I was flying today. The air temp was a balmy -4 degrees F at the surface….Neg 10 at altitude. Farking cold for the preflight, especially when I spilled avgas all over my hand.

The flight instructor warmed me on taxi to “be careful and make sure my power adjustments, especially power reductions, were done slowly and smoothly so as to prevent “shock cooling” of the engine”. (ETA: Apparently “shock cooling” causes issues with the heads and cylinders…cracking and/or other structural issues)

Now, as I said, I am not an aviation powerplant engineer, nor any sort of powerplant engineer…..I have, however, an engineering degree, and I have lots of thermal management experience under my belt….further, I used to service all sorts of air cooled small engines when I was in college for rent money.

Therefore the theory of “Shock Cooling” an aviation engine simply by closing the throttle quickly sounds fishy to me. Shutting down an already overheated powerplant? Maybe. Immersing it in water (or filling the cowling with a firehose?) maybe…but probably not.  But a gas engine that is still running should not be able to be cooled fast enough to damage it simply by slowing down the engine. What happens to an engine in flight when the airplane flies through a rain shower? Mist? heavy rain? snow?  All these should lead to significant cooling of the engine in a very short time. Water conducts heat better, plus evaporation. Faster cooling. Yet I don’t hear of Lycomings or Continentals (or Rotaxes (Rotaxi?)) suddenly shedding cylinders or valves because of rain.

I would think shutting the engine off after use would do more damage (due to sudden changes in cooling vs heat) than closing the throttle suddenly.  Or unloading the prop with quick attitude changes (say climb to level to dive)….And, of course, the sudden dimensional changes in temp due to starting the engine at all……

Again:  not an aviation powerplant expert. But have more experience than most on thermal issues.

Does anyone with real knowledge have some input? Is there something to it, or izzit just some myth carried forward by folks who are pilots but not engineers?

Read THIS. Tell me where he’s wrong? Seriously,  if you think so, feel free to comment as to why. Be sure to be specific.

Now, you gotta understand that I have met and had a beer with “Mad Mike” a few times at blogmeets over the years (sadly not for a few years though). I like the guy, and if I could, I’d spend more time with him. If we didn’t live a few hours apart, we might (maybe) be friends…..Dude is a tiny bit nuts and a whole lot of good sense all rolled into a package that is, among other things, a great writer and a great commentor on life and people in general.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100… If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7.. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that’s what they decided to do.. The ten
men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”.

Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they ubtracted that from every body’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Supposedly there are bargains to be had on this day.

I cannot save enough money to make fighting those crowds worthwhile.

Please, no matter what your religion, remember why this holiday exists.

For some, the birth of their savior, for others the end of one season and the beginning of another: Then end of the transfer to greater darkness, and the beginning of the transition to greater light.

And really, at one scale, there isn’t that much difference, is there?

Yeah, right, I says to myself, what kind pussified man who doesn’t live above the arctic circle need a heated seat and a heated steering wheel for, really? ….Especially on a TRUCK? (Note: My car has heated seats as part of the package, but I never use ’em….)

So my new Ram Laramie has heated seats and a heated steering wheel. And I never used either because (see above) I’m not that much of a wuss and it isn’t that cold.

Then the other day, I started the truck remotely, with the key fob, to let the engine warm up for a few. Unbeknownst to me, the default for the remote start includes the heated seats and the steering wheel heater to activate below 30 degrees F.

Kinda nice when one is cold.
I may have been wrong about this….
Or, it could be that I am just getting old and weak. 

Just who the hell do they think they are? (yes that was Rhetorical)….I know that they think they can run the US…but Barry is gone, so that ain’t the case no more….

I am pleased by Nikki Haley’s response. And I would LOVE to see the US cut Foreign Aid….. Pretty much everywhere, but especially (and first) to all those that think that they are entitled to an opinion as to how and where the US conducts it’s business.

Fuck ’em.

Please,please,please,please.

Just GTFO

I’m not talking the Matt Lauers or the H. Weinsteins (although Weinstein appears to have paid his debts to the women who used him for advancement with sex…they got movies and screen tests and such See also Uma Turman in “Kill Bill”), I‘m talking all the other “Mee Too” whines from women against every man they can find to complain about. Just so those women can feel like part of the victimhood club.

I guarantee that every man is evaluating this…Every single one.

The lesson he is learning today is that every single joke can have consequences, even 20 or 30 years down the line. Even if HE didn’t mean it in a naughty connotation, it is how the WOMAN perceives it that matters. No matter how innocent the remark, it is how she takes it that matters. Like “Coded Racism” even if you have to look for it, it is there. If she is looking for it.

If he mistakes interest from a woman, and asks her out to lunch to see where it might go, and he is wrong, it might come back to haunt him when he is successful later in life.

If she declines, but doesn’t say “no” (“I can’t today”) and he asks again a week or so later, then she might write it down and use it against him 15 or 20 years down the road. Especially if another woman suggests that she was “harassed” by him also.

And it is a fact that women are attracted to power and money and flirt with those men who have it. Even if they aren’t serious about it. And he will be required to know when she is and when she isn’t serious…. And if she is, and he isn’t interested, that can come back and haunt him too……’Cause “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”.

So, the lesson being learned here is that women are unable to defend themselves (and aren’t strong enough to say “No”), but rather will fester resentment and hate for years. And when she gets the chance, she will do her best to drive a stake through his heart, especially if she can find a sister or two to help her .

And, the real lesson is that it is best to not to hire women, or interact with them in the workplace. Ever. So women, who are just starting to become part of higher level management and higher level engineering and such, mentored by men, will suffer. Because they won’t ever get a chance. Attorneys, managers, financiers, engineers, bankers, etc. They will not be let into the club, won’t ever interact with men (or will have fewer opportunities to network  and be mentored) and will, ultimately, be hurt because the women in the previous generation couldn’t say “no, I won’t go out with you”….or couldn’t say “if you ever touch me again, I will break your balls” or “I don’t find that joke funny, please be more considerate next time”….or who couldn’t go to the police when something worse happened…..Or just couldn’t deal with life and interactions with people, especially males, in the workplace. Because they were cowards and Fragile Flowers. ( Real Women know how to handle things and still be ladies and engender respect…not so these women)

So, ultimately, women in the next generation, who are just now entering the workplace, will have fewer chances to advance, grow, learn and gain skills.

***And it is happening. Men now refuse to work with women at gyms, Attorneys won’t meet with women without another woman as a witness. I will be willing to bet that there will be fewer hirings of women for internships and fewer lady clerks for judges. Fewer women will be hired for Engineering internships next summer (and the women already cry that there aren’t enough STEM positions for women). And there will be fewer opprotunities from this day forward.

So VP Pence was a Victorian and a fool because he won’t meet with a woman alone……

*********************************************************************************
And we’re back to “Women shouldn’t be let out without a keeper, either their fathers or another male family member” because they can’t defend themselves. Or even make decisions that they won’t regret later and use against the male….

“I am Woman, Hear me roar” my ass.

I’m not sure they are innocent, but the .GOV sure screwed this one up by the numbers….both in the handling of the issue and the trial itself.

ETA: It is, apparently, true.

Of course, the FedGov drones get to try again in February. So it ain’t over yet.