Constant speed props

Greg,

GEM and EI are the main competitors to JPI, I would say. Google them.
As for newer aircraft, the tend to have these function integrated into
their Avidyne Entegra od Garmin G1000 systems. You'll see the
occasional Vision Microsystems, too.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:59:32 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

Greg,

GEM and EI are the main competitors to JPI, I would say. Google them.
As for newer aircraft, the tend to have these function integrated into
their Avidyne Entegra od Garmin G1000 systems. You'll see the
occasional Vision Microsystems, too.

Thanks. I'll check them out.

Greg

Michael Houghton wrote:

He does offer credible arguments that the engine manufacturers
offer recommendations contrary to good engineering and operating practices.

AOPA also made that statement recently. In a recent "Airframe&Powerplant" article,
they stated "In fairness to both Lycoming and Teledyne Continental Motors, the
engine-operating instructions in POHs … appear to have been the result of marketing
decisions taking precedence over engineering recommendations."

I felt that it would have been more accurately phrased as "In fairness to both
Lycoming and Teledyne Continental Motors, their engineers are competent, but the
companies apparently lie through their teeth to get you to trash your engine and buy
a new one sooner."

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Michael Houghton wrote:

He does offer credible arguments that the engine manufacturers
offer recommendations contrary to good engineering and operating
practices.

AOPA also made that statement recently. In a recent "Airframe&Powerplant"
article,
they stated "In fairness to both Lycoming and Teledyne Continental Motors,
the
engine-operating instructions in POHs . appear to have been the result of
marketing
decisions taking precedence over engineering recommendations."

I felt that it would have been more accurately phrased as "In fairness to
both
Lycoming and Teledyne Continental Motors, their engineers are competent,
but the
companies apparently lie through their teeth to get you to trash your
engine and buy
a new one sooner."

Ah, it is a giant conspiracy. I see it all now. Amazing that the tort boys
haven't latched onto this.

Now, just what engine-operating instructions was AOPA talking about?

Howdy!

In article ,
C J Campbell wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

No. You do not "merely" point out... You do it in a manner that,
intentional
or no, suggests that he is blowing smoke up your backside. You further
appear to completely disregard the supporting data and arguments, both
from
GAMI testbeds and from historical operating practices for piston engined
aircraft. He does offer credible arguments that the engine manufacturers
offer recommendations contrary to good engineering and operating
practices.

Let's be honest here.

All right, let's be honest. I am not disregarding the data that he as
presented in his articles. I will also not disregard the anecdotal evidence
that I have from several engine shops that engines consistently run LOP
generally do not make TBO, nor do they last as long as engines run according

How do those engine shops discern that running LOP is the cause for failing
to make TBO? What is it about running LOP (assuming that the engine can be
run smoothly LOP) that is harder on engines?

to manufacturers' specifications. When Deakin comes up with hard evidence
that applies to anything other than GAMI's special setups then I will
welcome it. If there is anything that drives me up the wall, it is these
vague references to "historical operating practices." It is really just a
substitute for "bull****."

I don't have fine details of how one operated piston engines in the 1940's,
1950's, and 1960's. However, Deakin refers (IIRC) to how one *had* to operate
R-3350s to get anything like acceptable range, and that was LOP. Right there
in the manuals the flight engineers were guided by. At least, that is my
understanding.

Further, note the references to how one extended the range of large american
fighters, both with round and straight engines, in WWII. LOP operations were
critical to that.

References to "historical operating practices" are no more bull**** than your
continuing dismissal of demonstrable facts such as those articulated by
John Deakin.

I call "bull****" on you.

Deakin cites test-stand data that is current and, so far as I can tell,
valid. He also is careful to note when you can and can not make effective
use of LOP operations, both by flight regime and by engine equippage.

You seem to place equal stock in anecdotes from engine shops that blame
early engine failure on LOP operations. What are those shops bona fides to
make that determination? Is it really LOP or is it attempting to run LOP
but not quite getting there, leading to running a cylinder or two at
the worst possible place (which, IIRC, is where some operating manuals
would have you run the engine).

yours,
Michael




--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

to manufacturers' specifications. When Deakin comes up with hard evidence
that applies to anything other than GAMI's special setups then I will
welcome it. If there is anything that drives me up the wall, it is these
vague references to "historical operating practices." It is really just a
substitute for "bull****."

I don't have fine details of how one operated piston engines in the
1940's,
1950's, and 1960's. However, Deakin refers (IIRC) to how one *had* to
operate
R-3350s to get anything like acceptable range, and that was LOP. Right
there
in the manuals the flight engineers were guided by. At least, that is my
understanding.

He also sells those nice "coffee table" caliber books that were originally
published by Wright and some others. He refers to them a lot.
http://www.flybyeknightpress.com/

$235 for the set of five, most importantly, ' The Aircraft Engine and Its
Operation'.

Think I'll pick up a set.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

If there is anything that drives me up the wall, it is these
vague references to "historical operating practices." It is really
just
a
substitute for "bull****."

"Vague" reference?

Talk about bull****, and talk about shoving ones foot in mouth and
playing
"pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...".

When someone tells me that 'historical operating practices' are different
from what has always been done, it automatically fails the baloney test.

Cite?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:21:11 -0400,
wrote:


Thanks. I've been meaning to look at the others. Have any urls to
offer?

Greg

I'll have to look em up. They are usually displayed in the Homebuilt
mags like Sport Aviation and Kitplanes. I should be getting the new
SA shortly.

When I arrived home last night, the July "Sport Aviation" was on the
table.

Electronics International is another alternative to JPI
www.Buy-EI.com

There is also Vision Microsystems Inc. which produces a multi cylinder
EGT as one part of a number of displays: www.visionmicrosystems.com

The company I mentioned that produces an analog EGT is KS Avionics:
http://www.ksavionics.com/


http://www.insightavionics.com/ (GEM 602 and 610)

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:18:57 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

snip

Now, just what engine-operating instructions was AOPA talking about?


Unless there have been some POH/power chart revisions in the last
couple of years, I can name several based on personal experience.

They all involve turbo-supercharged engines operating at "book" power
settings for 65-75% power at "best economy" fuel flows relying on a
TIT redline as a last chance for redemption.

Not naming names, my absolute favorite factory-mandated response to
this premature meltdown is mandatory periodic TIT probe replacement.

Makes the speed/range numbers look good, until the engine quits...

TC