My wife getting scared

Jay,

I would agree with that. Full power/idle power cycles are very hard
on engines -- and that is what you're doing in a touch & go.

I wonder where you would get a hint of data to support that statement.
Certainly not from flight schools.

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.

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. Not everybody gets to fly as often as you do, for various reasons.
Not everybody owns a plane. Those of us with lengthy pauses in their flying
do indeed need to practice touch&gos after a while. Those of us flying
different models need to, too. There's a ton of other reasons why to do
T&Gs. Apart from that, I don't see the "beating" part as a necessary
consequence, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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:

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

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?

Borchert would argue that black-eyed beans are really black-eyed peas,
just for the sake of arguing. His arguing a point has little to do
with anything, real or imagined, other than that he enjoys the sound
of his own voice.

As for you looking for "proof" that rough-handling an engine isn't
worse for it than treating it with kid gloves, well, Dan, I don't know
what to tell ya. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this
one.

Here's something I know we all agree on: I will endeavor to practice
engine-out procedures more often -- and (as opposed to our training
days) I will also endeavor to apply power slowly and carefully at the
end of that looooong glide.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Here's something I know we all agree on: I will endeavor to practice
engine-out procedures more often -- and (as opposed to our training
days) I will also endeavor to apply power slowly and carefully at the
end of that looooong glide.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"





This is really the crux of this issue. It's not the touch and go's per
se' that are the real issue, but rather the way an aircraft engine is
managed. In the training environment, it is not uncommon to have many
different pilots and different instructors all managing an engine
differently instead of with a standardized procedure.
It's for this direct reason that every pilot and instructor who ever
flew our airplanes was subjected to as an integral part of our checkout
procedure, an in-flight demonstration on how we wanted our engines
managed throttle wise UNDER NORMAL NON EMERGENCY CONDITIONS.
Smooth throttle and prop use use and in relevant cases correct use of
cowl flaps is the key to long engine life. It's the smooth management of
temps and pressures up and down that's important, and this means
strict focus on how power is transitioned from idle to full and visa versa.
Aside for an emergency condition, any application of power up or down
that isn't smooth indicates poor planning on the part of the pilot.
DH
--
Dudley Henriques

It's for this direct reason that every pilot and instructor who ever
flew our airplanes was subjected to as an integral part of our checkout
procedure, an in-flight demonstration on how we wanted our engines
managed throttle wise UNDER NORMAL NON EMERGENCY CONDITIONS.
Smooth throttle and prop use use and in relevant cases correct use of
cowl flaps is the key to long engine life. It's the smooth management of
temps and pressures up and down that's important, and this means
strict focus on how power is transitioned from idle to full and visa versa.
Aside for an emergency condition, any application of power up or down
that isn't smooth indicates poor planning on the part of the pilot.

Amen, brother!

Thanks for restating it in better terms, Dudley.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote

Borchert would argue that black-eyed beans are really black-eyed peas,
just for the sake of arguing. His arguing a point has little to do
with anything, real or imagined, other than that he enjoys the sound
of his own voice.

As for you looking for "proof" that rough-handling an engine isn't
worse for it than treating it with kid gloves, well, Dan, I don't know
what to tell ya. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this
one.

Jay, I think you would agree that I am not an overly argumentative person,
and that I'm a pretty fair wrench turn'er. (remember me putting in a
transmission into my van, in the field at Oshkosh? g)

What Dudlley said in the next post is pretty much my view on the whole
thing. Quote by The Dud:

It's the smooth management of temps and pressures up and down that's
important, and this means strict focus on how power is transitioned from
idle to full and visa versa.

End quote.

On the subject of going from idle to full power, that covers it all. If you
treat the engine with the temp and pressure in mind, it really does not care
if it changes RPM often. All day long if you wanted to. Exceeding cylinder
pressure limits wear the piston, rings, and cylinders, and put extra strain
on the rod and main bearings.

Think of it like this. If you are cruising along at cruise with the engine
making 70% power, that is still a lot of HP being made, and pressure is
being applied to all of the moving parts of the engine, and a lot of it, at
that.

If you accelerate an engine nicely, you do not put as much pressure on it,
and it is not making as much HP as it would be subjected to at cruise power
settings. Therefore it won't hurt the engine, following those guidelines.

The problem with training planes is that renters don't apply the power
smoothly, or watch the temperatures, and end up lugging it, and putting
extra pressure on everything. THAT is what hurts engines that are going
from low power to high power.

You care about the life of your engine, and if you are aware of possible
pitfalls, you will not hurt your engine.

In conclusion, I would agree that unless you can come up with real numbers
on how touch and goes and such, hurt your engine, I don't think it is
a -given- that low power to high power cycles hurt the engine. If you don't
exceed the cylinder pressures and temperatures, it can't do anything bad,
because the engine is -designed- to output much higher amounts of power for
extended periods of time, and all in an engine that is designed to make its
power at very conservative HP to Cubic Inch levels. This isn't a dragster,
or road racer, making 1 1/2 ot 2 HP per cubic inch, but an engine only
putting out around 1/2 HP per cubic inch. These are very sustainable power
levels.

Here's something I know we all agree on: I will endeavor to practice
engine-out procedures more often -- and (as opposed to our training
days) I will also endeavor to apply power slowly and carefully at the
end of that looooong glide.

That's a good thing, I guess, and if nothing else, it will probably make you
and Mary safer pilots.

Happy flights!
--
Jim in NC

Jay,

Borchert would argue that black-eyed beans are really black-eyed peas,
just for the sake of arguing. His arguing a point has little to do
with anything, real or imagined, other than that he enjoys the sound
of his own voice.


Nice. Very nice. Why are you doing this?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Borchert would argue that black-eyed beans are really black-eyed peas,
just for the sake of arguing. His arguing a point has little to do
with anything, real or imagined, other than that he enjoys the sound
of his own voice.

Nice. Very nice. Why are you doing this?

Short attention span, eh? Here's why: (From your post):

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.

I've tried for years to ignore your rude posts. I've tried to humor
you. I've tried to engage you. All to no avail. Therefore, when you
respond with your typically inappropriate, arrogant remarks, you may
expect a mild (too mild, I might add) rebuke from me.

I don't know why you can't keep a civil tongue in your head while
holding a discussion, but to whine about this as if you've been
"zinged" unexpectedly only reinforces my opinion of you.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Dan,

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?


Thanks. I was beginning to ask myself what my problem might be in communicating
about this. Turns out, as Jay revealed so nicely, he himself is the problem.
What saddens me is that this "community" does nothing about it if it's our
oh-so-esteemed Brother Jay, but screams bloody murder when someone like MX does
it. Usenet, indeed...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)