A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why is LOP (lean of peak) controversial?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #18  
Old September 28th 06, 04:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 193
Default Why is LOP (lean of peak) controversial?

Doug wrote:
: One thing no one has mentioned is LOP may not be possible with
: carbureted engines. The flows to each cylinder just aren't consistent
: enough to make it work. Also you really need CHT and EGT guage on each
: cylinder to do it right. The problem with LOP, isn't running LOP, its
: that you are running peak and THINKING you are running LOP. The same
: could be said of running rich of peak too. Running AT peak is really
: only a problem at higher power settings. So most of this LOP stuff is
: really for turbocharged fuel injected engines. I said MOST. Some people
: with just fuel injection use LOP and a FEW at least claim to use it
: with carburetion.

: LOP works, but I think you have to really know what you are doing and
: have the right equipment. But if you are running at 65% power or below,
: it doesn't hurt to try it, no matter what sort of equipment you have
: (unless of course you dont even have a mixture knob :-))

I guess that's what I was trying to say. I'm assuming that most people
reading the thread know that carb'd engines (particularly 6's) generally have too poor
fuel/air distribution between the cylinders to run LOP.

I do know that I am running about half of my cylinders slightly LOP and about
half AT peak. Although the EGT is higher than LOP, the CHT is *lower*, and thus
should have cooler exhaust valves (or at least about the same). That's also why I
tend to limit myself to 65-70% at most. A little safety margin. Besides for my bird
(PA-28), the airframe doesn't buy much speed increase from 65-75% on a 180hp engine.
It's not worth the extra fuel burn for the additional 5 mph or so.

Again, the *at peak* operating condition is mentioned in one of the Lycoming
publications as the "best economy cruise" setting and is considered acceptable.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Leaning Procedure for a Carbureted 182 Jeffrey Owning 54 July 5th 05 04:23 PM
Lean of Peak video Roger Long Piloting 7 August 24th 04 09:46 AM
Lycoming's views on best economy settings [email protected] Piloting 37 July 8th 04 04:00 PM
Constant speed props GE Piloting 68 July 3rd 04 04:08 AM
Lean of Peak Test Flight Roger Long Piloting 0 April 22nd 04 10:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.