Aircraft without a loss of oil pressure procedure

[johns7022]

S and F handle?...do tell....

[SNS3Guppy]

Johns7022's account sounds very much like a walter mitty-esque account of nothing.

Something in the governor making metal? Really? Do you know what's inside your governor?

When the boss gives you a C425 to fly...you can choose to feather the prop..and if the oil that you see coming from the front of the nacel translates into something in the governor making metal...and the prop doesn't feather..

That sounds very dramatic. Are you telling us that you were unable to feather the propeller on the Cessna 425 that you were allegedly flying? Bearing in mind that it's a free turbine motor, with substantially less drag than other types of turboprop installations, and that it feathers upon loss of power or oil, are you trying to tell us that you were unable to feather because the "governor was making metal?" If so, I very much doubt your story. If you're simply starting out for dramatic effect without saying anything, you're doing well, so far.

You now get to fly single engine...Vse holds 3000 FPM....let that sink in Brian...put the Fosters down.....3000 FPM....DOWN.....

Without any hesitation, we get to the meat and potatoes of clear evidence that you haven't a clue. Either you're attempting to tell us that with an engine-out, the 425 descends at the rate of 3,000 fpm per minute, or it climbs at that rate. Clearly it doesn't climb at that rate and you do seem to be suggesting that the airplane won't do better than a 3,000 fpm descent...which is how we know right off the bat that you're lying to us. Why? Because it's not true.

Even the Cessna 421, from which the 425 was developed, had better performance than that. 3,000 fpm with the loss of an engine? Have you looked at the performance tables at all, or did you simply invent that fable without any reference to actual data, at all?

Can you dead stick a turboprop from 24000 ft into a runway, doing 3000 FPM, all the while the plane wants to flip over with all the drag from the windmilling prop? Then when you get there, if you don't get it right...you can't climb and hit short, with passengers, in the dirt at 3000 FPM...and how's your flare going to be with a windmilling prop...you'll flip the plane...

Alrighty, then. You really were trying to lie to us and suggest (perhaps even with a straight face) that you can't do better than 3,000 fpm down with one engine failed and unfeathered. Gotcha. (as in, gotcha, caught you in the lie).

If you're concerned about the airplane "wanting to flip over," perhaps you never learned the basics Vmc in multi engine airplanes. At your best rate speed, you're concerned about "flipping over?"

You're planning on making a descent to the runway at this mythical 3,000 fpm?

How's your flare going to be with a windmilling propeller? No different, actually. By the time you reduce both engines to idle, then you've got no significant difference. Land a little faster, as you must.

You shouldn't be thinking about going around single engine anyway, feathered, or not...why bring it up at all? It's a stupid idea.

You seem overly concered about getting to the runway and "getting it right." You are aware, hopefully, that one is expected to get it right upon arrival at the runway every time. Even if one is idiotic enough to dive at the runway at 3,000 fpm (apparently because one doesn't know the first thing about flying the airplane, or the principles behind it).

You'll "flip the plane" with a windmilling propeller? Really? Have you ever actually flown an airplane in your life? Have you ever flown one with a windmilling propeller, to a landing? Surely you're either a wind-up (troll) or entirely devoid of any experience around airplanes (of course you are: you're SSG, the return-troll, just as you've already been called-out), without even the benefit of having flown a model twin. If you did have even the slightest modicum of experience, you'd realize how foolish your comments are, and frankly you'd know enough to be embarrassed.

So I chose to drop like a rock, flight idle, speed brakes, in a FLYABLE plane doing 10000 FPM, and 250kts...and probably have two working engines to guarantee the landing.....

Ah, it gets better. No longer 3,000 fpm, you're doing ten thousand feet per minute in the descent (I hope you managed to flare without "flipping over").

With one working engine, one descends at 3,000 fpm (an apparently unacceptable, yet amazing number, given that the airplane drifts down at a much slower rate, even with one windmilling), yet you elected to use two engines to come down at the rate of 10,000 fpm. Were your passengers pleased? Virtual passengers, no doubt, because this event didn't take place, did it? Of course not.

You need two engines to guarantee the landing? You were uncertain about it a moment ago, even worried about "flipping the plane." But with two engines you guaranteed the landing? Now here's the curiosity; you were concerned about going around if you didn't get the landing right, but you're willing to take a propeller that you can't feather into the go-around because you've "guaranteed your landing?" You don't see the lack of logic in this stupidity? You're afraid to land with one propeller windmilling, (thousands of pilots do it on a regular basis, mind you, landing with windmilling propellers--it's called idle power), yet you initiate dramatic and unnecessary descents to save yourself from catastrophy, clearly concerned about the go-around, with your intent of using the bad engine and bad propeller (the one that's making metal from the governor, remember) for the missed approach or go-around. Did you think at all before you typed this? I know you didn't think before you did it, because you didn't do it.

Setting all of that aside, if you've got a windmilling propeller, which is one being driven by the slipstream, and no way to control the propeller, do you really think increasing airspeed excessively is a smart move? Do you understand why it's not?

You've asserted, in a smart-ass sort of way thus far, several times, that one should intuitively know what to do in a low-oil or low oil-pressure situation. This was your solution: dive at 10,000 at high speed with an engine pumping out oil, without shutting the engine down, in order to be safe. This is your solution? That's your intuitive solution? That's the best that comes to you naturally? I'd really be petrified to see what you'd come up with if you had a moment to actually think. Spooky.

And it worked...hear that? It worked...that's right...let me repeat for the PC pilots...it worked. Downside of my choice...maybe...the oil would have run out, and a bearing cooked...but with no power on it..I doubt it...

No, it didn't work, because you didn't do it, and not even you (SSG, internet troll) is likely to do something so boneheaded and stupid. That aside, you tell us that you had "no power on it," but previously told us that you kept both engines running so that you had power. For your 10,000 fpm dive. To save yourself and your passengers from certain death. And from "flipping the plane."

Edit, before you seek out a publisher. You don't want to hurt her from laughing too much.

Please, expand a bit. Let's see you dig this hole a bit deeper.

Brian Abraham had you pegged correctly. Most comical of all is that you're questioning his experience. Making correct choices isn't really your thing, is it?

[de facto]

i should stop reading Johns 72 knowledge and all the answers, I am having way too much fun

No, it didn't work, because you didn't do it, and not even you (SSG, internet troll) is likely to do something so boneheaded and stupid.

Guppy loved that last post,I admire your dedication,please proceed

[aerobat77]

S and F handle?...do tell....

on a garrett engine absolutely yes. feathering the prop here always means also shutting the engine down. this engine is an another story than the pt6. you will find an (emergency)shut and feather handle on a garrett.

let me also one more time highlight one post of me regarding exactly this where i already said that it is impossible to run a garrett with a feathered prop and where guppy replies that this is not true.... ( posting #40)

what we can say: it is technically IMPOSSIBLE to keep a tpe331 running with the prop feathered- instead of a pt6 where stopping the prop will not stop the core

So I chose to drop like a rock, flight idle, speed brakes

john, afaik the C425 does not have any speed brakes.
what is right that on a small turboprop with engines in idle and props forward you truly will go down like a rock, yes.



in general i think it would very much clean up pprune when on registration and claiming being or was being a real driver / FE or mechanic some confirmations for this would be required. i would have no problem to scan my pilots licence with ratings i have since it is not that secret, and than we can open two logs: "tech log" and "wannabe tech log" .

[18-Wheeler]

Should I perhaps regale the story where I had a runaway warp core on the Metro 3 and had to use the Martin-Baker ejection capsule.


(Question has been answered, feel free to entertain yourselves)

[aerobat77]

yeah, go ahead ! i bet one expert will quickly jump in and provide us with technical informations on martin-baker capsules he had experienced in real live !

[18-Wheeler]

Oh okay, it's just the technical description I use for when this happens ...

YouTube - Playing a tune on the Metro

Close one, that was ....

[aerobat77]

i think i found the video report on the catastrophic engine failure in a canyon reported here previously.

YouTube - toy plane crash

how NOT to ride an multiengine aircraft

YouTube - Toy Airplane Crash!

[johns7022]

Guppy, I tire of getting you guys up to speed..

Call up Cessna in Wichita...or go to the Cessna 425 Manual look for the Un-feathered performance numbers on this aircraft...and if your an MEI you would know that most twins have these numbers...the C425 doesn't....don't believe me...look it up...when you don't find it, make the calls, call up Flightsafety...when you have done your homework post back here and then tell about how you would fly a Conquest Unfeathered....

Now if you want to take my word for it...then you might ask that if you have a running engine, with no temp increase and some oil coming off the side...would you want to shut the engine down, cavitate the fuel pump rendering your engine inop, costing the boss some money, spending three days in the middle of nowwhere trying to get some one qualified to FLY OUT, with a pump, put it on the plane, flush the oil, and bring 12 cans out....

or maybe just do to flight idle, on two running engines, get er down, have the extra engine if you need it getting into a tight little runway.

So insults and idiocies aside...when you guys actually have someone hand you a plane to fly with peeps in the back...you can make these decisions or not.

I'm still here, I remain.

[Old Fella]

Verification of Claimed Experience & Licences Held

I have no trouble with the suggestion by aerobat77 that those posting on these forums, where genuine questions are asked seeking to improve one's knowledge in the hope that reliable advice will be given, it be required that before being allowed to post evidence be provided to PPRuNe to support one's claimed experience and/or licences held. Mine is an open book, not so sure about some others.

[johns7022]

So your an open book Old Fella? Well please do, list your resume...at least someone here will actually read a post before responding.

[Old Fella]

Open Book

johns7022. Please check your PM's inbox.

[SNS3Guppy]

Now if you want to take my word for it...then you might ask that if you have a running engine, with no temp increase and some oil coming off the side...would you want to shut the engine down, cavitate the fuel pump rendering your engine inop, costing the boss some money, spending three days in the middle of nowwhere trying to get some one qualified to FLY OUT, with a pump, put it on the plane, flush the oil, and bring 12 cans out....

I certainly don't want to "take your word for it," given what you've written in this thread. You've described an inability to feather a propeller as handled by making a 250-knot, 10,000 fpm descent to a "tight little runway" because your'e afraid of "costing the boss some money" and having to "bring 12 cans (of oil?) out."

Shutting an engine down cavitates the fuel pump, does it? Shutting an engine down renders the engine inoperative because it's "cavitated the fuel pump?" Are you honestly suggesting that shutting down a PT6A engine in flight will ruin the motor by "cavitating the fuel pump?" Again, clear evidence that you really have no idea what you're saying.

You appear to have attempted to say that you couldn't feather the propeller. You haven't actually said this, and as you didn't shut the engine down, clearly you didn't try. You've alluded to the "propeller governor making metal," but that wasn't the case now, was it? You know it wasn't, nor were you unable to feather the propeller. Thus, with your "peeps" on board, you tell us that your solution to a problem you hadn't defined or addressed was to dive at 10,000 fpm at 250 knots for a "tight little runway." This, of course, after you've already told us that the best you were able to maintain with one propeller unfeathered was a 3,000 fpm descent.

You don't see the conundrum you've created, here?

If indeed your powerplant was producing power, then "flipping the airplane" wasn't really the issue you imagine it to be, nor was the attendant drag rise such that you seem to describe. If indeed such a drag rise occurred, you certainly didn't help it any by cruising at 250 knots to your "tight little runway," not did you improve your control by descending at 10,000 fpm (no small feat in a Conquest, mind you).

You suggest that with one engine inoperative, you were held to a minimum of a 3,000 fpm descent, suggesting that literally the airplane was falling out of the sky. Never the less, with the engine operative, you fell out of the sky at three times that rate. You're truly a complex character.

Let's briefly consider the judgment issue. We're not paid as professions for our monkey flying skills, but for our judgment. Yours, according to your own accounts, is non-existent.

You believe you have a problem which risks the life of the engine, and risks "flipping the airplane," and which prevents you from doing any better than a 3,000 fpm descent. You have "peeps" on board. You elect to fly into a "tight little runway." You do this to save the "boss some money," and best of all, to keep from having to "bring 12 cans." Good tradeoff; risk everybody's life to prevent having to "bring cans."

I see that elsewhere on this forum you've been asking for a job, and you state that you don't work and play well with others (except the boss). Evidently so, because your actions as described are both unprofessional and borderline criminal with regard to the lives of the "peeps" on board.

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-fl...ml#post6084111

Dual Rated, 10k hours, 20+ Years Corporate, 45
Degree, First Class. Corp jets, Tprops and Helos
Prefer a single pilot Citation Job, or Trprop.
Does not play well with others except the boss.

