yr right

If you going to ask high detail question and theory you going beat me everytime there is no denining that. But I keep saying and have said from the first time I spoke on this matter. I see what happens on the floor. But you define that and it never happens you say it's everything else. We'll it's not. How may cly would you have inspected over the years or change fuel system checks mag checks and changes. At the end of the day the little red knob in the wrong hands can and dose destroy an engine.
Cheers

OZBUSDRIVER

.....now, that would surely make the pages of a crash comic...did you fill in an incident report, yr right?

Agrajag

Oh fer Chrissake!

A control column in the wrong hands can destroy an entire aircraft! But we are to hope that we're trained well enough not to do that, otherwise we're all doomed.

Ordinarily I'd be content to sit back and watch you make a goose of yourself, which you achieve by spouting untruths and studiously avoiding addressing any of the many direct questions put to you. The people here who've taken the trouble to get educated on this topic are well aware that your views are poorly-informed at best.

But my main concern is for those who are still trying to learn, but don't yet have the experience or training to assess what's good information and what isn't.

You, sir, are supplying dangerously incorrect advice that may sway some of these poor innocents into believing that you have a valid viewpoint. Irrelevancies such as this:

imply that the mixture should be lockwired in full rich and left there, lest the dumb pilot move it at the wrong time. One can only wonder how many pilots have not inadvertently pulled the mixture after takeoff in the intervening 29 years.

I don't care whether you really are just a troll, enjoying wasting the time of some well-motivated and highly educated people, or whether you really are as ignorant as you seem to enjoy being. The drivel you spout has the potential to cause someone serious trouble down the line, because your implied knowledge as a LAME may just goad them into following it and wrecking a perfectly good engine. And that will make you culpable when the disaster happens.

So, please, cut it out. It's not funny and it is dangerous.

Weheka

Pilots are only human and like everyone else can make mistakes. I don't see how this is at all relevant to the LOP ROP discussion thats been going on.

When you work out the hourly rate you need just to cover the cost of running an aircraft, i don't think the fuel component comes out as being "cheap".

outnabout

So now we have the evil villains of piston aviation including - but not limited to -

Running ROP (not in accordance with POH & without proper training)
Running LOP (not in accordance with POH & without proper training)
Poor education / instruction
Dodgy engineers
Blonde backpackers in a bar (or assessment thereof)

And when all else fails - blame the pilot!

From what I can read in all of this, the only group smelling of roses is - unbelievably - CASA. (Stay tuned, folks)

Oracle - you said this thread needs an IQ test. From reading some of these posts, I reckon at times it needs a breathalyser!

No Hoper

So no peer review of your findings then Walter.
Have checked both CMI and Textron and no advocating of the Walter Apptoved leaking valve or low compressions. Although some discussion on balanced injectors.
Please do not shut off a mag in flight, the result may turn your single engine aircraft into a glider
Pilots reading this thread carrying passengers into the GAFA, consider your potentially dead passengers before trying anything Wally is advocating

yr right

No what you are posting is dangerous. You have serval times stated that is ok not to follow the poh. You ran an engine at 5/80 you don't except that valves burn. You have no peer reviews. You don't acknowledge what work both tcm and lyc have done in the field of reliability What I see and what has been done here in aust is far removed from what you have been saying. Our saftey record is second to none.
You state that if you run what you are selling your engine will make o/h so what if you run it normally it will as well. You dismiss anything you don't agree with. Like dead cly burnt valve or they don't happen. I think you need to read what you write sir.
Like I say do what you won't. Will we pick up the bits and fix them. It's your way or the highway. Next thing you be in black riding a push bike and knocking on doors.
For the average person that dose less than 100 a year this is a waste. Fuel is cheap.
You will kill people.
I also had a mess from awi that is watching this with interest and is concerned to say the least with what you are promoting. If there was such a problem it would have shown it by now. What you say is not followed up on the hangar floor.
I will not kill people because I won't recommend anything that goes against the poh and the law you have no regard for ethier and that sir is what you and you friends have posted on this thread.

