C210 down in Broome town

[Hasherucf]

Grapevine say Cessna 210 down on Broome salt flat.Anyone know more?

[spinex]

Pilot walks away from Broome dirt track landing (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/pilot-walks-away-from-broome-dirt-track-landing-20150503-1mywkw.html)

Sadly old mate didn't manage to stay on said dirt track, not sure whether he landed wheels up or managed to wipe the gear off, I'd hazard a guess that it's the former.

[Capt Claret]

With my extensive C210 experience (maybe 5 hours, 30 years ago) I wonder, is Alice to Broome a long way in a 210?

[Left 270]

744 NM, winds today were 120 10-15 without going into work to check might be doable but I would think maybe he might have gone via Halls creek.

[Duck Pilot]

Alice to Broome a long way for a 210?????

I really doubt a 210 would have the range, it's about 750 miles. Maybe a current 210 pilot could answer that question.

[NIK320]

It is pushing the max range of a 210.
Only capable with a reasonable tailwind, of around 30kts unless you reuse variable enroute.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Do-able in nil wind by my calculations!

Direct Alice Springs to Broome is a very lonely track!

Dr :8

[Frank Arouet]

Simples!


Flint Tip Tanks. Say no more except my mate has such a set up and operates thereabouts. Hope it wasn't him. Can't make out the rego.

[NIK320]

Nil wind its about 390L, they hold 336 standard.
Never encountered a tip tank one so no idea what they hold.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

150 kts? Did you forget to put the wheels up?

I make it 4.6 hrs without reserves = 278 L leaves about 55 min reserves!

[NIK320]

165 on a 35 year old crusty 210 never happens, If it happened to have gear doors intact still maybe.
150-155 seems to be more realistic

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Oh dear, silly me! There I was thinking I knew what I was talking about! :confused:

Dr :8

[rutan around]

Frank
It wasn't me. I'm home fueling up on xxxx.

My C210N with Flint Tanks carries 454 L and running lean of peak averages 53 L / hr Tacho. On long non stop trips it is somewhat better. The longer wings give it more speed than standard when it's hot and high. You can calculate how slow it would have to be before fuel became an issue over a 744 NM trip. We once had a ground speed of 117K Newman to Alice and still had reserves. Another run was Ayers Rock to Rockhampton and we landed with 2+ hours of fuel.

[onetrack]

Media are reporting the pilot elected to do an emergency landing on the salt flats due to thick fog at Broome airport. Must have been pretty light on motion lotion if he couldn't find a nearby alternate strip inland.

[cone zone]

hmmm Clarrie, I think your comment was doing about mach 5 at 50 000ft to most others.

Quite a clever comment to those who get it ;)

[NIK320]

Blast, got sucked into pprune again.. Always ends up in silly arguments.
I'm sure your numbers work on your machine Dr.
Either way if the above is correct it apparently barely works.

[Hasherucf]

Undercarriage seems to work fine ;)


http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6441386-3x2-940x627.jpg

[Alice Kiwican]

BKD I believe. It was parked in Alice Friday arvo after maintenance. A bit of a shame if it got bent!

[Duck Pilot]

Props are probably bent with a few grass stains on the belly.

Nothing that a backside of an axe and a sledge hammer can't fix on the prop and the grass stains will simply buff out.

It will be ok for a 0600 Bungles shaggs........

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

NIK320 - there is no argument. If I did that leg tomorrow in the C210 I fly, I would plan 160 kts and 60L/hr and expect to better both figures.

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

Yep, 50LPH in an IO550 in the cruise and allow 60-65 for the first hour (Rough guess off the top of my head). If the thing is poorly rigged, the speed might suffer, but there are minimum standards to maintain these things to. :uhoh:

If it ran out of fuel, it either had massive head winds or a lack of EMS and a pilot who knows how to operate it and use the red knob appropriately :ooh:. My statistics suggest that is >98% of pilots sadly.

[The Green Goblin]

Ahhhh that 210.

I believe it's had a couple of gear collapses in the past.

Good to see it parked on the road in flyable condition.

[Squawk7700]

This is the view I saw when I opened the thread on my iPhone.... I'm not saying anything.... but.......

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/210.jpg

[deadcut]

Why is everyone so hung up on flying from Alice Springs. The plane departed Halls Creek that morning.

[spinex]

Why is everyone so hung up on flying from Alice Springs. The plane departed Halls Creek that morning.

Probably because all the reports so far have stated Alice as being the point of departure? That said, it seems a pity that he didn't have enough fuel to divert elsewhere or at least find somewhere a bit more promising to park it, when it became evident Broome was socked in.

Of course this is the usual thinking aloud and extrapolating from news reports; there may be a perfectly rational explanation, but it's amazing how often the obvious answer proves correct on these pages.

[Capt Claret]

Why is everyone so hung up on flying from Alice Springs. The plane departed Halls Creek that morning.

Probably because of the WA Today article linked in the second post.

His single engine Cessna 210 is understood to have travelled to Broome from Alice Springs.. :ok:

[deadcut]

Probably because of the WA Today article linked in the second post.

. :ok:

Flight aware had BKD flight planned from Halls Creek (0500 dep approx) to Broome.

. :ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re 'Dep. Halls Ck',

Even more so, it would seem at 'face value' to be an 'extreme decision' to land on the 'paddock' sans wheels.....

Was Derby not available?
Only 90nm = approx. 40 mins or so in a 210.....

Just 'curious' is all...

Cheers :confused:

[tio540]

FTDK said "NIK320 - there is no argument. If I did that leg tomorrow in the C210 I fly, I would plan 160 kts and 60L/hr and expect to better both figures."


Really?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Really?Yup! :E

.........plus enough extraneous crap to qualify as a post!

[deadcut]

Dr you have an exceptionally fast 210!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Dr you have an exceptionally fast 210! Neither the fastest (that aeroplane was owned by Larry Perkins the last I heard of it), nor the slowest (won't mention where that one was - to save the owner embarrassment!) that I have flown!

You need to be sure that you are comparing apples with apples - I am rarely found below A090 in cruise!

Dr :8

[Pinky the pilot]

Forky; I have mentioned this on these boards previously, a long time ago though, but many years ago I was checked out in what was reputed to be the fastest C210 in Australia.

We were in level flight at about 3,500 feet and I was told to set 25"/2500rpm.

We reached 175Kt IAS from memory.:ooh:

[27/09]

We reached 175Kt IAS from memoryIt's amazing how much performance you gain when the little drain hole at the rear of a Cessna's pitot tube is blocked off. :E

[NIK320]

You need to be sure that you are comparing apples with apples - I am rarely found below A090 in cruise! There's the difference then, you either have oxy or rarely fly West. I remember coming across a pressurised 210 in SE QLD a few years back, its not yours is it?
Even at 9500 a touch over 150kts for around 55l/hr seems the average for me, with the wheels up and 2400rpm ;)

[Left 270]

Deadcut, maybe FTDK sets the right power setting:ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

or rarely fly WestPsssst - flying east, west, north or south has no effect on TAS! :confused:

Dr :8

PS: I have flown west across WA with GS of 104 kts to 210 kts in the V-tail, same power settings!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Yeah, I used to fly a 'banana' like that......so I gave them away and flew 210's....

Cheers:E

[tio540]

FTDK - tell me your power setting and leaning procedure at A100, for 160 + kts and better than 60 lph.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

tio, how to manage a big bore Conti or Lyc is probably a topic for another thread. I'll send you a PM.

[Jabawocky]

tio

10dF LOP

Will be around 50 LPH.

PM me your details if you want to have a chat.

[tio540]

10dF LOP


I presume that means 10 degrees lean of peak. The C210 flight manual recommends 25 degrees rich of peak, and peak EGT, as options only.


Anything else is not approved, and test pilot territory. Unless you self insure of course.

[Creampuff]

I'm very keen not to be a "test pilot".

How do you know all your cylinders are running at 25ROP EGT or at peak EGT?

What are you going to do when you find out, after you've studiously set the mixture to "peak EGT", that in fact 2 cylinders are running 5 degrees ROP EGT, 2 cylinders are running at peak EGT and 2 cylinders are running 4 degrees LOP EGT?

Do you become a test pilot simply because blissful ignorance has been replaced with knowledge of what's actually happening? :confused:

[yr right]

Omg Clinton your not a test pilot. Apart from every other part of your long career you haven't done the test pilot endorsement. My god. Anyway as your an engineer as well as a decorated war hero as you have stated previously when was the last time you had your engine mangment instrument calibration carried out.
Next read your article on how not to land an aircraft must say a few inconsistent comments in that.

Next do we actually know why the aircraft landed where it did or are your spectacular speculations enough for fact.

