Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: EGT/CHT vs A/F sensor for Engine Leaning

  1. #21
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Secondly, the statement that pilots and homebuilders "tend to rate ourselves superior to our peers at a rate greater than the general population" is just plain silly as it a defining characteristic of our nature as aviators - because it's true!
    You know what's bad is I almost included the phrase "case in point: Frank Giger" in that but decided to let you chime in and point that out on your own.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    i previously posted, "i've noted that when somebody asks a simple question on this forum, folks with no actual hands-on experience in that particular area will toss a wet blanket on the whole idea. some of us just ignore them."

    i should have taken my own advice. so i deleted a post i'd meant to be humorous because it was misinterpreted. i promise to someday stop trying to teach pigs to sing. sorry for wasting bandwidth.
    Last edited by Mike M; 05-02-2012 at 04:59 AM.

  3. #23
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    pilots are like gunfighters. if you don't think you're the best in the business, get out of the business. no brag, just fact.
    And the mortality rate for gunfighters is something you want to see repeated in flying? No sarcasm intended but that's an attitude that just makes me cringe.

    It would be fine if we were all able to train to a high degree and maintain sufficient hours to be Bob Hoover level stick and rudder pilots. Here's the problem: most of us are lucky to clock 100-200 hours of flight time a year for various reasons (family, work, money, etc). That's barely enough to maintain legal proficiency in a lot of cases. By the very definition of "the business", not everyone can be the "best". You find a lot of people in the middle (good but not stellar) and a few that amaze (Bob Hoover, Patty Wagstaff, Sully, Skiles, Denny Fitch, Al Haynes, Bill Records, that guy with the Beech 18, et al) and a few that just appall you with their lack of basic flying ability (Marvin Renslow, Rebecca Shaw, the crew of Air France 447, et al).

    Thinking you're the 'best' when you aren't and especially when you're not and you don't have a lot of recent experience is asking for yourself to get in over your head (to paraphrase Top Gun since you opened the door to marginal analogies) because your ego is writing checks that your flying ability can't cash. That old saw about the dearth of "old bold pilots" is around for a reason.

    No offense, but that sort of attitude is, in part, exactly what earned HEMS it's miserable safety record which is one reason why I've buried so many of my aeromedical colleagues. Pilots getting in over their heads because they thought they could outfly whatever they encountered. Let's encourage each other to identify our respective strengths and weaknesses and work on them instead of the "come home with your shield or on it" attitude that led the military to start encouraging pilots to read Tony Kern's book "Darker Shades of Blue" to bring attention to the risks inherent among even the most proficient, experienced, current and well-trained flight crews in the world.

    You shouldn't fly like you're afraid but you should know your limits and abide by them while working to address them safely. Many years ago, I heard Bob Hoover give a talk and his comment to a young military pilot who had asked a question about what it takes to be a good test pilot was to the effect of "Being a good pilot is about being lucky, skilled and smart. Success from luck and skill are the product of being smart about when you have to use luck because you've gotten past the limit of your skills." Coming from someone that is probably most people's first choice for the best stick and rudder pilot currently living (if not of all time; not to mention the most humble test pilot ever), I'd say that's a good approach to take on the matter.
    Last edited by Hal Bryan; 07-02-2012 at 03:24 PM.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    Aw, Steve, hardly nobody can touch-and-go on a CAVU morning with 3 mile an hour winds down the runway like I can. I know this based on the number of pilots who will step outside to watch me and make all sorts of gestures with their arms with smiles so big I can see as I go around.

    On a gusty crosswind day the A&P joins them. I know I'm the best because he hardly looks at the new car brochures and the Aircraft Spruce catalog he usually brings with him for some reason.

    I am a living legend, for I have ground looped a trike (no wing strike, thankfully) - how many pilots do you know that can make that claim?

    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    deleted by author
    Last edited by Mike M; 05-02-2012 at 04:59 AM.

  6. #26
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    ABSOLUTELY! Ronnie Howard, John Wayne, Richard Boone, Hugh O'Brian, etc in "the Shootist". one obviously "better" and more experienced than the others. consider how it ended.
    I've never seen it. Good movie?

    you've hijacked a post and gone off into your own little world. how might available air/fuel mixture ratio sensors be helpful for a more accurate approach to engine leaning?
    if you can't contribute ON THE TOPIC, well.....why post?
    If you notice, I ended up asking a lot of questions about what it would take to apply this to an engine since I am not an engine expert by any stretch of the imagination. The reason I voiced concern is that I know a lot more folks who are like myself when it comes to certain aspects of the design (such as engines) than the folks who can figure out how to do this.

    o far all you've contributed is how stupid, egotistic, and unsafe the rest of us
    I tend to fall into that group myself since I'm a middle of the road pilot when it comes to skills and currency. That's why I speak about things the way I do. We have to keep all of our fellow pilots- good, bad and mediocre- safe and we do that by trying to keep people from overstepping their bounds.

