LOP operation

My gripe is with Walter, not GAMI.

Walter is a dentist, and clearly not an engineer. His association with GAMI
was never that of an engineer. He should leave the engineering to George
Braly and the talking to John Deakin.

You also totally missed the point. GAMIjectors are great. They do everything
as advertised. But most of what they do is an answer to a problem that
doesn't exist. I've used them since GAMI serial #19. Engines ran great
before GAMIs however. Twenty years ago Continentals ran easily to TBO. That
is not the case today and a set of GAMIs will not help the longevity of
these poorly built engines at all. Even John Deakin burned out a set of
Continental cylinders in 500 hours LOP in his Bonanza. And their highly
touted fuel savings are, for the most part, due to a decrease in speed. You
know, all that drag increase with V squared.

CHTs are just fine ROP.
Engines run clean enough ROP.
Engine stresses have been doing just fine now for 100 years ROP.
CO is not a problem in maintained exhaust systems.
Airplanes fly faster ROP.
Even the LOP diehards admit engines run smoother ROP.
Gamis have more value in a turbocharged engine.

And, I have plenty of dirt under my nails, thank you for asking.

..
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
news

"kage" wrote in message
...

The engine will burn plenty clean enough ROP.
Stress levels are well within limits ROP
Cylinder temps are well within limits ROP
CO? So what! Goes out the exhaust.

The only advantage to running LOP is an engine that runs at a lower
BSFC.
Which increases range, not so much by decreasing fuel consumption, but
by
slowing the airplane down closer to best range speed.

Walter Atkinson is a dentist. He once told me that my IO-520D was more
like
a Wright 3350 "Cyclone" engine than a O-470U. He is in well over his
head.


Man...10,000 hours on test stands, tons of computer analysis and you know
more than the guys with dirt under their nails. I'm impressed!!!

And your qualifications are, what, again?