Shock Cooling - Myth Busted!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Trent, don't take the ruining the thread too personally, it just interrupts a flow of good education.
But at the same time, it actually helps show the point being made.
I hope I did not offend, even though I was taking a swipe
The reason service costs went up was clearly demonstrated by the Mirage and the TIO540, and as I mentioned previously pilots thinking just a tad richer would be safer. WRONG. The old wives tales were the very reason they had this problem. It is well known and documented.
The reason they keep giving up s even they can't teach it in a POH, just like a series of posts here, and they don't have the tools, people and they simply can't accept this.
TCM produce a poorly balanced engine but do it consistently. Lycoming produce worse F/A balanced engines but can't do it consistently. I have proven this myself. Huge variation.
If they can't sell well balanced engines they can't recommend using the efficient end of its performance spectrum. Funny how others in the industry can. Companies like GAMI lead the way, but others such as Airflow Performance have followed, engine builders in the USA such as Zepher, Barrett and many others, Aerosport Power for example. They can do it.
In Australia, we have Riverina Airmotive, anyone ever wanting good engine building, fuel system and injector tuning, be it GAMI or their own adjusted nozzles, and call Andrew Denyer, he has the gear, and he knows his stuff, if I have to find an answer for myself or others Andrew is one of 4 people I know who are the best to ask. Funny enough, they say the same about him
Get down to Brissy one day.......we can go play. Anything the airframe can take, you can do to the engine
Obidiah, funny how the old engineers who know their stuff will tell the truth.
Clinton.....
surely not, a legally endorsed document full of 
how is this possible. I wonder how far you have to look to find another one?
But at the same time, it actually helps show the point being made.
I hope I did not offend, even though I was taking a swipe
I have no doubt that you and your friends fit the first sentence, but the vast majority fit the last sentence.
hope that you have better success than Lycoming, who after years of preaching the same, gave up and now recommend the conservative alternative.
TCM produce a poorly balanced engine but do it consistently. Lycoming produce worse F/A balanced engines but can't do it consistently. I have proven this myself. Huge variation.
If they can't sell well balanced engines they can't recommend using the efficient end of its performance spectrum. Funny how others in the industry can. Companies like GAMI lead the way, but others such as Airflow Performance have followed, engine builders in the USA such as Zepher, Barrett and many others, Aerosport Power for example. They can do it.
In Australia, we have Riverina Airmotive, anyone ever wanting good engine building, fuel system and injector tuning, be it GAMI or their own adjusted nozzles, and call Andrew Denyer, he has the gear, and he knows his stuff, if I have to find an answer for myself or others Andrew is one of 4 people I know who are the best to ask. Funny enough, they say the same about him
Get down to Brissy one day.......we can go play. Anything the airframe can take, you can do to the engine
Obidiah, funny how the old engineers who know their stuff will tell the truth.
Clinton.....
surely not, a legally endorsed document full of how is this possible. I wonder how far you have to look to find another one?
I had the owner of the PA31 install a JPI EDM760 when I took over managing the aircraft. Even though it's manual approved LOP, I wasn't prepared to do it with only a single point EGT. Or rather, do it only once or twice to show the owner the change in fuel flow and then back to ROP. Instead of automatically installing GAMIs, I suggested we suck it & see. As it turned out, both engines run smoothly at 50 LOP. That's 50 LOP for the richest cylinder so the rest are even leaner. Glad I had the EDM though - the richest cylinder wasn't the one that had the factory single point probe! Had I run LOP on the factory EGT then one or two cylinders would have been significantly richer than the measured cylinder.
As manuals go, this one is reasonably thorough in it's procedures for LOP. As I alluded to before, it includes instructions on what to do if the EGT limit is reached before LOP is achieved (reduce MP, continue leaning to achieve 50 LOP, then increase MP). Part of that includes a warning that MP will need to be reduced before enrichening the mixture again.
And this is the original factory flight manual/POH, not some after market product's sales material.
As manuals go, this one is reasonably thorough in it's procedures for LOP. As I alluded to before, it includes instructions on what to do if the EGT limit is reached before LOP is achieved (reduce MP, continue leaning to achieve 50 LOP, then increase MP). Part of that includes a warning that MP will need to be reduced before enrichening the mixture again.
And this is the original factory flight manual/POH, not some after market product's sales material.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 8th Sep 2012 at 18:06.
