New Cylinder AD's released by FAA
What manifold pressure did they run? Can I run that in an IO360? If not, maybe not all the operating parameters are directly transferable.
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
No Hoper
That statement to those who know what they are talking about will seem rather at odds with reality.
A properly set up conforming engine, is considerably easier to set safely LOP than it is to set an appropriate ROP power setting. I know how to do both properly and to apprpriate settings and I can assure you that setting a LOP setting takes a fraction of the time it does to setting the appropriate ROP setting.
43Inches seems to know exactly what I am talking about.
I would strongly suggest that you need to reconsider this opinion of yours by learning to do both properly. I have posted this before, I took the editor of Australian Pilot flying and with a one minute briefing and a 3 seconds doing, she managed an 83% power LOP setting with amazing precision. 3 seconds. When you get good at it 1-2 seconds is more like it 
I reckon by now she has mastered the art.
I agree with your summation of the issue of running LOP in commercial operations, pilots have high enough workload without adding to it
A properly set up conforming engine, is considerably easier to set safely LOP than it is to set an appropriate ROP power setting. I know how to do both properly and to apprpriate settings and I can assure you that setting a LOP setting takes a fraction of the time it does to setting the appropriate ROP setting.
43Inches seems to know exactly what I am talking about.
I suggest you go for a fly with a Navajo pilot on a commercial run to see how much workload he's under in the cruise. If they're struggling with the workload at this point they need to go back to a Warrior or something slower. What you will probably see from 10 different pilots is 10 different leaning techniques from peak EGT to 150 rich, to just GPH settings.
I reckon by now she has mastered the art.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What were these "service issues?" Engine roughness when LOP!
George happens to hold an Aeronautical Engineering Degree from Brown University. When he graduated, AEs were plentiful, and jobs were very scarce. So he went back to college, and got a law degree as well. He put himself through both by Flight Instructing. His first aero job was with Ted Smith aircraft, builder of the Aerostar. His initials are on the original drawings used to build that airplane.
Statistics are important in science. They are the way to translate data into statements like safer, more reliable, less problems, lasts longer etc.
Way back in the thread I mentioned p-values. They are an integral part of science. Without a p-value or a similar test of statistical significance you can't say whether data has meaning or not. The p value tells you the probability that you would get this result if the item you are testing makes no difference at all.
It is influenced by the amount of data, the natural variability etc. If your p-value is e.g 0.2, the data basically doesn't prove anything (even if it looks like it does). If your p value is e.g. .05 or .01, you have strong evidence. This is a fundamental part of any scientific claim of a change in the frequency of an event (cylinder failures, engine problems etc)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like most things in aviation it when it goes wrong when **** hits the fan. A friend was flying a citation jet two crew dick made it a single crew so he can fly it himself. My friend said yep that's all good till it goes wrong and when it dose it's two quick for you to catch. We'll he was right he had a big inceadent two crew and got away with it single not much chance.
Like most things in aviation it when it goes wrong when **** hits the fan. A friend was flying a citation jet two crew dick made it a single crew so he can fly it himself. My friend said yep that's all good till it goes wrong and when it dose it's two quick for you to catch. We'll he was right he had a big inceadent two crew and got away with it single not much chance.
More ratbag assertions. Most small Citations were built for single pilot operation, only Australia made a big deal about two pilot operations. Based on your previous posts, the real problem would be that there was no Flight Engineer.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes leads led back. Have you ever flown or flow in a biss jet I have. Do you no the incident I was referring to. The machine did not have one rounded pannel leading edge nose cone and the list continued.
Now last time I checked American Airlines didn't have a piston aircraft in its fleet. And as for military hours we'll if the book say 500 till o/h that's what it is not 501. They not paying for anything. They also have a set twist for lock wire per inch.
Cheers
Now last time I checked American Airlines didn't have a piston aircraft in its fleet. And as for military hours we'll if the book say 500 till o/h that's what it is not 501. They not paying for anything. They also have a set twist for lock wire per inch.
Cheers
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
Now last time I checked American Airlines didn't have a piston aircraft in its fleet.
Do you work for a LAME shop or do you own and run one?
What year were you born?
Simple questions and no follow up hidden agenda involved. I will get in first, no and 1968 for me
Oh yes leads led back. Have you ever flown or flow in a biss jet I have
Enough people on this thread know my operational background, that I am not going to dignify your silly comments with an answer.
The machine did not have one rounded pannel leading edge nose cone and the list continued.
Are you now claiming pilot qualifications??
They also have a set twist for lock wire per inch.
As for your "comment" about AA, what has that got to do with the price of figs.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now by memeroy the r985 had an o/h period of between 400 to 500 hours originally. Casa give 1200 and we had an extension out past that. Over double the orginal hours and then some. Not one engine failure. Not one lost head in operation ( cly found and removed before that happen due to always checking them ) never ran lop. And over 20000 hours.
Jabawocky: I took the editor of Australian Pilot flying and with a one minute briefing and a 3 seconds doing, she managed an 83% power LOP setting with amazing precision. 3 seconds. When you get good at it 1-2 seconds is more like it I reckon by now she has mastered the art.
I'm still trying to get a handle on how pratical LOP is for the average non owner pilot.
So anyway...
Has anyone heard anything about how many aircraft/engines this AD will affect in Australia? Any comms from any of the associations?
Any plan for a coordinated response?
Or will individual registered operators just wake up one morning and ask their maintenance organisations to swing their 1940s-style maintenance procedures and logistics systems into action and scratch their respective a*ses while the ice-age for GA in Australia continues to propagate across the landscape?
You all realise of course that yr right's opinions reflect pretty accurately the Australian regulator's preferred approach to engine maintenance rules? (Indeed, yr right's opinions seem to reflect pretty accurately the Australian regulator's preferred approach to lots of rules...)
Has anyone heard anything about how many aircraft/engines this AD will affect in Australia? Any comms from any of the associations?
Any plan for a coordinated response?
Or will individual registered operators just wake up one morning and ask their maintenance organisations to swing their 1940s-style maintenance procedures and logistics systems into action and scratch their respective a*ses while the ice-age for GA in Australia continues to propagate across the landscape?
You all realise of course that yr right's opinions reflect pretty accurately the Australian regulator's preferred approach to engine maintenance rules? (Indeed, yr right's opinions seem to reflect pretty accurately the Australian regulator's preferred approach to lots of rules...)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TinselTown
Age: 45
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixture distribution
I find it difficult to believe that the builders of flat engines did not know why they ran rough as the mixture was leaned out. Really?
What came first, the IO-520 used in the Malibu or GAMIjectors? If it is the former then clearly the engine makers knew how to fix the problem. Question is, why didn't they
What came first, the IO-520 used in the Malibu or GAMIjectors? If it is the former then clearly the engine makers knew how to fix the problem. Question is, why didn't they
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Last Resort
Age: 52
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixture Distribution
The reason that LOP is a problem with the OEM's is because they were too lazy to fix their fuel distribution problems. This is of course in their highly overpriced engines, that they should have taken some of the profit from and plowed it back into development. Its not because they didn't know what LOP was.
They have enjoyed a monopoly for way to long. That's ok because reality is now biting. Build a product for a reasonable price and the people will come.
They have enjoyed a monopoly for way to long. That's ok because reality is now biting. Build a product for a reasonable price and the people will come.
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
27/09
yr right......true to form. Will not answer anything. Why should we tell you anything about AA or anything else? You refuse to listen let alone learn.
Lumps,
The TSIO520 in the Malibu was around before GAMI injectors. TCM knew it was how the engines should be run, but their ability to build them right was more the issue. Many would run LOP as per the POH, but just like today the TCM balanced injector is true of name only, they weigh the same. F/A ratio's were a bigger deal.
I suspect the reason they do not go to all the trouble on every engine is the time and effort involved and not being able to do this means.....punch em out the door like always. Senior TCM (from Mobile AL) folk have told me in person, to my face, they try to get it as best they can now ex the factory but will never achieve the accuracy of a set of GAMI's. They know it. This is no secret.
I should point out again what John Deakin wrote recently,
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ml#post8450699
I was there for both these events 6 months apart. John has been a guest to CMI and applauded with much adulation (to his humble surprise) at a couple of their open days.
They are making progress.
What aircraft/engine did you use? IO540
What equipment was fitted, GAMIjectors? Yes, but that makes no difference, all it requires is a conforming engine with well balance F/A ratio's. Many do this without the need for GAMI's.
EMS? etc.Yes, but this was not used at all. We did just for the fun of the exercise prove how highly accurate the procedure was, this required the use of the EMS, but of course like setting a ROP setting this took considerably more time.
I'm still trying to get a handle on how pratical LOP is for the average non owner pilot. Very practical, I do qualify this that you just need to be taught, just like everything else you have been taught. Of course the engine needs to be a conforming one.
What equipment was fitted, GAMIjectors? Yes, but that makes no difference, all it requires is a conforming engine with well balance F/A ratio's. Many do this without the need for GAMI's.
EMS? etc.Yes, but this was not used at all. We did just for the fun of the exercise prove how highly accurate the procedure was, this required the use of the EMS, but of course like setting a ROP setting this took considerably more time.
I'm still trying to get a handle on how pratical LOP is for the average non owner pilot. Very practical, I do qualify this that you just need to be taught, just like everything else you have been taught. Of course the engine needs to be a conforming one.
