Quote:
|
It's the prop that might fail, not the engine.
|
The way i presented the example caused your confusion. It is not one thing but two seperate issues. The Hartzell bulletin has nothing to do with take off rating of the engine. It just illustrates how seemly minor changes can have catastrophic effects.
A Lycoming O-360 is take off rated and you don't use it except for take off. That is an engine limitation.
The Hartzell bulletin is talking about specific O-360A1A's equipped with a specific hub/blade combination AND using Lightspeed's Engineering electronic ignition.
Your next point, of course I meant inches of mercury. It does not matter though...you don't exceed the 28 on the EFIS!!
Quote:
|
So I would modify your first statement to say that
|
have to ask who cares and what is point of this portion of your reply? Are you trying to educate me on TBO determination? It is a fact that sometimes TBO are very arbitrary and not based on any real engineering at all. Why? The company does not spend the money or the time or have enough data.
Many times manufacturer's set them very low at first and then raise them as field experience is gained. Rotax 912 is a modern example.
Everyone is expecting the Centurion Diesels to see a TBO raise too. They did the same thing.
http://www.centurion-engines.com/typ...x.php?id=2&L=1
What is important and seems to get covered up in your reply Viper is the following:
Pilot's fly airplanes IAW the Operating Instructions published by the manufacturer.
End of message.
Anything else is baloney and thinking like a gamer, not a pilot.
Quote:
|
Engineers do this because it is generally assumed that pilots can't be trusted to obey the limits in the Pilot's Notes. Sad but true.
|
I would say this baloney in all my real world experience both in college, PIC, and in maintenance of aircraft. I don't know of any RL pilots who condone exceeding published limits at all. It is not the engineers life on the line.
I certainly don't know any licensed A&P's who think that way or do not follow publications. That is good way to kill somebody, lose your rating, and even go to prison. There are shady folks in aviation. One owner and he FBO are in the process of suing one such individual right now. That is if the sheriff does not get to him first.
In reality, not following published procedures can and will kill you. The FAA statistics show this quite nicely.
The reality is only a tiny fraction of the community knowingly violate procedures. Most understand the importance and the consequences of not following it.
I knew this pilot. He was VERY professional and flew his aircraft by the numbers. Nothing he did in an airplane was unplanned or "seat of your pants".
He died because he did not change his altimeter setting. He made a simple mistake and did not follow procedure to monitor ATIS and adjust the altimeter accordingly. He entered a loop and end up with CFIT.
You should know the old axiom, "There are Old Pilots and there are Bold Pilots but there are not any Old and Bold Pilots!"
It got to be a axiom because it spells out the truth.
Quote:
|
None of this is good, but it is reality.
|
Your reality is far different from my experiences. I have to take your comments about the 152's and flying outside of CG and everything else with a grain of salt or at least it does not apply to General Aviation in the United States.
Of course there are almost 20,000 airports to land at in the United States. I can find a convenient airport at almost any destination I choose. In the EU, you have just over 2500 airports to land at.....
It is impossible to compare the General Aviation community as GA is a completely different animal in the EU.
Perhaps when the EU GA community matures, it can begin to keep statistics to help make the pilot community safer. Maybe then your civil pilot population will become more educated and not act so recklessly.
Quote:
|
As regards to safety, the partial data available gives only some indication as to the main causes of fatal accidents. There are no European wide comprehensive statistics on safety of General Aviation Aircraft
|
http://www.epats.eu/Files/Deliverabl...PADBase-V1.pdf
Continental did that because they did not test or design the engine for any higher rating. When the O-520 first came out, the crankcase was too light even at maximum continuous and there were many failures as a result. Subsequently Conti went to steel on steel for their rings and now very few of them make it to TBO without a top end.
In short, the engine has had too troubles at it's current rating to even think about a manifold pressure increase.
It is also not tolerant at all of improper procedures.
Feel free to invest your money in an O-520 and then not follow the book. :p
If the installation has plenty of power, there is no need for a Take Off rating. The Lycoming O-360 has been adopted to so many installation that including many heavy twins. That little 180 hp engine pulls some weighty airplanes around now. The O-360 series is a close to bullet proof as you can get in a light aircraft engine. I wouldn't trade mine for all the tea in china.