My wife getting scared

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"

Union Thug wrote in news:1191867568.240364.167630
@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

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.


I did it once upon a time and we were restricted to a min of 1500 revs
(IIRC) during the initial descent. Before that we cracked a lot of jugs.
OTOH, we had a lot of aerobatic airplanes and most of them went well
beyond recommended TBO


Not to mention one extraordinary J-3 that just went on forever. I think
it did over 4,000 hours without even a top end and it lived in the
pattern.

bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

Not to mention one extraordinary J-3 that just went on forever. I think
it did over 4,000 hours without even a top end and it lived in the
pattern.

Yep.

As many times Jay says over and over that pattern work will wear out an
engine, I just don't think that is a given.

The biggest thing I believe that backs it up, is that the average HP output
per hour is less than what it would be at an all day long 75% cruise power
setting.

That, plus the fact that the average single engine mill is built hell for
stout, and does not make much power per C.I.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

Not to mention one extraordinary J-3 that just went on forever. I
think it did over 4,000 hours without even a top end and it lived in
the pattern.

Yep.

As many times Jay says over and over that pattern work will wear out
an engine, I just don't think that is a given.

The biggest thing I believe that backs it up, is that the average HP
output per hour is less than what it would be at an all day long 75%
cruise power setting.

That, plus the fact that the average single engine mill is built hell
for stout, and does not make much power per C.I.

True. The thing that kept this engine going was probably the fact that it
ran most of the day almost every day. No time for the oil to settle, so
startup wear was minimised, and of course corrosion didn't get a chance to
take hold because the oil never really drained away completely.


Bertie

("Union Thug" wrote)
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.


Random thoughts:

I was discrediting the use (by LD) of the term "cronies" - whatever the hell
it's suppose to mean, or imply. Anything else (read into my post) has been
'heaped on' by others.

"Boasting"? I used the word "explanation".

"but Montie failed to explain [there's that word again] how this makes your
posts any more relevant than anyone elses."

That wasn't my intent, nor was it my ($8/hr) job to do so. I was simply
letting LD know that words matter; that Jay's circle of "cronies"(???) is
bigger than LD surmises - and for XYZ reasons.

"(odd that he didnt mention his own qualifications )"

Not odd. Nothing was about me. My opinions on the gist of the thread haven't
been shared.


Montblack
What I'll be doing this Saturday: Volunteering all day (12 hrs)
http://www.cornerhousemn.org/galaevent.html
Held at Golden Wings Museum

http://www.cornerhousemn.org/about.html
The Child First Doctrine ...why I said yes.

On Oct 8, 4:44 pm, "Montblack" Y4_NOT!...
wrote:
("Union Thug" wrote)

Random thoughts:

I was discrediting the use (by LD) of the term "cronies" - whatever the hell
it's suppose to mean, or imply. Anything else (read into my post) has been
'heaped on' by others.

Actually you were perpetuating the use of the term "cronies". I am
only a part timer here but I have noticed definite cronyism by a few
members of this list. Why would you argue on someone elses behalf ?
Maybe we could make sure that our posts have some relevance to a
peticular thread.


That wasn't my intent, nor was it my ($8/hr) job to do so. I was simply
letting LD know that Jay's circle of "cronies"is
bigger than LD surmises - and for XYZ reasons.

I think that having a large circle of cronies doesnt necessarily ad
any weight to a persons post. There are many people on this list with
a large following of cronies whose posts are not any more important
than anyone elses. Cronies are kinda cool, but for the sake of
accuracy or relivance, they dont do much. As for the XYZ reasons, alot
of this stuff wouldnt really add to the crony list and I dont
understand why you brought it up. Whats more, there are many people on
this list (I dont know if LD is one of them G ) who have some pretty
impresive aviation credentials so it is probably best not to make
lists or we could be here a long time ,).


Not odd. Nothing was about me. My opinions on the gist of the thread haven't
been shared.

Here again Montie, I dont understand why you chose not to share your
opinions and just argue on someone elses behalf.

Montblack
What I'll be doing this Saturday: Volunteering all day (12 hrs)

...why I said yes.

