C210 down in Broome town
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10dF LOP
I presume that means 10 degrees lean of peak. The C210 flight manual recommends 25 degrees rich of peak, and peak EGT, as options only.
Anything else is not approved, and test pilot territory. Unless you self insure of course.
I presume that means 10 degrees lean of peak. The C210 flight manual recommends 25 degrees rich of peak, and peak EGT, as options only.
Anything else is not approved, and test pilot territory. Unless you self insure of course.
I'm very keen not to be a "test pilot".
How do you know all your cylinders are running at 25ROP EGT or at peak EGT?
What are you going to do when you find out, after you've studiously set the mixture to "peak EGT", that in fact 2 cylinders are running 5 degrees ROP EGT, 2 cylinders are running at peak EGT and 2 cylinders are running 4 degrees LOP EGT?
Do you become a test pilot simply because blissful ignorance has been replaced with knowledge of what's actually happening?
How do you know all your cylinders are running at 25ROP EGT or at peak EGT?
What are you going to do when you find out, after you've studiously set the mixture to "peak EGT", that in fact 2 cylinders are running 5 degrees ROP EGT, 2 cylinders are running at peak EGT and 2 cylinders are running 4 degrees LOP EGT?
Do you become a test pilot simply because blissful ignorance has been replaced with knowledge of what's actually happening?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Omg Clinton your not a test pilot. Apart from every other part of your long career you haven't done the test pilot endorsement. My god. Anyway as your an engineer as well as a decorated war hero as you have stated previously when was the last time you had your engine mangment instrument calibration carried out.
Next read your article on how not to land an aircraft must say a few inconsistent comments in that.
Next do we actually know why the aircraft landed where it did or are your spectacular speculations enough for fact.
And as for flying that route done it many a time and we never had a fuel
Proplem before you ask
Next read your article on how not to land an aircraft must say a few inconsistent comments in that.
Next do we actually know why the aircraft landed where it did or are your spectacular speculations enough for fact.
And as for flying that route done it many a time and we never had a fuel
Proplem before you ask
Apart from every other part of your long career you haven't done the test pilot endorsement. My god. Anyway as your an engineer as well as a decorated war hero as you have stated previously when was the last time you had your engine mangment (sic) instrument calibration carried out.
You are letting your prejudices show again.
A test pilot approval is hardly needed to exercise native common sense ( admittedly not all that common on pprune) and intelligence.
I am looking forward to your explanation of how you calibrate pulse counter instruments, and the value of relative versus absolute indications.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
10dF LOP
I presume that means 10 degrees lean of peak. The C210 flight manual recommends 25 degrees rich of peak, and peak EGT, as options only.
I presume that means 10 degrees lean of peak. The C210 flight manual recommends 25 degrees rich of peak, and peak EGT, as options only.
The POH suggests those numbers to achieve certain book performance values, and I can guarantee if you set the leanest on peak, the richest will be way more than 25dF ROP. And if you get the mid range cylinder at 25, some will be 20 LOP and some 75 ROP. How do you propose to deal with that?
Insert a set of GAMI's and you will do far better, but seriously, the POH gives examples which are just one of an almost infinite number of combinations that will be just fine. The problem is nobody has ever educated you to see the rest of the forest for the one tree right in font of you. It's not your fault, and I do not blame you. Its the system that has failed you.
If you sat in front of a engine monitor after having seen what a fully instrumented dyno can show you, you would have a far better understanding of what the POH actually is telling you.
Anything else is not approved, and test pilot territory. Unless you self insure of course.
I am willing to help you, but you need to contact me somehow.
I went along with Creampuff for his aircraft's post annual check flight, this afternoon. To a few I'm clearly a risk taker. I just love the factual information that his engine monitor provides. My long drive home was potentially far more dangerous. 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is - do insurance companies even care?
I ask my broker "so what happens if someone hires my aircraft and, on the day, with a valid licence and medical, they are drunk and crash into a building in the CBD".
Answer: "Full insurance payout to aircraft owner"
I ask my broker "so what happens if someone hires my aircraft and, on the day, with a valid licence and medical, they are drunk and crash into a building in the CBD".
Answer: "Full insurance payout to aircraft owner"
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am willing to help you, but you need to contact me somehow.
Do yourself a favour and make sure you're on his mailing list for the next weekend.
You are a reckless risk-taker, gerry111.
Did you notice, from the readings on the engine monitor during the lean test we carried out, that the CHT for each cylinder was cooler at peak EGT than it was at 25 degrees C ROP, and that the CHT for each cylinder was even cooler at 25 degrees C LOP than it was at peak EGT and 25 degrees C ROP?
But apparently clys that have a CHT of 175 degrees C at an EGT 25 degrees C LOP are at risk of cooking, but the same clys at a CHT of 205 degrees C at an EGT 25 degrees C ROP are safe and fine. Apparently hotter clys are at less risk of cooking than cooler ones, provided they know they're not on the side of peak EGT that dare not speak its name. Go figure...
And did you notice how the wings fell off when we did the magneto check at 8,500'? You might have thought that all that happened was an increase in EGT for each cly, but those are just lies told by the random number generators in the engine monitor.
I don't know how we've managed to survive for tens of thousands of nautical miles in a death trap being flown by an unqualified test pilot.
Did you notice, from the readings on the engine monitor during the lean test we carried out, that the CHT for each cylinder was cooler at peak EGT than it was at 25 degrees C ROP, and that the CHT for each cylinder was even cooler at 25 degrees C LOP than it was at peak EGT and 25 degrees C ROP?
But apparently clys that have a CHT of 175 degrees C at an EGT 25 degrees C LOP are at risk of cooking, but the same clys at a CHT of 205 degrees C at an EGT 25 degrees C ROP are safe and fine. Apparently hotter clys are at less risk of cooking than cooler ones, provided they know they're not on the side of peak EGT that dare not speak its name. Go figure...
And did you notice how the wings fell off when we did the magneto check at 8,500'? You might have thought that all that happened was an increase in EGT for each cly, but those are just lies told by the random number generators in the engine monitor.
I don't know how we've managed to survive for tens of thousands of nautical miles in a death trap being flown by an unqualified test pilot.
Last edited by Creampuff; 8th May 2015 at 21:26. Reason: Added "not" in italics.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of one very nice C210 fitted with all the bells & whistles for proper engine management that was flown from Jabiru to Alice Springs (nonstop) and still had 90 litres in the tanks on landing. On that occasion it wasn't I flying. It is certainly the best C210 that I have flown performance wise but the best I got from it was 155 kts.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I know the cause of this incident. I can say that the aircraft had FUEL onboard however at this time I'm not able to say what the cause was and I do know.
Now as for Clinton like I've said before how many engines have you ever serviced and how many cylinders have your ever removed. And what happens to the exhaust gas when you lean it out.
So far this year one engine removed all but destroyed by running lop and 8 cylinder changes. But then maybe we should go against the ads and manufacturers recommended test process as creamie and Jaba say they wrong and they know best.
Now as for Clinton like I've said before how many engines have you ever serviced and how many cylinders have your ever removed. And what happens to the exhaust gas when you lean it out.
So far this year one engine removed all but destroyed by running lop and 8 cylinder changes. But then maybe we should go against the ads and manufacturers recommended test process as creamie and Jaba say they wrong and they know best.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day I really don't care if you run lop. It's your plane unless you hire one then it the wiener that will dictate what to use. However if you think your lame not going to notice well I think you deluding yourself. If you think a lame going to turn a blind eye because you have damaged your engine and he is going to sign it off against the AD ( which is law) and against the manufacturer it's not going to happen. Then depending on how much damage you have done how much fuel saving do you have to do to have that return.
If you believe the hype how America airlines extended there engine overhaul life by running lop go find out the original overhaul life for those engines. The hardest part of an engine life is take off. Dose the engine destroy its self of
On takeoff with high temps cylinder pressures and everything thing else they profess. No they don't.
With the new instruments that are available everyone is now an expert. However they not.
If you believe the hype how America airlines extended there engine overhaul life by running lop go find out the original overhaul life for those engines. The hardest part of an engine life is take off. Dose the engine destroy its self of
On takeoff with high temps cylinder pressures and everything thing else they profess. No they don't.
With the new instruments that are available everyone is now an expert. However they not.
I see your point, Eddie.
It's "safe" to fly along blissfully ignorant of the fact that the engine has a "dead magneto", but "unsafe" if you know about it.
And if you're flying along on one magneto, and turn it off, naturally you won't be able to turn it back on.
Best instead to fly along blissfully ignorant of the fact that one of the magnetos is dead. Knowing that one magneto is dead would of course be irrelevant to any in-flight decisions.
(By God it's lucky that piston engines are simple technology for simple people, and almost idiot proof. But they're still out there.
For the non-idiots:
The point of an in-flight magneto check is to check the ignition system (note: not just the magnetos), and check the ignition system properly.
The 'standard' magneto check on the ground tells you very little about the health of the ignition system. It tells you the ignition system is not currently having a heart attack.
An in-flight magneto check, LOP at altitude and high power, will show up the early symptoms of ignition system problems, so that they can be cured well in advance of a complete heart attack.
But you have to understand how engines run, and have an engine monitor and know what it's telling you, in order to get any benefit from the procedure.)
It's "safe" to fly along blissfully ignorant of the fact that the engine has a "dead magneto", but "unsafe" if you know about it.
And if you're flying along on one magneto, and turn it off, naturally you won't be able to turn it back on.
Best instead to fly along blissfully ignorant of the fact that one of the magnetos is dead. Knowing that one magneto is dead would of course be irrelevant to any in-flight decisions.
(By God it's lucky that piston engines are simple technology for simple people, and almost idiot proof. But they're still out there.
For the non-idiots:
The point of an in-flight magneto check is to check the ignition system (note: not just the magnetos), and check the ignition system properly.
The 'standard' magneto check on the ground tells you very little about the health of the ignition system. It tells you the ignition system is not currently having a heart attack.
An in-flight magneto check, LOP at altitude and high power, will show up the early symptoms of ignition system problems, so that they can be cured well in advance of a complete heart attack.
But you have to understand how engines run, and have an engine monitor and know what it's telling you, in order to get any benefit from the procedure.)
Last edited by Creampuff; 8th May 2015 at 23:57.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The owners manual for the V35 and C210 I have seem to agree that fuel is cheap and engines are expensive. I heed the book.