Absolutely! And, even then, the movement should be appropriate to the aircraft deviation rather than an instinctive discovery of the control stops whereby there is a risk of over-controlling - at which point the wind settles back down and, laughing, watches us now fight ourselves as we weave off into the distance! :} It's a wonder we manage this flying malarkey at all given all the variables and trickery involved!!! :sad:

I was reminded of a recent amusing video posted in the PPRuNe Thread entitled "Stirring the Pudding". Most will have seen it but, just in case, it's here! :ok:

And, Manwell, don't let machines con you! Anything tech is simply out to get ya! They all have an innate skill in determining the worst possible moment to ruin your day!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Happy daze!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I tried squeezing the throttle knob last time I flew. Nothing happened.

I reverted to my normal technique. Palm heel resting on the edge of the side rail, fingers lightly gripping the knob, movements controlled by fingers not the arm and shoulder. Very similar to controlling the stick with fingers and wrist while resting the arm on the thigh. (Both positions allow full and fast control movement if/when required.)

EXDAC, I'm thinking a squeaky dog chew toy for the throttle knob might be rewarding! ;)

I remember of an incident many years ago solo circuits in a PA28-140 at NZWN when I managed to bounce the aircraft so badly that I just shoved the throttle all the way very quickly.

The engine sort of gasped and a second or so later I was climbing away wondering what on earth (pardon the pun) happened.

Probably not. I doubt I could hear it unless I pulled the throttle way back and that would rather defeat the purpose. (Anyway I'm just a spotter now so who cares what I think.)

I'm of the opinion that "mechanical sympathy" is something of a lost art.
When I learned to drive, I was taught that - when starting a car - to start the engine first, then do things like fasten the seat belt, adjust the seat, adjust the heater, etc. That gave the engine a few seconds to lubricate itself and start to warm before you did anything. Then use subtle throttle movements for the first mile or two as everything came up to temp.
These days, I see young people get in a car, set everything, then start the car and immediately drive away. I've tried to educate my wife about that sort of thing, but it's in one ear and out the other. She'll close the car door two or three times - even though I could hear and see that it had properly latched the first time. I've had to replace the power window control module in her car at least four times because - after the windows are closed - she repeatedly triggers the switches to 'make sure'. Drives me up a wall...

Back in the day, my boss, who had a Twin Comanche (and owned the aircraft engine overhaul shop I worked at) would jump into the plane and go. He became notorious for this, such that the airport people would time him. They'd time him from cabin door closed, to takeoff power applied (he did park it very close to the end of the grass runway. One of the airport people eventually admitted to me that they were doing this, and told me that his record time to date was 22 seconds - door closed to takeoff power applied. I saw him do it close to that, so found it to be alarmingly believable.

In any case, the inspiration for this thread obviously doesn't read it, 'cause he was at it again today. That poor DA-40, flight power, idle, glide for a bit, then jammed to full power. You can hear the poor governor hunting, to find a stable RPM....

The engine oils of yesteryear are very little like today's versions. Back in the 1950's and 60's normal UK cars needed to be warmed up gently, as the cold oil was too thick to reach the bearings quickly enough. They also needed an oil change every 1000 - 1500 miles and a grease service every 500 miles, as the oils were not able to absorb the combustion products and retain their lubricating characteristics for very long, compared to todays oils. My new (german) car doesn't require an oil change for at least 30000 miles / 3 years, and the garage has told me (firmly) to leave the engine alone, except to top up the screen washer fluid. My father (a wartime army engineer and rally driver, amongst other things) used to say that modern oils had made most of the technical developments of the 2000's possible.

Quote:

---

......My new (german) car doesn't require an oil change for at least 30000 miles / 3 years, and the garage has told me (firmly) to leave the engine alone......

---

But your garage won't have to pay for the increased wear that regime will produce, and they only need the car to last beyond whatever warranty they offer. Cynical but true. By specifying very long oil change intervals, they are also reducing servicing bills slightly, making it slightly more likely that you will come back to the main dealer.

I had the devil's own job convincing Audi to change my DSG gearbox oil. "It's lubricated for life sir". Whose life ? Mine, or the car's or the gearbox's ? Then they actually lied and told me there was no drain plug on the gearbox. Err.....yes there is. Here's a picture I took of it under the car.......no reply.

All machines wear out. The more you can do to help minimise that, the better. And not touching an engine oil for 30,000 miles means that not only do the long-chain molecules in the oil get progressively broken up and shorter; suspended particles in the oil will be circulating and causing wear and blocking up oil ways and the filter.

Best to change the oil and filter every 8,000 or so, (with modern engines and oils). But I keep my cars, I don't have them for 2-3 years then change them. So I have much more of a stake in their mechanical health and longevity.

When engines are cold, metal contracts, so running clearances are not achieved until the engine has fully warmed through. Also, even with modern oils, most wear occurs during start-up, so it is sensible not to subject an engine to strain until it has fully warmed up.



Absolutely right; that's what I do :ok:

We had instructor who would expect a cold Duchess engine to pick up on single eng. app. then touch and go. Sure enough one day it ended upside down next to the runway. Lucky they climbed out ok.

That's good practice for flying a jet

........... and Airbus have even given up completely with pilots being trusted to set powers smoothly & accurately - "Mais Edouard, lets just give les pilotes detents to "switch" between et c'est fini. Problème disparu!!" :}

A guy I used to chat to regularly was of a generation brought up on Nenes and Derwents. Sadly, he departed a couple of years ago, but I suspect "care-free engine handling" was not in his lexicon when batting about the skies in his Meteors and Vampires! Cooked turbine anyone?

The Airbus thrust lever quadrant is a very good design, and an improvement on the Boeing system. The Airbus enables additional functions to be easily accommodated and switched by thrust lever movements alone, and which are completely intuitive.

Airbus pilots are trusted to move the levers "manually" if they need to; and they behave just like any other thrust levers - push for more thrust, pull back for less.

Yes, technology is always improving and, wrt engine controls, modern Auto-throttles are very sophisticated bits of kit. Indeed, a great example of the capabilities of such modern designs is that both engines were doing a good job to re-light in the dreadful AI171 plane crash. A few seconds more and maybe...............................

........ indeed - and my Airbus comment was very much tongue-in-cheek, Thursday morning (here), humour! :ok:

Fair enough, I wasn't sure :)

No probs! It was a tad early for such irreverent jocularity against the 'Bus fraternity!!!! :} My "what I claim to be a so-called sense of humour" drives Mrs H 'n' H nuts so you have her full sympathy!!!!!! :ok: