On to the fifth page and still not a squeak out of yr right. Is he OK?

Well I have just narrowed you down to a list ;) long list…………


clearedtorenter;
Very funny, I admire a good sense of humour. Pity you fail to understand how to apply science in the cockpit. :ok:

But with posts like this;And along with comments by eddie dean……you start to make very big statements about your lack of understanding of science and POH's and what they really mean, and where/when they are wrong. They can be wrong you know, don't you?

I wonder how many of you have met the guys who have written some doozy POH statements, who have bravely stood up and said "I wrote that and now I am regretting doing so". That is a humbling experience.

Keeping ones head in the sand is a safe and comfortable place to be. Except your ass is rather exposed.

Now let me post this graph for the XXth time and please tell me where best economy is with reference to peak TIT. Is it really 50ROP TIT? Now tell not me, but your prune pears, that your POH is correct. It either is or it is not.

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/a...psbfb07cbb.gif

Better still, pick up the phone and lets chat about it, I give you a money back guarantee to help you learn. Plenty posting here who know what I am offering, some I am not even sure who they are. Up to you, if you are prepared to put your money where your mouth is. I am and we do.

Cheers :ok:

Maybe I missed it earlier, what is the definition of a ' conforming engine' ?

What statement would that be Jaba?

I may have been misreading your previous post, it seemed to be of a mischievous nature. If I misunderstood, then my sincere apologies.

Bolt head, a conforming engine is one that has correctly gapped plugs, resistance below 5Kohms, magneto's in a good state of function and timed accurately to the correct numbers, plus fuel/air ratio's that are near to equal on all cylinders. As the design engineers would want them to be. :ok:

Hey Jabba,

"some I am not even sure who they are"

I think I've identified one and by now the hives must be starting to kick in....

On another note though I wonder if there's a market for applying some of these principles in a linear format to the operation of wind turbines? I read somewhere that the ban on them has been lifted.... Still, interesting stuff all this science of proper engine management and no doubt most contributory to the saving of lives.

Sticky
:ok:

Decoder, the thread that vanished was a mystery, as was the alleged student. I even checked with John Deakin. He could not recall this guy and his alleged claim. That was back in November.

As for this thread you are completely wrong……:= I had no idea about it until I saw it.

Given the amount of free advice and education over the years that George John and Walter have given in many formats, why does it seem bad to let someone know there are 3 places left when it might be helpful to them.

Some of you guys are a bit too over the top.

eng managment
 

very few fresh CPL holders know the intricacy's of how piston engines even work, most know just enough to pass the exam but that's the extent of it..
I guarantee most wouldn't be able to change the oil- let alone lean correctly...
probably because a lot of instructors don't know either/ or care...

Folks,
To be fair, I know of a few newer generation and older generation pilots who have a very balanced approach, they know sod all about kero. burners, as well as their lamentable knowledge of piston engines, where they all got their start.
Tootle pip!!

The science shows that running an engine at around 50 F degrees rich of peak results in the highest peak pressures and temperatures for the cylinders.

The science shows that the two biggest factors contributing to cylinder fatigue are pressure and temperature.

The science therefore shows that manufacturers who recommend that cruise EGT be set around 50 F degrees rich of peak were either ignorant or, as is more likely, trying to wring as much power as they could out of the engine in marketing competitions that used to be won on the basis of a couple of knots cruise TAS in a sidebar summary in the aviation magazine reviews of the latest model Cessna/Piper/Beechcraft etc.

The science therefore also shows that a person who considers POHs to contain immutable facts and the safest engine management procedures is the person with the religion problem.

(And science also shows why the deceleration felt through the seat of the pants is a reliable, repeatable and safe way of setting cruise mixture lean of peak on a confirming engine fitted with a CSU.)

Can I get a hallelujah, can I get an Amen.
Come one come all to the altar of the APS God.

is this implying that al the info in regards to LOP ops and running 50Def rich are based on faith??

its actually hard science.. nothing religious about it.

Agnostic I am being. Is APS halal then🍺

Alarmingly true statement. If you are a student pilot try asking your flying instructor (in fact any flying instructor) how he would teach a go-around from a full flap landing at the flare. Type specific of course. Remember this is quite a critical manoeuvre for a new student especially as he/she is about to embark on first solo. Write down the instructors personal opinion.

Compare his step by step answer against the manufacturer's Pilot Operating Handbook. In the Cessna POH it is termed Balked Landing

Similar exercise on the meaning and practical use of Minimum Static RPM. Where is this figure normally located for reference?

Chances are it will shatter your confidence in the instructors knowledge...

Sheppey, are you speaking from personal experience? Seriously, those things you mention are BAK/GFPT stuff (or whatever they call it now). Or at least they were back when I did my initial training.

What go-round procedure have you been told or heard is being taught that is so different to the POH..?

If what you say is true, then standards must have slipped somewhat. I'd have been disappointed if one of my students couldn't answer those questions let alone an instructor!

re. aircraft manufacturer's engine operating *recommendations* (not limits): Nothing in the POH says that the engine is guaranteed to make TBO if the recomendations are followed. Similarly, no certification regulation specifies that TBO must be guaranteed. Those recommendations are purely to make the POH performance numbers.

In a similar vein, think of the old turbo F1 qualifying engines: 1200HP from a forced induction 1.5L engine - and it was toast after one round of qualifying - but, jeez, the performance was fabulous. Great for advertising capability. Meanwhile, the same engine producing only 800HP would (usually) last an entire race but performance was rather lower. Much like POH engine operation to achieve POH performance figures, vs LOP ops to maximise engine life.

Just now re-reading the Lycoming Flyer on Engine operations.
Talks about engine run in, EGT, CHT, LOP,ROP.
Perhaps worth a read before you kneel at the altar of APS.

Commercial Pilots who don't know about piston engines.
 

Commercial Pilots...
While not knocking APS at all because the people who run it are good and decent knowledgable people, I can't help but wonder that all the APS learning is predicated on a "Conforming Engine".
Where can a Commercial pilot, operating possibly many different engines concurrently, find a data plate (or whatever) that says the engine is a "Conforming Engine"?
Seems to me that private owners who know the ins and outs of their own engine would benefit a lot from an APS education but commercial pilots in and out of different machines on a daily basis would be hanging themselves out to dry by not heeding the OEM procedures, without knowing they were operating "Conforming Engines".

It would be a good start if they had an understanding of what those curves jabba has posted many times actually mean, and the profound implications for piston engine management. A pilot with that understanding would not have operated the engines on the Whyalla Airlines aircraft in the climb in the way they were. :ok:

What LB says, plus you can get an idea if an engine conforms by leaning in the cruise at say 65% or less. If it runs rough around peak EGT it is unlikely it conforms. If you can lean it past peak EGT and beyond until it looses power and there is no rough running, it likely is a conforming engine.

I reccomend the course, either online or with Jabba. For most pilots, there is heaps to learn.

Whyalla was a tragically sad set of holes in the Swiss cheese. The latent manufacturing defect in the crankshafts may not have caused a failure, if the leaning procedure for the climb had kept the mixture sufficiently rich of peak.

A pilot with knowledge of what the curves mean would never have adopted the leaning procedure for the high power climb as was the practice at Whyalla, irrespective of what some idiot regulatory or manufacturer's document might have allowed or mandated.

A knowledge and understanding of what the curves mean, and of what the data show, gives you a chance that you might actually comprehend that if you are going to operate rich of peak, you have to set the mixture sufficiently far rich of peak, otherwise you're giving the engine (including that potentially defective crankshaft) the hardest beating you can give it.

It used to be called "airmanship".

I have done the APS course, and i own and operate a lot of aircraft that have no mixture control at all, and those that arnt rotax powered, are aircraft with only 1 CHT and 1 EGT probe,
a relatively small percentage of the course focuses on EGT and LOP ops, the rest is how you can interpret that data you can get from those indicators, and understand the causes, and reasons behind those readings, and how to understand just what is happening with that engine. sure, do your runups and mag checks at low power before a flight, but what can you learn from that? sure, you can determine a dead Mag, but thats about it, after the course, you will learn just how much more info you can find out, and why doing a mag check at top of descent will reveal a lot more than just "A dead mag" you will know how to identify a failing plug, which cylinder its in, and upper or lower plug, so it can be changed before it fails..

a good analogy would by your ab initio training, the LOP ops will be the straight and level component only, but the whole course is similar to your complete PPL training, its not just LOP, its all about engine management and understanding what the engine is telling you..

how many pilots have been to different schools to learn different skills? or have just been to the one school only?
i went to another school to do Aerobatics, Advanced aircraft control and formation, i learned a lot of stuff, and had to UN-learn a lot of incorrect stuff, same with the engine course, i thought, operating an engine with no mixture, i knew all there was about it, and again, i had to unlearn a lot of obviously false info, and relearn from hard data, and also learnt a lot more about engines in general..

Trent
With appropriate knowledge and engine monitors any pilot be they private owners or commercial operators can tell if they have a conforming engine. There area few commercial operators, some who watch these threads in silence who have fleets of piston aircraft that ensure they are all operating conforming engines all the time.

It is not hard to do. Problem is you need pilots AND LAME's who care enough to use science and not OWT's to achieve it.

The definition of a conforming engine is simply one that is as it should be. The details of this myself and others have done to death already.

UL and AuBob are on the money.

Umm, I think you're reading just a little bit too much into the word there.

It simply means an engine which conforms to the type certificate, as amended by STC. That is to say; is within overhaul limits, had been maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions, and hasn't been modified outside the manufacturer's Specs.

IOW, in the US at least, any engine in commercial service would be a "conforming engine" unless it had undocumented modifications.

For example, a Ly-Con competition engine would not be a "conforming" engine, as they make modifications like installing high compression pistons not covered by the type certificate of subsequent STC. But then, you won't find a Ly-COn non-conforming competition engine ine an aircraft in commercial service, because it's not permitted by regulation.

This bit bears repeating, and reflection by some here.

I am by no means anti-LOP. I've been reading Deakin's Articles since he first appeared on AVweb, long before the creation of APS. I have also flown DC-6s 6000-ish hours ... All lean of peak (in cruise, anyway) I also ingorperate elements of such into my own personal flying. So, I'm definitely not one to argue against LOP. But I do agree that it is pretty discouraging to see that the LOP fanatics here somehow seem irresistibly compelled to be insulting and denigrating to those who disagree with them, or have not yet been convinced.

As a side note, having seen Mr Deakin in action on the old Avweb forums, I know that he makes a point of being calm, rational and pleasant even in the face of provocation and would be very much against the approach seen here of insulting those who disagree with you. Kind of ironic, really.

I remember coming to Aus and being told that I HAD to set 23"2400 rpm in the cruise under ALL density altitude conditions because "that is the way we do it here in Australia" and if the MAP number exceeded the RPM number divided by 100, the engine would be "overstressed". So we sat in the aircraft and I asked the instructor why, with 29" and 0 RPM the engine wasn't in smithereens...silence. I asked for the power setting tables and got a blank expression. Full throttle height? :confused::confused:

Having flown turbocharged pistons before coming to Aus I was astounded...then all was revealed when I asked for the POH for a new type and was handed one of those black A5 "Aircraft Flight Manuals" I understood why the OWTs were so prevalent in this country. CASA had completely re-invented the wheel, information simply wasn't available and even though POHs are back some of those OWTs are STILL around. :mad::ugh:

Hmmm, tell me about these. Sounds like an Australian thing? Not being an Aus pilot, not quoite sure what you're referring to.


FWIW, the Engine manual for my airplane (C180 with O-470R) recommends setting the lowes RPM at which the engine will run smoothly, which is alway much less than 100XMAP in Inches hg.

Who are the "LOP fanatics" you are referring to, A squared?

Well, since you ask, you specifically, seem to be one who is unable to resist sneering at others who don't share your views. You're not the only one by any means.

You are mistaking my general obnoxiousness for being an "LOP fanatic".

I am not an LOP fanatic.

I am, in essence, merely pointing out that pilots who don't know how to run piston engines as efficiently and safely as practicable, and don't want to find out how to, fail airmanship 101. :ok:

Okay, perhaps "fanatic" was a poor choice of words. How about "advocate" ?

I "advocate" running piston engines as efficiently and safely as practicable. (After all, that is the definition of airmanship, is it not? Safe and efficient operation of aircraft etc...)

Sometimes that means running the engine sufficiently ROP.

Sometimes that means running the engine sufficiently LOP.

Sometimes that means running the engine at peak EGT.

It always means understanding why.

A Squared, when I got here in the early 90s, aircraft had a little A5 booklet thingy that had replaced the POH, it had some take off and landing charts (different to the manufacturer's, eg those boxy things for Cessnas instead of the manufacturer's tables, which AFAIK are STILL in the PPL exam!) and told you where the green arcs were on the T's and P's gauges. The rest of the pages were usually missing. If you were lucky it had the weight schedule and some strange Australian version of the loading charts. It had none of the standard layout of a POH and no useful information on the aircraft systems or normal operating procedures but (I was told) had superceded the POH.

I'm sure there is someone here who was around when they were introduced and can tell us what the reason, apart from the Australian necessity to reinvent perfectly good wheels, was for these things?

'A Squared',


'Lead Balloon' is a rather private PPRuNe character. But I sometimes think that he may indeed be the guy that I've been safely going flying with on GA adventures for the last 30 years.


I'm also convinced by the APS science regarding LOP operations..


Like 'Lead Balloon', I reckon that if you really understand how your aeroplane, engine and systems really work then you have a safer operation.

Thanks Jaba
I think you and yours offer a really good learning experience, for the suitably equipped engine owner.

I think you completely missed the point of my post.

TrentThank you :ok:, but let me expand a little further. For the suitably equipped engine owner, I read that as someone wh themselves is suitably equipped, not with knowledge but rather understanding.

With that understanding it makes it possible to work with a non instrumented piston engine, like my CASA friend and his cardinal. That was eye opening for him. Like the RV6 mentioned before, it means you are having to do mental representation a bit, but it sure beats a cook book.

Speaking of cookbooks. I have been talking to a Cessna TTX pilot of late. The POH is far better detailed than many early POH's but my critical assessment is they tried to make a recipe book of it and have left some dangerously vague info in there.

As is typical, the optional LOP operation is described by pages and pages of tabulated LOP fuel flows. Seriously even I glazed over and refused to study them. The simplest and safest side of the EGT curves has been over complicated by this mess that will most likely have pilots head down in a book for hours instead of flying the damned plane.

On the other hand for recommended cruise it says this;
CRUISE
1. THROTTLE Control - ADJUST (no more than 85% power
recommended)
2. PROPELLER Control - ADJUST (no more than 85% power
recommended)
3. MIXTURE Control - LEAN AS REQUIRED
NOTE
Set T.I.T. indicator to 1625°F for Best Power or refer to
Section 5, Performance, Lean-of-Peak Cruise Performance
charts for chosen altitude.
4. Elevator and Aileron Trim Controls - ADJUST
5. RUDDER HOLD Switch - ENGAGE (as desired)
6. OXY QTY Pressure - MONITOR QUANTITY (if in use)
7. OXY OUTLET Pressure - MONITOR PRESSURE (if in use)

This is where the pilots are picking up a simple set and forget, at 80-85% power, and what do you know, this will be roughly 75-125dF ROP. :ugh:

The one side of the curve on a turbocharged engine which can stress the engine (not destroy it instantly) and the best they can do is write that. Yet the safest side of the curve gets 13 pages of tables. I will concede that the ROP tables are the same, but that is where performance and range needs more complicated data. The problem is they tabulate BEST POWER mixture from 90+% downwards. Think RED BOX.

I need a BEX and a good lie down :}

All engines deserve an EMS :ok: And then there is a chance somebody can use the data for useful purposes.

Unfortunately, a manufacturer's POH pretty much has to be a bit of a cookbook. That's reality. Mind you, I'm not anti-LOP/advanced engine management in any way. However, the guy writing the POH cannot assume that the reader is knowledgeable about internal combustion theory, nor can they include a large tutorial. If your POH contains all the necessary background material to understand the techniques from the AP seminars, there's going to be a whole bunch of pilots who aren't going to read it, or are going to read it and arn't going to understand it. Like it or not, a manufacturer really has to aim for the lowest common denominator with a POH, with something along the lines of: "if you follow these steps and observe these limits, you will achieve an acceptable result". perhaps the examples you cite could have been executed better, but I don't think you're ever going to get away from a cookbook format.

A2

I understand what you mean, and yes they could have done a lot better. I could have done it in probably 2 pages (not 26), achieved a better result and been simpler to extract the range data etc. That would mean greater safety outcomes.

If I had nothing to do and was bored I would have a go at it for giggles. :8

By the way, and I expect you know this but APS is all about critical thinking and application of science and data. The rest is what people think its about. :ok:

Cheers!

I've heard that pilot is smokin' hot!