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/