How to thread drift in 720 posts!!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A sincere thank you Walter, i am in the process of modifying the engine cowl of my aircraft, and have heard during the APS course of the cooling misconceptions, now you have inspired my to get the gopro out, some wire and tuffs, to do some testing on my own aircraft before i start rehaping, or moving cooling air inlets to the rear to take advantage of the stagnet air(higher pressure) in front of the windscreen, considering the new prop and spinner combination now covers most of the original front inlet, leaving only approx 2 inch gap either side of the spinner. my theory is to close off the nose inlets completly, and move the intake to the upper rear of the cowl, and direct the cooling air forward with internal ducting to above the cylinder heads, and continue down to the lower deck and out the convnetional manner. as for cooling on the ground, the engine is partially fluid cooled and oil cooled.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Vail, Colorado, USA
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, BTW, some years ago I invited the owner of RAM to come to the APS course as my guest. He declined, actually saying that he already knew everything he needed to know.
I talked with their chief engineer a few months later and he said, "I KNOW you are right and that the science supports everything you say about engine management and LOP ops. But, my boss is hard-headed and he writes the checks. It's embarrassing."
It's important to recognize that ALL sources of data from Haywood, to Taylor, to TCM, Lycoming, NASA, Pratt & Whitney, and Wright, including the auto researchers (not to mention the most advanced engine test facility in the world in Ada, OK) are in agreement on the science.
"The physics are everywhere the same."
Sir Isaac Newton
I guess the guy at RAM operates under a different set of the laws of physics.
Six or seven years ago, I had a similar conversation with the VP of engineering at Lycoming. I showed him Lycoming's very own data that suggested that LOP ops were favorable to ROP ops at the same power setting. He said, "I will give you data to the contrary and I'll send it to you." Still waiting. Repeated requests went un answered--even in person, until he was replaced and no longer worked for Lycoming. Two years ago at the Cardinal Flyers annual meeting, Lycoming's president stated that there is no contrarian data for the fact that LOP ops are fine. He promised to change their website information and retract the "Experts are Everywhere" document. I guess the wheels of corporate inertia grind slowly; no changes as of April, 2014.
I talked with their chief engineer a few months later and he said, "I KNOW you are right and that the science supports everything you say about engine management and LOP ops. But, my boss is hard-headed and he writes the checks. It's embarrassing."
It's important to recognize that ALL sources of data from Haywood, to Taylor, to TCM, Lycoming, NASA, Pratt & Whitney, and Wright, including the auto researchers (not to mention the most advanced engine test facility in the world in Ada, OK) are in agreement on the science.
"The physics are everywhere the same."
Sir Isaac Newton
I guess the guy at RAM operates under a different set of the laws of physics.
Six or seven years ago, I had a similar conversation with the VP of engineering at Lycoming. I showed him Lycoming's very own data that suggested that LOP ops were favorable to ROP ops at the same power setting. He said, "I will give you data to the contrary and I'll send it to you." Still waiting. Repeated requests went un answered--even in person, until he was replaced and no longer worked for Lycoming. Two years ago at the Cardinal Flyers annual meeting, Lycoming's president stated that there is no contrarian data for the fact that LOP ops are fine. He promised to change their website information and retract the "Experts are Everywhere" document. I guess the wheels of corporate inertia grind slowly; no changes as of April, 2014.
Last edited by Walter Atkinson; 15th Apr 2014 at 00:42.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like ive said fuel is cheap planes arnt falling out if the skies
I have at times been fortunate enough to have access to large amounts of aviation occurrence data. I had a particular interest in spark plug fouling, fuel mismanagement and carburettor icing, as these are largely preventable by the pilot. These three factors were the cause of well over half of all engine failures in the data I looked through. Especially when you consider that they can be hard to diagnose after the event, harder at least than a cylinder, valve, or bearing failure. Aside from the fact that some mechanical failures can be prevented by a cleaner burn.
In my opinion fear of the red lever, a total lack of understanding of what happens in the cylinder, and the spread of OWTs about the relationship between detonation and mixture have caused numerous engine failures, some of which have claimed lives. I believe that the information provided by John (and its great to read new writing from you too!), Walter, and co saves lives. Plane (ha) and simple.
The data shows that opinions like those from RAM are simply not true, and the idea of LOP operations being "on the edge" make me laugh. I guess they are on the edge, but where we've always been told to operate is over the edge. People like Yr Right, while likely very competent and dedicated to their jobs, but who ignore the mountains of data, are in my opinion doing the industry a great disservice.
