My wife getting scared

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Jay, this simply isn't an "obvious fact" and I'm not convinced it is a
fact at all. You have provided one mechanic who thinks your way and
several of us have provided mechanics who disagree. This is hardly the
scenario that would surround an "obvious" fact.

I am apparently speaking a foreign language here, because I'm having a
hard time comprehending how normally intelligent people can argue this
point. Let's see if I can 'splain myself.

[snip assertions totally devoid of supporting evidence]

Jay, old sport, I fear the problem is that you are *hearing* a foreign
language.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Jay, old sport, I fear the problem is that you are *hearing* a foreign
language.

Whatever. If you guys don't believe that beating an engine won't kill
it quicker than babying it, because I lack "evidence", there's not
much else I can say but "To each, his own."

I will continue to fly my engine carefully and gently, nonetheless.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jay, old sport, I fear the problem is that you are *hearing* a foreign
language.

Whatever. If you guys don't believe that beating an engine won't kill
it quicker than babying it, because I lack "evidence", there's not
much else I can say but "To each, his own."

I will continue to fly my engine carefully and gently, nonetheless.

************************************
I think you may be starting to get defensive, now.

NOBODY here would think that an engine that is getting beaten will last as
long as an engine running at constant output.

The debate is whether running from idle, up to full power (gently) often
will be worse on it than constant output.

You and your mechanic have an opinion on the subject, and that is your
right.

I (and others) just don't agree that frequent power changes (done correctly)
are significantly detrimental to the life of your engine, and no studies or
numbers have been offered on either side to prove the case, either way.

Beat an engine, no contest. Beyond that, it all comes down to opinion.
That is all it could be, at this point.
--
Jim in NC

Jay Honeck wrote:
Jay, old sport, I fear the problem is that you are *hearing* a foreign
language.

Whatever. If you guys don't believe that beating an engine won't kill
it quicker than babying it, because I lack "evidence", there's not
much else I can say but "To each, his own."

I will continue to fly my engine carefully and gently, nonetheless.

And I'll continue to run mine as suggested by the service manager at the
BMW shop when I bought my 1200LT ... "run it like you stole it." He
said that BMW engines that weren't run hard right from the get-go tended
not to seat the rings well and then always had oil consumption issues.
So far, at nearly 4,000 miles, so good! The K engine really sings above
6 grand!

Matt

Jay,

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.

You're exposed to engine wear & tear and the analysis of the reasons for it?
Come on, Jay, get real.

There are very good, very real reasons why some rentals (and more
partnerships) specify "no touch & goes" in their written agreements.

There are? Which? What kind of aircraft? What kind of rental outfit? I would
wager that the reasons are very different from what you pretend to think.

It's the hardest thing you can do to your aircraft in "normal" (non-
aerobatic) use, period.

Again, give us a hint at the reasoning.

Further, any student knows that a touch & go is a much more difficult
maneuver to perform than a full-stop landing.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, loss-of-control accidents are common
during landing and take-off. That has nothing to do with engine wear, of
course.

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.

You're dodging the topic, my friend - and you know it. You where talking
engines exclusively, not the rest of the plane.

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.

See above. You're dodging the topic in true MX style.

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. Please. In case you haven't noticed, there's more than a handful of people
here arguing your point. So there's no reason at all to get personal. Sadly,
you do. As always.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)