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 » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Constant speed props



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #23  
Old June 24th 04, 08:39 PM
Greg Copeland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:14:59 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:


"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/


Is the data offered in the articles you refer to or is it available on
the web site? It does not appear to be jumping out at me. I see a couple
of pictures of some graphs, a webring link, and email address, and a link
to gami.com. What am I missing?

Thanks,

Greg


 




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
PA28: Difference in constant speed prop vs fixed pitch Nathan Young Owning 25 October 10th 04 05:41 AM
Constant speed prop oil leak DP Piloting 23 April 21st 04 11:15 PM
Why do constant speed power setting charts limit RPM? Ben Jackson Piloting 6 April 16th 04 04:41 AM
Practicing SFLs with a constant speed prop - how? Ed Piloting 22 April 16th 04 03:42 AM
Constant Speed Prop vs Variable Engine Timing Jay Home Built 44 March 3rd 04 11:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.