On 05/12/06 11:21, Allen wrote:
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Allen" wrote in message
. com...


"Allen" wrote in message
. com...
They are also multi-million dollar aircraft engine companies that
recommend against LOP operation. (Unless you are running a FADEC
system).

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Have they ever shown you or anyone else REAL DATA?

No? Gee, why not?


Yes, like Lycoming who recommends 50ROP. Got any idea what THAT will do
to your valves, heads, exhaust system?

Oh, and Columbia recommends LOP for it's IO-550'ed 400 model.

Well gee, think of the lure that TCM would have to produce engines for
aircraft manufacturers if they could tout running lean of peak. They
don't. Why not? Warranty costs. Get a clue.

What warranty? What warranty costs?

You still haven't shown us any DATA, just regurgitating the same BS.

What is the lure that TCM and Lycoming have for running ROP? Oh, just
engines that last 800 hours...maybe. Sure sell a lot of 'em, won't they.
And, hey...if the break, it sure is easy to put a Lycoming into a Bonanza,
or a TCM into a current Cessna, right?

Get a clue yourself. Gullibility is not attractive in adults.

Let's see, the company that designed and manufactured the engine says don't
run lean of peak, the aircraft manufacturer (except for a handful of
instances) says don't run lean of peak but Matt Barrow says ok to run lean
of peak. Whom to believe, whom to believe. Talk about being gullible, look
in the mirror.

Don't you think that if running lean of peak would make their engines reach
TBO that TCM wouldn't jump on that in an instant?

Have you read the John Deakin articles on AVWeb? He talks in great length
about LOP operations and why the manufacturers (generally) don't recommend
it in the POHs.

The articles have a lot of data to back up the claims.

Regardless of which camp you're in, they're a very good read.

Best Regards,