gerry111

yr right,

Quote: "Let's just say I'm no dumb f:$k."

I will never say that you are, on this thread.

But perhaps what you need to appreciate is simply this: The other people contributing to the LOP debate aren't necessarily dumb f:$ks either. And when some of them base their arguments on credible maths and science, then I tend to listen to them.

If you make a claim here, then it's quite reasonable for others to expect you to back it up with facts.

Please pardon me for being brutally honest with you, though. Were CASA to haul me in for some alleged aviation naughtyness, you wouldn't be my most preferred choice of counsel.

yr right

well gerry lets just say that may be a mistake on your behalf then.
As for facts its hard to produce that when you don't know what you to be tested on. Like I've said previous we don't record dead cly that's the fact and at the end of the day I see the facts and its a fact that I see those facts and them facts arnt so good because as a fact the fact is that fuel is still the cheapest thing you can place in an aircraft and that is also a fact.


So the average GA private plane which dose less than 100 hours a year going to save what less than $20 an hour go for it im happy for you to do it.


Cheers

drunk_pilot

Hello all,


Gerry 111 addressing yr right:

Why? He doesn't have to back anything up. He was asked his OPINION on LOP operations, and he has given plenty of it. I personally know 'yr right' and have flown aircraft maintained by him. He is very passionate, thorough, knowledgable, and will always err on the side of caution, giving regard to what the book says.

Which brings me to my next problem. This quote may or may not be taken out of context, but is irrelevant in my opinion:

This is part of one of the testimonials on the Advanced Pilot website that 'Jabbawocky' shared earlier in the thread. Now I don't have an issue with an aircraft owner operating their aircraft LOP, providing the BOOK SAYS YOU CAN! Why is Advanced Pilot advocating operating outside the POH? Because they know better than the OEM? Maybe, but is Advanced Pilot going to be held accountable in the event something goes wrong while their customer is operating outside the POH with their new found knowledge? Bearing in mind, in. Litigation, that any failure doesn't necessarily have to be related to operating LOP, if it can be proven that the pilot was operating outside of the POH. It doesn't matter if you know better than the OEM, you are bound by the POH!

For example, when Beech certified the original King Air 200, it had 850SHP PT6A-41 engines. They certified the King Air 200 take-off and landing data on this configuration. Fast forward a few decades, and we now have the B200GT with improved PT6A-52's, but, beech still use the original take-off and landing data from the earliest king airs (to save money re-certifying the data). We all know that the new one will get up and go in less distance (particularly hot and high), but try getting that past CASA when you decide to go outside what the OEM says because you know better!

If the POH allows for it, fill your boots. It doesn't mean that 'yr right' has to recommend it to people. He has his reasons, and he doesn't have to provide graphs to the peanut gallery on here. He's not advocating anything radical, he's advocating good common sense, and following the POH.


Regards

jdeakin

I'm a little reluctant to participate in this forum because of the "no advertising" issue. I'll also confess that I personally don't like the "hiding behind phony names." I prefer to sign with my real name, and stand behind what I say.

I happen to know Jabawocky's real name, and agree 100% with what he says about engines. I have read the entire thread to this point, and he is a voice of reason in an ocean of ignorance. An ocean which I confess to sharing before 1992 or so. Yes, I too was ignorant.

There are a few others who have the picture. Good on ya, mates!

We have offered the following guarantee since we started, almost 15 years ago. "If you complete either course (ONLINE or LIVE) and do not feel it was worth the money, we'll give you your money back."

There are thousands of people who have taken them, and NOT ONE has ever exercised that option. Never. About six have stood up in class and announced to all, "You guys are not charging enough for this!" Unsolicited.

Now, sooner or later, someone will, and then I'll have to say, "Only one has asked for his money back."

Best...
John Deakin

jdeakin

Correct for the Lycoming! Well said. Also very common on the wonderful old big radials of yesteryear. Run the engine RPM up and down, and the fuel will change via the Bendix Pressure Carburetor and airflow.

