jetdriven

For the record I used to do a 270 and a 360 overhead break at 170 KIAS in a Cessna 402. Power off too. Left turns of course.

Braley talks from experience. And yes, I dont run it till it quits, I run it until fuel pressure fluctuates. Perhaps your friends in the Six switched to the other tank which was also empty? I have flown plenty of PA-32 and those have 4 tanks. Run 3 dry you got all your gas in one tank, instead of 3 gallons in each, you got 12 in one tank. Excellent comment about turbos. I wouldnt starve a turbo engine above 12k feet either. The biggest risk in running a tank dry is overspeeding the prop when it surges to life about 3 seconds after you switch tanks. Pulling the throttle and prop back prevents this. Quote: jlunseth George Braley talked about running a tank dry at the GAMI seminar, as no big deal and the best way to insure you get max range. But he flies an NA aircraft. As he described it, you will see a wobble in the fuel pressure (as someone else noted), and that is the time to switch. Friends flew to Canada for a fishing trip some years ago. Two aircraft, and they flew in formation. One aircraft (NA) failed to switch tanks. Pilot in the other aircraft said they reported trying to restart and nothing worked. That plane is still in the bush somewhere in Can. to the best of my knowledge, if someone wants it, as I recall it is a nice Piper six place of some kind. I have an accurate fuel flow meter. I have run tests on it myself, and when the engine has consumed 50 gal. it will report 50.1 . I keep a written table of the fuel used out of each tank. I will typically climb to cruise on a long trip, say FL200, and then switch. I make a note of fuel used, and fuel remaining in the climb tank, and then switch. I fly the rest of the trip, or most of it, on the new tank, and on a long trip I will fly that tank down to 0gal. indicated per the tank gauge. Invariably, the flow meter is telling me there are two or three gallons left in the tank, and that is fine with me. I then go back to the climb tank and if my fuel planning has been adequate, I have plenty of fuel in that tank to proceed to my destination and land. In the event of emergency of some kind involving that tank, I have those other two or three gallons before I am toast. In normal ops we get about 4:30 with a reserve left, and could probably squeeze 5:30 total out of the aircraft, but 4:30 gets you a long long way in a turbo, even if the winds are not friendly, so I have not seen the need to try squeeze every drop out. Even I need a bladder break at that point, let alone my passengers. I don't run the tanks dry because of the turbo. Besides what I said earlier, and Paul said, the other problem with restarting a turbo is that if you are in the Flight Levels when the engine stops and you need to descend below 12k to restart, you are now restarting a very cold engine. At a minimum you cannot power it up until you have warmed it up, and that will take some more altitude. If you are over high altitude terrain you have put yourself in very perilous circumstances. I do want to try it some day though, just so I know exactly how good the gauges are. But I think I will be over an airport and under 12k before I do. I don't think it would be good in normal ops to do in a turbo.

let's define "right of way" per the regs, not per someone's feelings. Lets hear it

the regs did standardize this, left turns unless indicated otherwise. Aircraft on final have right of way. It really is that simple. PIC discretion

What do the FARs and the AIM say? Not only about right of way but patterns in general?

So does the guy on downwind or the guy on a 4 mile final have the right of way? or a better question, who has right of way of someone is on the 45 and someone is making a crosswind entry?

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/january/feature_dogfight_pattern_entry.html http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182100-1.html

So do you folks use a 45 degree downwind entry, a crosswind entry, straight in, or some other technique to enter the pattern? The place I fly at there seems to be a great consternation about the matter, and I would like to hear who does what.

here, the fatal accident rate in a twin is 4 times the rate of singles. A piston twin is 88 times or more likely to have a fatal accident than a turboprop single. Facts folks. Not feelings. http://www.avemco.com/information/blogs/twin-engine-temptation.aspx

