Ha HA HA
Haven't enjoyed myself so much reading the rantings of a partially informed nong for a while.
Brian, I agree with the vast majority of what you state as it is extremely well informed. I caution readers to take Pelican with a little balance of engine manufacturer's advice as what he says is always thought provoking and generally spot on, but is well biased toward Conti's. In any case it is essential reading for interested pilots.
RS, you dill. you are living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. for fcuks sake LISTEN to what is being said, you have been demonstrating a remarkable lack of tolerance to those to whom you should be learning from, not trying to teach.
To the 'don't believe the flight manual' crew: The AFM is still the overarching document that (generally) supplies the information and procedures that you need to know and in any case should be the first reference. Look in there then ask questions on this forum, at least you will have some idea as to what the starting question should be. the subject is about a Cessna 172, not an Auster, which bareley qualifies as an aircraft, certainly not a certified one, and certainly does not have a proper flight manual. it is a curiosity, like many antique/special interest aircraft has a very basic guidance document. iterestingly, despite it's age the tenet that good quality motor spitit will work ok still holds true despite the difficulty of obtaining it. What worked back then will still work now. Cessnas, Warriors, Cirrii (plural of Cirrussess??) Grobs, Diamonds etc. in fact most common training and private aircraft.. all have up to date and informative manuals, even though they are more strongly influenced by the legal and certification influences than is best for the operator in my opinion. Before you advocate ignoring the AFM?POH, you should at least READ it.
Still, all a bit of fun really, can't wait to be told by RS that I aslo am a know nothing 35 year industry professional, and not an avid student like himself, ( Auto Rich, ha ha I especially liked that bit of near-knowledge)
HD
HD