(don't remember whose quote this was)
When exactly are you certain that you can execute it flawlessly *all*
the time? after 2 in a row? after 5 in a row? And once that's
accomplished in the present, do you assume you'll always maintain that
level of competency if you never practice it again?

I'm sure I'm probably over-doing it here, and I apologize if I sound
over the top. I guess I'm just not comfortable with assumptions even
though sometimes that's all we have.

On Oct 3, 1:56 pm, Shirl wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number.

I've done that a few times, with and without an instructor, and it's
REALLY fun! Not something you want to do at a busy field full of
NORDO planes, however.

I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
maneuver can harm my engine.

I don't think the maneuver you describe will harm your engine, as it
only includes cutting the power to idle. I have no statistics to back
this up, but I think it's the application of full power from idle (as
in a go-round, touch and go, or engine out emergency landing practice)
that causes the most wear and tear.

But unless you're SO confident in your ability that you know it's ALWAYS
going to turn out right -- and of course that's what we all strive for
and usually accomplish -- you can't guarantee that it's *only* going to
include cutting power to idle. If you misjudge something and/or it
doesn't turn out as planned, you execute a go-round, don't you? So now
it includes full power from idle. I'm not saying you shouldn't be aware
of or concerned about wear and tear, but doesn't there need to be some
reasonable exchange of wear and tear for competency assurance?

Even if it does shorten the life of my
engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
flawlessly all the time.

(don't remember whose quote this was)
When exactly are you certain that you can execute it flawlessly *all*
the time? after 2 in a row? after 5 in a row? And once that's
accomplished in the present, do you assume you'll always maintain that
level of competency if you never practice it again?

I'm sure I'm probably over-doing it here, and I apologize if I sound
over the top. I guess I'm just not comfortable with assumptions even
though sometimes that's all we have.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Shirl,
It is my statement.
Regarding your question "when exactly are you certain that you can
execute it flawlessly *all* the time?", the answer can be found in my
followup post: "We always learn something new from a new instructors,
always find room for improvements in our flying skills, and never feel
that we are good enough that no practices are needed."

Hai Longworth