Wierdest one I've had in a Chief is auto feather on shutdown... AND NO i didn't pull the blue knob back.

It did it several times over a few months and the engineers couldn't find anything wrong. Lessons learnt PA31-350 nearly impossible to start hot with feathered prop but possible depending on how you hold your tounge. From memory I think the prop got pulled and desludged but nothing concrete was ever found???
:confused: :confused: :confused:

The_Hun, your immaturity, and the lack of respect displayed on this forum disgusts me.

Get back in your hole and let people discuss issues of importance...

Mate,

I use to check and train on the old cheiftain, good stable workhorse..on 2 engines... can get more than a little interesting on a hot day with a max load on one donk though.

Hints,

make sure the firewall cut-off valves are completely down and locked in place before each takeoff, I have had an engine fail at 150 feet with one of those little ******s rising up.

24" on downwind is a little high. Use 20" joining crosswind/downwind, set first stage of flap 1/2 way downwind, landing gear down abeam your landing threshold wait for speed to bleed back to 115-120KIAS and comence a descending base turn at 600fpm. you will find yourself on final on speed/profile without changing your power setting much at all. once comitted to land set full flap and get your 92-95KIAS over the threshold, STILL WITH ABOUT 20"

For Navajo's (same type rating) set 1/2 cowl flap for takeoff, they are like speed brakes when fully open on one engine. DO NOT DO THIS ON THE CHEIF.

Enjoy mate, not a bad machine to learn your craft, I have some 2100 hours on PA31's and learnt a lot from them.

:)

PA31 and PA31 -350

Haven't flown them for some years.

However I do recall many things.

If I may caution you on the undercarriage hydraulic system test. It is not foolproof or a guarentee the pump is infact producing FULL output.

After a throrough endorsement and months of scheduled night freight I had my boss onboard. He noticed immediately the gear retraction cycle was longer than normal.

Sure enough, engineering found the pump to be low output and changed it.

It always passed the idle test.

Motto, have an idea of what time things take to cycle as sometimes they deteriorate insidiously.

Aother point is the airplane is basically a 180 knot machine using a lot of horsepower to do it. One of our pilots had a nasty fog unforecast fog experience. I recall he reduced power to 25 inches or less and the fuel flows dropped way back, whilst TAS is still approx 145 kts. This improvement in specific range may be just the thing that'll save your bacon.

Forgive any spelling errors

Safe flying, you will enjoy the PA31 as a sound I.F.R. platform

:)

[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: another line pilot ]

[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: another line pilot ]

Reference to the earlier posting about 2 min per inch of M.P. on descent not being "necessary". I was of the impression that this was more for uniform and slower cylinder cooling rather than speed or altitude management. Also, the idle test for hydraulic pumps is only that, a test for function. The Pilot's Handbook gives time limits for extension retraction. These are the ultimate test of function. Enjoy your time on PA31's, they are a good aircraft for their designed purpose, and can be fun to fly.

Thanks people for the info - exactly what i was after !

Very interesting read and certainly worth thinking about............But, does this guy know what he is on about? lets face it, anyone who doesnt like our beer cant be all that knowing:D :D

Wizard

If you go to the website and look at the author's previous articles on large capacity piston engine management, you will see that he has done a lot of research and has come up with some interesting stuff. Most of which goes totally against what we have been told in the past about engine management.

CASA had a swipe at his work a couple of years ago without specifically mentioning the author by name, but then what else would you expect.

Have a look, it makes interesting reading.

Cheers

Well, he certainly has some valid points...........but he knocked our beer, and thats just not on.;)

They can't both be correct
 

Setting aside a bit of emotive language, Mr Deakin’s analysis raises some extraordinarily serious questions about the ATSB’s report. If – I repeat if - even some of the points he makes are valid, the credibility of the ATSB’s report must be in serious doubt.

One of the many astonishing aspects of the analysis is the difference of opinion on basic questions of fact.

For instance, Deakin says the ATSB claims that the swirl pattern on a piston pictured in the report is a pattern that is characteristic of detonation.

Deakin says, quoting John Schwaner, that the picture is of a piston with normal combustion pattern markings.

They can’t both be correct, can they?

Can an engine expert please tell us which if either of them is correct: is the swirl pattern on the pictured piston "a characteristic of detonation", or "a normal combustion pattern", or neither, or both?

Deakin asserts "it is an absolute fact that … the procedure of leaning to an EGT of 1,500º F on the rich side of peak EGT during climb at high (36-38" MP) power … is very, very bad for any [aircraft piston] engine." Can an engine expert please explain whether he correct?