Lumps,
What came first, the IO-520 used in the Malibu or GAMIjectors? If it is the former then clearly the engine makers knew how to fix the problem. Question is, why didn't they
I suspect the reason they do not go to all the trouble on every engine is the time and effort involved and not being able to do this means.....punch em out the door like always. Senior TCM (from Mobile AL) folk have told me in person, to my face, they try to get it as best they can now ex the factory but will never achieve the accuracy of a set of GAMI's. They know it. This is no secret.
I should point out again what John Deakin wrote recently,
Both CMI ("TCM" is several years out of date) and Lycoming have built their engines pretty much in isolation for decades. If a cylinder fails, their first step is to try and deny any responsibility, either warranty or otherwise. Either way, they grab a new cylinder off the line, ship it out, and melt the old one down. No checking, no "What happened to this cylinder." Into shipping, onto the junk pile, off to the ovens to recover the metal. I have my doubts, but I've seen the pile. Out of the box, and onto the pile. Out of the box, and onto the pile. ZERO interest in it.
Hardly the attitude of "Let's figure out what happened to it, and make it better." They very proudly show the pile off, saying, "Look, we don't re-use any of this, it all get melted down!"
Until very recently, no one at either factory was qualified to FLY any of their engines, and the very idea of doing that appalled them, repelled them. Until very recently, NO ONE at either factory had ever seen an engine monitor, much less used one. Bill Ross, the honcho at CMI has taken our course, and liked it so well he subsequently sent four more CMI employees. All have had their eyes opened, but when they go back, they run into the same bilzzard of misinformation and little gets done. That was last year, and there HAS been some progress. Not enough, but some.
Put yourself in CMI's shoes. They have produced what, a thousand different models of engines, with a manual for each? As they become dimly aware that their manuals have errors in them, only the most egregious errors get revised, because they simply don't have the manpower.
The manuals you're looking at are 50 years old! I say that because they take the old language from the old manuals, and blend it in with the text that goes with the new, often badly, same old text, year after year, decade after decade. I refer to the "How to operate," and not the LIMITATIONS, those are pretty good.
NO MENTION of MODERN engine monitors! We've had 'em for 30 years and more, and neither of the engine factories even mention them, much less tell you what to do with them! THEY DO NOT KNOW.
"Not invented here" and "We've done fine without 'em for 100 years."
Not their job. Their job is to turn out engines that pass the FAA required 150 hours on the test stand at full power, near the CHT redline. Then ship 'em out.
John Deakin
jdeakin // at // advancedpilot.com
Hardly the attitude of "Let's figure out what happened to it, and make it better." They very proudly show the pile off, saying, "Look, we don't re-use any of this, it all get melted down!"
Until very recently, no one at either factory was qualified to FLY any of their engines, and the very idea of doing that appalled them, repelled them. Until very recently, NO ONE at either factory had ever seen an engine monitor, much less used one. Bill Ross, the honcho at CMI has taken our course, and liked it so well he subsequently sent four more CMI employees. All have had their eyes opened, but when they go back, they run into the same bilzzard of misinformation and little gets done. That was last year, and there HAS been some progress. Not enough, but some.
Put yourself in CMI's shoes. They have produced what, a thousand different models of engines, with a manual for each? As they become dimly aware that their manuals have errors in them, only the most egregious errors get revised, because they simply don't have the manpower.
The manuals you're looking at are 50 years old! I say that because they take the old language from the old manuals, and blend it in with the text that goes with the new, often badly, same old text, year after year, decade after decade. I refer to the "How to operate," and not the LIMITATIONS, those are pretty good.
NO MENTION of MODERN engine monitors! We've had 'em for 30 years and more, and neither of the engine factories even mention them, much less tell you what to do with them! THEY DO NOT KNOW.
"Not invented here" and "We've done fine without 'em for 100 years."
Not their job. Their job is to turn out engines that pass the FAA required 150 hours on the test stand at full power, near the CHT redline. Then ship 'em out.
John Deakin
jdeakin // at // advancedpilot.com
I was there for both these events 6 months apart. John has been a guest to CMI and applauded with much adulation (to his humble surprise) at a couple of their open days.
They are making progress.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamie you where a requelator. What I may or may not agree with is eralavant as I and everyone else has to do is follow the rules. Of the rules change then we all change but if you our anyone else think that they worth me or any other lame that puts his or her name to anything worth going to goal for I'm sorry you are all very much mistaken.
All we have is the data that is provided. We can't go against that it's all good when it's good but if something happens as it can then your left out on a limb. And at the engineers tree is almost empty.
All we have is the data that is provided. We can't go against that it's all good when it's good but if something happens as it can then your left out on a limb. And at the engineers tree is almost empty.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this is for creamie
If someone has an incident and you go to investigate
You find they been using none approve data.
Do you
1/ prosecute them
2/ turn a blind eye
3/ wish you never been ask this question.
Cheers
If someone has an incident and you go to investigate
You find they been using none approve data.
Do you
1/ prosecute them
2/ turn a blind eye
3/ wish you never been ask this question.
Cheers