MERGED power curve / floats posts

[ahramin]

20181113_110747.jpg (422.11 KiB) Viewed 768 times

Wow. Just wow. I feel sorry for George but this is what happens when you have the blind leading the blind. Note to any homebuilders: There's no substitute for learning as much as possible yourself rather than hoping the loud mouth know it all you're relying on isn't going to abuse your engine.

I thought this thread was all in good fun but now I'm reminded that when you mix idiocy with aviation the best you can hope for is a very expensive problem with no loss of life.

[digits_]

I don't know if the backside is applicable to a canard A/C But I once demonstrated its qualities by flying 3/4 of a circuit with the A/C constantly stalling! (Muskoka Ontario many years ago) Figure that one out newbies!

Smart!

I hope you're just having fun at our expense or making stuff up, but the longer this thread goes on, the more I'm afraid you're actually serious.

Don't kill yourself or blow up an engine to impress avcanada please.

[aeroncasuperchief]

unnamed.jpg (155.27 KiB) Viewed 747 times

At 14100 feet approaching Mt. Robson in a BD-4

Maybe some day I may show pics of landing on a sand bar in the Mackenzie 2 hrs from arctic red river, stuck 14 inches into the wet sand. Had to prop the A/C completely out of the sand and make a driftwood runway to get out of there,,,, or the time I landed with my brother in a 95 MPH sandstorm on our way to Mexico in a C-150. Not only have pics but witnesses, however, certain basement dwelling folks on Av-Canada could never believe!

[Oldguystrtn2fly]

20181113_110747.jpg
Wow. Just wow. I feel sorry for George but this is what happens when you have the blind leading the blind. Note to any homebuilders: There's no substitute for learning as much as possible yourself rather than hoping the loud mouth know it all you're relying on isn't going to abuse your engine.

I thought this thread was all in good fun but now I'm reminded that when you mix idiocy with aviation the best you can hope for is a very expensive problem with no loss of life.

X2
And all doubt has been removed....

[aeroncasuperchief]

I hope you're just having fun at our expense or making stuff up, but the longer this thread goes on, the more I'm afraid you're actually serious.

Don't kill yourself or blow up an engine to impress avcanada please.

The A/C I demonstrated these characteristics on was a Quickie and IF you know anything about canards, the fwd canard stalls only , reducing the AOA of the rear main wing ,, thereby preventing the main wing from ever stalling. ALL you get is what is called a "bobble" and loss of a few feet. Of course, I previously went to altitude and I believe I borrowed a chute to test the deeper stall characteristics so that the main wing WOULD NOT stall in the circuit.

That same plane, I bought in Kingston, did a ground loop on the test flight return taxi due to a bad cut rut in the pavement, ( wheels are on the canard tips!!) Installed the cowling while the engine was running and encountered rudder flutter on the delivery flight to Muskoka due to the homebuilder running the rudder cables to the tailwheel THEN a spring and slightly loose chain to the rudder horn !!! ( never flew or checked out in a canard, but read a bit) The lumbar support was the fuel tank and the brakes were a scupper against the tire! I redesigned the side stick control for more sensitivity so I could practice before flying the BD-5 I was trying to complete.
ALWAYS do a thorough inspection before buying a homebuilt

[aeroncasuperchief]

Wow. Just wow. I feel sorry for George but this is what happens when you have the blind leading the blind. Note to any homebuilders: There's no substitute for learning as much as possible yourself rather than hoping the loud mouth know it all you're relying on isn't going to abuse your engine.

For those who are ignorant , including this poster above, A newly overhauled engine is NOT run at low power. A newly overhauled engine is NOT run at break-in power at low altitudes, especially in summer. A new or newly OHd engine is not to be abused doing circuits. In the old days some folks would TOW the A/C to the runway so they could reduce ground running time.

If you look at the temps in the pic all is in the green except 1 CHT and it is 43 degrees below redline. Being the second test flight after overhaul, it is not uncommon to see stuff in the yellow, that is why I was up at high altitude where the cooling is maximum to get that last yellow bar into the green.

[Sockpuppet]

I call bullshit on you flying backside approaches using ground speed as a reference, or that you claim you do them because they are stable

WHERE did I say I used GS as a reference for BS approaches? Or that I claimed they are stable? I will eat those foolish statements If I had written them !

I call bullshit on YOU !

Maybe check post #1 and #68 for your meal?

[Sockpuppet]

Wow. Just wow. I feel sorry for George but this is what happens when you have the blind leading the blind. Note to any homebuilders: There's no substitute for learning as much as possible yourself rather than hoping the loud mouth know it all you're relying on isn't going to abuse your engine.

For those who are ignorant , including this poster above, A newly overhauled engine is NOT run at low power. A newly overhauled engine is NOT run at break-in power at low altitudes, especially in summer. A new or newly OHd engine is not to be abused doing circuits. In the old days some folks would TOW the A/C to the runway so they could reduce ground running time.

If you look at the temps in the pic all is in the green except 1 CHT and it is 43 degrees below redline. Being the second test flight after overhaul, it is not uncommon to see stuff in the yellow, that is why I was up at high altitude where the cooling is maximum to get that last yellow bar into the green.

This is wrong.
Engine should ABSOLUTELY be broken in at high power and low altitude. The best possible place to break in an engine is at sea level where manifold pressure is at its highest. An engine that is broken in at high altitude like you claim to be doing will not seat the rings.
Proper break in is accomplished at various power settings(IAW Lycoming/Continental SB's), up to and including significant time at 100% power. Please explain how you are doing this at an altitude that is limiting your power to approximately 50%, and also how you feel comfortable certifying that you have installed and broken in the engine with your procedure.

[pelmet]

Well...at least things are getting more interesting. Thanks for the pics. Looks like we have some more talking points on this thread.

MGL avionics installed. I have been flying a Sling2 with the same. I like the Highway in the Sky feature(possibly on page 4).

Anyways...back to the discussion and feel free to add more pics/info. I am starting to believe you are a test pilot for first flights of newly-built aircraft.

[pelmet]

Does kind of look like you got caught out. Most people know the name of the aircraft they are flying and don't mix it up with others, even if they sound similar. The Bearcat does have a Rotax. Are you trolling.

I think you made the same mistake again (Bearcat vs Bearhawk). I'd love to see this Bearcat with a Rotax

I think I was right.......

AeroLites Bearcat with a Rotax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroLites_Bearcat

[aeroncasuperchief]

This is wrong.
Engine should ABSOLUTELY be broken in at high power and low altitude. The best possible place to break in an engine is at sea level where manifold pressure is at its highest. An engine that is broken in at high altitude like you claim to be doing will not seat the rings.
Proper break in is accomplished at various power settings(IAW Lycoming/Continental SB's), up to and including significant time at 100% power. Please explain how you are doing this at an altitude that is limiting your power to approximately 50%, and also how you feel comfortable certifying that you have installed and broken in the engine with your procedure

The reason why the pic was taken was to show the owner and( ultimately ) have a post flight discussion about the inlet as compared to exit area of the cowls and possible opening up the lower cowl for extra cooling. I suspect the inlet / exits were sized more for a 0-360
I used to alternate between 75% and full power for break-ins, Many O/H shops now lean towards 75% only, Who is right?
After that pic was taken, a slow descent back to about 4000 was done. The temps returned to the green. If on the next flights they dont go over 400 degrees Im ok with that, but i would hate to cut the lower cowls only to find after break-in that it was not needed ! Lycoming suggests 400 degrees max, continuous 425 in the climb, but 375 seems the industry norm, 500 is redline and anything above 400 will show less than optimum wear/tear over time.

You are right and I am wrong WRT the high altitude and only 50% ish power. We were over Baldy within gliding distance and out of the valley because of noise concerns but in the end it would have been better to bother the residents than to delay break-in

[aeroncasuperchief]

I call bullshit on you flying backside approaches using ground speed as a reference, or that you claim you do them because they are stable

I said : you reduce your speed and land at a slower groundspeed

WOW, what misunderstandings !

You do not land on air you land on ground, it is the speed on the ground as the wheels are rolling that is of concern. in other words, the speed along the runway, that is my meaning of groundspeed.

[aeroncasuperchief]

Another misunderstanding,

I said:

If one is landing on a short snow covered ( 2 inches or less) strip, it would be wise to touchdown at the lowest SAFE speed ( that would entail a backside approach in order to be stable)

I never said backside approaches are inherently stable or are more stable that frontside approaches or even stable.
I was saying/implying that one needs to establish a stabilized ( in control, steady state) backside approach early instead of trying to do it at the last few seconds. Because a backside approach is UNSTABLE, you need to set it up early and be stabilized ( like an airline ) before low altitude .

I am putting away my dinner utensils and preparing a meal of ink and paper just for you

[rookiepilot]

460 CHT?

Dude you're not touching my gear.

[Sockpuppet]

I call bullshit on you flying backside approaches using ground speed as a reference, or that you claim you do them because they are stable

I said : you reduce your speed and land at a slower groundspeed

WOW, what misunderstandings !

You do not land on air you land on ground, it is the speed on the ground as the wheels are rolling that is of concern. in other words, the speed along the runway, that is my meaning of groundspeed.

If you want to discuss a topic concerning aerodynamics, then mentioning anything to do with ground speed is ridiculous.
Have you flown a backside approach and landing downwind before? If so, then clearly the procedure is not dependent on obtaining the lowest possible ground speed as you claim.

[Sockpuppet]

This is wrong.
Engine should ABSOLUTELY be broken in at high power and low altitude. The best possible place to break in an engine is at sea level where manifold pressure is at its highest. An engine that is broken in at high altitude like you claim to be doing will not seat the rings.
Proper break in is accomplished at various power settings(IAW Lycoming/Continental SB's), up to and including significant time at 100% power. Please explain how you are doing this at an altitude that is limiting your power to approximately 50%, and also how you feel comfortable certifying that you have installed and broken in the engine with your procedure

The reason why the pic was taken was to show the owner and( ultimately ) have a post flight discussion about the inlet as compared to exit area of the cowls and possible opening up the lower cowl for extra cooling. I suspect the inlet / exits were sized more for a 0-360
I used to alternate between 75% and full power for break-ins, Many O/H shops now lean towards 75% only, Who is right?
After that pic was taken, a slow descent back to about 4000 was done. The temps returned to the green. If on the next flights they dont go over 400 degrees Im ok with that, but i would hate to cut the lower cowls only to find after break-in that it was not needed ! Lycoming suggests 400 degrees max, continuous 425 in the climb, but 375 seems the industry norm, 500 is redline and anything above 400 will show less than optimum wear/tear over time.

You are right and I am wrong WRT the high altitude and only 50% ish power. We were over Baldy within gliding distance and out of the valley because of noise concerns but in the end it would have been better to bother the residents than to delay break-in

Glad you admit that the bearcat engine hasn't been broken in properly, and against the manufacturers procedures. So, now that it has a few hours of very low power operation, and has most likely glazed all 6 cylinders, what's your plan? Accept the high oil burn and low power till the next overhaul in 20 years?

[Sockpuppet]

460 CHT?

Dude you're not touching my gear.

460 doesn't seem out of line on a new engine, Lycoming is fine with a 500 redline.
It may have dropped a bit if Mr aeronca had increased the rpm up to 2450-2500.

[Sockpuppet]

I don't know if the backside is applicable to a canard A/C But I once demonstrated its qualities by flying 3/4 of a circuit with the A/C constantly stalling! (Muskoka Ontario many years ago) Figure that one out newbies!

Smart!

I hope you're just having fun at our expense or making stuff up, but the longer this thread goes on, the more I'm afraid you're actually serious.

Don't kill yourself or blow up an engine to impress avcanada please.

It's cold out and I'm bored, so I might as well post.
While Mr aeronca is correct in that this was most likely perfectly safe, since it is "almost" impossible to stall the main wing(the exception being accelerated), from my understanding of the regulations it could probably qualify as being an aerobatic maneuver per CAR 101.01(1)
In which case it would be illegal.

[Sockpuppet]

Another misunderstanding,

I said:

If one is landing on a short snow covered ( 2 inches or less) strip, it would be wise to touchdown at the lowest SAFE speed ( that would entail a backside approach in order to be stable)

I never said backside approaches are inherently stable or are more stable that frontside approaches or even stable.
I was saying/implying that one needs to establish a stabilized ( in control, steady state) backside approach early instead of trying to do it at the last few seconds. Because a backside approach is UNSTABLE, you need to set it up early and be stabilized ( like an airline ) before low altitude .

I am putting away my dinner utensils and preparing a meal of ink and paper just for you

Oh, ok!! I get it now! You write whatever you want, get called out on it and then just change your story claiming that what you said was meant to imply something completely different!!
Crystal clear to me now!!
I haven't had lunch yet, got any leftovers?

[Chris M]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier question:

You're in a power-off (idle) glide at minimum airspeed, just above stall. Apply power. What happens?