Turn key kinda guy, go to school, easy to insure, fly anything.

Will to go anywhere warm in domestic US, prefer SE.

Will consider offshore, location will be primary factor.

Are you certain that you want to hold out a hand looking for work and on the same site post such ignorant drivel about endangering "peeps" and gross misunderstanding of systems knowledge and aircraft performance?

The Cessna 421, incidentally, was considerably lower powered than the Conquest, and yet had nowhere near the dismal rate of descent with an unfeathered engine...even a geared, propeller installation with much higher drag and much lower power on the good engine. Truly amazing that you're unable to do better than a 3,000 fpm fall from the sky with one powered back (yet manage three times to the worse with both engines operating).

It's a shame you weren't available to counsel Cessna to put a warning in the aircraft flight manual about the dire circumstance of being unable to feather a propeller (unable being in question; apparently you didn't try): "WARNING: In the event either propeller cannot be feathered in flight, anticipate a minimum descent rate of 3,000 feet per minute" or just as importantly "WARNING: performing an inflight engine shutdown will result in fuel pump cavitation and destruction of the engine, or may result in the need to bring 12 cans." Think of the lives you could save (if you weren't busy risking them, of course, by your other actions, already on record...)!

or maybe just do to flight idle, on two running engines, get er down, have the extra engine if you need it getting into a tight little runway.

With one engine unfeathered, you think the fuel pump would have cavitated (laughable concept: you're aware it's a free turbine engine, right? You're aware that in the PT6A a windmilling propeller doesn't drive the gas generator or accessory section, right? Even if the engine in question weren't a free-turbine engine, you really think that the fuel pump would be destroyed by an inflight shutdown?)

Now, this is a technical forum, the thread in question dealing specifically with loss of oil or oil pressure, and the procedures for such loss. Your professionalism should be largely irrelevant here, save for your having forcefully injected it into the conversation, as well as having mocked multiple posters for their positions or comments (let's face it, it's what you do). You've held yourself up as the gold standard for pilot judgment and for intuitive action; it was you that told us that a pilot shouldn't have every procedure given him and that he should simply know what to do.

Clearly you don't.

Therefore, addressing your folly, seeing as you've foisted it upon us, is most certainly fair game, and the beating shall continue.

Call up Cessna in Wichita...or go to the Cessna 425 Manual look for the Un-feathered performance numbers on this aircraft...and if your an MEI you would know that most twins have these numbers...the C425 doesn't....don't believe me...look it up...when you don't find it, make the calls, call up Flightsafety...when you have done your homework post back here and then tell about how you would fly a Conquest Unfeathered....

How does one fly a conquest "unfeathered?" First of all,one doesn't feather a conquest; one has the option of feathering either (or both) propellers, but that's about it.

You're familiar with a windmilling propeller, are you not? You're familiar with landing at idle power? Surely you've been trained to fly the airplane without the propeller feathered? You haven't? You've had no training?

You're suggesting that FSI taught you that the airplane can't do better than a 3,000 fpm descent with one engine windmilling and unfeathered? Really? You invoked FSI; say it for the record, then. FSI taught you this? Cop to the lie; make it official, then.

You suggested that the propeller couldn't be feathered because "the governor was making metal." We know this is a lie. You didn't try to feather it, did you? No, you didn't, and you've told us you didn't, because you were afraid of "cavitating the fuel pump." Setting aside your garishly obvious gross misunderstanding of powerplant operation and function, the fact is that you blindly took the actions you describe without making any effort to follow procedure. You had no knowledge of loss of oil, beyond a description of some oil viewed on the nacelle. Had you lost the oil, your propeller would have feathered.

In fact, you told us previously that the problem wasn't the governor "making metal," but in fact an o-ring causing some oil loss. Therefore, you had no reason for failing to follow the procedures that I KNOW Flight Safety (et al) would have taught you, had you actually been there, and that the aircraft manufacturer provides for you.

The issue was never whether the propeller would feather; you didn't have a "governor making metal," and you didn't have a propeller you couldn't feather, and you did have a propeller system that would have automatically feathered if you had lost the oil. You claim a 3,000 fpm minimum descent with an engine out, but managed 10,000 with both running. You claim you were afraid of damaging the engine by "cavitating the fuel pump" but were afraid that you were losing all your oil so you elected to fly the airplane with both engines operating anyway (afraid to hurt the airplane, so you operated believing you were running out of oil and "making metal."). If you didn't know enough to be embarrassed before, you certainly should now, but if not now, you don't know enough to open the door on the Conquest, let alone fly it, which brings us back to Brian Abrahams assertion (as well as mine, as well as other posters who see you for what you are) that you're an imposter and fraud and speaking from your backside. Nobody could claim to be a professional and be this ignorant of basic procedures and systems. Nobody. Certainly not even a ten thousand hour pilot who doesn't play well with anybody but the boss.

Guppy, I tire of getting you guys up to speed..

This is truly a shame, because much as I hesitate to admit it, I'm really looking forward to your next installment.

[SinglePilotCaptain]

How about this.....a thread limited to those could show a picture of themselves sitting left seat, up in the air, of a jet?

[johns7022]

Guppy...take up a Pt6....do the emergency shut down, and when you shut off the fuel, say goodbye to the restart, say good bye to the fuel pump...this is why you don't do those in Tprops...if you flew one...you would know..

And who said the C425 doesn't have speed brakes?
If you are sitting there at FL240 seeing oil stream from the front of the nacelle...you can ASSUME your governor is ok, you can ASSUME the feathering device is working...you know...because in your sad little word...I guess all engines, governors, radios, electrical and hydraulic systems always work.

I chose not to take an abnormal, and turn it into an emergency.

It is so abundantly clear Guppy, your a legend in your own mind...you wanna hash this out..PM me with your phone number and you can educate me...seriously.

If you called up Cessna to get the unfeathered numbers on the C425...you would know what I am talking about..

[Brian Abraham]

Folks, may I offer the advice given me by another prooner.

Reminds me of the aphorism, never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

[411A]

take up a Pt6....do the emergency shut down, and when you shut off the fuel, say goodbye to the restart, say good bye to the fuel pump...this is why you don't do those in Tprops...if you flew one...you would know..

Odd, this one.
Back in the mid to late nineteen sixties, I operated PT6 powered airplanes (BE99's mostly) and we did all the training in the airplane...including engine shut down/restart, multiple times.
Never had any sort of problem....the engine started up just fine.

Shock/horror...maybe we were doing it all wrong.

[johns7022]

Maybe back in the 'good old days' you cavitated fuel pumps...and back in the good old days...you pulled it back to flight idle but never feathered the prop..and possibly when you did this...you were sitting there with the chief pilot on a nice day, no people on board, nothing to lose but someone else's plane.....engine, fuel pump ect..

Reminds of guys telling me they do engine shutdowns all the time...but when you ask when and where and what engines...everyone gets quiet... only an idiot takes the boss's plane up to shock cool the piston twin..and on a Tprop...you better have it together on a million dollar bird with passengers in the back...

I guess it's all fun and games when you don't have to get the plane fixed or stand there when the boss's get the bill..

Wouldn't it be nice.

[SNS3Guppy]

Guppy...take up a Pt6....do the emergency shut down, and when you shut off the fuel, say goodbye to the restart, say good bye to the fuel pump...this is why you don't do those in Tprops...if you flew one...you would know..

Okay, you really didn't know enough to be embarrassed before. This really confirms what we already knew. Very well, then.

Are you possibly familiar with the concept of feathering the propeller on a constant speed installation? This involves streamlining the propeller blades to reduce drag. There is a procedure established for shutting down the engine, and this procedure does not involve "cavitating the fuel pump." Furthermore, shutting off the fuel does not destroy the engine, the fuel pump, or prevent a restart.

We've covered this ground earlier in the thread, in fact. Where oil quantity loss is evident, sometimes one may be prudent to shut down the engine, prevent further oil loss, and restart later.

If you lose all your oil, your propeller will feather in the Conquest. If you knew anything at all about the airplane, you'd know that.

Apparently you've never shut a motor down in flight before. You seem to be under the misguided belief that shutting down the engine in flight precludes starting it again, and precludes re-using the engine again. In fact, you seem to believe it will destroy the engine.

If you shut down the engine, whether the propeller feathers or not, the engine stops. The propeller doesn't drive the engine in the PT6. Are you not aware of this? How exactly does the fuel pump fail, if it's not rotating?

Are you aware that every engine shutdown occurs as a result of shutting off fuel? If it can't be terminated at the fuel control, then it's terminated at the fuel shutoff; either way, the fuel pump does not suffer damage. Particularly not in the brief moment of shutdown.

Do you believe that if the propeller cannot be feathered, the slipstream will continue to drive the propeller, which will continue to drive the engine, which will cause the "cavitated" fuel pump to be destroyed? If so, then you don't understand the engine.

If you would have shut down the engine, however, the propeller would have feathered. Your complaint here regards an engine and propeller that was mechanically sound, but which was experiencing an oil leak due to what you describe as a bad o-ring. In other words, there is nothing here that would have prevented you from following the procedures that Cessna prescribes, that Flight Safety International teaches (FSI teaches only what the manufacturer provides, incidentally, and has a strict policy against creating procedures).

You have stated that for whatever reason, you believed the "propeller governor was making metal." While this is laughable, let's pretend that you really did imagine this to be the case. If you believed that metal was being circulated in the engine, what possible excuse would you have had for not shutting it down ASAP and getting the propeller feathered? Oil is lifeblood, you see. Metal being circulated by oil is cancer. You're worried about the fuel pump (incorrectly worried, mind you, because you have no idea what you're talking about), but have no concern about operating the engine while you believe it's "making metal?" This is the real world, and in the real world, we consider such thinking nonsensical, and excessively stupid.

In fact, there's an expression you may have heard: cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. You're willing to destroy the engine to save the fuel pump, or willing to spend a dollar to save a penny. How much good would that fuel pump be, if you destroyed the engine by flying it while it was "making metal?" Furthermore, if you were concerned at all about the "propeller governor making metal" (I still get a kick of out that; you're funny), why in the name of St. Francis of The Talking Burro wouldn't you have feathered the damn thing while you had the chance?

When one does training in the airplane, one shuts down and restarts the engine. One can do this, you see, including feathering the propeller, because it doesn't hurt the engine. Did someone actually tell you otherwise? A little knowledge on your part is truly a dangerous thing.

I chose not to take an abnormal, and turn it into an emergency.

No, you actually did make a potential emergency. With a failed governor, or with your misguided belief that you had a failed propeller governor "making metal" (still cracks me up), you elected to increase your airspeed: not just enough to maintain controlled flight, but to 250 knots in a 10,000 fpm descent. Do you understand why this is a really stupid idea with a failed governor and uncontrollable propeller (which you didn't have, of course, but you didn't bother to find out)?

You really never attempted to feather the engine, did you?

And who said the C425 doesn't have speed brakes?

Nobody, actually. Why did you bring it up? What has it to do with the price of tea in china?

If you are sitting there at FL240 seeing oil stream from the front of the nacelle...you can ASSUME your governor is ok, you can ASSUME the feathering device is working...you know...because in your sad little word...I guess all engines, governors, radios, electrical and hydraulic systems always work.

Well, you see, that's the beauty of it. You don't have to assume. If you'd tried to shut down the engine, you'd have known. What you did was assume that you had a problem that didn't exist.

Feathering device? What "feathering device?" You really don't understand this propeller governor concept, do you?

In my little world, I don't have to assume. If the engine is leaking oil, I have two choices. I can shut it down, or I can keep the engine running. If I suspect the engine is "making metal," I'm shutting it down. Especially if I'm at 24,000' at the time. That's a lot of driftdown time, especially with the propeller feathered.

All your banter and bluster about a propeller that couldn't be feathered is irrelevant, because this one could be feathered. You never tried. That's a little like having an engine on fire and not trying the fire bottle, because you *think* it might not work, or being in freefall with a parachute malfunction and not using your reserve because you're afraid it might fail. Idiotic. You guessed, you assumed, you imagined that your propeller governor was "making metal" and thus failed do perform the basic safety-related task of flying the airplane, which included securing the questionable engine.

Now, you've already told us at great length that you don't need checklists and procedures to tell you what to do, that a great pilot (such as yourself) should rely upon intuition and intimate systems knowledge and understanding (none of which you remotely possess). None the less, you've invoked a well known name for safety training (which puts great emphasis on procedure, checklist use, and of course, airmanship). You elected not to follow procedure, not to use the checklist, and not to follow the manufacturers recommendations and actions. Subsequently, you made wild, unfounded assumptions, and did nearly everything wrong (save for actually surviving the experience, but even the correctness of that is somewhat questionable).

Keep digging; the beating shall go on.



--Oh, boy, that didn't take long. Let's continue, then...

Maybe back in the 'good old days' you cavitated fuel pumps...and back in the good old days...you pulled it back to flight idle but never feathered the prop..and possibly when you did this...you were sitting there with the chief pilot on a nice day, no people on board, nothing to lose but someone else's plane.....engine, fuel pump ect..

Shutting down doesn't "cavitate fuel pumps."

When training in the airplane, of course one feathers the prop. Don't be an idiot. Of course one fuel chops the engine. That's why it's called a shutdown. Inflight shutdowns and restarts are not harmful to the engine, of done properly. That you don't know this is a clear indictment of your lack of understanding of the most basic principles of operation and procedure. In other words, when it comes to the issue of your fraud, what you're doing here is giving it your stamp of approval.

Reminds of guys telling me they do engine shutdowns all the time...but when you ask when and where and what engines...everyone gets quiet... only an idiot takes the boss's plane up to shock cool the piston twin..and on a Tprop...you better have it together on a million dollar bird with passengers in the back...

I can give you a long list of airplanes I've flown in which I've shut down engines in flight, ranging from J-3 cubs to Boeing 747's. I've shut down PT6's, TPE-331's, T-56's, TFE-731's, JT9D's, JT-12's R-2600's, R-3350's, R-985's, TSIO-360's, 0-320's, A-65's, and a long, long list of others ranging from horizontally opposed reciprocating engines to radial piston to turboprop to turbojet and turbofan engines. A few in abnormal or emergency situations, some during maintenance test flying, many during training, and so forth. Get quiet about it? The only thing that gets quiet is the engine. I've done it with the FAA on board, with check airman on board, with a plethora of students on board, and yes, with passengers on board as well as cargo. Go figure.

You'd better have it together with a million dollar airplane, as well as a two hundred million dollar airplane, as well as a fifteen thousand dollar airplane. You'd better have it together in any airplane. Any helicopter. Any airship. You're expected to have it together no matter what you fly, including a balloon. You don't.

Shock cooling? You're sure you want to go there?

I guess it's all fun and games when you don't have to get the plane fixed or stand there when the boss's get the bill..

Not really...but then a professional doesn't do that. One is expected to be able to do these things without having to get the airplane fixed, because one can do them without hurting the airplane, because these are routine procedures one should know intimately and be able to perform without hesitation. It appears that you can't. Maybe you don't play with the boss so well after all, or perhaps you just play too much. Who knows. You certainly don't play aviator well now do you?

Wouldn't it be nice.

Wouldn't it?

[johns7022]

Guppy..when you cut off the fuel from a windmilling turbine engine...what will the mechanical fuel pump do when it doesn't have fuel to lubricate it?

No long answers...no dissertations on how stupid I am...what does a mechanical fuel pump do when you starve it off fuel.

Care to answer that? Now if, you have ever been IN CHARGE of an aircraft meaning you are RESPONSIBLE for it....you might think twice about taking it up...on the boss's nickel and shutting down engines for fun...just a thought...

Or maybe you have already been canned from a few jobs?

As far as why a tprop feathers...are you so stupid as to think that the anti torque system on the Conquest is there, because you happen to think that when the engine shuts off of a freewheeling turbine....that the prop goes right into feather..?

Well Pratt and Cessna don't think so.....

How nice...now we can call up Cessna and tell them that they can take off all the anti torque systems because Guppy said they don't need them.....

And did you think that the reason for the anti torque system being there had a little more to do with just the pilot reaching over and feathering the prop, but maybe, you know...just maybe...Pratt and Whitney....you know the engine guys...had little faith in the ability of the pilot to feather a failed engine in time before that big ol three bladed McCauley or 4 blade Hartzell created so much drag that Vmc would be reached in in no time, and just to keep the plane flying, you needed to go down, to the tune of 3000 FPM...holding enough power on the good side, but enough speed forward to counteract so much asymetrical yaw and roll that the plane was almost un--flyable..

No of-course not...because Guppy knows more then Cessna and Pratt and Whitney....

Thanks Guppy...for setting all of us straight....