I made an error in my original post. The square bracketed words in the paragraph above originally said "normally aspirated aircraft piston". Apologies to all, and for confusing the analysis. I trust all the engine experts are nonetheless drafting posts for this thread.

Deakin dismisses ATSB’s lead oxybromide-induced preignition theory as junk science. Can an engine expert tell us whether, why and how often "lead oxybromide" induces preignition?

Independently of Deakin’s analysis, I have become increasingly concerned about ATSB documents that in my view contain bad methodology, selective fact-finding, and spurious reasoning. The WA Coroner for one seems to share my concerns. We can add Deakin to the list. Deakin’s talking about an accident in which 8 innocent lives were lost. If his assertions are incorrect, the ATSB needs to demolish his analysis, very comprehensively, very soon. If Deakin’s right, I hope that someone will properly investigate and determine the real causes of Whyalla tragedy.

Creampuff, I'm with you, this needs REAL expert comment as it opens pandora's box if it half right.

The myths and hand me down training on large Piston Engine handling in this country has deteriorated badly into urban myth status as all the real experts trained during WW II have left the Idustry.

The ATSB ignore this commentary into their report at their peril, ATSB credibility is at stake here.

Well unless CASA and ATSB have kissed and made up this would provide someone, somewhere with ammunition. Now they just need a firearm.:)

Well, I'd say that sort of manifold pressure in a normally aspirated engine is very, very, bad.......... I'm sure it's a typo, but how do you get 36 to 38 " of M.P. out of a normally aspirated engine? The whole issue of the accident report and it's conclusions needs to be sorted out a.s.a.p.

Southland,


Sorry you misunderstood my slightly tongue in cheek reference to a typo. I know it is a typo, as I HAVE read the article. Navajo's have TIO 540's Of course i know you meant Chieftains have both LTIO and TIO 540's. No difference for leaning of course..........

However Mr Deacon makes some good points, I do recall mentioning some answers need to be found and I wholeheartedly agree that it must be done NOW. WRT leaning of L/TIO 540's as fitted to Chieftains, I must confess I have never seen anywhere where Lycoming recommend running these engines LOP. I'm not talking about Piper or any snake oil salesmen or anybody else, I mean Lycoming. Mr Deacon may well be correct, I suspect that he is as far as leaning goes. However, he makes the point that it is DANGEROUS to use this tecnique if your aircraft does not have an engine monitoring sytem that analyses the individual cylinders. Since most don't, LOP operation is at best a gamble, especially with regard to the maintenance matters you so correctly raised. I simply don't think his theory is the complete solution here, as some may think. We get excellent cylinder life from our chieftains, using a standard leaning tecnique, which admittedly, is slightly on the rich side of the Lycoming recommendations. It works, practical experience has shown us that. I am reasonably picky about the instrumentation. (STD PIPER FARE THO!!!!!) I would however like someone to explain to me where "Lead Oxy Bromide" induced detonation has been hiding for the last 30 years???????

I apologise for my mistake
 

All

You are of course entirely correct.

My hastily-added words in square brackets contain a glaring error.:o

38" MP and "normally aspirated"? Now that's a combination that should have flashed the "it does not compute" braincell. Too few left I suppose....

My apologies to all, and for confusing the message in the analysis.

Hope the engine experts are busy drafting some posts.

Wizard: Contrary to your assertions, anyone who doesn't like the "maiden's water" laughingly called beer in Oz OBVIOUSLY knows what he is talking about!!

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl. :p :p

Nightowl,
You're being a little unkind to our world class brewers. As Michael Jackson, the beer guru, said about Australian brewers when downunder last year at a beer comp, "it takes a lot of skill to remove the taste of beer"!

Calling all engine experts
 

any views on Deakin's report?

:mad: Is it too much to ask in our small world of aviation, that we can put aside empire building, job protection, ego stroking, bureaucratic arrogance and one-up-man-ship, to get the experts - real or imagined - together WHATEVER IT TAKES and actually determine absolutely WHY this aeroplane suffered a dual engine failure?

I operate these and similar engines and I don't understand a lot of what is being said in esoteric technical terminology; all I can go off is the recommendations from the manufacturer. This stuff must surely have a correct approach and an incorrect approach - which is which?

If this bloke and ATSB are both fair dinkum about wanting to prevent further similar incidents for Gods sake will someone get them to put their heads together and work cooperatively instead of playing silly-******s!!! Or is the septic using this incident to further his own causes for the consultancy he is setting up????

Geez!

Sadly creampuff, I don't think there are any experts, only people with strong views about illogical myths.