No Hoper

Agrajag, you and I may believe that some approved data is advisory only. The courts do not. Any data from the OEM or other approved entity is viewed as mandatory unless you can prove otherwise

yr right

Mmmm I say it again. the FCU controls the fuel pump. If you add more throttle and increase your RPM the pump moves faster and increases its flow in such the pump is is controlled via RPM with in turned is controlled by the FCU which is controlled by the Pilot.
Hence you could say that the FCU is the brains behind the fuel system.


This is true for all EDFP which may be a turbine or a combustion engine.


Also what you are measuring is engine trends I don't and no one I know runs a book on what components are breaking and at what time, how ever if we notice we have a problem showing up we can go back and look at what we put on via P# etc from stores and see whats happening.


It surprising how different pilots treat the machines and is quite noticeable when you have a dud pilot and see that problems they cause and then when they leave the problem goes away and the problem restarts at a different place


Cheers

rnuts

Agrajag.
Did the manufacturer of your aircraft tell you that they had made the POH vague for that reason or is it an assumption on your part.
If they had to put in everything, you would have a POH that you couldn't carry due to the weight limitations of your aircraft.
Yes, I do agree times have changed, instrumentation has advanced but you can't just make stuff up to suit what you believe without approval from either the authority or the manufacturer.
Just cos it's not in there doesn't mean all bets are off.
Unrelated to aviation but there was a case in the states whereby a new owner of a Winnebago turned on his cruise control and proceeded to go down the back and make a cuppa which then resulted in a crash and lawsuit.
He won cos it wasnt written in the handbook not to do that.
I'm not saying we are in the same situation here but Geeezus.
I bet the handbook for a winnebago is now more comprehensive.

Agrajag

OK, I'll fess up.

It's a homebuilt, so I'm listed as the manufacturer, and I wrote the POH based on some existing examples. It's still an approved document though, and the inspector checked it as part of the C of A issue.

I take your point about "making stuff up", and I agree that they can't put everything in, but that may just illustrate my position.

When we fly it, we can do a max rate climb, cruise-climb, fly for range, fly for speed, fly for endurance, do a glide descent, cruise descent, max-rate descent or something else that happens to work on the day. The POH, even from a factory manufacturer, can't hope to cover everything that might occur during a flight. It includes limitations and prohibitions, which we observe, and some helpful guidance. The rest is left to pilot judgement.

Without a specific limitation, and while remaining within the designer's published operating envelope, we do what's safe and sensible. Thankfully we are still regarded as having a little more commonsense than the typical Winnebago owner!

Oracle1

If the POH told you to jump off the Sydney Harbour Bridge would you do it?


No one I know keeps a book either but we do have computer software that keeps all 20 PT6 engines trends in our fleet monitored, tells us what is due and if a component fails before it is due it becomes obvious very quickly

yr right

Agrajag
I can asure you I would have forgotten more about fuel systems than you would know.
Cheers

yr right

Agrajag.
Statistic of the Sunday nights news.
Cheers

drunk_pilot

Oracle1:

I'm not sure who you're having a go at, but in any case: Those who
are suggesting that if the POH doesn't specifically prohibit LOP, that you are free to do so need your head checked. Most POH's state that whilst interpolation of
published data is approved, extrapolation is not. If you
Don't have charts for any leaner than peak EGT, any operation beyond that is extrapolation, and you are now a test pilot.


Regards

yr right

Pt6 trends are required as part of the ad. If you are running 20 pt6a then you are in a different mode to the ga owner I was more referring to. 20 engines is a sizeable fleet and I would think that you would be more on top of things than you may know.
Cheers

Hempy

Now see mate, this type of comment is just rubbish really, and it just makes everything else you say look equally rubbish. You can ASSURE us? That would imply that you not only know Agrajag personally but you also know exactly what he's learned in his life. It would also suggest that you have some form of evidence to back up your claim. This would be interesting, because other than repetitive bleating about how many engines you've fixed, actual real evidence seems to be sadly lacking.

Champ, go have a Bundy and a winny blue, iron up the flannel and head out for a parma, chill out on the pokies, drive home blind, crawl into bed and give the mrs(?) a tap on the shoulder. You'll feel much better...

Walter Atkinson

Carbys running LOP and Such:

The use of Carb heat is NOT recommended to be full ON. There is an optimal carb temp which results in optimal fuel vaporization. It is that carb temp that results in the lowest DIF number with the least carb heat application. THAT is what you should be using. Once found, it works at all OATs. (BTW, in all installations I have tried this on, that temp will be above freezing and carb ice is not an issue.)

Danger of mixtures:

The most dangerous mixture is approx. 40dF ROP. Why? The data proves that that is the mixture which results in the highest CHTs, highest internal cylinder pressures and the least detonation margin. ANY mixture richer or leaner is less of a problem.

EMS:

They "can be used" to lean an engine but that is NOT why you should have one. They are valuable tools in saving your engine and your life.

DATA:

A person without data is just another person with an unsupported opinion.

We each should decide from whom we take advice and trust. For me, if you do not have data to back up your claims, I'll drink a beer with you, but I will give little credence to your "opinions" of science.