And as for flying that route done it many a time and we never had a fuel
Proplem before you ask

[LeadSled]

Apart from every other part of your long career you haven't done the test pilot endorsement. My god. Anyway as your an engineer as well as a decorated war hero as you have stated previously when was the last time you had your engine mangment (sic) instrument calibration carried out.

yr right,
You are letting your prejudices show again.
A test pilot approval is hardly needed to exercise native common sense ( admittedly not all that common on pprune) and intelligence.
I am looking forward to your explanation of how you calibrate pulse counter instruments, and the value of relative versus absolute indications.
Tootle pip!!

[Captain Fun]

Can we stop the pi$$ing contest and get back to the topic? Anyone have any proper information about this incident?

[kingRB]

but the pissing contest is far more entertaining

[Jabawocky]

10dF LOP


I presume that means 10 degrees lean of peak. The C210 flight manual recommends 25 degrees rich of peak, and peak EGT, as options only.



Yes 10dF LOP is correct, and do you understand why the POH recommends what it says? I can assure you that NOBODY can comply with the POH in your mind….NOBODY. Have a think how absurd your statement is.What if through the mixture control you can only set 26 or 24 degrees ROP? That is not complying in your mind.

The POH suggests those numbers to achieve certain book performance values, and I can guarantee if you set the leanest on peak, the richest will be way more than 25dF ROP. And if you get the mid range cylinder at 25, some will be 20 LOP and some 75 ROP. How do you propose to deal with that?

Insert a set of GAMI's and you will do far better, but seriously, the POH gives examples which are just one of an almost infinite number of combinations that will be just fine. The problem is nobody has ever educated you to see the rest of the forest for the one tree right in font of you. It's not your fault, and I do not blame you. Its the system that has failed you.

If you sat in front of a engine monitor after having seen what a fully instrumented dyno can show you, you would have a far better understanding of what the POH actually is telling you.

Anything else is not approved, and test pilot territory. Unless you self insure of course. That there is simply not true. legendary old wives tale stuff.

I am willing to help you, but you need to contact me somehow. :ok:

[gerry111]

I went along with Creampuff for his aircraft's post annual check flight, this afternoon. To a few I'm clearly a risk taker. I just love the factual information that his engine monitor provides. My long drive home was potentially far more dangerous. ;)

[AbsoluteFokker]

The question is - do insurance companies even care?

I ask my broker "so what happens if someone hires my aircraft and, on the day, with a valid licence and medical, they are drunk and crash into a building in the CBD".

Answer: "Full insurance payout to aircraft owner"

[Tonym3]

I am willing to help you, but you need to contact me somehow.

I did this after the last thread about LOP and got educated with the evidence that Jaba provides as part of a weekend course. Best money I ever spent. Tipping the 30 others who did the weekend with me would say the same thing.

Do yourself a favour and make sure you're on his mailing list for the next weekend.:ok:

[Creampuff]

You are a reckless risk-taker, gerry111.

Did you notice, from the readings on the engine monitor during the lean test we carried out, that the CHT for each cylinder was cooler at peak EGT than it was at 25 degrees C ROP, and that the CHT for each cylinder was even cooler at 25 degrees C LOP than it was at peak EGT and 25 degrees C ROP?

But apparently clys that have a CHT of 175 degrees C at an EGT 25 degrees C LOP are at risk of cooking, but the same clys at a CHT of 205 degrees C at an EGT 25 degrees C ROP are safe and fine. Apparently hotter clys are at less risk of cooking than cooler ones, provided they know they're not on the side of peak EGT that dare not speak its name. Go figure...

And did you notice how the wings fell off when we did the magneto check at 8,500'? You might have thought that all that happened was an increase in EGT for each cly, but those are just lies told by the random number generators in the engine monitor.

I don't know how we've managed to survive for tens of thousands of nautical miles in a death trap being flown by an unqualified test pilot.

[PLovett]

I know of one very nice C210 fitted with all the bells & whistles for proper engine management that was flown from Jabiru to Alice Springs (nonstop) and still had 90 litres in the tanks on landing. On that occasion it wasn't I flying. It is certainly the best C210 that I have flown performance wise but the best I got from it was 155 kts.

[yr right]

Yes I know the cause of this incident. I can say that the aircraft had FUEL onboard however at this time I'm not able to say what the cause was and I do know.

Now as for Clinton like I've said before how many engines have you ever serviced and how many cylinders have your ever removed. And what happens to the exhaust gas when you lean it out.