Why you said yes ..........To what ? I looked up this link and I
noticed it is in MSP. If you live there you probably work at NWA. Can
I ask what equipment you are on ? I know about 2 dozen people from my
old airline who work there so there is a good chance could we have
some mutual friends. Email me off line if you want,
K Baum

Union Thug wrote:
I think that having a large circle of cronies doesnt necessarily ad
any weight to a persons post.

If it did add weight then wouldn't that increase the takeoff distance of
the post? And if cronies did add weight to a post wouldn't it be important
to keep the post balanced and within its c.g. range?

;-)

("Union Thug" wrote ...stuff)

OK, I DO NOT like doing this point-by-point stuff, but I sees a need.

Actually you were perpetuating the use of the term "cronies". I am
only a part timer here but I have noticed definite cronyism by a few
members of this list. Why would you argue on someone elses behalf ?
Maybe we could make sure that our posts have some relevance to a
peticular thread.

1. I'm not sure what cronyism is suppose to even mean, here? It appears to
be a (coded language) slam. Yes, I'm no stranger to dense.

2. I WAS NOT arguing Jay's point.

3. I was simply telling Larry that his RAP zinger, "your little circle of
cronies" didn't hold true, given the fact that Jay has a pretty big circle
of (what?) ...cronies.

4. The Jay List was an explanation of just how wide a circle Jay has.

I think that having a large circle of cronies doesnt necessarily ad any
weight to a persons post.

1. This is where I can appreciate your point, Jay could be Neil Armstrong,
but if he's off in left field on something ...he's off in left field, Neil
Armstrong credentials notwithstanding.

2. LD was using the "C" word (and the word "little") as a slam, and a box.

3. I was merely presenting a very specific rebuff to LD about his (create
an unchallenged box and place your opponent into it) tactic.

There are many people on this list with a large following of cronies whose
posts are not any more important than anyone elses.

You brought "important" to the picnic. My issue with LD was over "little
circle" and "big circle". I felt he was picking up speed, running downhill
if you will, so I was trying to help him out - slow him up a bit.

Cronies are kinda cool, but for the sake of accuracy or relivance, they
dont do much. As for the XYZ reasons, alot of this stuff wouldnt really
add to the crony list and I dont understand why you brought it up.

Again, accuracy or relevance to topic was not my concern when I posted. I
didn't appreciate LD's tactic or the negative inference in his word choice.
Neither of which, btw, had anything to do with whether Jay was off in left
field or not. That's it in a nutshell.

Whats more, there are many people on this list (I dont know if LD is one of
them G ) who have some pretty impresive aviation credentials so it is
probably best not to make lists or we could be here a long time ,).

That's ok, I've got time. That's why I participate in these groups, to get
to know people WITH impressive aviation credentials.

Here again Montie, I dont understand why you chose not to share your
opinions and just argue on someone elses behalf.

1. I'm on solid ground arguing what I posted about, less solid ground
debating engineering matters.

2. Again, I was arguing on my behalf, about process. Jay was simply
....wait for it ...a prop.

Why you said yes ..........To what ?

http://www.cornerhousemn.org/galaevent.html
Yes to committing an entire Saturday to their event. I was hiding behind
abused kids, figured you wouldn't come after me there. :-)

No to working @ NWA. Yes to living in the Twin Cities (for three more weeks,
anyway).


Montblack
This is why I usually don't do point-by-point replies ...I suck at it. g

Union Thug wrote:
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.

The two tow planes where I learned to fly gliders had their fair share
of engine problems. But I still don't buy Jay's statement that "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." There are no studies/stats to support
that assumption. An engine that never does touch-n-goes, go-arounds or
engine-out practice can break down just as fast as or faster than one
that does. No guarantees either way.

Isn't taking off applying full power to idle? and isn't landing and
shutting down going from full power to idle? That's wear and tear. But
you have to fly it to keep it running well, and you can't fly it without
some wear and tear. You can't stay proficient if you don't practice some
airwork that involves occasional full-power-to-idle throttle management
(or maybe I should say some of us can't), either.