Extended full-power in small pistons

Viperdoc writes:

There is no question that it would be ideal to have an aircraft engine work
like a car engine, e.g. FADEC. However, complexity also adds further
possible failure modes.

True, but nowadays most of the complexity is in the G1000, not the engines.
I'd trust a FADEC in an airliner long before I'd trust a G1000. Many glass
cockpits are far too complex and far too poorly tested.

It's odd that pilots would object to a more modern engine on the one hand, but
are more than willing to install the iffy technology of a glass cockpit.

In reality, most piston engines simply require
setting the power for take off, then cruise, and finally descent. It is not
hard at all to do, nor does it add dramatically to the work load (and I have
two engines to consider in my plane).

So losing things like mixture and prop control really wouldn't take anything
away from the pilot, anyway. So why not do it?

Rather than defend or justify Anthony's now increasing list of comebacks and
partial responses, or criticising the other posters, why not answer his
question?

Why haven't you answered the question yourself?

True, but nowadays most of the complexity is in the G1000, not the
engines.
I'd trust a FADEC in an airliner long before I'd trust a G1000. Many
glass
cockpits are far too complex and far too poorly tested.

An airplane will keep flying without a PFD, all of which require backup. It
will not keep flying without an engine- another example of your flawed
logic.

It's odd that pilots would object to a more modern engine on the one hand,
but
are more than willing to install the iffy technology of a glass cockpit.

In your limited opinion it is iffy technology, but it doesn't matter anyway,
since you'll never use it other than in a game.

In reality, most piston engines simply require
setting the power for take off, then cruise, and finally descent. It is
not
hard at all to do, nor does it add dramatically to the work load (and I
have
two engines to consider in my plane).

So losing things like mixture and prop control really wouldn't take
anything
away from the pilot, anyway. So why not do it?

I never said we should or should not do it- another example of your twisted
responses.

Rather than defend or justify Anthony's now increasing list of comebacks
and
partial responses, or criticising the other posters, why not answer his
question?

Why haven't you answered the question yourself?

Because the premise of your question was incorrect, and you are a non
sequitor.

Viperdoc writes:

An airplane will keep flying without a PFD, all of which require backup.

An airplane without any instruments will fly perfectly well. It's the pilot
who becomes the problem when instruments fail.

In your limited opinion it is iffy technology, but it doesn't matter anyway,
since you'll never use it other than in a game.

True, that's one of the advantages of simulation. I'm not betting my life on
inadequately tested software.

Because the premise of your question was incorrect, and you are a non
sequitor.

Then why do you suggest that others answer the question? This seems
inconsistent.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Viperdoc writes:

An airplane will keep flying without a PFD, all of which require backup.

An airplane without any instruments will fly perfectly well. It's the pilot
who becomes the problem when instruments fail.

A ridiculous, childish line of reasoning.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:

It's odd that pilots would object to a more modern engine on the one hand, but
are more than willing to install the iffy technology of a glass cockpit.

Two totally different things.

If the "glass cockpit" fails in VFR, it is little more than an irritant and
in IFR there are backups.

If the engine fails you are pretty much out of options.

So losing things like mixture and prop control really wouldn't take anything
away from the pilot, anyway. So why not do it?

Because real airplanes require different mixture and prop settings for
takeoff, climb, cruise, and decent whether that comes from FADEC or
discrete levers.

And since the cost of retrofitting an existing GA airplane engine far
exceeds the value of any advantage to the typical GA pilot, the only
FADEC engines will be in new airplanes where the incremental cost is
trivial.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:
It's odd that pilots would object to a more modern engine on the one hand, but
are more than willing to install the iffy technology of a glass cockpit.

Seriously? You really can't grasp the difference? Are you completely daft?
(Yes.)

If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
failure is at worst an annoyance.

If your engine fails in the wrong circumstances then you die.

And yet you can't see why a pilot might be more accepting of failure in
the former case than the latter?

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

Michael Ash writes:

If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
failure is at worst an annoyance.

A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. If the glass fails,
they die.

If your engine fails in the wrong circumstances then you die.

See above.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. If the glass
fails,
they die.

Nope. Never happens.

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

If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
failure is at worst an annoyance.

A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. If the glass fails,
they die.

Babbling nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

If your fancy glass cockpit fails you either go back to looking out the
window or you revert to steam-gauge instrements. In either case, the
failure is at worst an annoyance.

A lot of pilots are forgetting how to revert to anything. If the glass fails,
they die.

Oh no you don't. I'm not going to give you a pass on this one. There are
serious problems with this response and I object strongly.

First, I'm going to have to ask you for some kind of cite for your
statement. Because quite frankly I don't believe it. IFR training involves
a lot of simulated instrument failures, and steam gauges are not exactly
difficult to use.

Second even if we take your statement at face value (which I repeat that I
do not!) there is the small problem that you are simply assuming, without
any evidence or even a simple statement that you're doing it, that the
pilots who object to more modern engines but who accept glass cockpits are
the same pilots who are die when their glass cockpits fail.

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