Scudrunners

Wait, camguard is a real thing? I never see it at partsource.

David MacRay wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:30 pm Wait, camguard is a real thing? I never see it at partsource.

I see there is an automotive version of it, but does anyone actually use anything like that in their car? When was the last time you had any kind of engine problem with your car?

I use avblend in my lycoming o-360.

My carburetor could use some TLC.

Much like camguard, I can’t seem to find those inexpensive rebuilt units anymore either.

I should probably switch to a new aftermarket one.

When was the last time you had any kind of engine problem with your car?

I don't buy German, so ...

But seriously, you can't compare car and aircraft engines with a straight face. They are
completely different. Does your car have an air-cooled engine with magnetos? Do you
let your car sit for months at a time without running it? That's normal for an aircraft in
Canada.

Do you run your car engine continuously at 100% power?

Please.

Colonel wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:15 pm I don't buy German, so ...

But seriously, you can't compare car and aircraft engines with a straight face. They are
completely different. Does your car have an air-cooled engine with magnetos? Do you
let your car sit for months at a time without running it? That's normal for an aircraft in
Canada.

Do you run your car engine continuously at 100% power?

Please.

Also, newer technology in general. We don't dump lead into our car engines any more, and we have "modern" electronic timing and mixture control from the 1980s.

TwinOtterFan wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 4:12 pm So why do they teach us to go full rich before making any type of attitude adjustment? I get it for climbs, but why for descents?

One of the (many) problems with flight training is that the average training flight is a takeoff, a short trip to the practice area, and then maneuvers. A real world normal A to B flight will have a significant cruise portion, something that only happens in flight training during cross country training.

The training flight profile unfortunately leads to a dumbed down one size fits all leaning SOP. The reality is it doesn’t really matter if you lean or not, or go full rich for a short descent because you are not going to hurt the average bullet proof Lycoming four cylinder engine, or really save that much gas.

This is one reason why I still see many instructors earnestly telling their students not to lean in cruise flight below 3000 feet, which of course is absolute rubbish.

FWIW, I told all of my students to aggressively lean on the ground to avoid spark plug fouling and to lean in cruise at any altitude, and in climbs above 5000 ft. For descents I told them to maintain the same RPM and leaning in the descent. In other words set a pitch attitude for a 500 ft ROD and pull back the throttle as required as the airplane descended to maintain the cruise RPM.

For PPL students I tell them to go full rich on the prelanding checklist so if they have to do a low energy go around, like after a bad bounce they will not be hooped if they forget the mixture.

I also expected the students to plan their descent, given you get time to destination on your GPS is trivial easy mental math.

My wife’s 2006 Avalanche sat for several months this year. The heater fan controller is acting up. I couldn’t find camguard so there you have it.

Colonel wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:15 pm
Do you run your car engine continuously at 100% power?

Technically speaking, neither do most airplane engines. While an airplane engine may run for long lengths of time at a continuous power, unless its being flown at wave top height, its not at 100%, and even then only in some short run applications do they run at full throttle. I mean if my engines can run at 100% power continuously, why do both Lycoming and TCM recommend against it?

Not that I think you're wrong about comparing automotive and aviation applications, I just think that one point of the comparison is inaccurate as a huge difference.

even then only in some short run applications do they run at full throttle

Every surface acro flight I've made in the last 20 years has been full throttle / max RPM.

That's how I break an engine in - full throttle at the surface for an hour. My compressions
are always outstanding.

I mean if my engines can run at 100% power continuously, why do both Lycoming and TCM recommend against it?

Ok, I get it. Only weirdos fly certified aerobatic aircraft, so that doesn't count.

But lots of people fly Mooneys, for example. I used to have an M20J and this is an excerpt
from the POH:



What part of "continuous" and "maximum power" is Mooney wrong about, according to you?

Can you phone Mooney up and get them to correct all their POH's?

I know Canadians exist in some kind of alternate universe, but a Lycoming is perfectly happy
at max MP and max MP continuously, as long as there is sufficient airflow over the cylinder
heads and through the oil cooler.

This is generally not a problem at 1G - your airspeed will be very high indeed, even with cowl
flaps closed.

If you wish to sustain 6G's continuously, the airspeed and hence airflow may be reduced and
you may start to worry about engine temps. You might even have to open the cowl flaps.

Personally I recommend under 400F CHT and 200F oil temp, but I'm not very bright, I'm told.

Highest oil temp I remember ever seeing was 270F (?) and that was sitting on the ground,
idling in Honduras, waiting for my (delayed) airshow slot. W120 is your friend.

More importantly what car has a 3000 rpm redline? You should see if they can set the rev limiters on your bikes for that.