My wife getting scared

Jay,

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?


YOU are saying that it IS worse. So prove it. Or at least give a hint
at why it should be so.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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)

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)

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)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
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...


I don't think Jay has intentionally insulted anyone in the process of
stating his belief about engine operation. That is a huge difference.
I believe Jay is incorrect, unfortunately, I'm not aware of any real
data on the subject one way or the other so we all get to share our
opinions and that is the best we can do.

Matt

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:22:14 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote in
:

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...

Such a bias toward comrades is not unique to Usenet.

I see the bias you mention as the result of at least two factors: a
result of Mr. Honeck's "contribution" to GA, contrasted against Mr.
Atkielski's maligning of GA (and indeed most other aspects of
non-artificial aviation). Couple that with the social bonding that
occurs among drinking buddies and EAA members, and it's easy to see
how Mr. Honeck's frequent lack of insight and subjective opinion in
lieu of empirical fact are overlooked and tolerated by a certain
segment of the readership of the rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup.

Thomas Borchert writes:

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...

Facts and reality rise above personal squabbles, and so it serves no purpose
to "do something" about anyone, except perhaps for those who do not understand
or possess facts and reality.

Larry Dighera writes:

I see the bias you mention as the result of at least two factors: a
result of Mr. Honeck's "contribution" to GA, contrasted against Mr.
Atkielski's maligning of GA (and indeed most other aspects of
non-artificial aviation). Couple that with the social bonding that
occurs among drinking buddies and EAA members, and it's easy to see
how Mr. Honeck's frequent lack of insight and subjective opinion in
lieu of empirical fact are overlooked and tolerated by a certain
segment of the readership of the rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup.

Is this good or bad?

Matt,

I don't think Jay has intentionally insulted anyone in the process of
stating his belief about engine operation.


I would think the following does count:

"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."

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Larry,

You have an ecxcellent point - and state it so nicely!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)