Actually, he isn't anonymous, he has freely shared his real name and contact details in these forums on several occasions and has met in person many people on here, me included!

A basic search of the website will show you this...

As a novice pilot you would do really well to meet Mr. Jabbawocky ....

Probably true, but its not his point.

just because someone is a dentist, lawyer etc, doesn not mean they do not know what they are talking about when it comes to engines, and engine management. yes, i have done the courses, and the Data doesnt lie.

All of the people who run the APS classes are publicly identified. You can shake their hands and ask them questions. And you can sue them.

Funny thing is that with all the dangerous folklore and wildly inaccurate misinformation they have been spreading over decades, they have yet to be sued for negligent misstatement. Not once. Extraordinarily lucky, considering how litigious the USA and Australia are supposed to be.

An alternative explanation is that their courses are based on science and data - science and data that saw vast improvements in piston engine efficiency and reliability over millions of hours of piston engine operations before the jet age. Very difficult to prove something said by APS is inaccurate, when the science and data prove otherwise.

You want to run an aero piston engine on the basis of a single EGT gauge and single CHT gauge? Go for it. The joke is that if you think the CHT gauge being 'in the green' and the EGT gauge being at some temperature relative to peak means that you're operating the engine as efficiently and as a safely as practicable, it's just blissful ignorance. The fact that the engine might survive the abuse or inefficient operation proves nothing, other than that many engines are manufactured with wide tolerances for abuse and inefficient operation.

A comparison between the condition and costs of running engines the blissful ignorance way, on the one hand, and the condition and costs of running engines on the basis of the science and data used by APS, on the other, is quite instructive. But only for those who are willing and able to learn.

(PS: I have no direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the APS courses. I have a direct interest in aviation safety.)

I don't think anyone is arguing the science. What I think people are arguing is that the notion of commercial pilots being ignorant for flying something with only an EGT...

I'd be very interested to see how many commercial companies are going down this route. I know of only one myself, but happy to be corrected.

it's all fine and good to spend money on your privately owned aircraft, but calculate the price it'd take to upgrade a dozen 200 series cessnas, Barons, Chieftains etc when most operators are already working to very tight margins given the increased costs of regulatory compliance, SIDS, ADSB, ageing aircraft etc.

In a perfect world operators would be buying new aircraft every 5 years. If this were the case the piston engine would probably be close to extinct because everyone would go for the safer and more economical option of operating turbines, but unfortunately this is far from a perfect world.

No. Generally there is an outside problem that causes low compressions , burnt valves etc. Could be a newbie pilot , induction leak etc . Most engines go happily go through to overhaul.

That is So FUNNY ….. I love it! http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/imag...ies/rofl02.gif

The Lawyer……..:D:D:D :ok: Smartest guy I know and I know rocket scientists and Nasa Astronauts (No kidding either). And he just happens to be an Aeronautical engineer (check the engineering drawings on much of the Aerostar) and an FAA DER. and I could go on…..

Thanks for the compliments guys, but this thread was about abuse of an engine. I think the abuse has been stopped with intervention. :ok:

iPhalot
Actually the truth is when you have a conforming engine, it is far easier and safer to run it LOP than ROP properly. Seriously proper ROP ops are harder to do. But you would need to understand why that is so to appreciate what I just said. Cheers :ok:

What's wrong with 25/25?

You omitted to mention the other shyster in the APS team: John Deakin.

Mr Deakin only has about 37,000 hours in command, around half of it on 747s and the rest on Gulfstream IV, C-46, M-404, DC-3, F8F Bearcat, Constellation, B-29 and V35. What would he know?Depends on the engine. But on many piston aero engines, reducing the revs to 2500 moves the peak pressure point closer to TDC (thus increasing the peak pressure) and reducing the throttle from e.g. Sea level MP to 25 effectively leans the mixture and increases the EGT and CHT.

The shysters at APS will have you believe that the 2 biggest enemies of cylinders are internal pressure and temperature, and that you can avoid unnecessarily high internal pressures and temperature by leaving the throttle wide open and not reducing RPM by mutch in the climb. And such is the extent of the APS deception that all of the available aircraft engine monitors on the market have been programmed - much like Volkswagen emissions test fooling software - to show this.

Don't fall for it!

Aren't we supposed to only maintain max power for 3 minutes before the engine explodes?

So confusing :(

Pelicans Perch is still available online, do yourself a favour :ok:

So before (well, currently in many aircraft!) all this whizz bang all cylinder monitoring, how did someone run the engine properly/safely?

If the aircraft has that gear but you don't know how to use it, how are you meant to run the engine?


AFM figures surely.


Please forgive my snobby turbine brain. Pistons were so a decade ago!

I've spent many years flying around with just the basic engine gauges and never had any problems with the engines, running them as per the Poh.
And that includes several types with geared super/turbo charged engines!
Maybe I am just lucky...perhaps!

The old saying goes 'you don't know what you don't know'. You can forgive someone for being none the wiser however you have your head stuck so far up your ass its no surprise that dealing with your own ignorance isn't high on your priority list.

Given you're such a wise guy why don't you explain how the laws of chemistry and physics change when the AFM of the 520 powered Malibu mandated LOP operation or AFMs of Navajos permit LOP operation?

I mean, its in the AFM right? You'd would have been a pretty rad driver of one of those Malibus because people died from not following that one.

Wow did I hit a nerve with you FCP!

Never flew a Malibu or a Navajo, so sorry buddy your outta luck getting me to explain them!

Yeah I'm a bit of a wise guy, like pulling the piss but wow. Did I get a nerve!


Ok to be serious. How were things done before full engine monitoring on pistons? I never had monitoring on pistons and ran them as per the AFM. Is there something wrong with what is published in AFMs and all this APS stuff knows better?

I'm not debating that with new technology that there aren't benefits. I just wanted to debate the aspect of "what do you do if you don't have fancy gear?" and also point out that turbines aren't as basic as the original comparison was made. Obviously that point was lost on you. Thank you for having a jab at me rather than answering my questions!


And back to not being serious.
Having ones head up their arse (that's correct, arse, not ass) is good. Don't see the rest of the crap in the world :ok:

I will just make the title of topic more accurate -


Pilots who don't know about engines and/or their airframes as related.

Ramrod,
What these guys are teaching is anything but new.

In fact, it was all well known by the end of WWII and into the 1950's.

Somehow it all got lost over the years, and in Australia in particular, from about the 1980s on, general ab nitio teaching of engine handling varied from bad to appalling.

Indeed, so bad was the teaching, that you came across such modifications (with DCA approval) of mixture controls disconnected, and carb. heat locked in ON. Such helpful "rules of thumb" as "no leaning below 5000' AGL" ---- pity about the density altitude on a hot summer day, at some of the more elevated of our airfields.

Do yourself a favor, read everything you can off Pelican, and get to one of the courses. Ignorance is never very attractive, in aviation can be fatal.

CleartoEnter,
Nothing "wrong" with the "recommendations" , which are that, recommendations, not limitations.
Re. Best Economy, that might be theoretically correct, but very touchy. Worked great on the Qantas "Double Sunrise" services during WWII --- but not recommended for other than extreme range for the fuel available.
The 50 rich of peak is the one that will getcha!! Around there is going to maximize the possibility of detonation.

Tootle pip!!

I don't understand the controversy, suppositions and what not in this thread... Lycoming, Continental, and Pratt & Whitney (Round motors that is) have been in the industry a long time... written good manuals and with proven procedures and operational techniques.


True, Lycoming and Continental have evolved with water cooled, single power lever/condition lever applications. But at the end of the day... if you stick with their procedures... you'll reach TBO without issues.