I'm resigned to that now and prefer the extra few ROP knots in any case
Hey run the engine ROP if you want
Perfectly valid operation.
So tell me in detail how you operate a typical flight, just for the education of others who may be watching.
By the way, Running Too Lean is defined as;
(A) on the rich side of peak when at high power settings you create detonation.
(B) On the lean side of peak, when you run too lean, your engine stops, IAS falls and the altimeter unwinds.
Plenty of poor fitting valves make it that far if they are slightly poor. Most likely the very reason it made it that far was exactly because you ran the engine nicely LOP and CHT's below 380, in fact below 350 is better!
See it is funny how your mechanics faultly logic has persuaded you to think that the reason the valve went bad at 1300 hours was due to LOP ops. If running too lean had ANY technical merit, then it would have failed in 300 hours or less. A poorly fitted valve would have failed running ROP as well.
Running as per many POH's I bet would have killed that jug off far sooner. Internal combustion pressures, the temperature of the valves and all the data in the world seems to have little effect on some mechanics, and why? Because they do not understand the data. They do not have to. But they should!
By the way, who has a CPL text book showing Turbo Lance performance charts? Mrs Jaba was doing an exam recently, and answered a performance related question 100% correct, yet was marked wrong
. Now you all know she will get that mark back before the year is out, but it gobsmacked me that this garbage is still in print (along with MBZ's etc
).
Anyway, can someone explain to me how at 70% power you can have two different performances and differing TAS?
70% Best Economy and 70% Best power .......two different TAS
My best guess is the extra mass airflow out the exhaust generates a massive dose of extra thrust hence better performance.