MERGED power curve / floats posts

[aeroncasuperchief]

This is wrong.
Engine should ABSOLUTELY be broken in at high power and low altitude. The best possible place to break in an engine is at sea level where manifold pressure is at its highest. An engine that is broken in at high altitude like you claim to be doing will not seat the rings.
Proper break in is accomplished at various power settings(IAW Lycoming/Continental SB's), up to and including significant time at 100% power. Please explain how you are doing this at an altitude that is limiting your power to approximately 50%, and also how you feel comfortable certifying that you have installed and broken in the engine with your procedure

The reason why the pic was taken was to show the owner and( ultimately ) have a post flight discussion about the inlet as compared to exit area of the cowls and possible opening up the lower cowl for extra cooling. I suspect the inlet / exits were sized more for a 0-360
I used to alternate between 75% and full power for break-ins, Many O/H shops now lean towards 75% only, Who is right?
After that pic was taken, a slow descent back to about 4000 was done. The temps returned to the green. If on the next flights they dont go over 400 degrees Im ok with that, but i would hate to cut the lower cowls only to find after break-in that it was not needed ! Lycoming suggests 400 degrees max, continuous 425 in the climb, but 375 seems the industry norm, 500 is redline and anything above 400 will show less than optimum wear/tear over time.

You are right and I am wrong WRT the high altitude and only 50% ish power. We were over Baldy within gliding distance and out of the valley because of noise concerns but in the end it would have been better to bother the residents than to delay break-in

[aeroncasuperchief]

I call bullshit on you flying backside approaches using ground speed as a reference, or that you claim you do them because they are stable

I said : you reduce your speed and land at a slower groundspeed

WOW, what misunderstandings !

You do not land on air you land on ground, it is the speed on the ground as the wheels are rolling that is of concern. in other words, the speed along the runway, that is my meaning of groundspeed.

[aeroncasuperchief]

Another misunderstanding,

I said:

If one is landing on a short snow covered ( 2 inches or less) strip, it would be wise to touchdown at the lowest SAFE speed ( that would entail a backside approach in order to be stable)

I never said backside approaches are inherently stable or are more stable that frontside approaches or even stable.
I was saying/implying that one needs to establish a stabilized ( in control, steady state) backside approach early instead of trying to do it at the last few seconds. Because a backside approach is UNSTABLE, you need to set it up early and be stabilized ( like an airline ) before low altitude .

I am putting away my dinner utensils and preparing a meal of ink and paper just for you

[rookiepilot]

460 CHT?

Dude you're not touching my gear.

[Sockpuppet]

I call bullshit on you flying backside approaches using ground speed as a reference, or that you claim you do them because they are stable

I said : you reduce your speed and land at a slower groundspeed

WOW, what misunderstandings !

You do not land on air you land on ground, it is the speed on the ground as the wheels are rolling that is of concern. in other words, the speed along the runway, that is my meaning of groundspeed.

If you want to discuss a topic concerning aerodynamics, then mentioning anything to do with ground speed is ridiculous.
Have you flown a backside approach and landing downwind before? If so, then clearly the procedure is not dependent on obtaining the lowest possible ground speed as you claim.

[Sockpuppet]

This is wrong.
Engine should ABSOLUTELY be broken in at high power and low altitude. The best possible place to break in an engine is at sea level where manifold pressure is at its highest. An engine that is broken in at high altitude like you claim to be doing will not seat the rings.
Proper break in is accomplished at various power settings(IAW Lycoming/Continental SB's), up to and including significant time at 100% power. Please explain how you are doing this at an altitude that is limiting your power to approximately 50%, and also how you feel comfortable certifying that you have installed and broken in the engine with your procedure

The reason why the pic was taken was to show the owner and( ultimately ) have a post flight discussion about the inlet as compared to exit area of the cowls and possible opening up the lower cowl for extra cooling. I suspect the inlet / exits were sized more for a 0-360
I used to alternate between 75% and full power for break-ins, Many O/H shops now lean towards 75% only, Who is right?
After that pic was taken, a slow descent back to about 4000 was done. The temps returned to the green. If on the next flights they dont go over 400 degrees Im ok with that, but i would hate to cut the lower cowls only to find after break-in that it was not needed ! Lycoming suggests 400 degrees max, continuous 425 in the climb, but 375 seems the industry norm, 500 is redline and anything above 400 will show less than optimum wear/tear over time.

You are right and I am wrong WRT the high altitude and only 50% ish power. We were over Baldy within gliding distance and out of the valley because of noise concerns but in the end it would have been better to bother the residents than to delay break-in

Glad you admit that the bearcat engine hasn't been broken in properly, and against the manufacturers procedures. So, now that it has a few hours of very low power operation, and has most likely glazed all 6 cylinders, what's your plan? Accept the high oil burn and low power till the next overhaul in 20 years?

[Sockpuppet]

460 CHT?

Dude you're not touching my gear.

460 doesn't seem out of line on a new engine, Lycoming is fine with a 500 redline.
It may have dropped a bit if Mr aeronca had increased the rpm up to 2450-2500.

[Sockpuppet]

I don't know if the backside is applicable to a canard A/C But I once demonstrated its qualities by flying 3/4 of a circuit with the A/C constantly stalling! (Muskoka Ontario many years ago) Figure that one out newbies!

Smart!

I hope you're just having fun at our expense or making stuff up, but the longer this thread goes on, the more I'm afraid you're actually serious.

Don't kill yourself or blow up an engine to impress avcanada please.

It's cold out and I'm bored, so I might as well post.
While Mr aeronca is correct in that this was most likely perfectly safe, since it is "almost" impossible to stall the main wing(the exception being accelerated), from my understanding of the regulations it could probably qualify as being an aerobatic maneuver per CAR 101.01(1)
In which case it would be illegal.

[Sockpuppet]

Another misunderstanding,

I said:

If one is landing on a short snow covered ( 2 inches or less) strip, it would be wise to touchdown at the lowest SAFE speed ( that would entail a backside approach in order to be stable)

I never said backside approaches are inherently stable or are more stable that frontside approaches or even stable.
I was saying/implying that one needs to establish a stabilized ( in control, steady state) backside approach early instead of trying to do it at the last few seconds. Because a backside approach is UNSTABLE, you need to set it up early and be stabilized ( like an airline ) before low altitude .

I am putting away my dinner utensils and preparing a meal of ink and paper just for you

Oh, ok!! I get it now! You write whatever you want, get called out on it and then just change your story claiming that what you said was meant to imply something completely different!!
Crystal clear to me now!!
I haven't had lunch yet, got any leftovers?

[Chris M]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier question:

You're in a power-off (idle) glide at minimum airspeed, just above stall. Apply power. What happens?

[PilotDAR]

We were over Baldy within gliding distance and out of the valley

Yeah, I made that mistake too in my early days of breaking in engines, and maintenance check flights - going for a tour - bad idea! I once had to idle power glide a C 206 home 40 miles, 'cause I foolishly went for a tour. Fortunately, I'd also climbed high enough, and had a tremendous tailwind, that I made it (there were alternates along the way, but I wanted to get the problem home instead of not home.) I learned my lesson, break in flights and maintenance check flights are now at a reasonable low altitude, and close to the departure point. 'Just those things we learn from bad experiences!

[C.W.E.]

or the time I landed with my brother in a 95 MPH sandstorm on our way to Mexico in a C-150. Not only have pics but witnesses, however, certain basement dwelling folks on Av-Canada could never believe!

Care to tell us about it?

[rookiepilot]

or the time I landed with my brother in a 95 MPH sandstorm on our way to Mexico in a C-150. Not only have pics but witnesses, however, certain basement dwelling folks on Av-Canada could never believe!

Care to tell us about it?

Yeah. Was it a crosswind?

[hotdog1]

or the time I landed with my brother in a 95 MPH sandstorm on our way to Mexico in a C-150. Not only have pics but witnesses, however, certain basement dwelling folks on Av-Canada could never believe!

Care to tell us about it?

Yeah. Was it a crosswind?

Crosswind? What kind if newbie are you? It was a tailwind!! And the gusts were hurricane strength but it’s ok cause the c-150 was at gross weight so it wasn’t affected tooo much by the wind.

[aeroncasuperchief]

Oh, ok!! I get it now! You write whatever you want, get called out on it and then just change your story claiming that what you said was meant to imply something completely different!!
Crystal clear to me now!!
I haven't had lunch yet, got any leftovers?

Remember that time when Astronaut Buzz Aldrin punches Bart Sibrel , the moon landing denier? Well, Im Buzz and you are the nitwit Bart !

I am speaking from my experiences and my understanding and the meaning of what I wrote earlier is EXACTLY how I explained it to you , Bart, the troll!

[aeroncasuperchief]

You're in a power-off (idle) glide at minimum airspeed, just above stall. Apply power. What happens?

Are you holding a tight grip on the control wheel? If you are, your ASI thingamajiggi will point at bigger numbers!
If you forgot to hold onto those horse straps, She is gonna rear up on you and try to buck you off, but I suspect she will run a little faster in her attempt

[aeroncasuperchief]

If you want to discuss a topic concerning aerodynamics, then mentioning anything to do with ground speed is ridiculous.
Have you flown a backside approach and landing downwind before? If so, then clearly the procedure is not dependent on obtaining the lowest possible ground speed as you claim.

Perhaps we can use another term so as not to confuse you further.

Lets call it rolling velocity ( RV)

As you approach on the backside in a headwind, you , my friend take note of the asi as a trend instrument , your power level and seat of the pants are a little more important. Now, by George, all was done fine and you touch down on terra firma ! But that aint the end of it, You need to stop before the big sturdy trees .

Now answer me this : If your "rolling velocity " ( ground speed ) is twice of what the folks at Cessna figured you needed to stop before the tree, what do you think the outcome would be?


In the air, the A/C knows nothing of ground speed , On the ground, your plane and your beloved sphincter will surely know !

[aeroncasuperchief]

So, now that it has a few hours of very low power operation, and has most likely glazed all 6 cylinders,

Your assuming ! Assume makes an ASS out of U and ME

Out of 8 hrs. Approx 30 min was at high alt/ and lower power settings. Having flown approx. 80% at 70-75% ( the remainder was final approach to landing ) I would suspect that the engine is being broken in well. Lycoming operators manual revision 2009 does state 65-75 % power for break-in

[C.W.E.]

Lets call it rolling velocity ( RV)

This is getting more bizarre by the minute.

I keep trying to ignore these posts but it is like driving by a train wreck, one just can not help looking at it.

[rookiepilot]

https://goo.gl/images/ctZkMj