Cyril Gibb

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Cyril Gibb last won the day on June 26 2017

Cyril Gibb had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

400 Excellent

About Cyril Gibb

  • Rank
    Won't Leave!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Model
    1975 M20F

Recent Profile Visitors

1,684 profile views
  1. One additional point that may not be as clear for those that haven't read enough about LOP operations: The peak pressure LOP is later in the crank rotation than for ROP because the leaner mixture has a slower flame front. That shifts the whole pressure graph to the right giving two advantages: - the pressure against rotation (pressure before TDC in the compression stroke) is lower when LOP. - the peak pressure LOP is at a point later in the crank rotation that has more mechanical advantage
  2. Regarding the turn back vs. straight ahead preferences. One topic that hasn't been broached is the probability of outcomes. Based on experimentation, I know that I can turn back with even sloppy performance to at least the airport environment from 800' agl. Although it's possible to do it in 300', I doubt I'd be successful... maybe yes maybe no. I'll practice that. If I lose an engine out of Toronto Island Airport (CYTZ) other than in the summer, the probability of survival straight ahead is close to nil due to hypothermia. If it isn't summer, survival is nil. If it fails at less than 300-400 feet, probably still within the airport environment, I'd be able to do a 90-100 degree turn to get me on to the airport clearway somewhere. If it fails at >800', I should make it back. The grey area in between is the question. In the case of CYTZ in the cool months even the slim chance of a non-fatal turn back from a low altitude is still preferable to the alternative. I've found the discussion to be thought provoking. Before this, I'd just plan on which direction to turn on engine failure to be the most favorable off airport spot. I'll now plan before takeoff which direction to turn on engine failure (into the crosswind) and adjust my turn back yes/no critical altitude to be the most survivable based on the relative risks. As @Hank said above, the time to determine the critical altitude is before you take off. No need to think, just follow the plan.
  3. I tried this a few times today while I was up doing some airwork. To do a 180, first attempt took 700' (way too fast after dropping the nose, well above Vy); second attempt was 450' (took too long to get the 45 degree bank); third attempt at sloppy Vy and aggressive bank initiation took 400'. I'd be more concerned about getting down in the airport cleared area than actually finding the runway, so I didn't try the 180 plus two 45s. Practice would probably get it down to 300-350' or less. Interesting experiment. If you're practiced and primed for this maneuver at 600' or more, turn into the wind. and be aggressive it should be successful, but maybe not pretty. I'm adding this to my periodic airwork.
  4. Oops... so much for that idea ☹️
  5. When getting something sent from the US, use USPS. They seem to have some deal with Canada Post that avoids brokerage fees. I never use Fedex or UPS from the US. However, shipping to Canada can still be a crapshoot with duties, handling charges, provincial and federal taxes... and on and on.
  6. You want a high ICP, but you also want to keep CHTs under control and minimize excessive lead/carbon deposition during this period of high blowby. LOP does that. Everything is a compromise.
  7. I’m not sure why there aren’t any comments about your experience with your newly overhauled cylinder. I think it’s pretty unusual that staking the exhaust valve should be necessary after an overhaul. Perhaps some overhaul detritus remaining that fell in to the valve seat? Could whatever that was cause the scratch on the subsequent startup? And have you asked Jewel about the overhauled cylinder having a sticking exhaust valve? That doesn’t sound right. The recommendation for breaking in is running the engine hard. Lycoming recommends 75% to prevent cylinder glazing. 25 squared at 3500 feet sounds a bit light.
  8. Your efforts are laudable and appreciated. Your product appears to be excellent and a huge leap over our old senders and gauges. I'd buy them if I had more aircraft discretionary $. My question has been if it's a safety benefit for reasonably conscientious pilots. For example, if we used 2 shoulder harnesses in case one broke, that would be a safely benefit, but the improvement would be vanishingly small. I dip my tanks before each flight and know based on many many refuelings that my accuracy is typically within 1/2 gallon. I have a fuel totalizer that is accurate to within 1/10 of a gallon. I've flown each tank to empty and know for the last quarter of each tank how much is left to about 1 gallon. (more than 1/2 tank accuracy admittedly isn't anything to write home about) I know my fuel burn within a few 10ths / hour. I always depart with at least the legal VFR/IFR reserves. If on the way to my destination any one of: burn time, totalizer or gauges indicated I was below legal reserve minimums, or if any of those factors disagreed I'd be on the ground. I don't fly into my reserve and I've never had to. Perhaps I'm missing something. What possible scenario would make me run out of fuel that more accurate fuel gauges would prevent?
  9. O.K. I concede. For those pilots who confirm their fuel by a "slight thump on the lower surface", accurate fuel gauges would be a potential life saver.
  10. Your assumption of the demographic associated with stupidity doesn't match mine. Perhaps it's an age and stage thing due to my advancing years, but I've seen stupidity spread quite evenly throughout society. Socioeconomic status, age, sex, experience ...etc etc have little to do with it. In the first example a pilot runs out of fuel after 4 hours in an aircraft with an endurance of 5 hours. Mysterious. His call to ATC demonstrated that he was aware in the last two minutes of his flight that he's got a fuel problem. I doubt very much that he thought everything was o.k. for 3:57 and then realized at 3:58 there was an issue. There's lots of airports in that area. A precautionary landing would have been more prudent. The second example a pilot runs out of gas 3/4 the way into a four hour flight, 3 hours flying in a 5 hour endurance aircraft. Mysterious. What we don't know is if the pilots were familiar with those aircraft. If they were familiar and knew the fuel burn, that was just bad planning. Stupid. If they weren't familiar with those planes and were counting on the potentially inaccurate fuel gauges to keep them safe... stupid. Even with your accurate gauges, I wouldn't count on the calibration of a new-to-me plane to be correct on a long cross country.
  11. That's assuming a tank with a depth of 4". Our wet wings are approximately 8" deep, hence less area than 43" x 43". 1 USG is about 1/4" by both logic: 1/32 of 8" = 1/4", and by measurement >= 1/4" (see 2 sample sticks above).
  12. We'll have to agree to disagree about that. It is inconceivable that 1/8" on a dipstick would result in a 3 gallon measuring error. I concede that I'd love to have your fuel senders, but it's not highest on my limited budget maintenance/enhancement priority list. Unfortunately, people will ALWAYS run out of fuel. However (barring a massive inflight fuel leak) can you provide even one example of fuel exhaustion that wasn't stupidity? I chose that word carefully. It is so easy to avoid fuel exhaustion, that stupidity is the only suitable term. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
  13. I did a quick check. If I leave a wooden stir stick in gasoline for a full 5 seconds, it wicks about 1/8" for the first 5 second dip and then 3/16" if I repeat immediately. I dip in less than a second, so the wicking error is less than 1/8". Doesn't seem like an issue to me. Secondly, I can't image a scenario where 1 gallon plus or minus would make any difference. If I'm that uncertain about being close to a go/nogo decision, I'll add fuel.
  14. The prop doesn't get moved forward, just the new spinner (with the new 201 style backplate)
  15. I think 44,000 acres is less than 69 square miles. Assuming the standard acre of 1 chain by 1 furlong. Lake Ontario is a 5 minute walk and is the smallest of the Great Lakes at 7340 square miles. Still way smaller than GB.