We have been listening to a few folks in this thread who have no data but have some pretty strong opinions. One would hope that on a good forum like this, that these folks would figure out that they are a tad shy on understanding based on facts, but are comfortable using unsupported opinions to make important decisions. An introspective sort would probably go get some education to correct that. Unfortunately, it is commonplace for the very ones who need the most education to be the least inclined to get it.

Let me ask: How do you know when you are right?

Unless you are willing to constantly challenge what you think is right and try to prove yourself wrong, you will, without a doubt become wrong.

We are watching this in real-time.

Walter Atkinson

***Champ, go have a Bundy and a winny blue, iron up the flannel and head out for a parma, chill out on the pokies, drive home blind, crawl into bed and give the mrs(?) a tap on the shoulder. ***

I am a southern boy from the U.S. I wish I had a clue what that sentence means 'cause it sure sounds eloquent! I am impressed. No wonder the Aussies were such incredible allies during WWII. If an Aussie couldn't shoot the bastard, he could talk the poor bugger into confusion.

No Hoper

Translation for Walter
Have a bundy and winnie blue- drink a bundaberg rum and have a cigarette
Iron up the Flannel- iron a shirt
Head out for Parma- go for a meal
Chill out on the pokies- play the poker machines
Drive home blind- drive home drunk
Give the mrs a tap on the shoulder- that's Aussie foreplay

Avgas172

I'm thinking Yr Right has forgotten so much he can't remember anything useful at all, I struggle to believe any LAME can forget a Continental 0-300 has 6 cylinders not 4 and an output of only 100hp as described by Mr (Ms) Right ...

LeadSled

Agrajag,
If your aircraft is a home built aircraft (Experimental Amateur Built) you do not have a C.of A. Even if it is the very old style AABA certificate, the document is still not a type certified C.of A.

Your "POH style" document is not "approved" by anybody except you, it is just part of the document package you submitted to get whatever certificate, on which you fly.

"Certificate of Airworthiness" and "approved" have very specific legal meanings in certification terms, they are not generic terms.

All that makes absolutely no difference to how you operate the engine, or operated it properly. The engine doesn't care what bit of paper enables the aeroplane, to which it is attached, to legally ( or otherwise) get in the air.

Tootle pip!!

Agrajag

Yep, agreed. I was perhaps a bit casual in tossing around such definitive terms in the context of an Experimental. But my point (perhaps not well made) was that there is much omitted or only vaguely covered, and therefore left to good judgement, even in POHs for certificated aircraft. On that, I suspect we also agree.

LeadSled

Agrajag,
Maybe, maybe not.

The starting point, for US manufacturers (including Boeing) is than an aircraft will be crewed by suitable trained and licensed pilots, and the Operations Manual (by whatever name, FCOM, POH) assumes a level of knowledge and competence for those who will fly their aircraft.

Thus, what is expected to be normal levels of basic aviation knowledge will not be repeated in a POH or similar.

These documents will contain a level of "certified data", and a range of "approved data". Generally but not always, the "certified data" will be in a section called "Limitations". Quite what is what, legally, in an Operations Manual (which will be normally nominated by Manufacturer's Part Number in the Type Certification Data Sheet) doesn't matter, it is a compilation of selected information that is basic to operating the aeroplane.

What you choose to put in your equivalent to a POH is entirely up to you, the mandatory bit is the appendix to your certificate, as issued by whichever delegate issued your Experimental Certificate.

Mostly I do not have a very high opinion of most POH for smaller aircraft, but those manufacturers who have adopted the GAMA format are getting better, particularly if the manufacturer has produced the document in conjunction with Flight Safety Inc.

GAMA is a reasonable format, but it would have been even better if GAMA had followed the format used by the USAF and the USN, and adopted by Boeing, as the (not mandatory) ATA system.

A manual in this format, as a POH, would be really easy to use, it is simple and logical.

Tootle pip!!

A Squared

Jabawocky,

I'm curious about this. Where does the delay between the opening of the points and the firing of the spark come from?

Current in the primary windings continuing to flow after point opening as the capacitor across the points charges?

Time for the field in the coil to collapse, producing the current in the secondary winding?

Something else?

yr right

Define data. Define imagination. Now show data in real life as opposed to just graphs. Your argument if there was a no cost may be valid. When you place a cost on it and some one is making $$$$ from it I am sorry but you now you are compromised in your own opinions.
My data is in real life hands on. I learnt my trade the hard way. I hard to learn it. The teaching was only part of it. The hard yards was doing a lic when you hard to get the books find the information do the exams I think we had 4 sittings a year. Then pass the exams.
So you think it's easy I challenge you all to go do some exams get a pass then get some experience then make some comments.

It's not my imagination to the damage I have seen it data. So if you won't graphs go some where else and get them. If you won't hands hangar floor data just ask. If you don't like the answer that's fine. But you don't need to make a song and dance over it. So when you ask my opinion I gave it. If it dosent suit your model that's fine but you have had to pay for it ethier.

Cheers.

yr right

Jaba
Yes I am wondering the same. Even if that is the case I am sure that the engine manufacture has taken this all into account and thus change there timing to suit as they do.
Next thing as I've said a magneto has a multiple discharge on collapsing of the field. So there is more than one spark per firing across the plug gap.

Really it is not relevant as you cannot change from the settings that they provide.

Now next thing how do we check our mixture setting on a run. Is there a difference between tcm and a lyc ?
Cheers