Airplane engines vs farm tractor engines

[smv]

Specific to tractor, especially when operating older tractors.

Yah, these would have probably been antique tractors. Not the air conditioned, GPS guided monsters bringing in the harvest these days.

 

[Jim K]

Question about tractor controls... Is it true that closed throttle is full forward and full throttle is full back? Zero actual tractor time (beyond sitting on Grandpa's lap as a kid) but it seems every student I have had that grew up driving tractors has an ingrained muscle memory to pull back on the throttle at the EXACT wrong time... Makes go-arounds very interesting.

Fairly common up until the late 60's, but only when mounted on the steering column under the steering wheel. I have a '46 Ford 2N and a '66 Oliver 770 set up that way. If you have older guys that might explain it.

 

[Bell206]

Thought we were talking standard certified engines and the typical spamcan...?

We were talking about internal corrosion between "aircraft" engines and tractor engines and not failure modes. The table was posted to your question on failure modes of engines.

My ignition system works just fine without a battery.

I'll bet it does, except the table above, as noted, was for all aircraft categories even those that had engines without mags. Try to stay on point.

 

[flyingbrit]

Question about tractor controls... Is it true that closed throttle is full forward and full throttle is full back? Zero actual tractor time (beyond sitting on Grandpa's lap as a kid) but it seems every student I have had that grew up driving tractors has an ingrained muscle memory to pull back on the throttle at the EXACT wrong time... Makes go-arounds very interesting.

IIRC my late FIL's Ford 8N was like that, with the throttle (or actually governor) mounted on the steering column. Model T was the same way. I've also driven more recent vehicles (1950 Chevrolet truck and 1970 Datsun roadster) which had hand throttles (in addition to the foot throttle) consisting of a knob on the dash. With both of these, pulling the knob out was more power, opposite to the typical aircraft.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Table is for recip GA aircraft less than 12,500lbs. You can add "coolant system" to your improbable list as it covered all types of recip aircraft regardless of category. And as an FYI, if the battery faults it can cause a voltage drop in the electrical system, which can/will cause a voltage drop to the ignition system, which can/will cause the less than ideal spark, which can/will cause a power reduction due to improper fuel/air ignition in the cylinders................

Yup. The Diamnond DA-42 with its Thielert dielsel engines and FADEC had an AD on that. https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_...0478adab8625739900564f2c/$FILE/2007-23-14.pdf

Low battery voltage and both engines quit. Not a homebuilt, either.

This is just one example of the teething problems a manufacturer faces when developing new stuff. More complex stuff has more failure modes and more chances of mismanagement of the airplane. In this case, the AFM wasn't followed and they took off with a battery not fully charged. To make it more idiot-proof, extra backup batteries had to be installed.

 

[brcase]

I’ve not driven many tractors but the ones I have driven full power is full forward on the throttle lever

The really old Case DC was push forward on the throttle lever for more throttle, But didn't have a foot throttle and the throttle lever was mounted on the top of the transmission housing.
The Case 350 and David Brown 1210 had the throttle lever mounted under the steering wheel and was pull for more thottle, was were the two model T's we had.

Brian

 

[brcase]

Quite frankly, The reason our engines are archaic is the FAA. Add to that the litigious society that we live in, and you just have a recipe for nothing new in certified aviation.
There are quite a few new and innovative designs out there in the experimental world, that we'll probably never see in the certified world Because of the FAA.

I think a marketing is as much or more of an issue than the FAA. We pilot are used to having lots of control (Mixture, Prop, carb heat) or at least familiar controls, and are pretty resistant to change for the same reasons the FAA is. We don't readily change until something is proven to be better and/or cheaper.
As mentioned Mooney got the PFM engine certified. I recall Lycoming offered a FADEC control for a some of their engines for a short time. I think Lycoming screwed up the marketing by not offering to significantly extend the warranty of it's engines using Fadec. Maybe FADEC doesn't really help with engine life? But it was significantly more expensive and didn't convince pilot/owners it was worth the extra cost.

Brian

 

[smv]

We pilot are used to having lots of control (Mixture, Prop, carb heat) or at least familiar controls, and are pretty resistant to change for the same reasons the FAA is.

Gotta say I did not at all mind having full FADEC on the DA42. No Mixture, no Prop, no Synch, no wastegate management...

Me: "Dude! Give me 65% power on both engines!!"
42: Yessir!

Almost made it feel like cheating while getting the MEL rating.

 

[denverpilot]

the table above, as noted, was for all aircraft categories even those that had engines without mags. Try to stay on point.

So... a table full of useless information about what we aren’t talking about. Got it. LOL.

 

[Bell206]

So... a table full of useless information about what we aren’t talking about. Got it. LOL.

Ha. The table was an FWIW post to your comment and question in Post 30 as shown below. Ask and ye shall receive.

those things are the reason for the two most common failures... valves breaking, and crankshaft damage.....I don’t know any source of solid stats on the above but would be interested to see if folks see other common failures more prevalent than those without turbocharging being involved.

 

[denverpilot]

Ha. The table was an FWIW post to your comment and question in Post 30 as shown below. Ask and ye shall receive.

The table insinuates that the failure modes most seen in certified engines from corrosion or whatever in those... are the “low” failures... but seems to only have been built from the data for a tiny fraction of the overall fleet.

It would need to include the certified fleet to not be a total mess ... as applied to that.

Unless I’m missing something else.

 

[Bell206]

Unless I’m missing something else.

The table data was culled from FAA and ATSB analysis reports over a 7 year period and covers all recip aircraft TC'd or not. It only shows a textual analysis of the results as I can't post the numerical data and was only meant as an example to your question on statistical data. If you want more, read the above linked ATSB report or search for FAA FMEA analysis reports which cover various recip engine classes to include the 4/6 cylinder variety found on TC'd aircraft.

 

[denverpilot]

The table data was culled from FAA and ATSB analysis reports over a 7 year period and covers all recip aircraft TC'd or not. It only shows a textual analysis of the results as I can't post the numerical data and was only meant as an example to your question on statistical data. If you want more, read the above linked ATSB report or search for FAA FMEA analysis reports which cover various recip engine classes to include the 4/6 cylinder variety found on TC'd aircraft.

Ok. It does seem to highlight that the experimental stuff fails a lot more than the non-experimental and in bad ways.

Which makes sense.