TEN MILLION FLIGHT HOURS Statistically speaking, the Nall report only showed 33 engine failures on certified aircraft, and turbine engines are orderos of magnitude more reliable. How many piston engines have you seen go 20,000 hours between overhauls? edited, this accident rate is for fatalities due to engine failure. Not all piston twin fatalities are due to engine failure, either. here is one for you: "Since 1985 when the first single engine turboprop went into service, all single engine turboprop aircraft COMBINED have compiled over 10,000,000 (ten million) flight hours with no (that’s zero) fatalities in North America due to engine failure." yoour fatal accident rate in a twin is .88 per 100k flight hours. Thats 88 fatalities per 10 million hours in a piston twin. Statistically the fatal accident rate for a turbine single is zero. I have approximtaely 4,000 flying hours in twin turboprops, and I have never came close to having to shut one down. There is no comparison between turbine engines and pistons. source: http://westair.com/images/pdfs//Vaughn%20Single%20Engine%20Safety%2011-15-10.pdf

if you have a fresh <50 hour overhaul, let the shop that overhauled it deal with it. And paying for it too. You gave them 20k, there is no reason to dump another thousand into it for this.

You hit the nall on the head. Before going out and buying a twin engined airplane (for perceived safety, not other factors) you can recieve training that will help prevent 90% of all accidents. Instrument rating, Commercial, unusual attitudes. Instrument refresher. Then, throw in some useful equipment that truly increases safety, anf you just upped your chances of not having an accident many times over. Thats a pretty good investment.

What is Scott's reasoning that the Lycoming, Continental, and Mooney don't know? To consider the source, the more oil changes you do the more they bill you. 25 hours is an old tradition from before full flow oil filters. Engines just had a screen then. Quote: kgbpost Scott at Arapahoe Aero recommended every 25 hrs for this enigine. my attitude is oil is cheap.

If it will run smoothly with the richest cylinder 30-50 LOP, and your CHTs are cool enough give it a try. Detonation kills cylinders and a CHT rising through the roof is a sign its beginning to occur. You can also try cleaning the injectors, maybe it will bring them closer in spread.

According to this, if I am reading right, you change yor oil every 20 hours? If so, why? The manufacturer's recommended interval is 50 hours IIRC. I haven't seen any data that a reduced power takeoff in a piston engine does anything to increase economy, safety, or longevity. You could argue it reduces safety, as you are not making as high of a perfomrance takeoff or climb, and you are lower during takeoff phase than if you were full power takeoff. Lycoming IO-540s are rated at much higher horsepowers in different appilcations and they all do full power takeoffs as well. Quote: kgbpost I burn 1 qt/10 hrs so oil changes are easy...I fill to 9 qts, when it reaches 8 on the stick I add a makeup quart, when it reaches 8 again I change it. The other technique I have experimented with quite inadvertently is reduced power takeoff. Since the boost controller requires the throttle full forward i may have inadvertantly found how to fool the controller into a reduced power TO. If the prop controller is left back 1/8" or so, The engine will maintain 2500 vs 2550RPM, but the suprising thing i found is the boost controller maintained a very comfortable 36" at 2500RPM, about 90% power. Plenty of performance under most conditions. I know we don't have tables and approved procedures for RTOP at this level, but under conditions where there is performace to spare (90% of the time in my case, and I live in Denver) It is In my opinion RTOP increases safety, comfort, longevity, etc.,. I dont use this procedure as I understand it may not be legal. I don't know. I suppose it all comes down to the way the airplane is certified to be flown. That said, this airplane was certified to be operated at 1750TIT continuously, and we all know what came of that. Even with the Bmod I havent heard of anyone operating that way, but my approved AFM says do it all day long...no problem. Ya right!

They didnt find the cracked tubes on the prebuy?

