Constant speed props

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
I think Deakin is worth reading, but some of what he says should be taken
with a grain of salt. His columns are mostly based on experiments with his
own highly modified Bonanza, a few high performance radial engines, and
some
theory. In fact, a careful reading of his columns will show no test data
for
the most common engine and propeller combinations in use today.

You've not read hiscolumns about the test beds they've run at GAMI?


The reasons
for this are fairly simple -- few airplanes have the instrumentation that
Deakin needs to test his theories. This is why Deakin's theories for
running
lean of peak remain a minority view. Granted, it is a very noisy minority,
but remember that it is also a small minority. I think they have a point.
They may even be right. But they don't have nearly the evidence that they
think they have.

See above.

Deakin's remarks are mostly pertinent to running TCM engines, which are
much
different than engines from other manufacturers.

I bellieve they run Lycoming on the test bed as well, everything from
pipsqueaks to the big 540's.

Not to put too fine a point
on it, some TCM engines are the only ones I know of that so consistently
develop cracks that the most part of an annual inspection basically
consists
of measuring and cataloging the spread of these cracks. The engine used in
the early 70's Cessna T206 rarely made it to its 1400 hour TBO, for
example.

Barring solid data to the contrary (and Deakin, remember, does not give
you
solid data -- he only appears to do that), your airplane should be
operated
in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. This will ensure
that
you maintain your insurance coverage, if nothing else.

I think GAMI generated enough data on their stand to run a computer dry.

http://www.engineteststand.com/