Most CMI (Continental) engines have a MUCH simpler system where the engine-driven fuel pump is driven by the engine (direct gearing), and the output is variable with engine RPM. Run the engine RPM up and down, and the fuel flow will also change, directly with the RPM.

Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. For the most part, they are transparent to the pilot.

No Hoper

Cockney Steve, I once knew a pilot who believed that jet thrust pushed on the air and made the aircraft move forward ....... See how easy it is to make sh1t up.

I reread your post 223 and it reads as a statement of facts of how you flood start your engine and more info on this high speed starter.

Aussie Bob

Drunk Pilot, if you read all of yr rights posts on this forum you will have to come to the conclusion that he states lots more than just opinions. yr right has been asked to back up his statements numerous times. It is something he is incapable or not interested in doing.

No he doesn't have to back up anything, but his credibility suffers as a result of not doing so.

No Hoper

Aussie Bob, as a practicing LAME and part time auto mechanic , this thread is proving to be a refresher course in aero piston engine theory and application.
It would only improve by Yr Right contributing his data similar to Jaba et al.

Jaba, was speaking to young RV7 owner/pilot, he uses the APS system but didn't quite understand the theory of operation. Perhaps some of your students are learning by rote?

yr right

I said it before and I'll say it again. Had I known when I first started I would have collected ever cly and when why what etc so in 2014 I could post it on this site. Now I didn't. So ok all you fellas out there with all your experience and thousands of flight hours and your own data and of course you have your own data don't you. With the exception of Mick which seams to collect his own data via trends I bet none of you collect it.
So no one here has ever had a cly change is that what you are all saying. You all getting so cranky over a small saving. It's quite hard to wonder why. Now remember I'm not saying don't lean. Leaning is a very important part of engine management. But the small gain that's given from a normal lean to an lop in my book is not worth the risk. You removed the margin safety if something goes wrong that is built into every component on an aircraft.

Now I'll say this again. The fuel pump is a pump. It is controled by the fcu. The pump is a follower it is a sheep. It follows. Also I find it allitle strange that no one has said any thing about the changes that tcm have made. Maybe wow could I be right and you can't discredit me.
Now cockney Steve. I said that the starter motor may the cause of that engine problem. It was said and given as advice but you no better about it all and how and why and what the impulse coupling dose. Good on you. How ever it was advise was given from my and friends of mine that have had the same fault sorry I don't collect data on that either. I even had a pilot change a starter and wondered why it would not start. I ask him what he done he said the starter failed over the weekend so I put the spare on. Mmm I said. Which engine. Oh the right one. On investigation I had him him hit the starter. Wow great job sunshine you fitted the wrong starter. He said how could that be. I sad it's the wrong rotation. He also was a motor mechanic. Bugger me
It's not always as it seams is it.
Cheers

Brian Abraham

drunk_pilot, trouble is, with respect to LOP, he is also advocating not complying with the POH. The Chieftain POH permits LOP operation, but yr right is yet to explain why it's a bad idea to comply with the Chieftain POH.

yr right

Woops and no No Hooper. That was not directed at you in any shape or form. Be fore you jump up and down.
Next drunken pilot. Pm so I know who you are. The drunk part dosent quite narrow it down quite enough. But thanks for your input.
Cheers

yr right

Negative brain I've said do what you like. If it's in the poh do it. I've also said that no org that if worked for that I have known has ever used LOP on the tsio-540 and LTSIO -540 engines.
Cheers.

No Hoper

Yr Right, didn't consider it was. I have the same issues with owner/pilots that you allude to. I'm on the road doing contract work when inclined.
Agree that the CP of orgs that I have been associated with have banned LOP operations. Maybe Commercial pilots are less skilled than private/ RAA pilots

rnuts

We, as pilots and engineers are bound by rules and regulations. We are expected by the authorities to operate and maintain by the books period.
If your POH says you can operate LOP then fill your boots.
If your maintenance manual says do this, then that's what you are expected to do.
If you operate outside, or maintain outside those parameters then you do so at your own peril.
If you end up in court or worse for whatever reason, they will ask," did you do it by the book". They don't care about good intentions or data.
None of us want to be playing Mummy's and Daddy's with Bubba, I'm sure most would agree.

No Hoper

Rnuts, very valid points. Also ensure your approved data is at current revision status. When certifying record what data was used and results achieved. I also keep a separate diary, which has been used as evidence in an AAT hearing.

Mmmm non consenting sex with Bubba

yr right

I know of a case where we set up the engine only to have the owner come back and say it was not running right. Attached the gauges was out by a long way. Approached the C/E said some one has tampered with it. Reset the fuel system again, then he came back again with the same problem, done it again with the same out come. Sent it away. Came back again same problem this time we made our own colour tamper proof mix and applied it. Guess what came back again. The costumer was given his log bogs and go to another shop. He had been adjusting it himself.


Chers

yr right

I will add here. The only time I ASK a pilot to run an engine the way I wont it done is if im trouble shooting a problem or im running in a new engine, Other than that its his domain and I don't tell him how what why any thing
And as for running LOP that a commercial decision made people higher up the food chain than my self.


Cheers

rnuts

Had one guy who owned a turboprop thought he knew all about it.
He fiddled with the compensator so his gauges would match and then proceeded to cook his engine.
That was an expensive mistake.
He left us to it after that

Old Akro

Yes, but most Pilot operating handbooks and engine operating handbooks are vague where it counts, and are frequently not in full agreement.

Also, most POH / EOH's were written assuming that the aircraft has less instrumentation than is common now.

This is all a bit academic because the only case I can recall where engine operation was an issue is Whyalla. And in this instance CASA were internationally pilloried and nearly 15 years later CASA's reputation has not fully recovered.

If we are called to account in court, we will be required to justify our actions. Adherence to a manual or regulation is the easiest way to do this, but not the only way.

Agrajag

You might be surprised to learn how many of us do. And how that enables us to correlate, very closely, our actions during a flight and the direct result they have on the engine parameters. CHTs, EGTs, fuel flow, MAP... got 'em all, in real time.

But there I go, using that pesky and misleading "data" again. Sorry.

Wrong, yet again. The fuel pump on our Bendix system is not "controlled" by anything. But what happens after the fuel leaves the pump... that's another thing. And, again, the pump on a TCM system is driven differently and its ultimate output to the injectors is regulated differently. I still don't understand how, in a technical discussion, you can make these sweeping statements to imply the two systems work in the same manner.

Please don't resort to the tired defence of "I'm a LAME and you're not", as though that should shut down any disagreement. You've already demonstrated some gaping holes in your knowledge. I'll accept any assertion you care to make, and learn from it - if you can prove it.

Equally, even mere opinions are only valid if they are based on something factual. Otherwise they're just hot air.

And so, to POH techiniques...

A POH contains certain limitations which must be observed. These include weights, CG ranges, max RPM, min oil pressure and so on. The POH will also tell us optimum and limiting speeds for different phases of flight, for use when needed.

But there's a lot of content which is advisory only, and much of this relates to how to achieve desired power outputs from the engine. These are not published as limitations, and so aren't mandatory. If the POH doesn't specifically prohibit, for example, LOP operation, then it's fair game.

This is distinct from an approved Operations Manual in a commercial environment. If I'm operating in such a context, then you bet I'll comply with the way the Ops Manual says it should be done - even if I don't agree with it. The same goes if I'm renting. I'll do it the way the owner wants.

But when I'm flying privately in my own aircraft, the rules are different. Our POH is also an approved document, and it's deliberately vague on the finer points of engine management, which allows the informed pilot to do what is safe and sensible.