:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I never invited you to post in my thread either? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

No you sarcastically tried to discredit the 400,000,000 hours of data collected by AA back in the days of radial piston airliners by making stupid comments about last you looked (assume 2014) AA only had jets not pistons. You effectively did ask.

I notice once again you never answer anyones direct questions.

***Now by memeroy the r985 had an o/h period of between 400 to 500 hours originally. Casa give 1200 and we had an extension out past that. Over double the orginal hours and then some. Not one engine failure. Not one lost head in operation ( cly found and removed before that happen due to always checking them ) never ran lop. And over 20000 hours.
***

You have that dead wrong. The vast majority of R-985s since the 1930s has been run LOP. ALL of the Model 17 and 18 Beechcrafts were leaned that way… for hundreds of thousands of hours. The only ones I know of which were run ROP were the ones on crop dusters. They suffered very poor maintenance histories and early overhauls, while the twin beeches did not. If one leans to roughness and richness slightly, IN THOSE ENGINES, the result is a mixture setting of between 50 & 60dF LOP, and it's been that way since the 1930s. Many operators never realized this but once we began to instrument them up with engine monitors and look, that was the FACT. Thank you for supporting our contentions; you see, as Sir Isaac pointed out, "the physics are everywhere the same"--even when you don't understand the physics.

Hey, John!

Remember fifteen years ago, when we started APS? We’d been putting together the information for several years, gathering research and compiling the data and the various internet forum bullies were calling us names—some were even vulgar. Even a few of the aviation magazines were calling us heretics and nut-cases. We were considered renegades and we were having a ball fighting those who would rather slumber in the comforts of their superstitions than make their head hurt thinking about things they knew to be true, but weren’t.

Then several thousand pilots, mechanics, OEM representatives from Beechcraft, Columbia, and even the president of Cirrus, people from a major Detroit engine test facility, the top engine builders and a VP from TCM, along with FAA and CASA folks were counted among the APS graduates. The Aussie Coroner even came half way round the world to see George demonstrate detonation in the engine test facility and listen to the APS presentation on detonation and preignition. We became mainstream and the go-to guys in the US where piston engine management is concerned. It quit being so much fun when we were no longer considered renegades and we were writing articles for almost every aviation magazine.

Here we are in 2014, and we’ve stepped back into Mr. Peabody’s Way-back Machine on the PPRuNe Forum in OZ. We’re renegades all over again and back to having fun being called names by the same sorts of people who have finally given in to the data, science and majority opinion of educated aviators and mechanics in the US, while a few of the educated OZians are trying to help us educate the resistent.

Having flash-backs?

David, remember when I told you to be careful what you asked for??? :ugh:

Jabba there could be reasons for that.

The following is an extract from 'The Wizard of Oz' spoken by the straw man.

"I realize at present that I'm only an imitation of a man,and I assure you that it is an uncomfortable feeling to know that one is a fool. It seems to me that a body is only a machine for brains to direct,and those who have no brains themselves are liable to be directed by the brains of others"

yr right,
This is for you!!

Would you care to inform us of when approved data must be used, aviation-wise, and when acceptable data can be used, and what is the difference.
Tell us what parts of an POH (by whatever name) for an FAA certified aircraft must be observed by law, and just how do you classify the rest of the contents of a POH??

Over which period of years was there a CASA Legislative Instrument in place that declared all FAA ACs (as may have been relevant) acceptable data for the maintenance of an Australian aircraft, thereby relieving CASA of the burden of approving such documentation.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Just for the fun of it, tell us what is "authorised data"

Yep :ok: And it seems so! :}

Rutan, amen!

Night all. :)

Walter said:
Yes, definitely.

I got the following in a private message just the other day. I "Cut and Pasted" so what you see is exactly what was written:

John Deakin

""an aviation Galapagos""

Wow. An excellent description. Have faith, eventually, even though it won't happen overnight, the Naysayer Birds will go the way of the Dodo.

Gentlemen, this is why the better aviation forums do not allow "handles" and require the use of correct, full names. The forum is more civil, the members polite to one another, and the education flows more readily.

I agree, Walter. My name is Gerald Varley. And I really do live in Richmond, NSW, Australia.

But I think that I've possibly flushed out 'yr right'?

He may indeed be: 'The Good Soldier Schweik.'