What kind of work? Putting GAMIs on it?

check the sniffle valve and the other stuff Don talks about in this link. Also check the muffler for broken or blocked flame tubes inside. http://www.donmaxwell.com/publications/MAPA_TEXT/External_Hoses/External_Hoses_Tubes.htm

John, I know the Bravo is one airplane that plysically cannot run LOP. I am not trying to convince you. But many will, and "approved" has nothing to do with it if the engine runs within limits LOP while it overheats ROP. Something like fuel, that costs perhaps 20K or more in 1000 hours, is no small expense. BSFC, is a unit of measure of efficiency, expressed in lb/hr of fuel per hour, per horsepower. ROP on a Continental IO-550BA, ROP, might be .43 whereas LOP is .39. You burn less fuel for that horsepower. Part of the savings of LOP is reducing power (you can add MP back to recover some of that) , part is increased efficiency. Yes the FF is actually a way to measure crankshaft horsepower when operating LOP, or really, at peak as well. You can set power with fuel flow, just like a turbine. If you are buring 15 GPH at peak, and increase MP, re-lean to 15 GPH its the same power. perhaps slightly more if the BSFC value comes down slightly more. 15 GPH ROP is going to be less power somewhat, as some fuel is not burned. As I understand it a Lycoming in a Bravo simply will not run smoothly LOP. Continental is way ahead of Lycoming in this matter and it shows up in the fuel flow. Its all the same aluminum as well, so it is possible. Hopefully they will see what others have been doing for about 10 years in flat engines, and 80 years in radials. Quote: johnggreen Byron, I have never had an engine that was approved for LOP. You fly the Bravo engine with TIT settings and it seems that if you go past peak TIT, the engine roughens immediately. Unless I'm at a low power setting (2400/28"), looking for mileage, I fly best power TIT 1650. Don't know much about the LOP and don't see it as a big issue for my engine. I'm mainly interested in taking care of the engine and smoothness. Any way you figure it, fuel is a "minor" portion of total costs. I've read the arguments, but don't really understand what the difference would be using 1650TT at a lower power setting vs. LOP at a higher power setting. I'm certainly NOT going to experiment with this engine as long as it is feeding out of my pocket book. I'm curious about something though if you konw. Fuel is horsepower. Would an engine being run at peak EGT at say 15 gph, be putting out the same horsepower as the same engine LOP at higher settings still burning 15 gph? JG

Well, given ISA + 10 conditions, at 2000' and 5500lb, a TBM-700 can clear a 50' obstacle with a total distance of 1,870 feet. 55 gallons an hour at near 300 TAS, can fly at 30,000 ft, and lands with a 1,300' ground roll. Absolutely incredible. http://www.caijets.com/tbm_performance_landing.php

Then you can haveall your usable fuel and some of the unusable too. In one tank where it can do the most good. Face it, if tyou have 8 gallons onboard, it might be 3 in one side and 5 in the other. id rather have all 8 in one place. For the people who say "I'll never fly into my reserve fuel" it can all change with one missed approach, or holding into your destination. Especially out west or in Canada, where the nearest airport with a low enough approach might be an hour away or more.

There IS a Market for that. Quote: docket I want a new Mooney with pressurization and a PT 6.

People are so concerned about percieved risk when the real risk goes unnoticed.

That's not a lot of use. That's flown an hour every ten days since 2003, but only an hour every month in the past 5 years. Where was the airplane based? When wa the last major overhaul? Reason for top overhaul?

John, it is my understanding that a Bravo engine just physically won't run LOP. Some engines won't. Lycoming is about 20 years behind the curve regarding LOP operations. The say "no" to every engine they built, becuase their lawyers tell them to. LOP can happen and is safe depending on which engine you run and how well you monitor it. As OSH they said they are developing a LOP program, stay tuned. Perhaps the ABS, APS, Gami, JPI, MAPA, and a few other groups can get them started. For example the Lycoming IO-360-A runs great LOP as well as the TCM IO-520B and IO-550B engines. In the Cirrus SR22 and Piper Malibu it is required. Mooney POH's (and Lycoming info) depending on year and model says to cruise at Peak EGT up to 75% power, and goes on to say lean until roughness, then enrichen slightly. On our machine thats about 90 LOP. Quote: johnggreen I have found the information as to horsepower and fuel burn both helpful and accurate. As to the LOP question asked by the other blogger, I called Lycoming and they said, NO. Period, no discussion. I don't find this a problem since the airplane is fast and reasonably efficient if you don't ask too much from your engine as far as horsepower. JG