So far this year one engine removed all but destroyed by running lop and 8 cylinder changes. But then maybe we should go against the ads and manufacturers recommended test process as creamie and Jaba say they wrong and they know best.

[yr right]

Just on another note Clinton. When you land what is the first thing you do ?

[yr right]

At the end of the day I really don't care if you run lop. It's your plane unless you hire one then it the wiener that will dictate what to use. However if you think your lame not going to notice well I think you deluding yourself. If you think a lame going to turn a blind eye because you have damaged your engine and he is going to sign it off against the AD ( which is law) and against the manufacturer it's not going to happen. Then depending on how much damage you have done how much fuel saving do you have to do to have that return.

If you believe the hype how America airlines extended there engine overhaul life by running lop go find out the original overhaul life for those engines. The hardest part of an engine life is take off. Dose the engine destroy its self of
On takeoff with high temps cylinder pressures and everything thing else they profess. No they don't.

With the new instruments that are available everyone is now an expert. However they not.

[Eddie Dean]

we did the magneto check at 8,500'What a great place to find we have a dead magneto, no problem for a glider pilot.

[Creampuff]

I see your point, Eddie.

It's "safe" to fly along blissfully ignorant of the fact that the engine has a "dead magneto", but "unsafe" if you know about it.

And if you're flying along on one magneto, and turn it off, naturally you won't be able to turn it back on.

Best instead to fly along blissfully ignorant of the fact that one of the magnetos is dead. Knowing that one magneto is dead would of course be irrelevant to any in-flight decisions.

(By God it's lucky that piston engines are simple technology for simple people, and almost idiot proof. But they're still out there. :ugh:

For the non-idiots:

The point of an in-flight magneto check is to check the ignition system (note: not just the magnetos), and check the ignition system properly.

The 'standard' magneto check on the ground tells you very little about the health of the ignition system. It tells you the ignition system is not currently having a heart attack.

An in-flight magneto check, LOP at altitude and high power, will show up the early symptoms of ignition system problems, so that they can be cured well in advance of a complete heart attack.

But you have to understand how engines run, and have an engine monitor and know what it's telling you, in order to get any benefit from the procedure.)

[Eddie Dean]

I too can see your point, Creampuff.
At the risk of showing I am one of those "idiots" you are alluding to, I cannot follow the rest of your proposition.

[Frank Arouet]

The owners manual for the V35 and C210 I have seem to agree that fuel is cheap and engines are expensive. I heed the book.

[Trent 972]

Creampuff said ...An in-flight magneto check, LOP at altitude and high power.....
Please O Great Wise One, pray now tell me what you would do if you discovered at that point an electrical systems was dead. Would you reselect it back to the live system at that HIGH power setting?
I'm guessing with your past history of gear and flap switch cockups you might just do that.
Let Jabba do the educating, because you are hopeless. Stick to your legal stuff. At least you know what you're talking about there.

[Agrajag]

At the end of the day I really don't care if you run lop. It's your plane unless you hire one then it the wiener that will dictate what to use. However if you think your lame not going to notice well I think you deluding yourself. If you think a lame going to turn a blind eye because you have damaged your engine and he is going to sign it off against the AD ( which is law) and against the manufacturer it's not going to happen. Then depending on how much damage you have done how much fuel saving do you have to do to have that return. ...a-a-a-and here we go again. I'm sure Creampuff and FTDK need a break by now, so I'll weigh in.

Yet again you make unsupported assertions, in the face of many, many explanations to the contrary. But I'll have another go:



If LOP = engine damage, please explain the mechanism by which it does so. By this I mean, give us the blow-by-blow of what takes place during and after the combustion cycle in order to bring about this damage. APS provides this sort of analysis during their courses. If you are to dispute their data, you need to provide a similar depth of explanation. Simply claiming "it burns valves" or "it damages cylinders" won't suffice.
LOP operation is not carried out as a means of saving fuel. That's just a happy by-product. The real reason for doing so, is that the engine runs cooler and with less stress.
Instead of focusing on the engines allegedly damaged by LOP operation, how about looking at the vast majority which weren't? I have personally spoken to one high-time IO-520 operator whose first two engines failed to make TBO, in spite of receiving top overhauls partway through their lives. The third engine went all the way, with no top overhaul. There was only one change in operating practice with that engine. I'll leave you to guess what it was.