Whenever you guys do or recommend a course I am coming, until then ...
WOT and 2700 is great advice and I will start and begin recording data (according to what I can), but cruise in an 0360? I can occasionally achieve LOP but not consistently and am hesitant to leave it there. Lycoming recommend cruising at peak ... This too doesn't "feel" that good, so in the absence of any hard data devices I have settled into a few divisions ROP where then engine "feels" happy. A few more perhaps?
I do tend to agree, a top at 1200 should not be necessary in an 0520, but these are not my engines.
My engine seems best at around 2400 - 2500 RPM, 2300 is "lumpy" 21 - 2300 is a red arc and ops below 2100 don't feel that good although I would love to experiment.
So what is the starting point for these settings?
Great thread and info from all participants
Once in the cruise, either an appropriate ROP setting or an appropriate LOP setting is the go.
I do tend to agree, a top at 1200 should not be necessary in an 0520, but these are not my engines.
My engine seems best at around 2400 - 2500 RPM, 2300 is "lumpy" 21 - 2300 is a red arc and ops below 2100 don't feel that good although I would love to experiment.
So what is the starting point for these settings?
Great thread and info from all participants
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Whenever you guys do or recommend a course I am coming, until then ...
Quote:
Once in the cruise, either an appropriate ROP setting or an appropriate LOP setting is the go.
WOT and 2700 is great advice and I will start and begin recording data (according to what I can), but cruise in an 0360? I can occasionally achieve LOP but not consistently and am hesitant to leave it there. Lycoming recommend cruising at peak ... This too doesn't "feel" that good, so in the absence of any hard data devices I have settled into a few divisions ROP where then engine "feels" happy. A few more perhaps?
I do tend to agree, a top at 1200 should not be necessary in an 0520, but these are not my engines.
My engine seems best at around 2400 - 2500 RPM, 2300 is "lumpy" 21 - 2300 is a red arc and ops below 2100 don't feel that good although I would love to experiment.
So what is the starting point for these settings?
Great thread and info from all participants
Quote:
Once in the cruise, either an appropriate ROP setting or an appropriate LOP setting is the go.
WOT and 2700 is great advice and I will start and begin recording data (according to what I can), but cruise in an 0360? I can occasionally achieve LOP but not consistently and am hesitant to leave it there. Lycoming recommend cruising at peak ... This too doesn't "feel" that good, so in the absence of any hard data devices I have settled into a few divisions ROP where then engine "feels" happy. A few more perhaps?
I do tend to agree, a top at 1200 should not be necessary in an 0520, but these are not my engines.
My engine seems best at around 2400 - 2500 RPM, 2300 is "lumpy" 21 - 2300 is a red arc and ops below 2100 don't feel that good although I would love to experiment.
So what is the starting point for these settings?
Great thread and info from all participants
1. A conforming engine is one where, there are NO induction leaks, one of the things you learn in an APS seminar is about being able to fault find from the cockpit, and this is one of them. So all intake gaskets, couplings etc must be in tip top shape. I bet the majority of the fleet have one or more that are not.
2. Spark plugs: Gapped correctly, 0.016" to 0.018" and electrodes in spec. If they are Champions in particular, check the resistance, should be under 2.5k ohms and if 5K or more bin them. Tempest do not seem to suffer from this. If you drop one even from a small height......hit with big hammer, destroy threads and then bin them.
3. Harness and connection points all clean and in good order. Many I see are terrible, how people expect these things o work for 30+ years is beyond me.
4. Timing, go to great lengths to ensure this is correct. You would be surprised how many folk think their timing is set right and it is not. I recently had Andrew Denyer check ours, just for the heck of it, he could not believe how deadly accurate both were. He rarely sees that. Understanding that it is not hard to do, and that it must checked in the direction of rotation of the engine, which seems obvious when I say it, but is not to some folk apparently. If you are not qualified to change it, under Schedule 8 pilot maintenance you can remove a spark plug, and nothing stops you from getting a timing device and learning how to use it, you should be allowed to at least check yours. - Clinton may be able to offer an expert legal opinion here, but I do not see any act there that is outside Schedule 8.
5. Air cleaner is actually clean. Carby heat actually works! If you have a carby temp probe, this along with 6 eggs will come in real handy!
So when you think about fuel drops, mist and anywhere in between coming out of the carboy, around several bends, the heavy stuff wants to keep going the light stuff stays more or less in the flow. How do you think temperature affects this? There is going to be an optimum temperate through the induction system that achieves the best atomisation, and the best delivery to the head. Use the EGT's (all of them) and apply carby heat to determine at a constant cruise setting, a Delta EGT that is the lowest you can find. The actual numbers mean nothing just want the point where the difference is the least. You may also benefit from cocking the throttle plate a bit, not enough to make a big MP change, but just enough to stir up the airflow a bit more. Maybe do this first then apply carby heat. A few experiments are needed.
If you have a carboy temp gauge, once you have found this optimum, take careful note of the carboy temp. This is now the optimum. Every time you fly, set the same WOT(or cocked slightly) and the same carby temp, and go leaning.
Carby engines will vary a lot, so there is a chance you will struggle, but most of them given the above will play nice.
So Bob, in your case, in the cruise at say 5500-9500 there is a target of around 10-20LOP for the cleanest most efficient running, peak EGT under these circumstances is not bad, understanding that peak EGT is actually better than slight richer. Even in the safe zones, the temps and ICP's are lower at peak EGT.
The APS graph above needs to be studied and thoroughly understood to really get your head around things, and even when you think you have it nailed.....there is more. I don't know what I don't know, and this education process must be treated this way.
Lastly, if you are LOP RPM makes no difference but as a general rule find a smooth RPM for your engine., this may be 2437, or 2508, or 2600 or anywhere in-between. Prop efficiency plays a part so think about that too. but anywhere from 2400 -2600 should be fine, avoid the LIMITATIONS as you have some.
To finish off, as soon as I know when the APS guys (or any number of them) are coming down under, I dare say the news will spread pretty quick. So standby.
If you want some good reading material send me a PM with your email details.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Clinton, great pickup!
You are indeed correct, on the Rich side of peak, in other words with Rich Mixtures, the HP developed is a function of MASS AIRFLOW, and once on the lean side it is about FUEL FLOW.
Now Brake HP caries a bit of variation from other factors and the Theta PP has an effect on this along with the frictional and compression losses so this is why the 1/BSFC can vary a bit. But for all intents the above concept is near enough, and if you look at the curves above you can see why the things APS teach are based around dat backed facts.
Onto the concept of rechecking the peak EGT, so long as you are LOP all you need is fuel flow to set power, and if using a Lycoming the Fuel Injection system will follow pretty accurately the changes in mass airflow, this is why the descent works so well. On a TCM the fuel delivery is pump RPM related so that is different, but if you vary the RPM both the mass airflow and fuel flow will change together.
I always find this one in the same POH amusingly circular:
Quote:
Changes in … power settings require the peak EGT to be rechecked and the mixture reset.
The implication is that ‘power settings’ are independent of mixture: you set ‘power’ then check the mixture.
I’m confident that power is, in fact, a function of, among other factors, the mixture setting …
Quote:
Changes in … power settings require the peak EGT to be rechecked and the mixture reset.
The implication is that ‘power settings’ are independent of mixture: you set ‘power’ then check the mixture.
I’m confident that power is, in fact, a function of, among other factors, the mixture setting …
Now Brake HP caries a bit of variation from other factors and the Theta PP has an effect on this along with the frictional and compression losses so this is why the 1/BSFC can vary a bit. But for all intents the above concept is near enough, and if you look at the curves above you can see why the things APS teach are based around dat backed facts.
Onto the concept of rechecking the peak EGT, so long as you are LOP all you need is fuel flow to set power, and if using a Lycoming the Fuel Injection system will follow pretty accurately the changes in mass airflow, this is why the descent works so well. On a TCM the fuel delivery is pump RPM related so that is different, but if you vary the RPM both the mass airflow and fuel flow will change together.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Sirs, What advice can you offer to the legions of young guys and gals busting their asses off in GA in the 'long grass ' operating aircraft that are more often than not, 20 years older than themselves and usually fitted with only the most basic of engine gauges? Can you tailor that advice bearing in mind that these young guys and gals change aircraft types throughout the working day, you know what I mean? A C207 in the morning or a 210 if they're luckier, a C310 later on towards lunchtime, a local scenic in the C172 in the afternoon and cross chartered C310 for afternoon delights.
The vast majority of these aircraft have been around the block quite a few times and I'm pretty sure that the EGT probe may not be on the appropriate cylinder and the last time the CHT gauges were calibrated is unknown.
I read that even a 1/16th inch gap in the engine baffles can make a huge difference to the airflow through the engine compartment. I only ask this because I can stick my arm through some of the gaps in the baffles on some of these old timers.
I read here that LoP operations is the way to go, but my companies ops manual just gives the engine manufacturers advice.
Please if you could, make your advice 'one size fits all' because as I said we don't have the luxury of getting to fly the same machine every day.
So far, because I am changing engine types and models throughout the day, I have been ultra conservative and running around RoP to be sure to be sure.
I see there is only one dissenter to your advice so far, that Trent goose, so I thought you might be the real deal.
We are almost to a person quite bright and intelligent and are more than capable of absorbing information or should we just keep being conservative. Please advise.
signed
The great many young CPL pilots flogging their asses off in the Great Australian Fark All!
The vast majority of these aircraft have been around the block quite a few times and I'm pretty sure that the EGT probe may not be on the appropriate cylinder and the last time the CHT gauges were calibrated is unknown.
I read that even a 1/16th inch gap in the engine baffles can make a huge difference to the airflow through the engine compartment. I only ask this because I can stick my arm through some of the gaps in the baffles on some of these old timers.
I read here that LoP operations is the way to go, but my companies ops manual just gives the engine manufacturers advice.
Please if you could, make your advice 'one size fits all' because as I said we don't have the luxury of getting to fly the same machine every day.
So far, because I am changing engine types and models throughout the day, I have been ultra conservative and running around RoP to be sure to be sure.
I see there is only one dissenter to your advice so far, that Trent goose, so I thought you might be the real deal.
We are almost to a person quite bright and intelligent and are more than capable of absorbing information or should we just keep being conservative. Please advise.
signed
The great many young CPL pilots flogging their asses off in the Great Australian Fark All!
Last edited by Trent 972; 9th Sep 2012 at 05:24. Reason: typo, again!!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For aircraft without CHT running "somewhat" ROP is always risky because you don't really know what power level you are at. Running at best power means max CHTs.
For such aircraft, best to run at "best economy" which is simply:
Lean until slight rough running encountered, enrichen until it stops running rough, check periodically. Works for me and keeps the aircraft going to TBO in my experience (limited sample size though).
For such aircraft, best to run at "best economy" which is simply:
Lean until slight rough running encountered, enrichen until it stops running rough, check periodically. Works for me and keeps the aircraft going to TBO in my experience (limited sample size though).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Trent,
That is a RIPPER of a post
One of the best I have seen asking a really great question. And I am sure we all know what you mean about planes 20 years older etc.
Two answers for you.
A: There is no one size fits all COOKBOOK approach to this. I can't sit here and say just do this. even though fuel air and the combustion process is a constant, there are a few things you need. A bit like saying flying involves take off, fly straight and level, and land. There is a little more to flight training than that. So a one shot piece of advice acn only be found in answer B.
B: Advanced Pilot
I can't make any promises, and certainly not yet but there are a few people on both sides of the pacific working on getting some APS action down here next year. Time will tell, but they have done it before, so just hang in there for now.
Awesome post......awesome...
That is a RIPPER of a post
One of the best I have seen asking a really great question. And I am sure we all know what you mean about planes 20 years older etc.
Two answers for you.
A: There is no one size fits all COOKBOOK approach to this. I can't sit here and say just do this. even though fuel air and the combustion process is a constant, there are a few things you need. A bit like saying flying involves take off, fly straight and level, and land. There is a little more to flight training than that. So a one shot piece of advice acn only be found in answer B.
B: Advanced Pilot
I can't make any promises, and certainly not yet but there are a few people on both sides of the pacific working on getting some APS action down here next year. Time will tell, but they have done it before, so just hang in there for now.
Awesome post......awesome...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Fokker, the problem with even that approach is at some times that is fine at others it is not, so when is and when isn't is not a judgement call you can make without really knowing stuff.
Often the scenario is fine, but is it the optimal solution.
Maybe your engine maintenance bill is fine, but as Aussie Bob showed us earlier, what he thought was a good run was actually far from optimal.
I am sure in a Boeing jet there are infinite numbers of ways to get from Sydney to Melbourne, and I could walk up and let her rip and arrive, but when a pilot who really knows his stuff does it, the fuel bill is going to be way less, and a whole heap of other stuff is going to be far oops...closer to optimal.
That help?
Often the scenario is fine, but is it the optimal solution.
Maybe your engine maintenance bill is fine, but as Aussie Bob showed us earlier, what he thought was a good run was actually far from optimal.
I am sure in a Boeing jet there are infinite numbers of ways to get from Sydney to Melbourne, and I could walk up and let her rip and arrive, but when a pilot who really knows his stuff does it, the fuel bill is going to be way less, and a whole heap of other stuff is going to be far oops...closer to optimal.
That help?
Last edited by Jabawocky; 9th Sep 2012 at 08:37. Reason: changing far from to closer to
but when a pilot who really knows his stuff does it, the fuel bill is going to be way less, and a whole heap of other stuff is going to be far from optimal.
Jaba, does that statement actually make sense to you?
Here's some more ForkWisdom for you to tear your hair out over!
For those you don't have an all cyclinder engine monitor and tuned gammis etc:
1) if in doubt leave it full rich in the climb or lean it only to keep it running smoothly
2) alternatetively, look at the EGT reading on TO and only lean to that during the climb
3) in the cruise, if you are confident that your power setting/ altitude has you below 75% HP, lean till it just starts to run rough then richen just till running smoothly
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 9th Sep 2012 at 07:15.
Trent: These young guys and gals you are talking about will one day fly something for someone that is really nice. If they stay in GA it may just be something simple like a 182 that the owner is fastidious about, an owner who will listen. I meet lots of these folk, they let me fly their aeroplanes and they listen and are open to new stuff ....
In the interim, just follow the good Doctors advice back at #123
In the interim, just follow the good Doctors advice back at #123
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Quote:
but when a pilot who really knows his stuff does it, the fuel bill is going to be way less, and a whole heap of other stuff is going to be far from optimal.
????
Jaba, does that statement actually make sense to you?
but when a pilot who really knows his stuff does it, the fuel bill is going to be way less, and a whole heap of other stuff is going to be far from optimal.
????
Jaba, does that statement actually make sense to you?
Yeah Forkie that will work fine, but it is sub optimal
And in aviation we always strive for excellence don't we. No hair removal required.
Hey when is that TN, IO550, tip tanked FTDK going to be a reality?
Trent 972
For better or worse you are obliged to set what your boss asked you to set. SOP's do have merit.
However, a good one size fits all might be something like 75 ROP a power setting of 65% and the smoothest RPM that is within the parameters. Not grossly under or over square.
Treat your engines gently, typically maintenance and owners don’t
Hope that helps
For better or worse you are obliged to set what your boss asked you to set. SOP's do have merit.
However, a good one size fits all might be something like 75 ROP a power setting of 65% and the smoothest RPM that is within the parameters. Not grossly under or over square.
Treat your engines gently, typically maintenance and owners don’t
Hope that helps
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
However, a good one size fits all might be something like 75 ROP a power setting of 65% and the smoothest RPM that is within the parameters. Not grossly under or over square.
And if I run my engine at 980mb and 251 rad/s is that over square? I am sure there has been enough education on this forum already. Ohh and I do that about 60-80F LOP too.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if I run my engine at 980mb and 251 rad/s is that over square?
The only time the mighty RV-10 could make 29in/2400rpm is below 1000 feet amsl (on an average day) and running 60 - 80 LoP at that stage is just showing off.
Last edited by Trent 972; 10th Sep 2012 at 08:39. Reason: because I could
Jabawocky
The reason why it is a one size fits all is simply because it is.
Even John Deakin points this out in his writings.
65% power is not so high as to put you above some TCM recommendations on leaning and not so low as to result in low ICP leading to ring float and poor sealing. It also gets you from A to B at a reasonable speed in a naturally aspirated twin, and this is usually of financial benefit as maintenance costs out way fuel burn costs.
At 65% you can’t hurt anything.
75 ROP moves you away from the hot CHT values of ~40 ROP and as you are not striving for all out speed at 75% power, then little reason to run the richer mixture of 100 – 125 ROP best power mixture setting. So 75 ROP is a reasonable compromise mixture setting.
RPM set to wherever the engine runs smoothest. That should be a no brainer. Grossly under square can lead to the first point and is inefficient. Grossly over square will frighten the boss and when ROP the effective timing is too advanced.
Your bite on the metric v US instrumentation values is as meaningless as the OWT that states one shouldn’t run over square. The reality is all reading this understand what is meant by under or over square, it is a handy measuring tool. Having spent some time flying behind metric instrumented 1820 radials I find it not as intuitive as the US system.
There are not too many aircraft I know of particularly in reference to Trent 972’s question that will not be perfectly happy to run with this type of power setting. Sure there is better but that was not the question.
You won’t convert me to the APS way of running an engine, I was already there 14 years ago. As you convert to your new (?) religion try not to become too rabid and one eyed. WOT LOP is a great thing in the right place with a correctly set up aircraft, instrumentation and properly educated pilot. Remove one of these elements and you’re better off back with something like the one size fits all set up.
The reason why it is a one size fits all is simply because it is.
Even John Deakin points this out in his writings.
65% power is not so high as to put you above some TCM recommendations on leaning and not so low as to result in low ICP leading to ring float and poor sealing. It also gets you from A to B at a reasonable speed in a naturally aspirated twin, and this is usually of financial benefit as maintenance costs out way fuel burn costs.
At 65% you can’t hurt anything.
75 ROP moves you away from the hot CHT values of ~40 ROP and as you are not striving for all out speed at 75% power, then little reason to run the richer mixture of 100 – 125 ROP best power mixture setting. So 75 ROP is a reasonable compromise mixture setting.
RPM set to wherever the engine runs smoothest. That should be a no brainer. Grossly under square can lead to the first point and is inefficient. Grossly over square will frighten the boss and when ROP the effective timing is too advanced.
Your bite on the metric v US instrumentation values is as meaningless as the OWT that states one shouldn’t run over square. The reality is all reading this understand what is meant by under or over square, it is a handy measuring tool. Having spent some time flying behind metric instrumented 1820 radials I find it not as intuitive as the US system.
There are not too many aircraft I know of particularly in reference to Trent 972’s question that will not be perfectly happy to run with this type of power setting. Sure there is better but that was not the question.
You won’t convert me to the APS way of running an engine, I was already there 14 years ago. As you convert to your new (?) religion try not to become too rabid and one eyed. WOT LOP is a great thing in the right place with a correctly set up aircraft, instrumentation and properly educated pilot. Remove one of these elements and you’re better off back with something like the one size fits all set up.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The problem with a one size fits all is some poor chap is going to apply it wrong one day. Everyone who fears running LOP fears running it wrong.
My point is if you know what you are doing, there is a lot less to fear. I am glad you are one of them
Ahhh trent...... that little gem was for you, a thinking mans gag!
My point is if you know what you are doing, there is a lot less to fear. I am glad you are one of them
Ahhh trent...... that little gem was for you, a thinking mans gag!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabba #149 – "My point is if you know what you are doing".
Those with the 'nowse', savvy or basic interest will come; there will always be those who slam car doors or simply wish to be seen as experts. Then of course, there is the dreaded 'legal eagle' angle. Take care mate, take good care and tailwinds.
Last edited by Kharon; 11th Sep 2012 at 09:33.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obidiah: Maestro; mea culpa. I have read and appreciated (even agreed). Speaking as 'old school ' one who has operated (the engineers), normal, round, super charged and turbo charged engines (hell even the odd jet), without anything more than a couple of crook plugs, stuck valve and one (secret and private) fright.
The real issue (IMO) is that engineers are 'qualified' people, pilots ain't. The exponential increase in arrogance, is only matched by a lack of knowledge, i.e. the modern (non interested pilots) cannot and will not talk to the "Ginger beers'. Sad, but very true. It takes a lot more folk than a half educated pilot to get from 'push – to squeeze'.
Otto - over and out.
The real issue (IMO) is that engineers are 'qualified' people, pilots ain't. The exponential increase in arrogance, is only matched by a lack of knowledge, i.e. the modern (non interested pilots) cannot and will not talk to the "Ginger beers'. Sad, but very true. It takes a lot more folk than a half educated pilot to get from 'push – to squeeze'.
Otto - over and out.
Last edited by Kharon; 11th Sep 2012 at 10:20. Reason: Stuffed it up