My wife getting scared

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:32:05 -0400, john smith
wrote in :

The constant stresses of going from full throttle to idle and back to
full throttle definitely take their toll on an engine.

Not to mention the inertial loads induced as a result of constantly
changing angular momentum, right?

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:47:35 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote:

The new Toyota (well, okay, 1995 vintage) is green, so we also call
it..."The Grape"...

Peas are green, too...

("B A R R Y" wrote)
The new Toyota (well, okay, 1995 vintage) is green, so we also call
it..."The Grape"...

Peas are green, too...


....and kiwi(fruit), too.

WOW, nutritious little devils.
http://www.kiwifruit.org/SpotlightOn/Quicktime/quicktime%20small.htm
I like the NFL Films "Green" Bay Packers background music


Montblack

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
practice is "needlessly".

And I still want to know *how* it harms the engine. Exactly what parts
will
be damaged, and why?

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?

Considering that the overwhelming majority of W&T occurs during a cold
engine start, that would be an odd conclusion. The worst W&T on an engine is
DISuse.

What's worse for your car; short trips and multiple startups, or stop and go
driving?

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 01:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul Tomblin wrote:

9. FLY THE PLANE
10. Carb heat or alternate air

I see some logic to moving carb heat to number one on engine outs with the
thought that if it was carb ice, you don't want to give the exhaust
manifolds a chance to cool down and you want to give carb heat all the time
you can to melt any accumulations.

Make any sense?

--
Dallas

In a previous article, said:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 01:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul Tomblin wrote:

9. FLY THE PLANE
10. Carb heat or alternate air

I see some logic to moving carb heat to number one on engine outs with the
thought that if it was carb ice, you don't want to give the exhaust
manifolds a chance to cool down and you want to give carb heat all the time
you can to melt any accumulations.

Make any sense?

Yes, I think you're right. The checklist was taught to me as a left to
right flow across the panel, but the one time I lost power on take-off in
the winter, I actually did the carb heat immediately and it worked.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Three of your friends throw up after eating chicken salad. Do you think
"I should find more robust friends" or "we should check that refrigerator"?
-- Donald Becker, on vortex-bug, suspecting a network-wide problem

On Oct 7, 2:06 am, "Montblack" Y4_NOT!...
wrote:
("Larry Dighera" wrote)

More groundless imaginings; that may be true in your little circle of
cronies, but as Bush is learning, there is a larger world beyond cronyism.

A: I disagree. Jay has a pretty BIG circle ...of "cronies".

B: (OT) Bush (his administration) is going through (on par) what other two
term presidents have been through, in year 7. He is not unique in muddling
through to the end.

(revisited)
A: Jay's circle of "cronies". A possible explanation:

Monty, I think you are missing the point. The cronieism LD is refering
to has to do with RAP and not his personal accomplishments . I am
always amazed at how these threads degrade into arguments that noone
will ever win. To get back to the gist of this discusion, I have
overhauled and repaired a few of these engines and I have read much of
the Lycoming factory material and from what I have seen and read the
biggest problem is the RATE of tempurature change in these engines
that causes the problem. With some planning and care you can go
practice approaches, pattern work, engine emergencies, etc, and
minimize the wear or damage to your engine. There is no doubt that
repeated approaches is harder on an engine than straight and level
cruise, but most pilots would sacrifice some engine wear to maintain
proficency (Wasnt that the gist of this ?)

Don't get me wrong, just because I may insinuate it's like ...ducks in a
barrel, doesn't mean we're not all looking forward to Larry's 'make-over'
into a comic swan.

Having a condisending day are we ?

Montblack
...and running g

There is no doubt that
repeated approaches is harder on an engine than straight and level
cruise, but most pilots would sacrifice some engine wear to maintain
proficency (Wasnt that the gist of this ?)

The tripping point in this discussion has been the absolute refusal by
some participants to accept your last statement (and the point I've
been making) as true and correct.

I will restate my point: Repeated application of full-power-to-idle
throttle management (as done in go-arounds, touch & goes, and engine
out practice) will wear your engine (and prop governor, fuel pump,
throttle linkage, etc.) out faster than NOT applying full power to
idle.

The gist of the thread *was* whether or not engine out practice was
worth the expense (and risk) of this added engine wear.
Unfortunately, that debate was lost in the muddle over whether the
wear was actually occurring.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

I don't know if
it's a second-language thing with you

It may be a discussion-culture thing, if I may chime in. The way I saw it,
and I do not imply that this is what you wanted to do, Thomas reasonably
asked you to back up your claims either by presenting evidence or by
reasoning, which you refused to do for quite some time. Instead, you
alternated between "if you really are so stupid that you do not see this
entirely obvious point, pity, I will not be bothered to explain it"
and "believe me, for I am the mighty and all-knowing Jay Honeck" (some
exaggeration to get the point across). Thomas finally grew frustrated and
attacked you personally - not the high art of debate, but not completely
unprovoked, either.

It takes two to tango, etc.
--
The mail address works, but please notify me via usenet of any mail you send
to it, as it has a retention period of just a few hours.

On Oct 8, 8:16 am, Jay Honeck wrote:

The tripping point in this discussion has been the absolute refusal by
some participants to accept your last statement (and the point I've
been making) as true and correct.

The tripping point of Monty's post was that he seemed to feel that by
boasting about your qualifications it would somehow discredit other
posters (odd that he didnt mention his own qualifications ). You are
pretty well endowed, aviation wise (I for one admire your passion and
comitment to GA) , but Montie failed to explain how this makes your
posts any more relevant than anyone elses.


The gist of the thread *was* whether or not engine out practice was
worth the expense (and risk) of this added engine wear.
Unfortunately, that debate was lost in the muddle over whether the
wear was actually occurring.

The gist ought to be maintaining proficency with minimal wear and tear
on your plane. Lycoming recomends no more than 100 degrees per minute
temp decline in CHT. Those of you who fly with an engine analizer will
find that this not difficult to acomplish and still get the benefit of
practice. Take a look at glider tow operations. These guys do low
speed high power climbs and then dive back to the pattern to do it
again 4 to 5 times an hour all day long and most of them regularly
make it to recomended TBO (The careful ones). Ask them how it is done
sometime.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"