![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
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 |