Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:56:51 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1629828@logan.com>
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
Subject: lean operation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal

<<....  The biggest deal I see here is the
reference value.  People see the word "lean" and they automatically
associate that with LOP.>>...and dozens of other postings on dozens of other
lists....

I can't help but jump in here.  I find all this discussion about lean
operation totally ridiculous.  Not that it isn't necessary, but because it
is so necessary.  The only place air/fuel ratio is discussed in automotive
circles is in the engineering community - the last time it was discussed by
average consumers was probably 60 years ago.  It will probably take the
second or third generation FADECs before we can finally forget about engine
management and concentrate on driving the plane.  As far as the Australian
crash, when I first read the report I concluded that it really was very
simple and could have been written on two pages.  A crankshaft broke
(strictly mechanical failure, just like all the other Continental cranks)
and then the operator went to full power on the other engine without
remembering to go full rich.  At that high boost detonation will take only a
few seconds to damage that engine and that's the end of the story.  Why do
we have levers in the cockpit that, mismanaged will actually break things?
I know, "that's the way its always been."  We have air bags in cars not
because all drivers are incompetent, but because anyone can make a mistake
and we don't want to let them die because of it.

Had to say it.  Couldn't help myself.

Gary Casey
ES project, custom FADEC system