ain't that the truth.....Every one I attended last year was over flow seating in the largest pavilion.
With his latest
conversion to RCM....I get kinda giddy, since I've done RCM before it was cool.....back in the early 90's.
Yeah, but I've seen issues with either how he promotes RCM or how others take it. As I often say, he makes money by telling you not to fix your aircraft. He also oversimplifies decisions that are often complex and can result in extra downtime. That's fine if you don't need the plane, but if you have a plane that works for a living and has a job to do, his methods are often not the right answer. Either way, a lot of times his techniques cost more in the long run.
But, you know that. A lot of others don't.
It’s only bashing if he’s lying about mike. If I said mike is a white male is that bashing. Of course not. Now if I say mike is an excellent sales man but his technical knowledge is not quite as good as he claims. Is that bashing??? I don’t think so.
Saying mike is stupid or you should ignore everything mike says yeah that’s bashing.
Pointing out to other board members quoting mike that just because he speaks with authority does not necessarily mean he is an expert... well that is being a friend and good neighbor in the POAcommunity. That’s not bashing mike
Exactly the point that I've always made. Mike speaks very authoritatively, and he's sure good at selling himself as the be-all end-all know-all of piston aviation. Not saying everything he says is wrong - he's made some very good points and helped a number of people think outside of the box about maintenance. He also has caused his share of problems for GA as a whole, or come damn close to it, and then when others manage to secure victory he takes credit.
More than anything, he was a guy who had a business idea at the right time to make it start, and it's worked well for him.
those high altitude engines with turbos are more prone to overheating CHTs too.....don't be fooled. That's why inner coolers are added....to allow more power without the heating....even with em....they can easily be overheated.
It's true that those high altitude engines are more prone to high CHTs, but that's not why intercoolers are added. Yes, you do generally observe lower CHTs with intercoolers (when properly managed), but the real reason has to do with making more power at altitude for better performance up there and also to improve detonation margins.
Intercoolers have to be balanced against the weight they add, though, which is why not all turbo planes have intercoolers on them and why they're often undersized. Often, the OEMs decided that the weight and complexity of the intercooler wasn't worth it for the benefits on a particular airframe. Note that the Navajos don't have intercoolers, even P-Navajos don't. The Mojave did. Original 340s and 414s didn't have intercoolers, T310s didn't have intercoolers, nor did 320s. Later, Cessna added a very poor intercooler (~30% efficient) to the 340 and 414, which was still enough to help at altitude quite a bit. However, RAM and American Aviation have both improved upon the intercooler performance significantly. AA did it with bigger intercoolers and giant scoops, RAM put scoops on the stock intercooler for the RAM VI conversion, and for RAM VII went with a bigger intercooler with a much improved scoop design.
Cessna got the 421's intercoolers figured out pretty optimally from the get-go, though.
Basically a lot of those earlier turbo piston aircraft weren't expected to be operated as high as some people ended up operating them. The 421 was an exception to that.
But yes, those engines run hotter up high, and are more prone to shortened lifespans by engine management.
