Engine Management Course

[Volumex]

Having just dug deep to buy a share of a Victa, I am rather fortunate that the APS boys have decided to travel over the pond to run an engine management course for me. I am booked into the Brisbane one being held on May 17-19, however there is one being held down in Melbourne the next weekend. The highlight for me is going to be hearing from John Deakin – B-29 pilot extraordinaire, although his other claim to fame is that he is the highest hour 747 pilot. Walter Atkinson should be a character too – I haven’t read his book yet although I have read some of his stories and they usually result in uncontrollable laughter.

I did the online course last year, and it scared the bejeebus out of me knowing that the 50°F rich of peak is NOT a good place to run an engine at higher power settings. I recalled that for a few years I had followed the pilot manual which told me to run it exactly there, but fortunately I was fairly high so I was just outside the red box.

Some blurb for those who don’t know what it is about:
Engine Management Made Easy is a multi-media training program that focuses on the often over-looked vital area of engine management training. A thorough understanding of the combustion process enables the pilot to safely and efficiently operate the engine with confidence. The truths and myths about detonation and pre-ignition will be exposed through a demonstration on a running aircraft engine. The participant learns how engine performance is optimized in all flight conditions and how to interpret the valuable data provided by engine monitor systems. With training and understanding, engine monitors can save literally thousands of dollars in maintenance annually, and perhaps even save your life.

Advanced Pilot (http://www.advancedpilot.com/livecourse-au.html)

[peterc005]

Do a Google search for the Lycoming publications on engine management.

I'd rely on the Lycoming Engineers rather than anyone else.

[peterc005]

Here is a good place to start:

http://www.lycoming.com/support/troubleshooting/resources/SSP700A.pdf

http://www.lycoming.com/support/tips-advice/key-reprints/pdfs/Key%20Operations.pdf

http://www.lycoming.com/support/publications/service-letters/pdfs/SL185B.pdf

[Jack Ranga]

Listened to George Brayly speak at OSH last year, can't wait to hear him in Mel-Born :ok:

Peter, freeee your mind...........and the rest will follow :ok:

This'll Be a cracker of an event :D

[Jabawocky]

Peter,

Argue your left wing greenie arguments if you like, but please for once, answer a decent question from Clinton with a proper answer. Just once please.

You have failed to do so once again.

Now lets address your gems of wisdom, or pathetic links.

1. The article full of BS, where Lycoming tell you its perfectly all right to run LOP, and they do it all the time, but the pilot community are too dumb to do so. :=
Yes experts are everywhere. And guess who Lycoming were poking fun at there?
http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/pp42_braly.jpg

2. this publication is not bad overall, but it hardly covers the truth, and it is very lacking in real detail. Despite its numerous pages.

3. 1988 ohh dear, and check this gem out
Never lean the mixture from full rich during take-off, climb or high performance cruise operation unless the airplane owners manual advises otherwise. However, during take-off from high elevation airports or during climb at higher altitudes, roughness or reduction of power may occur at full rich mixture.
Well if those two sentences do not contradict each other! :rolleyes:

Or what about this for really great advice!!! Noise, prop damage and technically how is this so??? :ugh::ugh::ugh:Prior to engine shutdown run up to 1800 RPM for one minute to clean out any unburned fuel after taxiing in.

Yes Peter, this is really great information mate. I could swallow your carbon tax logic before this stuff.

So Peter, take up the APS challenge, if you attend and don't learn anything you get your money back. John Deakin has promised this to thousands and never paid a cent.

Man up Peter, book in and put your hand up as a potential credit. Then come back and tell everyone here on pprune that you learned a heap.

I bet you don't dare. :ok:

By the way, LOP ops and stuff is only 15% of the course, the real value is engines, how they work (not how you think they work), how all the inputs affect what is going on, what engine monitors actually do and what they tell you. (98% of pilots are like dogs watching TV, yes that means you) And more importantly when you understand what the monitor is telling you, how to explain that to the LAME or whether to carry the defect and for how long or whether to land immediately. Not to mention how to understand the engine health checks etc.

All these things teach you about saving thousands of dollars, but more importantly your/your pax life.

It was the best money I ever spent, and it cost me thousands more to go to the USA and do it.

Peter......if only you knew.

[peterc005]

@Volumex - what's the registration of your Airtourer? They are a great little plane.

@Clinton - I'm always reluctant to deviate from the POH and official publications. The Lycoming Engineers know their stuff and their publications on the Lycoming Engines (http://www.lycoming.com) website are gold.

I regularly attend seminars, such as the CASA safety talks, and would probably go to the APS ones if I am free.

@Jabawocky - did you forget your medication tonight?

[blackhand]

Clinton, leaning reduces the amount of fuel so the Lycoming statement seems right, am I missing something?

[A Squared]

Nothing wrong with that. The might have included a little more detail. The reason it's rough is that the fuel air mixture is not even for each cylinder, some tend to be leaner than others, as you lean, the leanest one will reach the point where it's too lean to for combustion, so that cylinder stops producing power, and the engine runs rough because it's running on 5 cylinders instead of 6, just like if you'd pulled off a sparkplug lead.

[Jabawocky]

Before this thread descends into some rabble, lets clear up a point.

Clinton is pretty much on the money. The reason is a poor F/A ratio engine runs rough is usually because the cylinders are still firing, albeit at vastly different F/A ratios, and thus the HP per cylinder is vastly different.

On a fully instrumented carby engine this is easy to demonstrate, as the EGT and CHT data will prove the cylinder/s who are considerably leaner are still producing power. So the notion suggested above that they immediately shut down and caused rough running because the mixture is so lean it would not support combustion is not quite how it happens, or certainly in the vast majority of cases.

So CM, chocky frog for you:ok:

Peter C...my medication is quite fine thank you for asking. Your comment about publications written by engineers would be correct, if only the manuals were written that way. It may pain you to learn that far too many sales and marketing and legal department folk are the reason for such poor manuals.

If I were to ask Walter for the fellows name it might lend more credibility, but one of the old timer Lycoming engineers attended the APS course a few years back in Ada and was over joyed that the truth was being told by someone. He told the class how the it was that these kind of publications were released, much to the horror and dismay of the engineers.

:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Yep :ok:

And remember, no amount of science and data can overcome the warm fuzzy feeling of a closely held superstition.

Attribution to W. Atkinson

[rutan around]

I reckon Jabba might just be right. My old IO-520 had the Continental injector nozzles designed continental engineers to all have the same size orifices.Spare parts loved it--only 1 part number for all 520 nozzles. If I leaned much past peak EGT the engine ran rough. Then I got GAMI nozzles. They vary the nozzle sizes to give as near as possible equal mixtures to all cylinders. Now I can lean way past peak EGT and it"s smooth all the way. Of course the further away from peak I go the less power is produced but it is smooooooth. I can actually use the mixture control like a throttle . Push him in--more fuel = more power . Pull him out ---less fuel = less power. But what would George Braly know-- he only designed and tested these things an now rumour has it he's invented an unleaded replacement for 100 LL. I wish he would leave engine and fuel design to the experts.

[metalman2]

Is there a link to these seminars, I'd be keen to go to the Melbourne one,,,,,,regardless of the religious discussions I reckon I can't be harmed by learning more,,,,,,

[Jabawocky]

Advanced Pilot (http://www.advancedpilot.com/livecourse-au.html)

All the notes are there, and then click on signup up the top.

You get the online course as part of the deal in preparation. So you register for that after booking.

[blackhand]

Perhaps or perhaps not Clinton.
I have a modicum of understanding of piston engine fuel systems, both mechanical and electronic.
It is true that manifold runners and other variables affect efficient and balanced fuel to each cylinder. This isn't just a problem for aero engines, think front and rear cylinders on a carbied V8 - Holley square bores overcome the lean running on rear cylinders experienced by spread bore carbs.
There are two issues when using GAMI PMA injectors:
1 Injectors balanced to each cylinder is a good thing
2 LOP - use at your own risk
BTW I cannot find a copy of the STC or it's FMS, would be interested in reading both.

http://www.lycoming.com/support/troubleshooting/resources/SSP700A.pdf

A brave soldier to ignore Lycoming approved data, what would your insurance company say?
I can't be harmed by learning more,,,,,,
Spare $1000 in your pocket?

[Old Akro]

Blackhand

I have just searched the FAA STC database and similarly had trouble find any STC's. I have searched for GAMI under STC holder and I have looked specifically at a number of engines listed in the GAMI compatibility chart and a number of aircraft mentioned as suitable for fitting GAMI injectors.

The GAMI website makes mention of them holding STC's, but I cannot find any STC numbers.

Ultimately, I found:

STC 09289SC for Continental IO550 B, BA & BB
STC 09963SC for Continental IO 360 ES, R , G & N
STC 09217SC for Continental IO 470 series and IO 550 series
STC 09401SC for Continental IO 360 series
STC 09445SC for some Lycoming engines

The FAA does not provide any text of approval documentation.

[blackhand]

Thanks Akro, I did find the STC, PDF format is on FAA site here:
Supplemental Type Certificate (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5Crgstc.nsf/0/3FBE9C0B75A9EB2B8625712A0059EB99?OpenDocument)

No FMS though.
I have 6 piston engines in the fleet so am interested in the efficiency of these injectors, not in the LOP though

THis is good information about care of engine:
http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SID97-2B.pdf

[Jabawocky]

blackhand2 LOP - use at your own risk

Utter rubbish. End of story. How do you think all these modern auto engines survive, and in particular all these "new" diesels that run LOP all the time.

Did you know that the old round engines, long before GAMI injectors or any tuned F/A ratio system was invented for flat aero engines, were run LOP as SOP by their operators to achieve very healthy TBO's and if they did not, they had very short TBO's.

Here is what John Deakin had to say on the matter when questioned about the fact that LOP was the secret to longevity, and with 400,000,000 hours or more of data logged to back it up.

Actual data, painstakingly logged on every flight as only the airlines and military can do it. Most of it four engines at a time. We know of one pilot, John Miller, who said he had 80,000 himself. That's 20,000 hours in Connies, all LOP.

About 450 Connies were built, and virtually all of them would have been operated LOP, although they did not call it that then, as they used BMEP, rather than EGT to get there. The first Connie flew in 1943, the heyday was the 1950s, and they were still in service as late as 1965. Airliners are commonly flown 3,000 hours per year or more. I flew one about 30 hours as late as 2000.

Roughly 640 DC-6s and DC-7s were built, and similar numbers apply to them.

That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface, when you consider all the airplanes that used those magnificent engines, although not all were operated with the "10 BMEP drop" or more.

The 400 million hours is probably conservative.

The Connies and DC-7s were going to 3600-hour TBOs.

Best...
John Deakin
Advanced Pilot Seminars

Prior to then when these engines were used in the B29 they had a TBO of several hundred hours, run ROP.

Unless you have hard data to the contrary, I am sure you will agree eventually. If you do, please send it to me. I am sure keen to see it.

Remember if you run ROP run rich enough, if LOP run lean enough. A concept that takes most folk a training course to fully understand and appreciate. It can't be taught on an internet forum.

[blackhand]

Jaba, settle mate I'm not here for a fight.
I have 6 engines under my control, if I an going to spend another grand on my OH costs I had better be able to justify it to the CFO.
So give your story and fck the emotion - these are aircraft not women.

[Jabawocky]

blackhand

I am not fighting, just telling the story as it is. If I can't back up my argument with information and data, it is just another statement or opinion. :ok:

I have 6 piston engines in the fleet so am interested in the efficiency of these injectors, not in the LOP though

Thats fine.

Why don't you book in for the Brisbane session, come and see how the pro's and cons of both ROP and LOP work, both are valid and legitimate methods of operating.

Then decide if GAMI's are worth spending the money on. And decide how best to use them.

As I mentioned before, you need to over come the confusion between hard data backed facts and the warm feeling of a strong held superstition.

Then go operate LOP or ROP as your heart desires.

Take up the JD challenge, if you don't learn a swag...I will eat crow with lavish servings of salt!

:ok:

[rutan around]

Blackhand
This is a genuine question. If you are running at or below 65% power what harm can you do? My C210 Flight Manual gives figures for running at peak EGT so Continental must think it acceptable.If I lean further power reduces and CHT's reduce.It seems to me leaning once below peak EGT is being kinder to your engine.How lean you chose to go seems to be a choice speed and CHTs
Cheers RA

[blackhand]

2 LOP - use at your own riskTo clarify, I have IO 540 and IO 720 Engines. IO 520 in there as well.
The LOP method was endorsed in this company previously, and cost them two engines. Just one more thing for a busy commercial pilot to monitor in single pilot ops. remember Jaba that in aircraft with those big roundy ones, there was a flight engineeer to moniter engine stuff.

[Jabawocky]

Rutan ...Indeed :ok:

But lets see what a very high power setting LOP looks like. 82% power, 1000' WOT/2500 and about 70dF LOP.
http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/80LOP_zps6e22f7f3.jpg

Geez those CHT's dropped a heap....and only a few knots slower (less cooling air too).

[blackhand]

Jaba, what was peak temp?
How does compare to your previous temps and indications?

[A Squared]

Roughly 640 DC-6s and DC-7s were built, and similar numbers apply to them.

I have roughly 6,000 hours in all three seats of the DC-6, all of it operating Lean of Peak

[rutan around]

One of the main sources of the old wives tale that running lean ruins engines is that many pilots don't know the difference between lean of where they were taught to run the engine and lean of peak.
Lycoming says you can run at peak EGT at 75% power or less and Continental is more conservative with 65% .
A pilot who normally operates at 75% power and 100 deg ROP decides this leaning sounds pretty good but being conservative won't push it as far as his mates advise and will try 50deg less than his usual setting.
He has just put his engine in the worst operating environment possible.
When eventually a valve burns out or a crack appears in a cylinder he entertains his barfly mates with tales about what a s*#t idea it is to lean. Had he leaned to lean of peak instead of lean of usual setting it would have been a different story.
As Jabba said earlier. Keep your cylinders cool by operating either well rich or well lean of peak EGT but not half arsed either side.
Cheers RA

[blackhand]

Clinton, I do not fly them and do not maintain them, I oversee them.
I have no position one way or the other on the GAMI injectors.
Private operations are different to commercial operations, our margins are low.
One dead engine takes a big percentage of a job.

[morno]

Jaba, do you mind editing that photo so the skid ball is in the centre, you're making me look bad, :E.

[Grogmonster]

I have operated a fleet of IO-520 piston twins for years. Over that time I have probably gone through at least twenty engines which I have run to 2000 hours TBO (CASA approved). I have fitted them all with Gami's. My pilots have been instructed to run full throttle at 7 - 10 thousand ft and 2300 RPM. leaning is 50 - 75 ROP. Yes they will run smooth LOP but I have forbidden such operations as to much power is lost (read speed). We have never had any problem with any of the engines other than a heap of those rubbish ECI cylinders cracking a few years back.

My point is that running 50 - 75 ROP is great and will not damage your engine in any way. The POH does not suggest running LOP.

Groggy

[Volumex]

@Volumex - what's the registration of your Airtourer? They are a great little plane.
I'll PM it through, I'm still not a fan of posting too much on a public interweb forum.
Victas are great planes. I learned to fly in the 80's in a 100 hp version. To me, 100 hp is about right. It would cruise along at just short of 100 knots and the weights were so easy to remember: 748 MTOW and 478 empty. The old 100 hp had a better useful load than our 150 hp version :ok:

[/thread drift]

[Tinstaafl]

A 1980 PA31 Navajo I operate is approved to operate 50deg LOP - and that's directly from the AFM/POH. The manual even details a procedure to get to a LOP power setting if the EGT temp limit is reached prior to LOP being achieved (in a nutshell, reduce MP, continue leaning to 50-75 deg LOP then add back the MP).

That's with Piper's crappy single point EGT & temp. probes. I wasn't too happy not knowing what was really happening - especially with the engines being turbocharged - so recommended to the owner we get an EDM installed. Put one in and LOP is great. Glad for the EDM though. The factory probes aren't necessarily the most limiting cylinder or EGT/TIT.

Fortunately no need for GAMI injectors - it runs smoothly at the recommended LOP with its stock injectors. Note that that means the *richest* cylinder is 50 deg LOP so the others are somewhat leaner. Go much beyond there though and it starts getting rough.

[Jabawocky]

Grogmonster

I have fitted them all with Gami's. My pilots have been instructed to run full throttle at 7 - 10 thousand ft and 2300 RPM. leaning is 50 - 75 ROP.

Well no surprises there....outside red box :ok: But you could save a tone of money on fuel from that position and be no worse off in engine life, maybe even a tiny bit better.

You are almost optimum operations, but not quite.

blackie
Private operations are different to commercial operations, our margins are low.
One dead engine takes a big percentage of a job.

That is BS right there. The engines know nothing of the kind of operation they are used in. :ugh:

Time to stop the LOP v ROP debate.

APS course is about TOTAL engine management, engine monitors and learning how not to be the dog in front of a TV, which is where most pilots are at, especially the commercial pilots and LAME's

Attend the course.....It is guaranteed to be the best return on investment you will ever make. No matter how you want to operate.


Tin :ok:
Fortunately no need for GAMI injectors - it runs smoothly at the recommended LOP with its stock injectors. Note that that means the *richest* cylinder is 50 deg LOP so the others are somewhat leaner. Go much beyond there though and it starts getting rough.

Set of GAMI's would improve it quite a lot. By the way the Chieftan manual is dangerous in its climb power settings, you should watch them on the dyno :eek: Run richer in the climb

[blackhand]

You are correct Jab, I was trying to avoid saying it was a pilot issue.

[Jabawocky]

Well it stands to reason, train your pilots properly. Send them to the course!

Simple hey!

[Arnold E]

Do you run GAMI's on the 10 Jabba??

[Jabawocky]

No.

Gami spread under 0.5gph with some tweaking done by Andrew Denyer at Riverina Airmotive in Adelaide.

I am going to try a set while they are in my possession encounters to their new owner in April. Just to see what results I get.

The Gamijector is superior in its nozzle design, and the way it sprays, so I expect a slight improvement due to atomisation. And I do run an upper deck pressure feed already like a TC or TN setup.


Any way back to topic, the APS courses are all about education. Problem is the ones who squeal the most are the ones who need it the most. They don't know what they don't know and won't risk a money back guarantee. Horse to water thing.

If only they knew the money they would save on LAMEs bills by telling the mechanic what's wrong, not spending a bomb on unnecessary work that does not do any good.

How many CPLs can honestly say they can pick an exhaust valve problem 20-40 hours before it fails?

How many twin drivers like Chieftans for example know what to do when the MP is inexplicably out of Sync? And that one can kill you and your pax. Almost killed George Bralys brother many years ago.

Commercial operators like blackie would yield far greater ROI if they just put their pride aside and went to a class.

Morno, you are off the hook, that was me taking photos myself and not keeping rudder pressure, but you can cop that one.:ok:

So now we have all the BS out of the way, anyone with genuine questions not rubbish rock throwing wish to ask a question, they can be basic, but never a dumb question so long as its sensible.

A Squared, if you wish to share your experiences with me, PM me your details. Love to hear about your 24,000 hrs of LOP days:)


Advanced Pilot (http://www.advancedpilot.com/livecourse-au.html)

[Jabawocky]

Groggy,

I have operated a fleet of IO-520 piston twins for years. Over that time I have probably gone through at least twenty engines which I have run to 2000 hours TBO (CASA approved). I have fitted them all with Gami's. My pilots have been instructed to run full throttle at 7 - 10 thousand ft and 2300 RPM. leaning is 50 - 75 ROP. Yes they will run smooth LOP but I have forbidden such operations as to much power is lost (read speed). We have never had any problem with any of the engines other than a heap of those rubbish ECI cylinders cracking a few years back.

My point is that running 50 - 75 ROP is great and will not damage your engine in any way. The POH does not suggest running LOP.

Groggy

You are operating at 65% at 7k at the maximum, and mostly less so sure you can run 50-75 ROP and with Gamis run accurately there.

Can I suggest you attend either location. You will soon see that despite the good results you are getting, you are operating where peak pressure is at its highest and not achieving best power, through to where max power is achieved. Yet for a very slight reduction in speed you will have much healthier ICPs and much lower CHTs and save around 20% of your fuel bill.

With good climb technique you may improve operations there too! You are close to optimal operation but not quite there.

I fear you may be almost seeing the facts and data but still hanging onto a warm fuzzy feeling of a superstition. Seeing the data generated before your own eyes is a truly enlightening experience, and nobody else in the world is bothering to do it.

As for the reason why the POH does not mention the other half of the graph, that is because stock engines, which yours are not, could not operate there. Pilots and their wives or pax do not like engines that run rough. So that half of the combustion curves was just simply org noted as unreachable. This is the truth.

400,000,000 plus hours of airline data, plus the unknown more flown is not evidence enough. You need to sit in my seat, come do it to my engine, all the data in front of you.

Take up the Deakin challenge:ok:

[Jack Ranga]

Jabawocky and others if you please!

A pair of pilots on aircraft ferry depart an aerodrome, partial engine failure shortly thereafter, barely able to maintain height A045, engine running rough then oil starts appearing on the wings (low wing aircraft) they land. Cracked cylinder.

How quickly can you crack a cylinder from new or overhaul? 1 hour, 2 hours? Does it take hours of mis-use before it lets go?

Can a cracked cylinder be picked up on the ground? How?

