Extended full-power in small pistons

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:
Michael Ash writes:

This is the kind of amusing idealism that is common from someone not very
well versed in the real world.

I don't think there's anything idealistic about it. My guess is that
certification of engines is so extraordinarily expensive, and private plane
owners are so (relatively) poor, that nobody could afford to pay for a truly
modern piston engine. So the same designs are used for decades.

What a total non sequitur. The idealism was referring to your statement
that it would be great if pilots could just concentrate on the flying and
ignore the engine. Well it's true, it would be great, but there's this
little thing called reality which gets in the way.

It's like saying "wouldn't it be great if everybody could just get
together in harmony and we wouldn't fight war no more". Well yes, it
would, but that sort of thinking is still hopelessly idealistic,
especially when you run with it instead of just having it as a passing
fancy.

The situation is different with airlines, because they have more money and can
save more money. The economics favor advances in engine design and control,
and certification is much less of an expense.

At least that's my guess. But it does keep private pilots back in the 1940s.

Airliners may have better engine management systems but it's still there.
And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush. There are great
differences from one type of plane to another.

I used to feel the same way, but reality simply is not cooperative in this
respect. Technology can compensate to some degree. You no longer need to
know very much about cars at all to own one (for which I am eternally
grateful). But you still need to know some things. The car can't protect
you against everything. You still have to think about when to get your oil
changed (even if the computer reminds you), you still have to know that
shifting into reverse while on the highway is not a good move, etc.

Yes, but you don't have to adjust mixture and timing as you drive. You don't
have to worry about the exhaust temperature. You have a cooling system that
doesn't vary dramatically in efficiency with your speed. And so on.

Yep, but my point is that you still have to think about it to *some*
extent. Try starting the car in -20 degree weather, then immediately
flooring it while in park and holding the pedal to the floor until the gas
runs out. This is going to do bad things. Try driving around in 1st gear
all the time, ditto, even though it will force an upshift at redline. Try
hooking up a big fat trailer to a small car and then driving up and down
big mountains at 70MPH, your transmission will be lucky to last the week.

If you think engine management is distracting, you should see what *I*
have to go through to stay aloft. All sorts of thinking going on there.
And yet I and every other glider pilot manages to fly the plane too.

But glider pilots like going through the extra stuff, otherwise they wouldn't
be glider pilots. And you don't have to worry about an engine.

And you think that no power pilots like engine management? From what I've
seen, for a significant proportion of these guys, getting maximum
performance out of the engine, minimizing fuel burn, holding CHT to the
exact right value, and tweaking that last few miles of range out of the
engine is an enormous thrill. I don't share in that enthusiasm myself but
it's definitely there in some guys.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Michael Ash writes:

What a total non sequitur. The idealism was referring to your statement
that it would be great if pilots could just concentrate on the flying and
ignore the engine. Well it's true, it would be great, but there's this
little thing called reality which gets in the way.

Reality didn't seem to get in the way of simplification in airliners. You
don't see too many flight engineers these days.

Airliners may have better engine management systems but it's still there.

Yes, but it's done by computer, not the pilots, and design improvements have
made management less necessary.

And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush.

I don't. There are plenty of smart ones around.

Yep, but my point is that you still have to think about it to *some*
extent.

That doesn't justify having to think about it to a _large_ extent.

And you think that no power pilots like engine management?

Oh, I'm sure there are a few. There's always someone in the neighborhood with
his car up on blocks, and I'm sure aviation is the same way.

From what I've
seen, for a significant proportion of these guys, getting maximum
performance out of the engine, minimizing fuel burn, holding CHT to the
exact right value, and tweaking that last few miles of range out of the
engine is an enormous thrill. I don't share in that enthusiasm myself but
it's definitely there in some guys.

So flying isn't really their purpose, it's just incidental.

So flying isn't really their purpose, it's just incidental.

And this comment comes from someone who doesn't know the relationships
between EGT, RPM, MP, and mixture, yet he can criticize people who actually
fly?

He asks a naive question, and then is critical of those who actually do fly
and understand how to use the controls?

Anthony, don't worry- just use the mouse and push the controls in as far as
they go on the screen- it won't matter. Or, use your cheap joystick and
achieve the same results.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Michael Ash writes:

Reality didn't seem to get in the way of simplification in airliners. You
don't see too many flight engineers these days.

Airliners may have better engine management systems but it's still there.

Yes, but it's done by computer, not the pilots, and design improvements have
made management less necessary.

Yes, and that design improvement is called the turbine engine.

Comparing anything to do with the turbine engines on airliners to the
piston engines in GA aircraft is pointless.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:
Michael Ash writes:

What a total non sequitur. The idealism was referring to your statement
that it would be great if pilots could just concentrate on the flying and
ignore the engine. Well it's true, it would be great, but there's this
little thing called reality which gets in the way.

Reality didn't seem to get in the way of simplification in airliners. You
don't see too many flight engineers these days.

There's a difference between simplifying something and eliminating it.

Airliners may have better engine management systems but it's still there.

Yes, but it's done by computer, not the pilots, and design improvements have
made management less necessary.

Not all of it is done by the computer. The pilots still have to know how
the stuff works and how to run it. It is largely to the point where they
can push the lever and get the power, but not 100%. If you believe
otherwise, just look at the circumstances surrounding the recent 777 crash
at Heathrow. The computers didn't save those pilots from a dual flameout
on short final.

And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush.

I don't. There are plenty of smart ones around.

I really have to wonder if you realize just how unbelievably insulting
that statement is. If I didn't already view you as being an arrogant and
useless idiot I might get mad....

From what I've
seen, for a significant proportion of these guys, getting maximum
performance out of the engine, minimizing fuel burn, holding CHT to the
exact right value, and tweaking that last few miles of range out of the
engine is an enormous thrill. I don't share in that enthusiasm myself but
it's definitely there in some guys.

So flying isn't really their purpose, it's just incidental.

Your obsession with people's "purpose" is bizarre and nonsensical.
Anything you do while piloting an airplane is "flying", whether it's
cruisng steadily or endlessly fiddling with the engine levers. People fly
for many reasons, and they don't have to meet your insane ideas of
"purpose" to do it.

By your definition, my purpose isn't "flying", it's interpreting weather,
finding lift, planning routes, etc.

By your definition, someone who uses his airplane to fly to meetings
doesn't have "flying" as his purpose, it's just incidental.

Someone who flies around to look at the scenery, ditto. Or enjoys the
challenge of IMC, or chatting with ATC, or the feeling they get from
performing aerobatics.

So, I ask you: what does one have to do in order for "flying" to be their
purpose? And why should anyone care?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Michael Ash writes:

Not all of it is done by the computer. The pilots still have to know how
the stuff works and how to run it. It is largely to the point where they
can push the lever and get the power, but not 100%. If you believe
otherwise, just look at the circumstances surrounding the recent 777 crash
at Heathrow. The computers didn't save those pilots from a dual flameout
on short final.

So what was the cause? Has a final report come out?

I really have to wonder if you realize just how unbelievably insulting
that statement is.

To whom?

Your obsession with people's "purpose" is bizarre and nonsensical.

Purpose is what motivates behavior. It's hard to overemphasize its
importance.

Anything you do while piloting an airplane is "flying", whether it's
cruisng steadily or endlessly fiddling with the engine levers.

So going to the toilet or galley qualifies as flying? In that case, I have
flown airplanes.

So, I ask you: what does one have to do in order for "flying" to be their
purpose? And why should anyone care?

Why do you ask the question if you don't know why anyone should care?

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:

Purpose is what motivates behavior. It's hard to overemphasize its
importance.

Not for you where it has become an obsession.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:
Michael Ash writes:

Not all of it is done by the computer. The pilots still have to know how
the stuff works and how to run it. It is largely to the point where they
can push the lever and get the power, but not 100%. If you believe
otherwise, just look at the circumstances surrounding the recent 777 crash
at Heathrow. The computers didn't save those pilots from a dual flameout
on short final.

So what was the cause? Has a final report come out?

No final report yet, but everything indicates that the loss of engine
power was due to ice in the fuel system, which in turn was due to flying
through unusually cold air.

I really have to wonder if you realize just how unbelievably insulting
that statement is.

To whom?

You really are the master of destroying context. It's quite astounding.
I'm guessing it's not deliberate, but this kind of thing really looks
extremely sneaky and underhanded. To snip out the supposedly insulting
statement while it's still being discussed is quite simply unacceptable
and makes it look like you're trying to hide it.

So let's restore the thing to its original glory, right he

And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush.

I don't. There are plenty of smart ones around.

Since you're apparently incapable of understanding irony or subtlety
despite supposedly being at least occasionally an ESL teacher, I guess
I'll have to spell out why this is such a terrible thing to say. The
combination of "There are plenty of smart ones" with "I don't paint them
all with the same brush" heavily implies that the brush you're using right
now is the "stupid" brush.

In other words, in the above exchange, you called every private pilot you
talk to "stupid", and implied to a somewhat lesser extent that a lot of
private pilots in general are stupid. And then to really spell it out very
plainly, this implication that the people you're talking to are stupid is
highly insulting.

Your obsession with people's "purpose" is bizarre and nonsensical.

Purpose is what motivates behavior. It's hard to overemphasize its
importance.

Non sequitur. Purpose is important to one's self. Purpose is important
when trying to analyze why someone does something. Purpose is not
important in the sense of continually bringing it up for no reason.

Anything you do while piloting an airplane is "flying", whether it's
cruisng steadily or endlessly fiddling with the engine levers.

So going to the toilet or galley qualifies as flying? In that case, I have
flown airplanes.

Ah right, reading comprehension, alongside logic and being nice to people,
is one of those skills you inexplicably lack despite acting as though
you're very smart.

I said "piloting". If you've piloted an airplane while going to the toilet
or galley then yeah, you've flown airplanes. But somehow I doubt that's
the case.

So, I ask you: what does one have to do in order for "flying" to be their
purpose? And why should anyone care?

Why do you ask the question if you don't know why anyone should care?

Because you bring it up all the time as if it were some sort of flaw and
it's annoying.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Michael Ash writes:

No final report yet, but everything indicates that the loss of engine
power was due to ice in the fuel system, which in turn was due to flying
through unusually cold air.

So it wasn't really anyone's fault? What's the recommended solution?

You really are the master of destroying context. It's quite astounding.
I'm guessing it's not deliberate, but this kind of thing really looks
extremely sneaky and underhanded.

Perhaps all the evil you see is in your own interpretation of what you read.

And don't paint all private pilots with the same brush.

I don't. There are plenty of smart ones around.

Since you're apparently incapable of understanding irony or subtlety
despite supposedly being at least occasionally an ESL teacher, I guess
I'll have to spell out why this is such a terrible thing to say. The
combination of "There are plenty of smart ones" with "I don't paint them
all with the same brush" heavily implies that the brush you're using right
now is the "stupid" brush.

No, it simply states that I make a distinction between smart and stupid
pilots, so I'm not painting them all with the same brush.

In other words, in the above exchange, you called every private pilot you
talk to "stupid", and implied to a somewhat lesser extent that a lot of
private pilots in general are stupid.

I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion.

And then to really spell it out very
plainly, this implication that the people you're talking to are stupid is
highly insulting.

Some people see everything as an insult. I have no control over that; it is a
consequence of their own psychology, not anything that I do.

For example, if you tell one person that she looks nice today, she might say
"Thank you." If you tell another person that she looks nice today, she might
say "What was wrong with the way I looked yesterday?" The problem is at the
receiving end, not the sending end.

If I say, "it's difficult for me to deal with stupid people," and someone says
to me, "you're calling me stupid?" chances are that he thinks of himself as
stupid, and so he assumes that everyone else considers him stupid as well.
That's his psychological problem, not mine.

Ah right, reading comprehension, alongside logic and being nice to people,
is one of those skills you inexplicably lack despite acting as though
you're very smart.

What makes you think that I'm acting?

Why do you ask the question if you don't know why anyone should care?

Because you bring it up all the time as if it were some sort of flaw and
it's annoying.

So you obviously care about it. In that case, why did you say that you don't
know why anyone should care?

Anthony, it's simply amazing how you can persist in demonstrating your
stupidity, yet keep coming back for more. It's no wonder you have such
difficulty finding friends or gainful employment