From Wiki: "...possibly-feigned idiocy or incompetence he repeatedly manages to frustrate..." :eek:

mmm no ive never published under any other name .
cheers

Walter
All our engines where used in ag. As ive previous stated there are pilots and there are operators, we were operators to the highest level. We also didn't lop and all our engines made o/h and not one failure and when your flying at 100 feet our less do you wont a failure.
And as for backwaters well may be, but some of the stuff that has come out of the USA I wouldn't say to much if I was you.
What we may or may not do is controlled here by CASA not me not you.
As for approved data well you go take that up with a court.
Lets see what creamie has to say on the matter. I even took a pic of a casa poster yesterday on approved data.
And as for CASA well what can you say its been invaded by ex airline and military people that arnt in touch with the real world.
And to high light a point of one of your own Jabas even said and this is important that she would not let her crew fly in a org that ran out side the POH so if it good enough for her what it not for every one else and at hthe end of the day what are you saving 10-15 dollars an hour at best.


cheers


And Jaba this is a public forum so any one can have a say sorry.

***Now by memeroy the r985 had an o/h period of between 400 to 500 hours originally. Casa give 1200 and we had an extension out past that. Over double the orginal hours and then some. Not one engine failure. Not one lost head in operation ( cly found and removed before that happen due to always checking them ) never ran lop. And over 20000 hours.
***

You have that dead wrong. The vast majority of R-985s since the 1930s has been run LOP. ALL of the Model 17 and 18 Beechcrafts were leaned that way… for hundreds of thousands of hours. The only ones I know of which were run ROP were the ones on crop dusters. They suffered very poor maintenance histories and early overhauls, while the twin beeches did not. If one leans to roughness and richness slightly, IN THOSE ENGINES, the result is a mixture setting of between 50 & 60dF LOP, and it's been that way since the 1930s. Many operators never realized this but once we began to instrument them up with engine monitors and look, that was the FACT. Thank you for supporting our contentions; you see, as Sir Isaac pointed out, "the physics are everywhere the same"--even when you don't understand the physics.
http://www.pprune.org/images/statusi...er_offline.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif






Im sorry where did I mention anywhere about any other aircraft but our own and I never said anything about LOP but in our own case, I just stated that the engine o/h life as you brought up how AA increased the hours on there fleet, I just said what the original hours where for the R985 that strangely also got an increase in engine hours. So it also shows that the life of these engines across the broad has also increased. But once again you use that for your cause.


Cheers

What the?? You did not get the point. :rolleyes: It is a public forum, but the point is you never answer questions, and then you posted the

I replied with....

As for POH's, and my wife's contracts etc, lets get back to Leadsleds questions which you have ignored as well.

So far I have found only one POH that is stating not LOP ops in Section 2. Of course this is at complete odds with other POH's with the same equipment. So which do you fly? What do you do when one says only fly right side up and the other says only fly inverted? Do you take an average?

By the way I had an operator ask me recently about another twin being used in Charter operations. I said which model? I consulted the POH and guess what, despite the owner and the operator and LAME (all three the one and the same) thinking he could not use LOP ops, he was wrong, it was there in black and white. All you had to do was read with a critical and educated mind. He is now much more educated :ok:

Go back and read Leadsleds questions and try to answer them rather than defending your out of touch position on everything. Otherwise we are wasting our time on you, although I hope others are learning a heap.

I should restate this for the benefit of others, I have a fair hunch you are a great LAME, do fine craftsmanship and turn out a quality product. Just in some area's misinformed. :ok:

Good evening Jaba
In reality probably is of no consequence if LAMEs and pilots are in disagreement
On the original post, i have found the AD for SAP cylinders but not ECi
Are they the same?

I've told a fib. R985 for military was 300 to 400 hours and 400 to 600 hours tbo for commercial. I will ask for r2000 that where in the the DC 4 and what they are now. They also in the carabao that military used as we'll see what I can come up with.
Cheers

yr right, I find it difficult to believe that you'd ever tell a fib.

A bit of confusion caused by me though. 'The Good Soldier Schweik' is the name of a book and I encourage you to read it. Failing that, please simply read the Wiki entry. :ok:

NH

It is an ECI not Superior.

Jabs
From research of the available data from NTSB and ECi, the cracking is in the roots of the first thread. Caused due to the interference fit not being tight enough and thus putting load on the first threads
The ECi AD still hasn't been issued from what I have seen

Hi Mr Jabs,
Just curious as to why LOP is not recommended above 75% power. I would think that cht and egt would be lower regardless of cyl pressure?

Jaba is still pounding his ear (lazy bugger) and not likely to make it out of his bed for hours and hours, so I'll take a stab at your excellent question.

Your thoughts are right on, mate! All the flat CMI (was TCM) and flat Lycomings are very happy at 85% to 90% power LOP (LOP ONLY). All will make well beyond TBO, PROVIDED THEY ARE INSTALLED TO STANDARDS. One forum I frequent has an informal "2500 club" made up of people who have taken their engines to that number without cylinder work. I think the high man is 2800.

(All with regular borescopes, oil and filter changes, and EMS systems. Oh yeah I forgot compression checks. All are graduates of that certain course I'm not supposed to mention, too. :D)