    I never said anything about assessments of pilot psychology that is not backed up by even a cursory review of the research on the subject so far as self-confidence and rating of one's abilities is

    knows you're a legend in your own mind.
    Not even close. I'm probably my own worst critic. I'm a mediocre stick and rudder pilot because of the fact that I don't fly enough to improve my skills. Once you get me outside of the human factors and crash survivability aspects of aviation, I'm learning just like the rest of you.

    but do you have any actual experience with A/F ratio meters?
    Nope which is why I've previously stated:
    The technology is there but at the same time we have to remember that not all of us are mechanically or electronically astute as we probably should be for such a task. I say this because I happen to be one of those people when it comes to anything firewall forward other than fire suppression. There's a very good reason why I'm going with something off the shelf for the powerplant and recognizing my own limits- which a lot of other homebuilders likely share- is the best way to keep myself and my passengers out of trouble.
    I'm one of those people who you think I look down my nose at. I have zero business trying to muck with an engine which is why I asked so many questions about what does it take to do this or that with regards to electronic fuel control and ignition. Oddly enough, those questions never were answered which leaves those of us trying to

    God's gift to aviation safety, design, construction, operations, oh almost anything.
    That's your snide assessment of me, not mine. I'm a researcher first and foremost and I only state what the evidence I have indicates so far as safety is concerned. When it comes to crash survivability ("construction"), the information I put forth is simply based on the research myself and my colleagues have conducted (which is able to pass peer review for publication so apparently I'm not too far off the mark) or the various established standards (especially the US Army's crashworthiness standards for helicopters and light aircraft). So if you think I don't know what I'm talking about then apparently the folks who wrote those regulations and standards also didn't know what they are talking about either. You know more about me when it comes to flying helicopters (because I've never flown a helicopter before) and you're not an aviation safety researcher for a living so we each have our respective areas of knowledge. I'm don't even consider myself an expert on the subject so thinking I am "G-d's gift" with regards to something isn't even close to correct.

    As for design, I'm still learning. Ask Ron Blum....I talk to him all the time about aerodynamics, etc because whenever I run into aspects of things with which I have no experience, I go find someone with the education or knowledge to learn from.

    The rest of this discussion can take place via PM to avoid a further derail. I would still appreciate some information on what it takes to apply these systems to a new engine, etc. Those questions I posed still remain unanswered and I am looking to learn in this case.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    40
    If I might be so bold as to interrupt this misguided side tour of the original post I would like to insert my .02 on the subject of fuel/air mixtures as they pertain to air cooled aircraft propulsion systems (piston type).

    I use EGT to control mixture at given power settings, and CHT to monitor engine cooling. Using both is a requirement when operating with cowl flaps and a constant speed prop.

    I was never a big fan of engine monitors until I bought a plane with a plane with a EDM-730. Great device with enormous potential. I find it is my most used instrument preflight including run-up. It will give you advance warning of a leaking exhaust valve, fouled plug, give shock cooling warnings or tell you when you forgot to open the cowl flaps.

    When you start using an engine monitor you will automatically be drawn to your engine operations manual to learn all about those power setting charts and ROP versus LOP arguments and you will get to see the results of the different settings when you fly. It's fun to be a test pilot sometimes!

    Last but not least FADEC ain't all it's cracked up to be. Sometimes its better to control your own destiny, sure Sully is a hero for landing in the Hudson, but if he'd been flying an old Pratt he would have landed with dry feet.

  8. #28
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    sure Sully is a hero for landing in the Hudson, but if he'd been flying an old Pratt he would have landed with dry feet.
    At the risk of getting branded a smartass for asking this, but might I ask why you say that? I'm not an engine guy and honestly wouldn't know a P&W from a CFM from a Rolls-Royce turbofan if you put all three of them in front of me. Is there something special about the P&W that makes them able to ingest several very large birds and still keep providing thrust and not simple catastrophically fail? I'm obviously missing something here because I don't see what FADEC has to do with an engine's operation once it's major components have been massively damaged.

    When you start using an engine monitor you will automatically be drawn to your engine operations manual to learn all about those power setting charts and ROP versus LOP arguments and you will get to see the results of the different settings when you fly. It's fun to be a test pilot sometimes!
    Do you have any other advice for those of us looking to eventually use engine monitors in our designs?
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    40
    Yes, the old fashioned turbines could be run to the point of melting the innards out of them. As long as you poured in fuel they would make thrust to the point of destruction. I have seen many examples where severely damaged old JT-8D engines saved their crews at the sacrifice of everything in the core of the engine. These events never make the headlines because there is no dramatic event to alert the media.

    The Fadec on the modern engines will shut them down when operational parameters signal an "Exceedence". It's a self preservation programing thing, personally I would rather be in charge. If I need to melt the innards out of an engine to reach safety I want the option. I'd rather not be at the mercy of some box.

  10. #30
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    As long as you poured in fuel they would make thrust to the point of destruction.
    One of bits of information I had passed along to me about the old turbines (specifically the JT-3s as most of what I have learned came from a former 707 captain I met) was that they tended to run and run and run with damage but at the same time if you sucked a large bird into them (the example used was a turkey vulture because that's what the pilot had experienced personally) they would "go to pieces". The way he described it was that if you had some sort of internal engine failure or even took out a flock of starlings or doves that caused the engine to puke, you were good but if they main fan disk was damaged massively, you were looking at shedding large chunks of the engine.

    Was I misinformed?

    These events never make the headlines because there is no dramatic event to alert the media.
    Eh....I tend to ignore most of what the media says and rely on things that come from the various investigatory bodies.
    If I need to melt the innards out of an engine to reach safety I want the option. I'd rather not be at the mercy of some box.
    Point taken. I would tend to agree.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •