![]() |
| 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 |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:09:20 -0400, charles.k.scott wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:44:30 -0500, Greg Copeland wrote: Well, keep in mind that it was the first article of his that I read. It presumed that I had already been introduced to the LOP concept. I had not. In fact, for some engines that I used (r/c nitro and car engines), too lean is a great way to completely destroy an engine. But Greg, you just described a situation worlds apart from what Deakin advocates. I know that. But, when you're ignorant of the details of what he's prescribing and know only the scary details of your own universe, it's a natural reaction. I'm not saying it's justified. I'm just saying, that was my reaction. Running a race engine, any race engine, at full power and too lean is not anywhere near the LOP description for aviation engines. Yup, running an engine like that probably would blow it up. Yep. That's certainly a good point. For takeoff, his recommendation is to use FULL RICH. Not only full rich, he recommends those who are flying behind the large 6 bangers check out the mixture setup to make sure that it is reaching the proper full fuel pressure. If it's set a little too low, something below the specified maximum pressure, *THAT* situation is worrisome and could cause engine problems. That's because the engine needs to have the full rich mixture at takeoff power to stay cool. Having the mixture on the rich side of ideal slows the burning down enough to keep the Peak Pressure Point at around 16 degrees past top dead center. I have read that article since my ignorant gut reaction was made known. ![]() I think he makes a lot of sense! I think he makes a powerful argument. I think he goes to lengths to describe when, what, why, and how. That's all excellent. But, if it's my $20k+ engine on the line, that's a long hard thought before I'd commit to it. After all, he makes it perfectly clear that you have to have an engine monitor, which makes it a hole-in-your-wallet type of commitment for many. Not to mention, irrational whispers in your head can sometimes just be a bitch to get past, no matter what data is telling you. ![]() Needless to say, I'll certaily be looking more into it. It sounds very interesting and it does seem to be well reseached, both presently and historically. Just the same, I'd still like to be more educated on the topic. Cheers! Greg |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |