Scudrunners

One more he would have made it for sure.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/rou ... ff-attempt

$10 says he learned to fly on a Lycoming fuel injected engine, and he
tried to take off with the boost pump on, with a CONTINENTAL fuel
injected engine!

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_ ... 4106&key=1

Witnesses observed the airplane climbing westbound ”belching” black smoke, then the engine stopped

the engine’s electric boost pump provides pressure for starting and emergency operation only.

The handbook cautions that use of the electric boost pump during normal operations can result in an overly rich fuel/air mixture, possibly flooding the engine.

Betcha at least one person reading this RIGHT NOW didn't know that.

Note that the last 3 days it's been hotter than hell when I've flown, and
boost pump was ON - for LYCOMING.

I've spent the last 49 years flying behind a fuel-injected Continental -
with the boost pump OFF for takeoff and landing!

Colonel wrote: ↑

Tue May 26, 2020 2:26 pm

Betcha at least one person reading this RIGHT NOW didn't know that.

That would be me.

Seems like poor design to allow that to happen but perhaps they have a good reason for it to be that way.

Continental designed engines in a simpler time, when aircraft did what you told them to do.

This is not the behavior that pilots are looking for in the 21st Century.
You know. Auto-correct. Blue buttons on the dash to make the sky be up.

Pilots don't know what to do, so machinery makes the decisions. Remember
the guy that held the stick all the way back for 3.5 minutes until everyone
on board AF447 died. That worked out well.

Personally, I like simple, honest aircraft that do exactly what I tell them to do,
when I tell them to do it.

I understand this is not a popular opinion, and pilots like me are supposed to
be in a museum, jail or cemetery. 60 degrees of bank is NEVER to be exceeded.



Well, that worked out well, when the airplane started making decisions
instead of the pilot.

Ok. Beat the fuel pump trap to death.

Can anyone think of some other reasons why an aircraft could run-up
ok (say at 1700 RPM) but not perform well at WOT?



I'll give you a hint. After my 1700 RPM runup, I briefly increase the
RPM to 2400 and try, generally in vain, to stop the forward motion
of the aircraft.

Any ideas why?

Im thinking dingleberry leaned for takeoff.

1) sticking exhaust valve(s) at higher RPM
2) fuel flow problem at high RPM (flows low GPH ok)
3) ignition problem (not likely with 2 mags, but possible - ignition works harder at high BMEP)
4) airflow restriction in or out of the engine - again, enough CFM at lower RPM, but not WOT

Colonel wrote: ↑

Tue May 26, 2020 10:32 pm

I'll give you a hint. After my 1700 RPM runup, I briefly increase the
RPM to 2400 and try, generally in vain, to stop the forward motion
of the aircraft.

Any ideas why?

To check your brakes?

No. Like on any light aircraft, the brakes are uninteresting -
they really aren't much use in flight.

During runup, 2400 RPM for an instant to check for sticking
valves. This is especially relevant these days, for people
that haven't been flying much.



These data logging monitors are incredible. You get to see
what's happening on 20 sensors, three times a second for the
entire flight.

The only thing better than inactivity for sticking valves, is
leaded fuel. The combination of the two is spectacular,
and real.

Slick Goodlin wrote: ↑

Tue May 26, 2020 5:29 pm

Colonel wrote: ↑

Tue May 26, 2020 2:26 pm

Betcha at least one person reading this RIGHT NOW didn't know that.

That would be me.

Seems like poor design to allow that to happen but perhaps they have a good reason for it to be that way.

Me to,
Shit i've got at least 2000 hours behind Continental IO-470 and IO-520 can't even remember a boost pump, however its been many moons since then.