Things not to do while working on your private ticket...

On Aug 13, 1:53*pm, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:4d4ae514-7bec-4914-9810-
:



On Aug 12, 12:20*pm, Clark wrote:
wrote in news:a3ecf52c-af97-49f0-9c5f-f1b315695566@
26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:

On Aug 11, 8:23*am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:1e21c1be-8850-4f80-
91d4
-
:

On Aug 11, 8:48*am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-
ba38
-
:

On Aug 11, 6:30*am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-
4b1
8-
92dd
-
:

On Aug 9, 3:47*pm, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:4638dcb3-
05ba-
4e4
4-
97f1
-
:

On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:ae58b49a-
6d9c-
4b5
1-
957a
-
:

On Aug 9, 12:06*am, Clark wrote:

I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least
like
ly
causes
an
d
I've
explaied why that is by noting the temperature and
expecte
d
throttl
e
setting. I have never said that carb ice is
impossible.
Maybe
th
e
g
uy
idl
ed
for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on
run
-
up
.
Mayb
e
h
e
fail
ed
to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll..
I
t
i
s
possibl
e
that
he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50%
humidi
ty
and
*a
hot
engine it is just not a likely cause.

I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm
honor
ed
tha
t
y
ou
agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high
ambient
_ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an
explanation
fo
r
powe
r
steadily dropping?

Cheers.

Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the
NTS
B
repo
rt
(th
at
you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear
for
anyon
e
w
ho
can
comprehend what they read.

I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?

Cheers

What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you
shoul
d
g
et
an
adu
lt
to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of
eac
h
sentenc
e.
No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get
hel
p
with
understanding the report.

Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word
departur
e
i
s
it?
Cheers

Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be
climbi
ng
out
in
other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since
yo
u
don'
t
seem to understand the term.

Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within
1000'
of
the airport. How about you take some classes?

Now to really destroy your altitude question. Do you really expect
car
b
icing to suddenly develop at high altitude while on departure at
fu
ll
throttle or even cruise power??? Prior to this exchange of posts I
wou
ld
have assumed that you do understand that very low manifold
pressure
is
required for there to be any chance of carb ice in Texas in the
summer
at
Skyhawk attainable altitudes. Obviously my assumption was
incorrect
an
d
clearly you have no grasp the causes of carb icing.

Nope I would not, as trained pilot, rule it out without testing for
it. Jumping to conclusions without facts can get you killed. You
wil
l
note that my original observation was a paranthetic question, which
you dismissed because it couldn't possibly happen? How do _you_
know
that ice build up had not started -was manifold pressure available
t
o
the pilot and did he look at it?

Get real dufuss. I noted that carb icing isn't the most likely cause.
Do
try to keep up now.

--
---
there should be a "sig" here

It's been a long long time since I flew a normally carberated
airplane, but just had this thought. What would have been the results
if in 90 degree temps someone did try to take off with the carb heat
full on? Would the loss of power be significant? I'm thinking it's one
thing to check for carb ice and carb heat function during run up, but
the amount of heat available during full throttle takeoff could be
something very different. I know it may have nothing to do with this
case, but hope someone can provide an insightful answer anyhow.

A couple of examples: Typical rpm drop for carb heat check is about 100
down from 1700 on the Skyhawks I trained in. Call it about a 5% power
los
s.

In slow flight with full (40deg) flaps, I typically could not hold
altitu
de
at full throttle with carb heat on.

I suspect departure with carb heat on and a density altitude of 3500
feet
would be alot like taking off at about 6,000 feet. I'm assuming a 2%
performance loss for every 1,000 feet. It's should be within the
capabilities of the Skyhawk but it'll take just a bit more runway and
climbout will be slow, really slow if near max gross.

But 40 flaps is not a take off config.

Why don't you just respond with something along the lines of "nothing
useful to contribute but ego drives a response"

Wait, that's 'zactly what you did...

Give up doofus, you don't have a chance of salvaging even a little bit of
respect.


Why do you remind me of a trumpeting pachyderm?
LOL

Cheers

On Aug 13, 7:43 am, More_Flaps wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:53 pm, Clark wrote:



More_Flaps wrote in news:4d4ae514-7bec-4914-9810-
:

On Aug 12, 12:20 pm, Clark wrote:
wrote in news:a3ecf52c-af97-49f0-9c5f-f1b315695566@
26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:

On Aug 11, 8:23 am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:1e21c1be-8850-4f80-
91d4
-
:

On Aug 11, 8:48 am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-
ba38
-
:

On Aug 11, 6:30 am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-
4b1
8-
92dd
-
:

On Aug 9, 3:47 pm, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:4638dcb3-
05ba-
4e4
4-
97f1
-
:

On Aug 9, 9:51 am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:ae58b49a-
6d9c-
4b5
1-
957a
-
:

On Aug 9, 12:06 am, Clark wrote:

I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least
like
ly
causes
an
d
I've
explaied why that is by noting the temperature and
expecte
d
throttl
e
setting. I have never said that carb ice is
impossible.
Maybe
th
e
g
uy
idl
ed
for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on
run
-
up
.
Mayb
e
h
e
fail
ed
to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll.
I
t
i
s
possibl
e
that
he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50%
humidi
ty
and
a
hot
engine it is just not a likely cause.

I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm
honor
ed
tha
t
y
ou
agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high
ambient
_ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an
explanation
fo
r
powe
r
steadily dropping?

Cheers.

Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the
NTS
B
repo
rt
(th
at
you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear
for
anyon
e
w
ho
can
comprehend what they read.

I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?

Cheers

What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you
shoul
d
g
et
an
adu
lt
to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of
eac
h
sentenc
e.
No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get
hel
p
with
understanding the report.

Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word
departur
e
i
s
it?
Cheers

Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be
climbi
ng
out
in
other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since
yo
u
don'
t
seem to understand the term.

Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within
1000'
of
the airport. How about you take some classes?

Now to really destroy your altitude question. Do you really expect
car
b
icing to suddenly develop at high altitude while on departure at
fu
ll
throttle or even cruise power??? Prior to this exchange of posts I
wou
ld
have assumed that you do understand that very low manifold
pressure
is
required for there to be any chance of carb ice in Texas in the
summer
at
Skyhawk attainable altitudes. Obviously my assumption was
incorrect
an
d
clearly you have no grasp the causes of carb icing.

Nope I would not, as trained pilot, rule it out without testing for
it. Jumping to conclusions without facts can get you killed. You
wil
l
note that my original observation was a paranthetic question, which
you dismissed because it couldn't possibly happen? How do _you_
know
that ice build up had not started -was manifold pressure available
t
o
the pilot and did he look at it?

Get real dufuss. I noted that carb icing isn't the most likely cause.
Do
try to keep up now.

--
---
there should be a "sig" here

It's been a long long time since I flew a normally carberated
airplane, but just had this thought. What would have been the results
if in 90 degree temps someone did try to take off with the carb heat
full on? Would the loss of power be significant? I'm thinking it's one
thing to check for carb ice and carb heat function during run up, but
the amount of heat available during full throttle takeoff could be
something very different. I know it may have nothing to do with this
case, but hope someone can provide an insightful answer anyhow.

A couple of examples: Typical rpm drop for carb heat check is about 100
down from 1700 on the Skyhawks I trained in. Call it about a 5% power
los
s.

In slow flight with full (40deg) flaps, I typically could not hold
altitu
de
at full throttle with carb heat on.

I suspect departure with carb heat on and a density altitude of 3500
feet
would be alot like taking off at about 6,000 feet. I'm assuming a 2%
performance loss for every 1,000 feet. It's should be within the
capabilities of the Skyhawk but it'll take just a bit more runway and
climbout will be slow, really slow if near max gross.

But 40 flaps is not a take off config.

Why don't you just respond with something along the lines of "nothing
useful to contribute but ego drives a response"

Wait, that's 'zactly what you did...

Give up doofus, you don't have a chance of salvaging even a little bit of
respect.

Why do you remind me of a trumpeting pachyderm?
LOL

Cheers

Wise and powerful with a good memory?

On Aug 11, 6:20 pm, Clark wrote:

A couple of examples: Typical rpm drop for carb heat check is about 100
down from 1700 on the Skyhawks I trained in. Call it about a 5% power loss.

Here's a sentence from the original post:

"The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
can
draw your own conclusions."

A 1959 172 has a Continental O-300 of 145 hp. The Continental
has a couple of huge differences from the Lycoming O-320 -powered 172s
you fly. First, the carb on the Continental is mounted on a carb
"spider" intake manifold fitting mounted below the crankcase. The
Lycoming's carb is mounted right on the bottom of the crankcase's oil
sump, with the intake manifold cast right into the sump.
The Lycoming's carb is warmed by the heat of the oil. When the
engine is "cold," even the first startup of a warm day, carb ice is
sometimes noted if the temp and dewpoint are close enough. Once the
oil is hot carb ice is much less likely, and so Lycoming's carb heat
muff is nothing more than an open-sided box measuring about three
inches by four, mounted on the backside of the #1 exhaust riser. It
doesn't provide much heat at all, because it doesn't need to.
The Continental's carb gets no heat from the crankcase. The
spider isolates it and the only heat it might get is what cooling air
coming around the case might carry to it, which is about the same as a
Lyc's carb might get in addition to the oil heating. So Continental
engines have a full shroud around one of the mufflers to provide
intake air that is heated far hotter than Lyc's tiny box does, and if
carb heat is applied we'll get a really serious RPM drop, and often
roughness with it since the mixture gets so rich. 200 RPM or more
isn't uncommon, and we had a 180 (Continental O-470) that had so much
carb heat that we couldn't use it all on final on warm days unless we
leaned the engine or the engine would threaten to quit.
A carb heat valve that isn't closing all the way can cost some
power, and it sure isn't impossible to have a misrigged control or a
cable sheath that has slipped.
Continentals will ice up much more easily than Lycomings when
in operation and the engine is warmed up. The OP, in pointing out that
it was such an old 172, triggered that thought right away. Students
who learn in Lyc-powered airplanes and then go buy an old Continental-
powered ship will often get caught by carb icing, especially if they
haven't been thoroughly educated on the risk factors of carb ice and
been checked out in that airplane on days when ice is almost certain.


In slow flight with full (40deg) flaps, I typically could not hold altitude
at full throttle with carb heat on.

That's normal but that's a lot of flap.

I suspect departure with carb heat on and a density altitude of 3500 feet
would be alot like taking off at about 6,000 feet. I'm assuming a 2%
performance loss for every 1,000 feet. It's should be within the
capabilities of the Skyhawk but it'll take just a bit more runway and
climbout will be slow, really slow if near max gross.

An old Continental with carb heat on would experience a DA of
more like 10,000 feet. The air is too hot. It would also present the
risk of detonation at full throttle.

Dan

On Aug 14, 4:16*am, wrote:
On Aug 13, 7:43 am, More_Flaps wrote:



On Aug 13, 1:53 pm, Clark wrote:

More_Flaps wrote in news:4d4ae514-7bec-4914-9810-
:

On Aug 12, 12:20 pm, Clark wrote:
wrote in news:a3ecf52c-af97-49f0-9c5f-f1b315695566@
26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:

On Aug 11, 8:23 am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:1e21c1be-8850-4f80-
91d4
-
:

On Aug 11, 8:48 am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:7de3c2a7-0640-4079-
ba38
-
:

On Aug 11, 6:30 am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:0344026b-cf53-
4b1
8-
92dd
-
:

On Aug 9, 3:47 pm, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:4638dcb3-
05ba-
4e4
4-
97f1
-
:

On Aug 9, 9:51 am, Clark wrote:
More_Flaps wrote in news:ae58b49a-
6d9c-
4b5
1-
957a
-
:

On Aug 9, 12:06 am, Clark wrote:

I've pointed out that carb ice is one of the least
like
ly
causes
an
d
I've
explaied why that is by noting the temperature and
expecte
d
throttl
e
setting. I have never said that carb ice is
impossible.
Maybe
th
e
g
uy
idl
ed
for a loooong time and failed to check carb heat on
run
-
up
.
Mayb
e
h
e
fail
ed
to verify max rpm on the run-up and/or take-off roll.
I
t
i
s
possibl
e
that
he had carb ice but at 92 degrees and less than 50%
humidi
ty
and
*a
hot
engine it is just not a likely cause.

I notice you did not answer my altitude question. I'm
honor
ed
tha
t
y
ou
agree that carb ice cannot be ruled out simply by high
ambient
_ground_ temperature. Now what else might be an
explanation
fo
r
powe
r
steadily dropping?

Cheers.

Bull**** on not answering the altitude question. Read the
NTS
B
repo
rt
(th
at
you snipped) for yourself. The altitude is quite clear
for
anyon
e
w
ho
can
comprehend what they read.

I see no statement of altitude. Are you on drugs?

Cheers

What part of departure do you not understand? Maybe you
shoul
d
g
et
an
adu
lt
to read the NTSB report to you and explain the meaning of
eac
h
sentenc
e.
No, cancel that. Not maybe, make it for-sure that you get
hel
p
with
understanding the report.

Do you know the altitude? It's not contained in the word
departur
e
i
s
it?
Cheers

Look up the airport elevation yerself. Departure would be
climbi
ng
out
in
other words within a thousand feet or so of the airport since
yo
u
don'
t
seem to understand the term.

Nope. Departure is the phase before enroute. It is NOT within
1000'
of
the airport. How about you take some classes?

Now to really destroy your altitude question. Do you really expect
car
b
icing to suddenly develop at high altitude while on departure at
fu
ll
throttle or even cruise power??? Prior to this exchange of posts I
wou
ld
have assumed that you do understand that very low manifold
pressure
is
required for there to be any chance of carb ice in Texas in the
summer
at
Skyhawk attainable altitudes. Obviously my assumption was
incorrect
an
d
clearly you have no grasp the causes of carb icing.

Nope I would not, as trained pilot, rule it out without testing for
it. Jumping to conclusions without facts can get you killed. You
wil
l
note that my original observation was a paranthetic question, which
you dismissed because it couldn't possibly happen? How do _you_
know
that ice build up had not started -was manifold pressure available
t
o
the pilot and did he look at it?

Get real dufuss. I noted that carb icing isn't the most likely cause.
Do
try to keep up now.

--
---
there should be a "sig" here

It's been a long long time since I flew a normally carberated
airplane, but just had this thought. What would have been the results
if in 90 degree temps someone did try to take off with the carb heat
full on? Would the loss of power be significant? I'm thinking it's one
thing to check for carb ice and carb heat function during run up, but
the amount of heat available during full throttle takeoff could be
something very different. I know it may have nothing to do with this
case, but hope someone can provide an insightful answer anyhow.

A couple of examples: Typical rpm drop for carb heat check is about 100
down from 1700 on the Skyhawks I trained in. Call it about a 5% power
los
s.

In slow flight with full (40deg) flaps, I typically could not hold
altitu
de
at full throttle with carb heat on.

I suspect departure with carb heat on and a density altitude of 3500
feet
would be alot like taking off at about 6,000 feet. I'm assuming a 2%
performance loss for every 1,000 feet. It's should be within the
capabilities of the Skyhawk but it'll take just a bit more runway and
climbout will be slow, really slow if near max gross.

But 40 flaps is not a take off config.

Why don't you just respond with something along the lines of "nothing
useful to contribute but ego drives a response"

Wait, that's 'zactly what you did...

Give up doofus, you don't have a chance of salvaging even a little bit of
respect.

Why do you remind me of a trumpeting pachyderm?
LOL

Cheers

Wise and powerful with a good memory?

LOL. Excitable, heavy and noisy?.

Cheers

wrote in
:

On Aug 11, 6:20 pm, Clark wrote:

A couple of examples: Typical rpm drop for carb heat check is about
100 down from 1700 on the Skyhawks I trained in. Call it about a 5%
power loss.

Here's a sentence from the original post:

"The plane was a '59 145hp 172. DA would have been around 3,500. You
can
draw your own conclusions."

A 1959 172 has a Continental O-300 of 145 hp. The Continental
has a couple of huge differences from the Lycoming O-320 -powered 172s
you fly. First, the carb on the Continental is mounted on a carb
"spider" intake manifold fitting mounted below the crankcase. The
Lycoming's carb is mounted right on the bottom of the crankcase's oil
sump, with the intake manifold cast right into the sump.
The Lycoming's carb is warmed by the heat of the oil. When the
engine is "cold," even the first startup of a warm day, carb ice is
sometimes noted if the temp and dewpoint are close enough. Once the
oil is hot carb ice is much less likely, and so Lycoming's carb heat
muff is nothing more than an open-sided box measuring about three
inches by four, mounted on the backside of the #1 exhaust riser. It
doesn't provide much heat at all, because it doesn't need to.
The Continental's carb gets no heat from the crankcase. The
spider isolates it and the only heat it might get is what cooling air
coming around the case might carry to it, which is about the same as a
Lyc's carb might get in addition to the oil heating. So Continental
engines have a full shroud around one of the mufflers to provide
intake air that is heated far hotter than Lyc's tiny box does, and if
carb heat is applied we'll get a really serious RPM drop, and often
roughness with it since the mixture gets so rich. 200 RPM or more
isn't uncommon, and we had a 180 (Continental O-470) that had so much
carb heat that we couldn't use it all on final on warm days unless we
leaned the engine or the engine would threaten to quit.
A carb heat valve that isn't closing all the way can cost some
power, and it sure isn't impossible to have a misrigged control or a
cable sheath that has slipped.
Continentals will ice up much more easily than Lycomings when
in operation and the engine is warmed up. The OP, in pointing out that
it was such an old 172, triggered that thought right away. Students
who learn in Lyc-powered airplanes and then go buy an old Continental-
powered ship will often get caught by carb icing, especially if they
haven't been thoroughly educated on the risk factors of carb ice and
been checked out in that airplane on days when ice is almost certain.


All true except for one thing. Not all Continentals have large carb heat
shrouds. And in fact, you're supposed to take off with carb heat on in
the 8A.(Luscombe) At least one instalation doesn't even have carb heat,
it just uses slightly warmed air under the cowling with an automotive
type round air filter! (Jodel)


In slow flight with full (40deg) flaps, I typically could not hold
altitude at full throttle with carb heat on.

That's normal but that's a lot of flap.

I suspect departure with carb heat on and a density altitude of 3500
feet would be alot like taking off at about 6,000 feet. I'm assuming
a 2% performance loss for every 1,000 feet. It's should be within the
capabilities of the Skyhawk but it'll take just a bit more runway and
climbout will be slow, really slow if near max gross.

An old Continental with carb heat on would experience a DA of
more like 10,000 feet. The air is too hot. It would also present the
risk of detonation at full throttle.

Really? How?


Bertie