My flight school training made me afraid of the red lever, and taught me to operate aircraft in a way that was inefficient, unsafe, and ignorant. Its a shame some fight so hard against those that are trying to change this.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Vail, Colorado, USA
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
***A sincere thank you Walter, i am in the process of modifying the engine cowl of my aircraft, and have heard during the APS course of the cooling misconceptions, now you have inspired my to get the gopro out, some wire and tuffs, to do some testing on my own aircraft before i start rehaping, or moving cooling air inlets to the rear to take advantage of the stagnet air(higher pressure) in front of the windscreen, considering the new prop and spinner combination now covers most of the original front inlet, leaving only approx 2 inch gap either side of the spinner. my theory is to close off the nose inlets completly, and move the intake to the upper rear of the cowl, and direct the cooling air forward with internal ducting to above the cylinder heads, and continue down to the lower deck and out the convnetional manner. as for cooling on the ground, the engine is partially fluid cooled and oil cooled.***
WAIT, you may be pretty well off as it is. Ever look at the inlet on a Hurricane?
I'd collect some data before changing anything and collect data AFTER the changes. Otherwise, you have no way to know.
WAIT, you may be pretty well off as it is. Ever look at the inlet on a Hurricane?
I'd collect some data before changing anything and collect data AFTER the changes. Otherwise, you have no way to know.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WAIT, you may be pretty well off as it is. Ever look at the inlet on a Hurricane?
I'd collect some data before changing anything and collect data AFTER the changes. Otherwise, you have no way to know.
I'd collect some data before changing anything and collect data AFTER the changes. Otherwise, you have no way to know.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A Squared
A masterpiece of unintended irony, that...
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Vail, Colorado, USA
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
***Maybe so Walter, but a flat 6 won't give you a hard on like a DHC-2 Radial at full noise
***
You've got that right!
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING beats the fire and smoke belching of a big radial on start-up! I am particularly fond of the R-2800s I flew behind on the C-46 Commando. Whoooooeeeee! (Kinda enjoyed my little R-985s on my Twin Beech, too.
)
***
You've got that right!
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING beats the fire and smoke belching of a big radial on start-up! I am particularly fond of the R-2800s I flew behind on the C-46 Commando. Whoooooeeeee! (Kinda enjoyed my little R-985s on my Twin Beech, too.
)
Yr Right
Yr right,
Despite me sending you information to the contrary (from the manufacturer) you are still insisting that TCM fuel injection pump is "just a pump" when it is clearly a Pump and pressure regulator unit in one. If you need a simpler diagram/explanation see the FAA power plant handbook.
Have you every carried out a TCM fuel injector adjustment as per the SID? If so you would know that the pump output pressure (un-metered pressure)is set by adjusting the relief valve.
at the end of the day without data all you have is a pile of busted cylinders - no real evidence of WHY you have busted cylinders.
As for if the APS course is approved under part 66 by CASA - Part 66 only provides details of how to obtain a license. Individual courses are approved under 147 and 147 only approves courses leading to a license outcome. There are many courses required under part 145 or recommended by CASA which are not delivered by an approved organization.
These courses may be approved under an individual orgs exposition for commercial ops.
I cannot see CASA having much problem with an acceptable means of compliance to operate the aircraft LOP where crew have received data backed training.
Radial engines are no less susceptible to cylinder damage. They crack heads quite regularly, have very uneven fuel flows (due to induction arrangement) and are nearly all supercharged (limited boost control) Sodium filled valves do not guarantee better cooling or operation, they have been present for years in lycomings and actually contribute to valve problems.
See this link:
http://occonline.occ.cccd.edu/online...%20Tappets.PDF
If anyone has a copy of the original complete article please post is as I have lost mine.
What gives me the right to question your knowledge of engines?
I am a LAME
I spent 3 years overhauling engines including large radials
I spent one year overhauling fuel systems
And 15 years maintaining everything from tiger moths to bus jets including a fleet of chieftains
I am an aircraft owner
I am also assessment manager for a PART 147 MTO and I teach piston engine theory at all levels up to associate degree.
Despite me sending you information to the contrary (from the manufacturer) you are still insisting that TCM fuel injection pump is "just a pump" when it is clearly a Pump and pressure regulator unit in one. If you need a simpler diagram/explanation see the FAA power plant handbook.
Have you every carried out a TCM fuel injector adjustment as per the SID? If so you would know that the pump output pressure (un-metered pressure)is set by adjusting the relief valve.
at the end of the day without data all you have is a pile of busted cylinders - no real evidence of WHY you have busted cylinders.
As for if the APS course is approved under part 66 by CASA - Part 66 only provides details of how to obtain a license. Individual courses are approved under 147 and 147 only approves courses leading to a license outcome. There are many courses required under part 145 or recommended by CASA which are not delivered by an approved organization.
These courses may be approved under an individual orgs exposition for commercial ops.