[rutan around]

Real quick if timing is set wrong or they are a certain brand of cylinder.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

[blackhand]

Depends on the age of the cylinders, some can be 2nd or 3rd life. I prefer to use new cylinders at overhaul.

[Jack Ranga]

How quick boys and girls? Can you crack a cylinder, fresh from overhaul after 1 hours mis-handling? Would a cracked cylinder be picked up on a 100 hourly? How? Compression tests?

[Trent 972]

Interesting article on subject

First Church of Combustion (http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/church.html)

[Jabawocky]

Jack,

I doubt that even with mis-timed engines you could do that in one hour. Look at the Whyalla engine that was mis-timed, it took a beating for a couple of hundred hours (from memory) and in the end it just accelerated the onset of the crank failure.

Without knowing anything more of the failure it is possible to have cracks between the plug and injector from over tightening and it could be said that where ever the crack was starting was not visible. Perhaps the LAMEs were slack, maybe not. We do not have enough information to comment.


Trent :D:ok:
George is the smartest person I know, and I work with some seriously smart people, and the odd genuine rocket scientist....yes odd as well.

[Volumex]

Interesting reading to the causes of circumferential cracking at the head/barrel interface: http://www.eci.aero/pdf/12-2.pdf

[Fred Gassit]

My personal experience of cylinder cracking, low compressions at 100 hourly on newly reconditioned (very 2nd hand i suspect) cylinders, so I guess it can certainly happen within 100 hours.

Engines would be running fine but cylinders cracked around sparkplug to exhaust, went over to factory new cylinders and it didn't happen again.

Ive had one internal engine failure, on takeoff on a very short sector I thought one engine was making a very faint ringing sound, almost like a school bell tone but the sector was all of 10 minutes, no other indications.
A piston completely burned through on the very next takeoff, pressurised crankcase etc. that flight was about 90 seconds long.
I can only guess, but if the engine was detonating/preigniting on the previous takeoff it destroyed itself in about the time it took to do 2 takeoffs, I suppose it may have been in a failure mode for a long time prior but I dont know.

[peterc005]

At my last 100-hourly three cylinders had cracks near the exhaust port on the O-320-D1A engine.

The fourth cylinder had a similar crack repaired with welding about 300 hours ago.

Second life engine with second life over-bored cylinders.

I was a bit pissed off and checked the Lycoming documentation, which said the cylinders had an expect life of 3,000 hours. The log books showed 3,100 hours, so I think the Lycoming engineers know their stuff.

New complete Lycoming cylinder kits only cost $1,350, so it's not that expensive to get a complete new top end on an engine.

A mag failed shortly before this, and I suspect it caused unburnt fuel to ignite in the exhaust port, giving much higher CHT temps and may have been the catalyst for the cracks.

[A Squared]

A Squared, if you wish to share your experiences with me, PM me your details. Love to hear about your 24,000 hrs of LOP days

Not a lot to say that hasn't already been said here. I just tossed that out there to say that I have significant experiance with LOP ops. Not quite 24k engine-hours as a fair amount of that time was on 3 engines. Anyway as you mentioned LOP in cruise was SOP. T/o and climb was full rich. At TOC we't set cruise power and let things stabilize. Then the engineer would lean by watching the BMEP gauges (torquemeters). We'd lean to a 12 BMEP drop which equates to about an 8 percent power reduction.

[Checkboard]

anyone with genuine questions not rubbish rock throwing wish to ask a question, they can be basic, but never a dumb question so long as its sensible.

How can you pick an exhaust valve problem 20-40 hours before it fails?

What is occurring and what do you do when the MP is inexplicably out of Sync?

Why is setting 25/25 on a CMI engine in climb the ‘single most damaging thing’ you can do it?

"I’ve also learned that the mixture control doesn’t cut off the fuel on my engine." What does it do?

... four questions from this thread, provided without answers. They surely can't be "dumb questions" if you are posing some of them yourself ;)

[Jabawocky]

Checkers, Good questions :ok:

If I answer them now folk will be getting a head start in the course :}

1. Quite easy when you do regular data reviews and know what you are looking at. Ironically John Deakin and I had some email banter overnight about several graphs of data on this very topic. Theses examples and many more are gone over with considerable time to study in the course.

Every owner should do this for every engine and in particular right before the LAME gets it for a 100hrly. Most problems give you ample warning, some 20-40 hours, some problems which could develop into major ones 2-400 hours later can be seen by the trained eye, if there is data and a trained eye.

The very reason I say, ROI for this training is huge, maybe drug running is a higher return, but the risk reward is not so good.

As for the failure Jack is referring to, that may never have been seen coming, but there is not enough information so far. We are investigating though.

2. Shut it down IMMEDIATELY and divert. No ifs buts or maybe's. You may not have time to even fiddle or dick about with it. A lot more of that in the course. Pictures too!

3. Another good question, not sure who asked it, but anyway, when you do the classes you will soon see why reducing MP delays the ICP and thats fine by itself, however reducing the RPM just moves the ICP back up to a similar theta PP and the double whammy kicks in all at a reduced fuel flow (TCM/CMI is rpm dependant) and even in a Lyc with a mass airflow fuel controller its still not good either.

This old wives tale, that is to this day taught by flying schools, I flew with young PyroTek once and after I chastised him for doing this we did a second go at things. Plane went up faster, forward faster, CHT cooler happy Jaba.

Despite all the APS data shown in the course material, I went and did a test at Watts Bridge, I had a VA B737 guy fly (coz he is gooderer at nailing the numbers) and I fiddled the levers. Using a constant IAs of 120, we did four climbs to 5500'. One was a APS target EGT, a full rich touch nothing, a 25/2500 as the schools teach, and another Target EGT run to prove the data was consistent with the first. You know which one was at TOC quicker, used less fuel etc.....and yes the two options of full rich or full rich 25/2500 were in order of unkind to the engine. Both in terms of deposits and the later deposits and CHT.

APS have nothing to sell you like a snake oil salesman, it is simply data backed science, methods proven over hundreds of millions, no billions of hours in flight, yet flying schools and people on pprune etc keep perpetuating the OWT's

One last point, there is a lot of stuff in an APS class that will never be discussed on an internet forum, some of it is just too hard to explain in one or two posts, and the consequences of doing so is that some half clued up genius gets it wrong.

It would be fair to say that you do not know what you do not know....I am a classic example of this all the time! But no matter what I say here, unless you attend, you will never appreciate it. I think this is why those who do know, sort of sound like some evangelistic nutter to the doubting Thomas folk. Unfortunately the ones who THINK they know it all and will never sign up, are the very ones who need to attend the most. This can't be taught here.

It all comes back to Return On Investment to me. My training has paid me back in my estimation between $25000 and $30000 so far in terms of fuel and maintenance costs, and most likely extended TBO, just on one aircraft alone in around 750 hours so far. My investment was a lot more than $1290 though, that trip cost me $35K (yeah Mrs Jaba and adult jabettes went too) but it has almost paid for that!!

[Jack Ranga]

A good 25k would have been young Jaba's food bill right?

[Checkboard]

Yes Jabba - it was Clinton who mentioned the "other two" questions :) - You may have guessed that by now! ;)

I was a flying instructor in the early 90's and knew, and taught, that leaning is cooler, if you are already lean of peak EGT. The CFI had some old (60's) Lycoming engine manuals which clearly explained all of that pretty clearly. (Of course, practically, the lesson was rich of peak on the pa28s we used).

A 1980 PA31 Navajo I operate is approved to operate 50deg LOP - and that's directly from the AFM/POH. The manual even details a procedure to get to a LOP power setting if the EGT temp limit is reached prior to LOP being achieved (in a nutshell, reduce MP, continue leaning to 50-75 deg LOP then add back the MP).
Same thing for me, when I was flying Navajos on freight ops in the mid-90s, after the instructing gig - and that I operated lean of peak.

I signed up to Avweb, and read Deakin's articles as each was first published in the late 90s with interest (I also loved his oxygen series, using welder's oxygen and pulse oxymeters combined with cannulas.), but but by then I was flying for Ansett, and my piston days where behind me.

I'd love to attend the course - but I am in the UK now (visiting Australia in November).


P.S. - I always simulated engine failure with mixture. :)

[Jabawocky]

Howdy Checkers, :ok:

I was a flying instructor in the early 90's and knew, and taught, that leaning is cooler, if you are already lean of peak EGT.

This is not an attempt at being picky but just for your curiosity and general knowledge. Did you know that CHT actually starts dropping prior to peak EGT, so once you are past about 40ROP the ICP and CHT is actually dropping. ;)

Welding O2 :ok::ok: When you come to my hangar you will think I do a LOT of welding....but the Acetylene bottle is away being refilled....apparently ;)

break break

Apparently 25% booked already 3 months to go! So don't muck around or if you know folk who want to attend don't muck around. Advanced Pilot (http://www.advancedpilot.com/livecourse-au.html)

[Walter Atkinson]

Gentlemen:

This thread has some spirited discussion within and that is almost always educational. It's been fun to read. There are, however, some posts which do not comply with the known physics, and since , according to Sir Isaac Newton, "the physics are everywhere the same", this presents some interesting contradictions.

First of all, several of the Lycoming publications quoted have been recently recanted by Lycoming and have become a sort of embarrassment to them. They are trying to soft-shoe their way around these difficult contradictions. They are making the transition to being on board with the scientifically valid concepts of engine management. We welcome them to the party. The problem for them was that several of their publications were not in harmony with their own engineering data. Between believing the Marketing Department and the Engineers, I'm going to go with the engineers. This has been a problem for Lycoming and apparently a few of this forum's members. Going with the repeatable, hard data is never a bad choice.

Secondly, please do not believe anything I say. For that matter do not believe anything anyone says. Believe the hard data. The hard data does not lie. In some cases, one must be adequately schooled to be able to interpret the data in meaningful manner, but it is there for everyone to see and interpret on their own.

We spent about five years amassing the data for use in the APS class from many sources, including but not limited to Pratt & Whitney, Wright Aeronautical, Lycoming, TCM, and the most advanced engine test facility in the world. We make NO attempt to convince anyone of anything. We simply offer a fire hose of information for each participant's digestion. We have had thousands of pilots, LAMEs, aircraft manufacturers, engine manufacturers and overhaulers as well as engine monitor engineers come to the class. We even had a group of auto engine test facility fellows join us. In not a single instance has anyone offered any data which contradicts what we present nor has anyone taken issue with any of the data we present. Believe the data. Opinions are always suspect. "A person without data has nothing more than an unsupported opinion."

I have not joined the forum to promote anything. If anyone has an engine management question, I will be more than happy to try to present the data or science which answers their question and let each make their own decision as to the proper conclusion.

It may be helpful to remember that, as Boswell said, "It's not what you don't know that hurts you; it's what you know that isn't so..."

I will be traveling from Colorado to Brisbane and Melbourne to be at the APS classes in May and look forward to meeting those of you who will be attending. I can promise you an enjoyable time packed with information that will be useful in saving you money, maybe your engine, and possibly your life.

I look forward to your engine management questions; and working through the answers.

[Jack Ranga]

G'day Walter,

I'm probably putting the horse before the cart. I'll be running in an IO540 shortly. Previous run-ins I've been involved in have you going flat knacker (75%) for 10 hours of flying at full throttle height. I'd be interested in your thoughts reference running in my IO540 and running LOP? When? Right from the start? I'll also be using the GAMI injectors, should they be installed before the run-in or after? My engine monitoring will be via the Garmin G3X.

Regards.

[Jack Ranga]

Sorry, also,

Just say you are part of a syndicate that has a C182, IO540, injected with engine monitoring. Does it matter if one syndicate member is running LOP and the 30 other syndicate members are leaning the 'usual' way? Guess what I'm trying to say, should everybody lean the same way, will there be any engine damage if the one fella is running LOP?

Ta.

[rutan around]

I have a genuine question about cylinder head temperature gauges hopefully to be answered by someone with expertise in these instruments. ( Jabba come back )
What temp. does a CHT gauge actually show?

1 Is it the true temperature of the cylinder at the probe position? ie no matter how hot or cold the ambient temp happens to be the gauge reads the true CHT.

2 Alternatively does it simply read the temp difference between the thermocouple ends? ( one end, the cold one, is out in ambient air and the hot end is under a spark plug or screwed into the cylinder head )

If 1 is the case then the gauges must have some sort of device in them that compensates for ambient variations.

This is important because ambient temps vary widely. Often there is a 60* F difference from sea level to 10K. A gauge with no compensation, reading true at SL, would be over reading by 60* F at 10K on that particular day.

I have read that El Cheapo automotive gauges have a middle of the road ambient temp where they read true but are inaccurate at all other ambient temps.

Are our u beaut Alcors or JPIs compensated or are they wrong above and below the temp chosen for calibration?
Cheers RA

[Walter Atkinson]

Jack:

Greetings. We do have a lot of experience with the IO-540. It's a terrific engine and as delivered almost always has adequate FF set-up (unlike the TCM engines) which makes breaking in the engine a straightforward process. The old method of break-in at 75% power and full rich works. For over a decade we have been breaking them in LOP at higher power settings up to 87% and find that to have several advantages. 1) the mean pressures are higher and the rings seat in five hours or so, 2) the peak cylinder pressures are occurring further down the barrel out of the choke area, and 3) the combustion chamber stays much cleaner, and 4) of significance is the fact that CHTs will be lower. All are nice things to have happening. The BIG thing to avoid during this time if running ROP is leaning away from full rich. While being very rich results in excess unburned hydrocarbons which are dirty, it keeps the other factors at bay somewhat. If you break it in rich, stay very rich.

It is not necessary to use mineral oil, but do not use any of the oils with anti-wear additives. Single weight or multi-weights without these anti-wear additives are fine and have some advantages over mineral oil. (we can discuss these further if needed)

As far as mixture management across multiple users is concerned, it is not a factor and has no downsides. We have found that if an engine is run LOP at least some of the time, it will stay cleaner with the rich of peak deposits being burned off rather than continuing to be deposited. The differences between engine being run ROP and LOP at the same power include, lower CHTs, cleaner oil, cleaner combustion chambers, healthier rings and much fewer spark plug deposits in the LOP engines. We have not found any advantages for the engine to running ROP at the same power settings.

I would install the GAMIjectors immediately. The engine is designed to have balanced F:A ratios and doing that is moving toward that end.

Change the oil at 5 hours, cut the filter, and inspect. Change the oil again at another 15 hours and inspect the filter, then as usual thereafter. Run the GAMI Lean Test after the first oil change at 5 hours and have the injectors tweaked if needed.

Holler if I can help further or clarify anything above.

[Walter Atkinson]

Rutan Around:

The probes are thermo-couples which read the temperature at the tip of the probe and are not very sensitive to ambient air temp, other than the affect this has on refractory rate of cooling. This is seldom enough of a problem to be of operational concern. They are very accurate across the range of operating temperatures AT THE PROBE LOCATION. The problem is that many baffle designs are so poor that the cylinders operate at widely varying temperatures around their circumference. This results in round pistons going up and down in egg-shaped cylinders. That's not a good thing.

In our baffle research we used a 36-probe CHT set-up to measure CHTs around the cylinder. You do want a round cylinder.

In our experience in our research, we have found the CHT probes to be quite accurate and trustworthy.

The only engine monitor probes we do not like are the EI standard response EGT probes. They react too slowly to be useful in diagnostics. Their fast-response probes are like everyone else's and work appropriately.

[Jack Ranga]

Thanks heaps Walter, looking forward to chatting about this more!

Welcome to Aus.

[rutan around]

Walter, thanks for your reply. I understand that thermocouples produce a current when there is a difference in temperature between the two ends. This current is measured and is shown on our gauge as a temperature. The larger the temperature difference between the two ends, the larger the current, and the higher the temperature we read on our gauge.

There are three ways to produce a higher current. Increase cooling of the cold end of the thermocouple, OR increase the heat on the hot end, OR do both. If the temperature shown on the gauge in the cockpit is to accurately reflect the temp of the metal in the cylinder head, the temp of the cold end would have to be kept constant. If that wasn't possible, then some device is needed to adjust the reading up or down whenever the cold end (ambient) temp changed from the temp used for it's calibration.

eg If 70*F was the temp where the gauge was calibrated, then at 70*F a CHT reading of 400*F would be true, ie a 330*F differential between the hot and cold ends of the thermocouple produces a reading of 400*F.

If the ambient temperature dropped to, say, 40*F, then a reading of 400*F would actually mean only 370*F.

If the ambient temp happened to be 100*F, and the reading was 400*F, the true CHT would be 430*F.

If we knew that our gauges were not compensated, and we knew the ambient temperature at which they were calibrated, we could easily calculate what the CHTs really were.

Number of degrees lower than calibrated temp - subtract from the gauge reading.
Number of degrees above calibrated temp - add to the gauge reading.

Knowing whether our gauges are compensated and if not, the ambient temp at which the gauge reads true, would be very useful. If it's not compensated and the pilot doesn't know that, then in the second example above, Mr Pilot, on seeing 400*F, reduces his temperature to 380*F and is happy:). Unfortunately, the engine is not, because the true CHT is still 410*F - not good:{.

My interest in CHT gauge accuracy started when I was trying to control high CHTs in a home-built. Lately it's been in my normally-aspirated C210M. At high altitude (above 10K) in cold air and with relatively low power, 18" MP, 2500 rpm, and peak EGT, the CHTs hover around 400*F. Can they really be that high given the cool temperature and low power setting, or is my CHT gauge telling me porkies?

Sometime ago I emailed Alcor about this but got no reply. :ugh:

Cheers, RA

(Don't let this put you off, but I have enrolled in your engine seminar in Caboolture.)

[Jack Ranga]

rutan, have you started the on-line course?

[rutan around]

Jack
Not yet.Wasting too much time on pprune http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

[Jack Ranga]

No future in that mate :ouch:

It's fairly long, I've been told to make sure you do it before the course :ok:

When you say you were @ 18 inches & 2500 RPM, peak EGT with 400f CHT, was that leaned as per Lycoming's leaning procedure & what is that procedure out of interest?

[rioncentu]

Hmm p*ssing contest aside....

I did APS with WA & GB in Sydney a few years ago. Well worth it and recommend it to anyone.

Even got a dinner out "on the town" with those guys. Great blokes making for a top seminar.

Enjoy !

[rutan around]

Jack
The engine is a Continental io520 and the Flight Manual states that below 65% it's ok to operate at peak EGT. According to the performance tables in the Flight Manual I was at about 55% power. I achieve peak EGT by leaning to well below where I think it will be and then slowly in small steps increase the mixture while watching the EGT rise. When it stops rising and starts to decrease I bring it back to the position where it was highest and leave it there. At that setting I use 46 L per hour and TAS 162 knots.
I did not get those figures until I installed wingtip tanks which increased my wing area and greatly improved altitude performance. We won't talk about below 4000 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif Cheers RA

[Jack Ranga]

Ahhhh, sweet, thanks. Just getting my head around all the different procedures!

[Walter Atkinson]

Jack:

Having been involved in the design of an EMS, the cold junction is in the instrument, not at the probe. That means the cold junction is generally close to "room temperature" and fairly consistent. The reading is, therefore, pretty accurate. I also hand made probes for a radial engine. We simply drilled out #6 bolts, placed the wires inside and used ceramic paste to bond them. Since the cold joint is in the instrument, no other action was required.

These probes are pretty accurate--IMO, certainly within the tolerances needed to be operationally accurate.

Looking forward to meeting you.

[Jack Ranga]

Ta Walter, likewise!

[Old Akro]

The probes are accurate. Its all about the instrument. Not many aircraft temperature gauges use cold junction compensation. But it doesn't necessarily matter a lot. 40 deg out of 1500 is not a big percentage and we were interested in trends and relative temperatures more than absolute temperatures.

[rutan around]

Walter , Thanks for that clarification. Now I understand why there is not much variation in the temp of the thermocouples cold end. See you at the seminar . RA

[Old Akro]

Regarding engine break-in. I still reckon Phil Irving's book is among the best. I think it is still in print as the ACL engine manual. Unless you want to go to the oracle and read Sir Harry Ricardo's book " the high speed internal combustion engine" but I think its out of print.

Basically, you are trying to do 2 things: 1) knock the rough spots off rotating components (ie bearings) 2) bed the rings. There are some guys who talk about hardening the bearings, but that seems to mainly be the drag guys.

Its off topic, but the drag guys are interesting. They don't use much instrumentation because they pull the engine down after each race and inspect it.

The bearings want varying speed and light loads. The rings want high BMEP which peaks at the max torque rpm. In cars, you look for the biggest hill you can and do wide open throttle acceleration runs up it. You can't do that with aeroplanes, so 75% power settings are used instead. Constant power is also nicer on the pots which are probably less dimensionally stable than we'd like to know. The improved tolerances & quality of bearings now means that they don't really need running in. So its mainly about bedding in the rings.

Phil Irving maintains that you should have high idle speeds on new engines to aid splash lubrication.

The early oil change was originally to flush out the left over lint, gasket goo and assembly gunk. These days its not so necessary because its all so much better. The guys I know in oil companies say you can't change oil too often. The guys I know in filter companies say we change oil filters just when they start to work properly.

[Walter Atkinson]

**Phil Irving maintains that you should have high idle speeds on new engines to aid splash lubrication.**

The splash inside the engine even at normal idle is amazingly good at putting liquid oil on the underside of the pistons and the cylinder walls. As the RPM increases the oil becomes a mist in the entire bottom end. Very little "liquid" larger than tiny mist-droplets is found out of the pan.

**The early oil change was originally to flush out the left over lint, gasket goo and assembly gunk. These days its not so necessary because its all so much better.**

Correct as far as that goes and is true in close tolerance auto engines. The tolerances of the aviation engines are such that a lot of small metal is generated and it never hurts to get that out of the circulating oil.

**The guys I know in oil companies say you can't change oil too often. The guys I know in filter companies say we change oil filters just when they start to work properly.**

True and sort of true. The problem with aircraft filters is that they tend to go into bypass and stop filtering after 15-20 hours. Some say it takes a bit longer. While they are correct that as a filter clogs, it filters better, but it's only true if it does not go into bypass.

The problem with oil discussions is that it's a science with a significant degree of black art remaining! :rolleyes:;)

[Jabawocky]

The upcoming APS classes in Melbourne and Brisbane will be an excellent opportunity to meet Walter and John as well as learn how to save yourself a fortune in maintenance costs. This is mainly by shortening up the fault finding process or in some cases predicting upcoming maintenance issues before they become a problem or one away from home.

There are many things discussed in the course that are potentially life saving, and in my opinion every private and commercial pilot with a piston engine should do this course. The return on investment is the best you will find anywhere. You owe it to your family and your wallet.

Advanced Pilot (http://www.advancedpilot.com/livecourse-au.html)

[LeadSled]

I'd rely on the Lycoming Engineers rather than anyone else.

Folks,
And I will go with Deakin (and the earlier editions of the Lycoming manuals) about running lean of peak. The engines haven't changed, but what has changed is that the lawyers have been writing (figuratively speaking) the later editions, not engineers/pilots who understand engines.
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Agree with Leadsled. The POH today is a marvel for what it does NOT contain, for example, no specific procedure for landing a C172 let alone any warning about what happens when you don't adhere to the unwritten part of the manual ---because that would be an admission by the manufacturer that the aircraft was less than perfect - leading to lawsuits over landing accidents.

To put that another way,: if American legal processes are allowed to continue to their logical conclusion the Pilots Operating Handbook will one day be reduced to one page and one phrase: "Contains nuts."

[Creampuff]

As usual, I see it’s the lawyers’ fault!

If you’d actually read any of John Deakin’s articles (I have no idea who “Deacon” is), you’d know that the primary impediment to running LOP is the quality of stock manufactured engines. They rarely have induction/injection systems that result in all cylinders reaching peak on the lean curve at the same point during the leaning process. That means they ‘run rough’ (which is PR department-speak for “vibration due to different cylinders putting out different power”) nearing the lean end of the lean curve.

When lawyers build engines, they do it properly. Ask George Braly. :D

[Old Akro]

The best article I've seen which explains this is by Ratcliffe & Rogers from the US Navy. "Balanced FUEL Injector Effects on Inflight Engine Vibration".

This article really says that balanced injectors are a bit of a band-aid to cover some really bad inlet manifold design. The bit I don't understand is why no-one has had a go at making tuned inlet runners. The Lycoming TSIO540 in the current Stationair is a pretty nice setup and seems to embody many elements of best practice. The inlets on our TSIO 360 are a disaster and are probably only saved by being force fed air.

Apart from the regulatory hoops, it would be easy to make something like that. I would expect that even just doubling the diameter of the longitudinal pipe which acts as a plenum chamber would help. I don't know why no-one has ever tried it.

[LeadSled]

Creamie,
Apologies to John Deakin, I blame it on a late and very cold night after a long day here in Beijing.
As one poster has noted, forced induction does not solve the problem of lousy intake design, a most famous example was the Merlin 1, which was a hopeless engine until the supercharger and associated ducting was redesigned by Edwards, which increased the reliable power output from about 750 HP (each engine varied) to close the initial designed 1100 HP.
Tootle pip!!

[Old Akro]

I thought it was Sir Stanley Hooker who sorted the Merlin. His book " Not Much of an Engineer" is a favorite.

[LeadSled]

Old Akro,
I'm not doing well, am I, I think you are correct, it is all detailed in the book "Not Much Of An Engineer", have I got that much right.
But you won't find much about it in the official RR histories.
This weather must be freezing my brain.
Tootle pip!!

[Old Akro]

If my memory is right - Sir Stanley was a mathematician and not an engineer and primarily made the improvements to the Merlin from first principals and analysis of airflow. His book is a great read.

The hallmark text for intake systems is still "Scientific Design of Intake & Exhaust Systems" by Smith & Morrisson. Its been years and years since I have read it. I would have thought the optimal intake runner length on an engine like our TSIO 360 would be twice as long or more than they are standard. In cars the intake length is frequently compromised by bonnets, etc. Its why you often see intake runners that curve on top of the engine. But, I suspect you could double the length of the intake runners on most Continental engines without much difficulty. Intuitively, I think this would have a large improvement in evening out cylinder mixtures as well as improving engine breathing. Aeroplane engines are more like static engines that car engines because they are nearly constant speed. It should be pretty easy to tune the inlets. If CASA didn't make walking over hot coals look more attractive, it would be interesting to have a go.

[Creampuff]

Don’t worry Leaddie – you’ve forgotten more than I'll ever know about matters aviation! :ok:

[rutan around]

Its why you often see intake runners that curve on top of the engine.
Old Akro
Isn't that pretty much what Continental have done with their IO 520 P engine ? Just wondering if that's what you're referring to.
Cheers RA

[Old Akro]

Isn't that pretty much what Continental have done with their IO 520 P engine

Yes.

But if you look at the engine I know best - TSIO 360, its inlet manifold looks like something a plumber would make using scrap exhaust pipe.

The paper by Ratcliffe & Rogers says that inlet air passing the runners sucks atomised fuel out of one inlet runner and pushes it onto the next. You can absolutely imagine that happening with the stubby little tubes on the TSIO 360. The IO 520 (where GAMI made its name) looks pretty similar to the TSIO / IO 360.

[Jack Ranga]

Creampie, yep, it pretty much is the lawyers fault, whom else's fault would it be?

They rarely have induction/injection systems that result in all cylinders reaching peak on the lean curve at the same point during the leaning process.

GAMI Injectors ;)

[jdeakin]

Apologies to John Deakin, I blame it on a late and very cold night after a long day here in Beijing.What for? I've read the thread, and can't find anything to get excited about! I must be missing something! :)
As one poster has noted, forced induction does not solve the problem of lousy intake design,Good comment, and historically some intake manifolds have been unbalanced. But just for the record, one of the things that came out of the research that led to GAMIjectors is that the intake plumbing on the typical 520/550 and 540 engines by CMI (formerly TCM) and Lycoming are remarkably well-balanced. Once the fuel is taken care of, there's very little else that can be done. There ARE some problems with the TSIOs. George thinks he's got a handle on that, but he's so busy trying to get his fuel (G100UL) approved, everything else is on the back burner.

On that subject, if the FAA will just get out of the way, he'll have a real winner! It will mix well with 100LL, you can fill your storage tank or your airplane with any mix of G100UL and 100LL. It has slightly better performance, and is slightly heavier, a wash. Smells good, too!

(Disclaimer: I am not associated with GAMI, TAT in any way, beyond friendship. George Braly, Walter Atkinson and I are principals in APS.)

Best...
John Deakin

[Jabawocky]

Welcome to the pprune in the pacific JD :ok: 6-7 years and this is your first post!

Folks if you want to take the course and meet John and Walter, the opportunities are getting slimmer. So book in ASAP. Melbourne is almost half booked out already and the Brisbane one is getting close to 70% booked.

Remember if you fly a piston aircraft, understanding the engine, its operation and how to use any engine instruments to monitor, diagnose and thus manage the engine over its life are things you have not been taught in any training school so far. Some of what we are taught is plain wrong.

The payback on this course is really fast. Don't miss it. Your wallet and your safety are the benefactors here. Several thousand pilots in the USA and not one has asked for their money back!

Pleasing to see several commercial operators and LAME's have booked in too. :ok:

[Jabawocky]

I see a few ppruners booked in too :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

mmmm, that'll be interesting ;)

Can I buy an APS t-shirt?

Or a GAMI baseball cap?

[Jabawocky]

Jack, you crack me up!

No need to buy an APS shirt, there are plenty of APS shirts with the famous combustion curves on them which are awarded for best questions and answers.

No doubt you will be in the winners circle! All part of the fun.

[Jabawocky]

only about 10 or less seats left.

If you want to be there and have not booked yet, get on with it.

Missing this opportunity is sub optimal ;)

[Walter Atkinson]

Only a week before we embark upon the aluminum tube of death in challenge of the Pacific to come see you blokes.

Looking forward to it. :ok:

I'll be looking for some good references from my new friends on the best Aussie beer while we're there... and no, I don't think it'll be "Fosters."
:=

[rutan around]

Walter,
You'll need to indicate if you want your brain to run rich of peak or at peak or lean of peak before we make recommendations.
Bottoms up RA

[Jack Ranga]

Walter, some of the best beers come out of the States :ok:

I have been testing beers for the last 30 years & will have a taster pack ready for you in Mel-born :E

Have a great trip & don't forget to look right when you cross the road out here :E

[Walter Atkinson]

I run ROP when appropriate and LOP when appropriate, so I'm flexible!

That "look right" is gonna be a tough one--I think I'll let an Aussie drive!

Looking forward to the taster pack. :D

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Beer is for making batter for Barra! :E

Real men drink Bundy OP. :ok:

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

Forkie does have a point. Mr Atkinson does appreciate an Ord River Rum, which I am out of :uhoh:

Perhaps you should bring some Barra down for the BBQ Forkie? :ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Forkie does have a point. Mr Atkinson does appreciate an Ord River Rum, which I am out of http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif
Perhaps you should bring some Barra down for the BBQ Forkie? :ok:

I assume the Caboolture Seafood Market sells Barra! :ok:

I couldn't catch one to save my life ATM! :confused:

40+ x legals boated in each of 2011 and 2012 vs 3 x legals for 2013, to date!:{

[Walter Atkinson]

Now we're talkin'.

[rutan around]

Jabba
Damm you Jabba sucking me into this course. My game plan was to blitz the introductory test , scalp my ticket and retire to the nearest pub for 3 days while Mrs RA waited at home believing I was improving my mind. As it turned out I got 3 wrong 88% so now I have to attend tail between my legs.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif
Tip for procrastinators like me--write down your answers on a piece of paper so when you get one wrong you don't have to wrack your brain what you thought er worked out was the answer after you see the correct one. See ya all at CAB if for no other reason than to test the octane rating of the local brew.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
Cheers RA

[Jabawocky]

Mrs Jaba can attest to getting that score! :}

Actually you have done very well indeed. Far above the average. :D

Beer/Rum testing 201 is the subject schedule for 6pm Saturday. :ok:

[Jabawocky]

Atkinson and Deakin enroute...... last call for Brisbane and there are only a couple of seats available.

Melbourne folk you have about a week max to book in.

Gunna be fun! :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

..............no need for us Melb plebs 'jabba' to tag along, we only fly jets:E


Wmk2

[Jack Ranga]

Who's 'we' Lone Ranger? :E

[Wally Mk2]

Sorry 'JR' (Ewing) I should have said 'some' of us:ok:
You know what they say about props:-)

Wmk2

[Jabawocky]

Yeah Wally.......

Jets are for those people who can't fly a piston engine properly :ouch:






hehehhehhe :ok:

Hey Wally, you should check flight aware mate ;) .....YDBI-YRED and dark like the inside of a cow :eek:

Rest up Wally....take it easy there old mate.

[Wally Mk2]

Yeah Jabba am taking it easy although working 11 days this month does take it's toll:E
FlightAware is not avail ATM, what have ya done Jabba?:)

Jabba haven't ya learnt yet buddy ya don't fly any engine never lone a recip one you operate it, any wonder you blokes need extra tuition I bet once you try to 'fly' an engine it falls from the sky rapidly !:E


Wmk2

[Jabawocky]

You raise a good point Sir Wally, however you fly your passengers, you fly your freight......thus you fly your engine from A to B, or A to A.

You Victorians are funny critters :E

[UnderneathTheRadar]

So who went and was it worthwhile (no need for Jabba to answer)? Looking forward to this weekend....

UTR

[Volumex]

There was around 40, including a fella from CASA.
Good weekend, and most of us improved in our lawn bowls...
:ok:

[outnabout]

Fun Test??

An oxymoron, if ever there was one...

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I am posting this from the here-after! :E

Enjoyed the course and learnt heaps. It was a great pleasure meeting Walter and John! :ok:

Unfortunately, yesterday, on a night flight over mountains in IMC, I misread my JPI 700, suffered a catastrophic engine failure and crashed - killing all on board! :sad:

What I thought to be a faulty probe turned out to be a pre-ignition event! What the @#$% :confused:

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

You crack me up Forkie!!!:ok:

[outnabout]

I hope you've gone upstairs, Forkie.

If you've gone downstairs, we bound to meet! :p

[Jack Ranga]

More to the point, how many prune identities were revealed :}

Or does: what happens at APS stays at APS??

[gerry111]

And what about those who may have multiple PPRuNe identities...:eek:

[Creampuff]

I told everyone at the seminar my pprune identity is “justapplhere”. The bloke next to me said he is “flyingfiend”.

But maybe I wasn’t there… maybe the bloke next to me was making it up….

Or maybe speculating on who’s behind each pprune identity is a completely pointless exercise…

[Jack Ranga]

Oh FFS, typical CASA...........

[rutan around]

I'm beginning to wonder whether the seminar was advertised anywhere other than on P-prune given the number of pruners there. Not that I knew till I returned home and read this thread. Probably the best seminar I've ever been to. Congratulations to all concerned with the presentations and the organizing. To top it off I was one of the lucky guessers that didn't crash and burn over Mt Kosciuszko thus proving luck plays a prominent role in aviation and in surviving till pensioner age- a matter not discussed at the seminar.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif
Cheers RA

[rutan around]

I've just read the first few chapters of John Deakin's book "Full Throttle" which has made necessary an addendum to my last post. Whilst not discussed at the seminar "luck" is there in the book in spades. All I can say about some of his early escapades is "Holy S#*t" I look forward to reading the rest of the book.
Cheers RA