A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

My wife getting scared



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old October 5th 07, 02:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Paul kgyy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 283
Default My wife getting scared

To a large extent, the outcome of this will depend on her perception
of you as a person. If you demonstrate a high level of caution and
competence in your flying (and when you drive together), her fears may
gradually abate.

My wife was pretty fearful of flying with me when I started again
after 30 years on the ground. However, after a fairly serious auto
accident on the freeway, she feels more secure to fly now, although
still has some reservations about IMC.

These problems are based more on perceptions than statistics, right or
wrong.

  #132  
Old October 5th 07, 05:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,749
Default My wife getting scared

Jay,

Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
operation?


No. Why?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

  #133  
Old October 5th 07, 05:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,749
Default My wife getting scared

Shirl,

Well, ya got me there. But, of course, the odds of a real engine out
are (thankfully) quite small.


Yeah, I used to say that, too!


They still are, even thought you've experienced one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

  #134  
Old October 5th 07, 07:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,573
Default My wife getting scared

Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
operation?


No. Why?


I'm no thermodynamist, but I believe it's commonly accepted that
taking an internal combustion engine from steady state/low RPMs to
full power/high RPMs (as one would repeatedly do during touch & goes
and engine-out practice) is more harmful to the engine than simply
steady-state/mid-RPM power settings.

A rough analogy would be to think of drag racers versus rally car
engines. One lasts 20 to 30 seconds, the other lasts 1000 miles.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

  #135  
Old October 5th 07, 07:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,546
Default My wife getting scared

Jay Honeck wrote:

I'm no thermodynamist,


......and owning your own hotel, it's an odds on bet you didn't sleep at
a Holiday Express last night ether!!!!!!!
:-))
D

--
Dudley Henriques
  #136  
Old October 5th 07, 07:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,573
Default My wife getting scared

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"

  #137  
Old October 5th 07, 08:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dan Luke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 713
Default My wife getting scared


"Jay Honeck" wrote:

A rough analogy would be to think of drag racers versus rally car
engines. One lasts 20 to 30 seconds, the other lasts 1000 miles.


That's *too* rough. Unlimited drag racers are blown to a jillion horsepower
and burning nitro. It ain't the cycles that breaks 'em, it's the internal
pressures.

I think you're just going on gut feeling, and you know...

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any
rational thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well
known.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM


  #138  
Old October 5th 07, 08:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dan Luke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 713
Default My wife getting scared


"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


  #139  
Old October 5th 07, 08:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Gig 601XL Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,317
Default My wife getting scared

Jay Honeck wrote:

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.


The insurance goes up if you are using your plane for training because the
actuarial tables show that having people who don't know how to fly yet have
a higher than normal rate of accidents.

While I will agree that idle to firewall is marginally more taxing on the
engine, let's remember where this thread started. It started with you being
concerned about engine life and that it is reduced because of practicing
engine out landings. The T&G debate got added later.

It all boils down to the fact that you are not doing yourself or your
aircraft a favor by not practicing engine out landings. Even if it is just
one a month at the end of a normal flight, treat the landing as a failure in
the pattern. You will have ZERO added stress on the engine because you are
just going to idle a few minutes sooner. Hell, it is probably less net
stress on the engine.



  #140  
Old October 5th 07, 10:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,573
Default My wife getting scared

I think you're just going on gut feeling, and you know...

So, you're saying that running your engine from 900 to 2700 RPM over
and over again is no worse for it than running at 2300 RPM all day?

My mechanic would love your business...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.