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
  #11  
Old June 26th 04, 08:29 AM
Greg Copeland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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 07:15 PM.


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