If you believe the hype how America airlines extended there engine overhaul life by running lop go find out the original overhaul life for those engines. The hardest part of an engine life is take off. Dose the engine destroy its self of
On takeoff with high temps cylinder pressures and everything thing else they profess. No they don't. You're not going to get away with that one either. During takeoff those big engines are running well on the rich side of peak; in fact as rich as they will go. And the kind of power they're developing is only allowed for 5 minutes, 10 in emergency. That's hardly representative of the majority of the engine's life.

As to the comparative overhaul lives before and after LOP was instituted, that's well documented. Off the top of my head, I think they went up by a factor of about 10. Of course the operators didn't know they were running LOP at the time, but they were doing so regardless.

With the new instruments that are available everyone is now an expert. However they not. By your logic, the less we know about what's going on inside our engines, the better off we are. That's just ludicrous. With this sort of data now available, we can get a very accurate correlation of cause and effect, every time we operate the engine. And with a bit of education, we can interpret the information to achieve desired results.

I'm really sorry if you feel this encroaches on your monopoly of knowledge about how engines work. But those of us who fly them have a far greater investment in their reliable operation than anyone who doesn't. It's not adequate for any responsible pilot to regard what's going on ahead of the firewall as some mystical zone, with access to its secrets allowed only to the chosen few.

In this business, as with many others, knowledge is power. Anyone who wants to restrict or constrain that knowledge is derelict in duty at best; dangerously irresponsible at worst.

[Eddie Dean]

Typical Ppuner argument there Agrajag.
Decry another's argument as unsupported assertions by supplying your own unsupported assertions.

So in your own time explain how TBO is achieved in Bell 47-3B1 engines when mixture control was removed from them many years ago.

Cheers

[Creampuff]

Please O Great Wise One, pray now tell me what you would do if you discovered at that point an electrical systems was dead. Would you reselect it back to the live system at that HIGH power setting?Although I'm not wise, I have enough knowledge to know that magneto checks have nothing to do with "electrical systems".

I realise your (rather odd) obsession with trying to find anything and everything wrong in my short posts about complex subjects skews your thinking, so I realise you made an inadvertant mistake in what you typed. What you meant to ask was would I select the good magneto back to on, having discovered that the magneto I am on is "dead".

Those who are willing to learn and have learned will know that the very complicated procedure on discovery that a mag to which you've switched is "dead" is to:

(1) pull the mixture to idle cut off; and
(2) select the good mag, or both, if it was working on both; and
(3) return the mixture to its previous settings.

Last time I did it, the wings dropped off (of course).

Disturbingly, I'm not sure whether this is taught adequately as part of the standard "rough running" checks people are trained to do when they are forced to do an in-flight mag check.

My post was in response to someone who suggested an in-flight mag check is something that shouldn't be done at all as a normal procedure.I'm guessing with your past history of gear and flap switch cockups you might just do that.What fascinates me is the apparent correlation between the ppruners who appear to believe they've never made a mistake and the ppruners who come across as complete idiots. Not sure (yet) whether it is, in fact, causation rather than correlation.

Let's make it rule that only those who've never made a mistake while aviating get to post on pprune. Deal?

[Agrajag]

Typical Ppuner argument there Agrajag.
Decry another's argument as unsupported assertions by supplying your own unsupported assertions.Unsupported? Sorry, but I'm guessing you're new to this topic. The supporting data on my side of the discussion has been out there for a long time by now, and doesn't need rehashing.

So in your own time explain how TBO is achieved in Bell 47-3B1 engines when mixture control was removed from them many years ago.Don't know; never flown one. But I suspect the default setting was made so rich that the engine couldn't get anywhere near the "red box". I just can't imagine any Bell 47 being equipped with the engine monitoring technology we now have, or that the pilot would have time and spare limbs to make use of it if it were.

[Eddie Dean]

(1) pull the mixture to idle cut off; and
(2) select the good mag, or both, if it was working on both; and
(3) return the mixture to its previous settings.
Mmmm - what about hitting the crank button whilst saying a prayer to the God of your choice

[Tankengine]

Probably because hitting the "crank" button might stuff the starter motor or ring gear as the engine would still be rotating.:}

[Eddie Dean]

You think so Tanker, two inflight shutdowns I've done have resulted in a stopped engine/propellor

[yr right]

So once again an omg. You do a mag check at low revs for one simple reason. So you don't induce cracks in the crank.
Clinton you didn't answer the question I ask u previously. When you land your aircraft what is the first thing you do.

[Creampuff]

I cannot follow the rest of your proposition.Does a Doctor wait until someone's had a heart attack to come to the conclusion that the person has a cardiovascular problem?

Most cardiovascular failures, like most ignition system failures, are caused by problems that start small and get bigger, but can be detected and addressed when they're small. That's why doctors check, among other things, your blood pressure. In some cases your doctor will connect a bunch of wires to you and put you on a treadmill.

A "healthy" piston aero engine with duplicated, "healthy", ignition systems is able to run at high power on one of those systems. Indeed, if it's a certified engine, it's part of the certification basis.

When your engine is at high power at altitude, it's on the cardiovascular version of a treadmill. If you have an engine monitor connected to it, you're measuring many of its vital signs.

If any part of your ignition system has any small problem that is slowly getting bigger, the most likely time at which it will first manifest itself is at high power, high altitude, LOP. The most effective way to narrow the problem down is to run each mag separately in those conditions.

(Other developing problems, like small changes in static timing, will often first manifest themselves in unusually high CHTs at high power during climb.)

These problems can be diagnosed and fixed before they become the equivalent of a heart attack.

The most recent real-life in-flight ignition system problem I had only manifested itself at 9,500'. I diagnosed the problem with a magneto check. The problem disappeared passing 8.500' on descent and the system tested perfectly on a "standard" ground magneto check. But the problem was still there, was fixed, and therefore was prevented from getting any worse and doing more damage to the ignition system.

Almost all ignition system problems don't need to be left to develop to such an extent that an engine "fails" a "standard" ground magneto check. Once it's got that bad, it's almost certain that the engine hadn't been performing as well as it should have, for a long time beforehand.

In the case of the perceived risks of doing an in-flight mag check that shows one magneto is "dead", think about how it's possible for the aircraft to have got to that state in the air in the first place, without the pilot knowing. If it's really the case that the aircraft had a genuinely random in-flight failure resulting in a completely dead magneto, even an aircraft without an engine monitor is going to "tell" the pilot something is "not quite right". And then the pilot's going to do, what? A mag check, among other checks...

But I get it now: It's dangerous to do an in-flight mag check on an engine whose monitor and trend data shows it's currently healthy, but not dangerous to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that you're flying along with a "dead magneto". :ugh:

Eddie: what type of engines fitted to what aircraft, precisely, stop rotating in flight when the mags are switched off or the fuel runs out? I'm yet to find any aircraft piston engine that can be stopped rotating in flight, other than by switching off the mags or fuel and stalling the aircraft.

[Trent 972]

Creampuff, do you get your little wisdoms from Savvy or the like.
Perhaps this procedure they advocate is what you're on about.
In-Flight Lean Mag Check
The in-flight lean mag check is a test of ignition system performance, and is used to help diagnose problems with magnetos, ignition harnesses, spark plugs, ignition timing, etc.
Perform the in-flight lean mag check procedure by setting up the airplane in normal cruise on autopilot. Then perform the following procedure.
 Lean to an aggressively lean cruise mixture. The leaner, the better for this test. The test will be much more discriminating and meaningful if you lean to a lean-of-peak-EGT (LOP) mixture setting. Preferably lean as far LOP as you can without experiencing significant engine roughness.
 For a key or rotary style magneto switch (as found in most singles), select BOTH-LEFT- BOTH-RIGHT-BOTH, leaving the mag switch in each of these positions for one full minute.
 For individual magneto toggle switches (as found in most twins), turn off the LEFT ENGINE/LEFT MAGNETO switch for one full minute, then turn it back on and wait for one full minute. Repeat this procedure with each of the other three magneto switches in sequence. (LE/LM, LE/RM, RE/LM, RE/RM.)
NOTE: It is normal for engines to run a bit rougher on one magneto than they do on two, but they should not run change-of-underwear rough. Please report on the level of perceived roughness during phase of the test.
NOTE: For turbocharged engines, TIT may rise to above red-line during single-magneto operation. This is normal and will not do any harm if the exceedences do not exceed a few minutes’ duration.
Not too sure if the 'Note' at the bottom of that procedure would gain the Engine OEM's agreement. Perhaps the whole procedure is flawed. I'm not educated sufficiently enough to know. Are you?

[Pontius]

You think so Tanker, two inflight shutdowns I've done have resulted in a stopped engine/propellor

Eddie: what type of engines fitted to what aircraft, precisely, stop rotating in flight when the mags are switched off or the fuel runs out? I'm yet to find any aircraft piston engine that can be stopped rotating in flight, other than by switching off the mags or fuel and stalling the aircraft.

I'm also interested in Eddie's answer to this and, just to clarify the rules of engagement, feathering a prop and it no longer rotating in the breeze does NOT count as "a stopped engine/propellor".

[Eddie Dean]

That is my point Creampuff, if both mags are off, grounded, the engine stops.

[Creampuff]

I get my knowledge from the data published by John Deakin and the other APS people.

No, I'm not sufficiently educated.

It is astonishing, though, that despite everything advocated by APS (and "Savvy", whatever or whoever they may be) contrary to OEM publications, they've never been sued for giving negligent advice. I wonder why, given that they live in the land of litigation at the drop of a hat. (Actually, I don't wonder why...)

[Virtually There]

Interesting discussion. But is fuel really that cheap compared to the cost of an engine?

The difference in fuel burn between max power (ROP) and max economy (LOP) is about 20%, or 10 litres an hour in an IO-520. That's $40,000 for a 2,000-hour overhaul at today's fuel prices - the cost of a factory refurbed engine.

Simplistic (yes, unrealistic) figures, of course. But saving even a fraction of that amount puts things into perspective. Fuel is the biggest expense of running an aircraft and the one thing owners/operators have a degree of control over.

[Creampuff]

That is my point Creampuff, if both mags are off, grounded, the engine stops.C'mon Eddie, stop evading the point of the question you're purporting to answer.

What type of engines fitted to what aircraft, precisely, stop rotating in flight when the mags are switched off or the fuel runs out? I'm yet to find any aircraft piston engine that can be stopped rotating in flight, other than by switching off the mags or fuel and stalling the aircraft.

This thread is about a Cessna 210. This "discussion" arose out of speculation about the cause of the forced landing of a Cessna 210 and, consequently, fuel management on a Cessna 210.

If you are talking about toys or those devilish contraptions, helicopters, just say so please.

[Pontius]

That is my point Creampuff, if both mags are off, grounded, the engine stops.

Well, it may no longer be producing power but all the bits inside the engine continue to go up and down and round and round, assuming the propellor is not feathered and the speed is sufficient to rotate it. To get the engine going again is just a matter of getting a spark and some petrol doing their thing and certainly not "hitting the crank button whilst saying a prayer to the God of your choice".

A mechanical failure will stop an engine and no amount of "hitting the crank button" is going to get it going again. An engine failure caused by fuel or electrical problem can be solved by restoring the missing element and then maintaining sufficient speed such that the still-rotating propellor 'cranks' the engine or by un-feathering the same.

In my experience the only time the propellor stopped (in a Chipmunk with a self-induced fuel problem - mixture FAR too rich) was when I slowed to the best gliding speed. Having diagnosed and remedied the snag it was simply a matter of lowering the nose to get the speed up and propellor turning and all was well again. Luckily no "hitting the crank button" was required because that involved a cartridge start :ooh:

[Eddie Dean]

Well :O for me. I'll buy the next round as penalty.
The two times I saw shut down was Nomad and an Islander, both feathering props of course.

[Tankengine]

Just how many mags does a Nomad have?:}

I can assure you, pulling the mixture or turning off the mags will not "stop" most piston engines unless you are close to stall speed!

Of course the Islander is always close!:E

[Pinky the pilot]

Just to be slightly difficult;:E I had two occasions flying Islanders where I had to feather the prop and shut down the engine due to severe loss of oil pressure, the first occasion being a failure of the vacuum pump oil seal, the second being a catastrophic engine failure.:eek:

On both occasions the prop did not move to a fully feathered position and at single engine cruise speed (really cannot remember now but must have been about 85KIAS) the prop still flicked over a half or so a turn every 15 to 20 seconds!

[tio540]

Jabawoky, if you are suggesting ignore the aircraft flight manual, in this case, what other parts of the manual should we ignore? Procedures are everything in this industry.

Furthermore, if you have a degree in engineering, industrial chemistry, tell Pratt, Textron, or Continental they are wrong. Their engineers would love to hear from you.

If you are not an expert, why comment at all. Hell, I don't surf the dentistry forum that that very reason.

[Creampuff]

When you set the mixture by reference to the EGT numbers in the "manual" you do, of course, realise that you really have no idea where, in fact, the EGT for each cylinder is set, don't you?

If you really believe that the settings in the "manual" are the product of deep engineering analysis and data showing that those numbers are the only settings at which the EGT may safely be set, surely you cannot be safe unless you're sure that every cylinder on the engines you operate are set precisely to the numbers specified in the "manual".

How do you manage to be the first person in history to ensure that each cylinder on the piston engine you are running is set precisely to the required temperature by reference to peak?

[tio540]

Cream puff, like Jabawocky, show me your credentials, qualifications and expertise in this area, and I will shut up. I am no engineer, scientist, and not highly educated, so can only rely on the flight manual for guidance.

[gerry111]

I suspect that all this boils down to a debate between those that use engine monitors v those that don't. One doesn't need to be highly educated to understand the information that an engine monitor provides. Only a bit of simple mathematics and common sense is required.

tio540, I encourage you to go for a flight with someone who uses a monitor and has done an APS course. And for that person to explain all the 'black magic' involved. You may have a change of opinion running your engine then. :)

[deadcut]

You may have a change of opinion running your engine then.

Or maybe you will just run it how your boss wants you to run it. Which is what VH-BKD was probably doing.

Enough of engine management talk maybe?

[tio540]

That's all fine and well, but the APS course is not even accredited by the manufacturer, and probably not endorsed by the regulator. Beware of snake oil salesman.

[Creampuff]

rely on the flight manual for guidance. "Guidance"?

"Guidance"?

Unbeliever! The manual is the Bible!

Thou shalt set the EGT needle to the divine number and, yea and verily, the EGT for each cylinder shall be so and thine engine shall be safe. Any other number shall be heresy and unsafe!

Thou shalt not suggest that 25 degrees C ROP or its F equivalent was a number chosen by the manufacturers' marketing department, because that number just about coincides with peak power and the fastest the aircraft will cruise, back in an era when competition between each new model put out by manufacturers was won and lost on a couple of knots. Thou shalt not suggest that the objective data show that setting mixture to 25 degrees C ROP is about the worst place for your engine, because that EGT just about coincides with the hottest CHT.

Give 'er a thrashing at 25 C ROP - that'll muster the hottest CHT you can - and have faith in the manual. :ok:

[Jabawocky]

tio

Time to slow down on the desperation tactics. Yes I am an engineer who studied mechanical of all things although these days it is mostly accounting I do :ooh:

Have I had very close working association with the G100UL unleaded avgas project? Yes. Do I also know that the APS class is based on data and facts from P&W, CW and the teachings of Taylor etc…..YES. Is George Braly and the Carl Goulet Memorial engine test facility not the best example of piston aero engine test cells in the world today? YES (and even the FAA learn from them).

This is not a pissing contest of credentials, if you want that jump on a plane fly to Ada OK and go see George for a day. If you cope with that (and most can't) then you will have done well.

When I get a moment, like about an hour, I will respond to all the posts here accurately. This will be in a factual and scientific manner that is not opinion but data backed, for your education and anyone else who comes along later.

Just for a moment, contemplate this……when you read a POH and there are charts and data provided showing the full spectrum of engine management on one page and then you read on and there is some poorly worded single cookbook recipe like that quoted by yourself, and they are completely at odds with each other…….what do you ? You can't do both at the same time can you?

So what happens is the vast majority of instructors and hence pilots who are not able to decipher the data, they gravitate to the written explanation trusting that reflects the data. The problem is that is sometimes written by the work experience kid in marketing (we had one in an APS class who stood up and admitted his words in a POH-brave man). So you the pilot ignores the correct data lovingly prepared by the engineers, and favour the BS on the next page.

This is not uncommon, we use many examples in the class manual.

By the way, APS does not need any accreditation, it stands on its own merits and besides there would need to be a pretty well qualified accreditation team……and so far I doubt there are any more qualified in the piston aero engine community than George Braly himself.

Lycoming have sent folk, and even been challenged to provide data that proves anything we teach is wrong, Walter even offered USD$1K for anything they had…..they said there is nothing that refutes the data.

What about TCM you say? Well the very first class I taught was a few years ago in Oklahoma, and we had a senior guy from TCM there, his name is Bill Ross, (nice guy too) he went back to the factory on and declared their engineers were all going to take the class. So for the last several classes there have been 4-6 in attendance. Heck last year at Oshkosh, Bill Ross in one of his seminars was actually promoting to their customers to take the class. I think that speaks enough.

I will find some time out of my "engineering day" coz thats what I do…..and try to deal with the previous posts. Hang in there. :ok: