If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
MoGas Tips, Tricks, Concerns, How To
"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message ... Jay Honeck wrote: Hmmm. Let's see. Shall I believe the guy who runs a multi-million dollar aircraft exhaust system business (and has no incentive to lie to me), or shall I believe Usenet? Teledyne Continental and (I think) Lycoming have both gone on record to say that mogas is damaging to their engines. They are certainly multi-millon dollar aircraft engine companies and have have no incentive to lie to you. Yet you, Jay, are an ardent user of mogas. Who do believe: the engine companies or Usenet? Just what damage is caused by mogas? I don't believe either company has ever provided one iota of evidence. It is more the lawyers talking than anyone that actually knows an engine from a rock. I'd ask your exhaust system rebuilder to show you the data. I doubt he really has any and that he is perpetrating yet another aviation old wives tale. If he does actually have valid data, I'd wager that a different conclusion could be drawn from it. -- Frank Stutzman (who uses both mogas AND LOP operations) Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" Hood River, OR |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
MoGas Tips, Tricks, Concerns, How To
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message oups.com... Maybe you can have him explain how he's doing such a great business in when maybe 5% of the aircraft are being run LOP? Maybe you can have him explain how that happens when the EGT is symetrical on either side of peak EGT, and the CHT is actually cooler...much cooler? I believe Dawley's exhaust business is benefiting from people running INCORRECTLY lean of peak. Considering that most engines will shake themselves to death before they're much leaner than peak, that's a bit of a stretch. If someone is leaning incorrectly, attemping LOP will give warnings before they get there. Blaming it BLINDLY on LOP is stupid. If he wants to say "Incorrect leaning procedures", that's what he should say. Again, for YEARS the standard procedure was right at peak EGT, as in the standard dogma, "I lean to peak then enrich a bit". Well, that kept the engine shops busy doing jugs and heads. It kept the maintenance people busy doing fouled plugs and valves. Think of someone you drove with who was driving a stick shift, but who didn't give it enough gas before engaging the clutch, or who rode the clutch; does that mean stick shifts are bad because they'd wear out the clutch really soon? The problem isn't necessarily running lean of peak, which most people know should produce cooler (not hotter) EGTs and CHTs. Most people DON'T know that LOP is cooler. AAMOF, on the A&P tests, the correct answer to "What will too lean a mixture produce" define the problem just the opposite (ie, higher CHT temps). The trouble comes with everyone TRYING to run LOP (or, just plain leanER) to save gas, without the proper instrumentation, technique, or knowledge. SInce most people are flying rentals/club aircraft which are rented WET, I really wonder how many are trying ot overlean without the proper equipment and instrumentation. Even so, having the right "stuff", LOP procedures is different (ie, going from full rich to LOP in 2-3 seconds, not the several seconds up to a minute that some people use in adjusting the mixture. Heat kills exhaust systems. Dawley has noticed a spike in their sales since gas prices went through the roof, and they believe it is due to everyone trying to run LOP. I have no reason to doubt them. Well, when people were running in the "Red Zone", that would have been a boon to his business since ROP is hotter. Much hotter. People are saving a few bucks on gas, but are spending a few hundred on more frequent exhaust system replacement costs. I would imagine this may translate into other repair costs as well. It's the nature of the beast. As above...but no doubt, many have changed from 200ROP over to peak to 20LOP, still in the "Red Zone". But again, if he doesn't know the difference between LOP and merely bad leaning technique, he should qualify his statement or else he comes off a fool. Just to show how stupid the FAA exams are and the naiveté of many of they people they "spawned", see what Mike Busch has to say: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182135-1.html Now, you can take that stuff as an "Internet Legend" because we all know that what comes out of the engine manufacturers Legal or Sales & Marketing departments is GOSPEL (everybody say "Amen"!!). -- Matt --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
MoGas Tips, Tricks, Concerns, How To
"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message ... In reading about this somewhere (AvWeb? EAA?) I recall words to the effect that the refineries can get up to about 97 octane without any lead, and they only add as much in to get to (or slightly exceed) the 100 octane rating. This one: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html That's it! Thanks for the link (bookmarked it this time). Hell, pop over to "Printer Friendly Page" and save it as a MHT file to your hard drive (if using Windows Exploder). -- Matt --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
MoGas Tips, Tricks, Concerns, How To
"Newps" wrote in message ... Allen wrote: 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. It doesn't matter where you run your engine. If you run it wrong it will cause warranty claims. And he never evidently heard of the "Legal Department" that would "frown" on them changing their procedures after all these years... |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
MoGas Tips, Tricks, Concerns, How To
"Allen" wrote in message . com... 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. No, Matt Barrow doesn't say it (Allen is evidently reading comp challenged as well as gullible). 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? No, I don't. See remarks about gullibility. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
MoGas Tips, Tricks, Concerns, How To
"Allen" wrote in message om... "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... On 05/12/06 11:21, Allen wrote: "Allen" wrote in message . com... 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, Yes. Glad you agree, now go and COMPREHEND them and all their contexts and caveats, not just READ them. Then compare Deakins' data to what you beloved manufacturers have spewed, and you just regurgitate. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
MoGas Tips, Tricks, Concerns, How To
"Javier" wrote in message ... Matt Barrow wrote: "Allen" wrote in message . com... ... Jay Honeck wrote: Hmmm. Let's see. Shall I believe the guy who runs a multi-million dollar aircraft exhaust system business (and has no incentive to lie to me), or shall I believe Usenet? "Frank Stutzman" wrote in message Teledyne Continental and (I think) Lycoming have both gone on record to say that mogas is damaging to their engines. They are certainly multi-millon dollar aircraft engine companies and have have no incentive to lie to you. They are also multi-million dollar aircraft engine companies that recommend against LOP operation. (Unless you are running a FADEC system). 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. Mirage/Malibu models with certain engines need to be ran LOP, per the POH, too. Recall, too, that the earlier Malibu's ran into problems because pilots were "chicken" to run LOP and the engine baffeling was quite suboptmal. From what I've been reading on the Mooney list by Walter Atkinson, LOP is a Good Thing, and even doable on carbureted engines (one needs to play with the carb heat setting, an engine analyzer and a carb temp gauge are de rigueur). A touch of Carb heat and the throttle cracked ever so slightly. It creates turbulence in the intake system that evens things out rather nicely. I guess it, unfortunately, doesn't work with many of the 182's whose carbs are just a nightmare. (??) |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
MoGas Tips, Tricks, Concerns, How To
"Allen" wrote in message . com... "Newps" wrote in message . .. Allen wrote: "Newps" wrote in message ... Allen wrote: They are also multi-million dollar aircraft engine companies that recommend against LOP operation. (Unless you are running a FADEC system). Yes, suddenly it's OK to run LOP when you give them $10K for their FADEC. That is because you have zero control over the fuel-air mixture, they do. Which isn't their argument now. They flat out say it isn't good for the engine period. That is correct, because you can't control the fuel flow to all cylinders precisely enough. Well, so lets put in $8000 for a FADEC instead of $1000 for GAMI's. Yeah, that's a great deal. The FADEC system will not allow the engine to run in an condition that will cause damage. If a CHT is too high or EGT too high guess what happens. It INCREASES the fuel flow to that one cylinder to bring it down. FADEC can't adjust one cylinders fuel flow. It can also retard the ignition on that one cylinder only to correct the condition. It never LEANS further to cool cylinders or EGT temps. What a marvel of Rube Goldberg engineering. So, are they going to increase their warranties from nothing to something now? |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
MoGas Tips, Tricks, Concerns, How To
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message om... "Frank Stutzman" wrote in message ... Jay Honeck wrote: Hmmm. Let's see. Shall I believe the guy who runs a multi-million dollar aircraft exhaust system business (and has no incentive to lie to me), or shall I believe Usenet? Teledyne Continental and (I think) Lycoming have both gone on record to say that mogas is damaging to their engines. They are certainly multi-millon dollar aircraft engine companies and have have no incentive to lie to you. Yet you, Jay, are an ardent user of mogas. Who do believe: the engine companies or Usenet? Just what damage is caused by mogas? The same problem that some cars had; hose, gaskets, etc., something like that? I don't believe either company has ever provided one iota of evidence. It is more the lawyers talking than anyone that actually knows an engine from a rock. Well, that last is ALL IMPORTANT given out litigious society. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
MoGas Tips, Tricks, Concerns, How To
"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message ... On 12 May 2006 12:00:24 -0700, "M" wrote: Lower octane autogas is quite common in mountain states where the elevation is high. Non turbo-charged car engines have a bigger denotation margin at higher elevation and require less octane. So that's why "super" mogas in Florida is 93 octane but only 92 octane in the Seattle area. Thanks everyone for the replies (usenet is good for something besides arguing about politics afterall!). Bela P. Havasreti Both Seattle and Florida are basically at sea level. The lower octane is not explained by altitude difference in this case.... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MoGas Long Term Test: 5000 gallons and counting... | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 82 | May 19th 05 02:49 PM |
MoGas Long Term Test: 5000 gallons and counting... | Jay Honeck | Owning | 87 | May 19th 05 02:49 PM |
Pocket PC Tips & Glide Navigator II Tips | Paul Remde | Soaring | 0 | December 14th 04 08:21 PM |
Mogas and microbial growth | Economic Girly Man | Owning | 6 | November 13th 04 09:14 AM |
"Dirty Tricks" and "Both Sides Do It" | Leslie Swartz | Military Aviation | 19 | March 29th 04 06:11 PM |