I cannot see CASA having much problem with an acceptable means of compliance to operate the aircraft LOP where crew have received data backed training.
Radial engines are no less susceptible to cylinder damage. They crack heads quite regularly, have very uneven fuel flows (due to induction arrangement) and are nearly all supercharged (limited boost control) Sodium filled valves do not guarantee better cooling or operation, they have been present for years in lycomings and actually contribute to valve problems.
See this link:
http://occonline.occ.cccd.edu/online...%20Tappets.PDF
If anyone has a copy of the original complete article please post is as I have lost mine.
What gives me the right to question your knowledge of engines?
I am a LAME
I spent 3 years overhauling engines including large radials
I spent one year overhauling fuel systems
And 15 years maintaining everything from tiger moths to bus jets including a fleet of chieftains
I am an aircraft owner
I am also assessment manager for a PART 147 MTO and I teach piston engine theory at all levels up to associate degree.
A sincere thank you Walter, i am in the process of modifying the engine cowl of my aircraft, and have heard during the APS course of the cooling misconceptions, now you have inspired my to get the gopro out, some wire and tuffs, to do some testing on my own aircraft before i start rehaping, or moving cooling air inlets to the rear to take advantage of the stagnet air(higher pressure) in front of the windscreen, considering the new prop and spinner combination now covers most of the original front inlet, leaving only approx 2 inch gap either side of the spinner. my theory is to close off the nose inlets completly, and move the intake to the upper rear of the cowl, and direct the cooling air forward with internal ducting to above the cylinder heads, and continue down to the lower deck and out the convnetional manner. as for cooling on the ground, the engine is partially fluid cooled and oil cooled.
There are some really good technical papers on this that have been presented to the AIAA (from memory). The keywords are pressure recovery, engine cowl, general aviation.
Here's one to get you going, but I think you'll find better ones.
http://www.n91cz.com/Interesting_Tec...AA_80-1242.pdf
The key issue is to turn the kinetic energy of the high speed air inlet into static pressure in the upper deck of the engine and to have a pressure drop access the engine to get the cooling air to go where you want it. From memory, the pressure drop from the top of the engine to the bottom is typically 4psi. Walter might recall the real number. But its relatively small, so finess is required.
You might end up replacing your wool tufts with manometer plumbing.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
yr right
I can answer it for you. NO, but learn to RTFM FFS is probably what she would tell you. I bet she could pick apart a POH in this area better than most, and most likely you too. And she is not a pilot. In fact her first go of the fun test on the APS course was 84%. Still not a pass mark but 20-30% above the typical private pilot who has an EMS. About 40-50% above a certain segment of the class demographics too. 
Those who have done it might know this. So just like 10 pages back , you too have learned from this thread about critical thinking of a Chieftain POH, rather than just bold assumptions.
No accreditation. Did you not read Walter Atkinsons comments a couple of pages back? It has FAA accreditation and is rather generous about it too, but we do not believe in running around spruiking this and I do not here because we are in Oz not the USA. Is that not good enough for you?
And another big correction. And get this firmly in your mind...we actually tell people in the opening segment...DO NOT BELIEVE US......BELIEVE THE DATA. WE HAVE OPINIONS DATA DOES NOT.
Sadly the opposite is true.....YOU have a vested interest in us doing it your way. Andrew Denyer often says in the class, it is better for my business if you don't do it this way.
UL
You have enough GoPro experience, you could live stream it to us in a class
Now Jaba ask your wife would she approve any operation that flew outside the POH. I can answer that for you if you like.
Those who have done it might know this. So just like 10 pages back , you too have learned from this thread about critical thinking of a Chieftain POH, rather than just bold assumptions.
But to run a course with no accreditation or endorsement's and say well this is it we done the data just believe us and all is well.
It has FAA accreditation and is rather generous about it too, but we do not believe in running around spruiking this and I do not here because we are in Oz not the USA. Is that not good enough for you?And another big correction. And get this firmly in your mind...we actually tell people in the opening segment...DO NOT BELIEVE US......BELIEVE THE DATA. WE HAVE OPINIONS DATA DOES NOT.
Like ive said fuel is cheap planes arnt falling out if the skies, if you feel the need to change and the POH says you can do it, but also don't go and cry to your maintenance org and expect pitty tell them what you done and im sure they will show you the results.
UL
You have enough GoPro experience, you could live stream it to us in a class
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Progressive
You are clearly too progressive
Yr right,
Despite me sending you information to the contrary (from the manufacturer) you are still insisting that TCM fuel injection pump is "just a pump" when it is clearly a Pump and pressure regulator unit in one. If you need a simpler diagram/explanation see the FAA power plant handbook.
Have you every carried out a TCM fuel injector adjustment as per the SID? If so you would know that the pump output pressure (un-metered pressure)is set by adjusting the relief valve.
at the end of the day without data all you have is a pile of busted cylinders - no real evidence of WHY you have busted cylinders.
As for if the APS course is approved under part 66 by CASA - Part 66 only provides details of how to obtain a license. Individual courses are approved under 147 and 147 only approves courses leading to a license outcome. There are many courses required under part 145 or recommended by CASA which are not delivered by an approved organization.
These courses may be approved under an individual orgs exposition for commercial ops.
I cannot see CASA having much problem with an acceptable means of compliance to operate the aircraft LOP where crew have received data backed training.
Radial engines are no less susceptible to cylinder damage. They crack heads quite regularly, have very uneven fuel flows (due to induction arrangement) and are nearly all supercharged (limited boost control) Sodium filled valves do not guarantee better cooling or operation, they have been present for years in lycomings and actually contribute to valve problems.
See this link:
http://occonline.occ.cccd.edu/online...%20Tappets.PDF
If anyone has a copy of the original complete article please post is as I have lost mine.
What gives me the right to question your knowledge of engines?
I am a LAME
I spent 3 years overhauling engines including large radials
I spent one year overhauling fuel systems
And 15 years maintaining everything from tiger moths to bus jets including a fleet of chieftains
I am an aircraft owner
I am also assessment manager for a PART 147 MTO and I teach piston engine theory at all levels up to associate degree.
Despite me sending you information to the contrary (from the manufacturer) you are still insisting that TCM fuel injection pump is "just a pump" when it is clearly a Pump and pressure regulator unit in one. If you need a simpler diagram/explanation see the FAA power plant handbook.
Have you every carried out a TCM fuel injector adjustment as per the SID? If so you would know that the pump output pressure (un-metered pressure)is set by adjusting the relief valve.
at the end of the day without data all you have is a pile of busted cylinders - no real evidence of WHY you have busted cylinders.
As for if the APS course is approved under part 66 by CASA - Part 66 only provides details of how to obtain a license. Individual courses are approved under 147 and 147 only approves courses leading to a license outcome. There are many courses required under part 145 or recommended by CASA which are not delivered by an approved organization.
These courses may be approved under an individual orgs exposition for commercial ops.
I cannot see CASA having much problem with an acceptable means of compliance to operate the aircraft LOP where crew have received data backed training.
Radial engines are no less susceptible to cylinder damage. They crack heads quite regularly, have very uneven fuel flows (due to induction arrangement) and are nearly all supercharged (limited boost control) Sodium filled valves do not guarantee better cooling or operation, they have been present for years in lycomings and actually contribute to valve problems.
See this link:
http://occonline.occ.cccd.edu/online...%20Tappets.PDF
If anyone has a copy of the original complete article please post is as I have lost mine.
What gives me the right to question your knowledge of engines?
I am a LAME
I spent 3 years overhauling engines including large radials
I spent one year overhauling fuel systems
And 15 years maintaining everything from tiger moths to bus jets including a fleet of chieftains
I am an aircraft owner
I am also assessment manager for a PART 147 MTO and I teach piston engine theory at all levels up to associate degree.
You are clearly too progressive
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
004 alias oleo and several other hide behind names, this is mens business so go back and play with your other little friends
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What gives me the right. Cause I was ask to. For a start. I will get back to the other stuff later. After running god knows ex tacitly how many years large radial in excessive of 20000 and not one engine failure all ran to o/h life and no blow off tops of out cly cause we checked them on a daily bases I think I may know a little about things. And by the way we never ran lop ever.
Now also if you notice a large fan engine you can get a cloud forming in the intake if you run it on a coolish day with moisture. And Walter you would also no that the FW190 had a cooling fan behind the propeller.
I'm so impressed by you all trying your hardest to discredit me. Oh yes it was late sorry and I did say part 66. My mistake.
Cheers
Now also if you notice a large fan engine you can get a cloud forming in the intake if you run it on a coolish day with moisture. And Walter you would also no that the FW190 had a cooling fan behind the propeller.
I'm so impressed by you all trying your hardest to discredit me. Oh yes it was late sorry and I did say part 66. My mistake.
Cheers
Progressive
On reflection the tone of some of my responses to your posts earlier in the thread was inappropriate.
My sincere apologies – I guess I’m too used to responding to some of the more crass and ignorant frequenters of this forum.
On reflection the tone of some of my responses to your posts earlier in the thread was inappropriate.
My sincere apologies – I guess I’m too used to responding to some of the more crass and ignorant frequenters of this forum.
Last edited by Creampuff; 15th Apr 2014 at 05:44.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts