Extended full-power in small pistons

Jets had them, too.

How would you know- have you ever flown one?

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:

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.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Apples and oranges.

Mostly just a difference in economics, I suspect.

You suspect incorrectly.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

It was the big radial piston engines that had the "whole panel of controls
and instruments".

Jets had them, too.

Compare the stuff required to keep the 6 R-4360 radials running versus
the 4 turbojets on a B-36 and get back to us when you have a clue.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

John Smith wrote:
Viperdoc wrote:
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.

The old argument. Interesting, though, that modern car engines are much
more reliable than older (simpler) ones.

If all other things are held constant, then simpler is usually more
reliable. Modern car engines have the benefit of much better
manufacturing techniques, better understanding of fatigue,
better oil, etc etc etc.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
John Smith writes:

The old argument. Interesting, though, that modern car engines are much
more reliable than older (simpler) ones.

That reliability doesn't come from the computers, it comes from improved
mechanical engineering and manufacturing.

The increased reliability of car engines comes from materials and new
technologies, such as better valves and seats, better spark plugs, and
electronic ignition.

The mechanical engineering and manufacturing abilities haven't changed
other than in increased automation.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jan 3, 4:45*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:

John Smith writes:

The old argument. Interesting, though, that modern car engines are much
more reliable than older (simpler) ones.

That reliability doesn't come from the computers, it comes from improved
mechanical engineering and manufacturing.

The increased reliability of car engines comes from materials and new
technologies, such as better valves and seats, better spark plugs, and
electronic ignition.

The mechanical engineering and manufacturing abilities haven't changed
other than in increased automation.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Not you in particular Jim, but all who have responded including
myself. I can't decide which is funnier, the fisherman or the catch?
g

Bob Noel wrote:
If all other things are held constant, then simpler is usually more
reliable. Modern car engines have the benefit of much better
manufacturing techniques, better understanding of fatigue,
better oil, etc etc etc.

.... and electronic control. Electronic parts are usually much more
reliable than mechanical parts.