Cheers

yr right

I repeat to you.
Not one single engine shut down in flight
Not one engine failure.
Not one aircraft lost due any action from me our staff
Not one wheels up.

I think my record speaks for itself.

Cheers

Cactusjack

Awesome thread! **** on TV so I grabbed the beer and popcorn and have spent the past hour scrolling through this maze. This thread has it all; Egotists, comedians, illiterates, knowledgeable folk, knobs, trolls, the plain angry and the list continues.
10/10. As you were boys.....................

yr right

And sir I'm not selling anything. All I've giving is what's shown on the floor really data not something that produced on a computer. Real life true to touch both in your and and in there wallets.

Cheers

Weheka

Spell check off......spell check on.....

Most posts, complete gibberish.....some posts, perfectly understandable....

Oracle1

Of all the posts you have made yr wrong this one that you keep repeating is perhaps the most revealing.

I have been working in the industry in one form or another fixing and flying for almost 22 years and in that time I have amassed tens of thousands of hours with my signature on it in the flying training environment, the worst treatment you can give any piston engine. In that time I have lost track of the amount of engines that have turned into shrapnel for any number of reasons. Some of these I was involved in stripping to figure out what went wrong. Also had a few that stopped that ran just fine again later and could not be determined. (probably ice)

A senior LAME at work who is in is late 60's has had two pistons stop WHILST he was flying them, almost got killed. My Chief Engineer who is literally a GOD when comes to the PT6 with literally hundreds of thousands of hours with his signature on it, and has thousands of hours flying has had more than 5 PT6's
turn into white hot metal. We are approved to 8000 hours on the PT6 and routinely get them there without problems.

If there is one thing I have learnt in this industry after seeing lots of people die is that if you hang around long enough it will happen.

For you to claim that you have never had an engine failure means one of two things,

1. You have f*ck all hours with your signature on it or,

2. You are a liar or full of shyte or both.

Creampuff

That's because you are a troll.It does.

Your posts become strangely coherent and grammatically correct when you want to tell a very big lie.

You are a liar. Please sue me.

gerry111

From yr right: "You have no peer reviews."

I'm not sure that's quite true. There are lots of pilots that understand the proven science presented by APS. And those pilots operate their engines LOP with all the benefits that come along with that. They have open minds and have been prepared to listen to credible arguments. And I'd rather be flying with pilots with that sort of attitude.

Walter Atkinson

Well, I've been standing in front of thousands, of pilots, LAMEs, engine builders, OEM reps from most of the aircraft manufacturers, employees of TCM and the FAA and CASA. Standing there in person, not behind some keyboard. In not a single instance, has any one of them taken issue with ANY of the science and information we present. Thats a lot tougher peer review than the over one dozen articles I have had published in peer-reviewed journals and other magazines over 30 years which the peer review consists of a couple of viewers. Been there and done that.

I am an A&P (LAME), hold the ATP, CFII, and MEI ratings. I have a bit of experience. I have flown and maintained over 75 different types of aircraft. I have a modicum of experience. I have spent countless hours studying the data and participating in experiments in the most advanced engine test facility in the world. I have seen a few billion data points.

Of course, al of this pales in comparison to a LAME who cannot support anything he says with anything other than, "I've seen it all and know everything already."

Walter Atkinson

Please let me apologize. In the name of presenting valid, data-backed information about engine management and combustion technology, I have sadly engaged an individual who is ill-prepared for the debate, has no data, cannot properly quote another poster, and is all-around incapable of the discussion.

I shall endeavor to avoid this type of error in the future.

OTOH, it has given the forum members an opportunity to learn a little on a variety of topics in this single thread. Well, some have learned, others have laughed, and others have made no progress!

As US President Zachary Taylor told the American Indians after they were soundly defeated and gathered like cattle onto Reservations, "You should endeavor to Persevere."

Oracle1

No need to apologize Walter a lot of us are grateful that you have given your time and expertise. Lots of people have viewed the thread and some of them will have learnt something. Don't stop swimming against the tide the word needs more contrarians to fight against the dumbed down mass of humanity. In Australia we have plenty of yr rights, probably way above the world average.

jdeakin

"yr right,"

Quote:

You have serval times stated that is ok not to follow the poh.

No, not true. What we have said is the "LIMITATIONS" section of the POH is good, valid information, and should be followed at all times. Where we draw the line is the "How to fly" material that makes up the rest of the POH.

Quote:

You ran an engine at 5/80

Yes, in a Bonaza that was in EXPERIMENTAL, in order to prove a point.

Quote:

you don't except that valves burn.

I think you mean "accept" not "expect." Assuming this is so, it's not true. Valves DO burn. Valves DO cause engine failures in some cases. If the failure is not detected early, and handled properly, it can even cause loss of life. I do not doubt that you see this type of failure all the time, with parts scattered all over your hangar floor. (Although most prefer them on tables for easier access.)

Where we part company is the CAUSE of these valve failures. We first began wondering why one or two valves fails at around 400 hours of service, yet other valves in the same engine go to TBO. This doesn't make sense, at first. Fix that one valve, and the engine goes on. We've got documented cases (including but not limited to our own) where owners buy a BRAND NEW ENGINE, and the owner insists on taking all cylinders off, and putting a micrometer on all parts to check them. Lo and behold, some cylinders were up to factory specs, and some were not, and a few off by surprising amounts. When the cylinders that were not up to factory specs were repaired or replaced and put back on the engine, no further problems, they go to TBO, and well beyond.

Generally speaking, the typical "burnt valves" are caused by improper installation in the cylinder. That can be at the factory, or by the overhauler.

(Yes, owners ARE spending the extra "several thousand dollars" to remove and repair cylinders.)

We do believe that it IS possible to "burn" valves over time, by running engines just barely ROP under adverse conditions. Valves will be at their very hottest at about 25℉ (14℃) ROP, according to 1943 fuels research by the Government and by 1966 Lycoming research, confirmed by GAMI in this century. That's just one reason we suggest running LOP (much cooler), or if you must run ROP, much richer, or limit power to 60% or 65%.

Quote:

You have no peer reviews.

Ha! It didn't take you long to pick up on that one! I expect all messages from you will contain that line. NO PEER REVIEW!

I'm not sure how we'd get a "peer review," and we certainly don't have the time or money to pay for it. Who would be the "peers" You? The mind boggles.

Quote:

You state that if you run what you are selling your engine will make o/h so what if you run it normally it will as well.

Quite true, if we define your "normally." If you run below 60% (maybe 65%) of rated power, run the mixtures anywhere you like, mixture use or misuse at such low power will not harm the engine. You will have the same valve problems at 400 hours either way.

LOP operation will save about 3 GPH (11 lph) at the same power settings, and with the price of fuel these days, that's pretty significant. It will pay for the overhaul! It will also be less maintenance (no fouled plugs) and it's cleaner and cooler. LOP will also make it possible to run at more than the puny 60% or 65%. In fact, thousands of pilots are running at levels of 85% and more, and the engines love it.

Quote:

I also had a mess from awi that is watching this with interest and is concerned to say the least with what you are promoting.

I'm sorry, I don't understand "awi." I would welcome a RATIONAL discourse with anyone.

John Deakin
jdeakin // at // advancedpilot.com

UnderneathTheRadar

Never argue with an idiot - they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience......

A Squared

For the record Walter has not advocated running with leaking valves or extremely ow compression. His references to doing such was to point out that a valve which leaks under a static test does not necessarily do so in operation, and that compression is not the sole determinant of the health of a cylinder. Nowhere does he suggest that it's generally acceptable to ignore a leaking exhaust valve in a cylinder 5/80 compression.

I'm not sure whether this is a case of you not understanding what he wrote, or of you understanding his words but deliberately misrepresenting them to make some point. I would hope for the sake of your integrity that it's the former, not the later. In yr right's case, it's pretty clearly the latter.

Does it need to be pointed out that if one feel compelled to lie about the other's position, perhaps ones own position isn't all that strong?