Questions about the Continental IO-520/550
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: a spinning rock
Age: 34
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Questions about the Continental IO-520/550
I have been reading a very interesting PDF from John Deakin about Manifold Pressure, Constant speed Props, and the Mixture. Towards the end of the PDF he describes his typical cruise settings for low altitudes.
Here's the link: http://www.advancedpilot.com/downloads/prep.pdf
.
My (first) question is if those settings would be 'a deadly combination' if he enriched the mixture, how then would he return to climb power? Would he be increasing the RPM and Mixture at the same time? or would he first reduce MP and increase the Mixture then Prop?
Here's the link: http://www.advancedpilot.com/downloads/prep.pdf
With big-bore fuel-injected engines like TCM 520s/550s and Lyc 540s, we're getting some modern developments that can be of major benefit, and which will pay for themselves in short order. These improvements should also allow safe and efficient operation well outside the suggestions in the various POHs and manufacturers manuals, including much lower RPM, higher MP, and leaner mixtures. At low altitudes, I am routinely running my IO-550 at 2,100 RPM, full throttle, and very lean, perhaps 50° F LOP EGT. That produces about 75% of rated power. The engine appears to love it, runs very cool, makes much less noise, and runs very smooth. However, those settings would be a deadly combination if I enriched the mixture, or even worse, tried running ROP. I also cannot climb at that power setting, because the loss in airspeed causes too much increase in CHT
My (first) question is if those settings would be 'a deadly combination' if he enriched the mixture, how then would he return to climb power? Would he be increasing the RPM and Mixture at the same time? or would he first reduce MP and increase the Mixture then Prop?
Last edited by ImaginedByGod; 12th Jun 2012 at 11:27.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
You are being a micro manager 
If you are flying along, low level say 1500' and set up as JD describes, then once clear of say the CTA steps or whatever and up to 9500 or more, just remember the typical Go-Around procedure.
RED knob
Blue knob
Black knob
Go Go Go
no matter how you do it, it WILL NOT harm anything.
if you have any doubts...PM me
Sounds like you really would benefit from a APS course. I have been making a few noises of late about training and engine management, been talking to Andrew denyer at Riverina Airmotive about this too. I think it is about time a few of us who are passionate about educating our fellow aviators did something. I have already a bunch of folk up here begging for it, so in the next year we might have a local version......time will tell. But in the mean time, spend a few $$ and do an APS online course. PM me if you want to know more
If you are flying along, low level say 1500' and set up as JD describes, then once clear of say the CTA steps or whatever and up to 9500 or more, just remember the typical Go-Around procedure.
RED knob
Blue knob
Black knob
Go Go Go
no matter how you do it, it WILL NOT harm anything.
if you have any doubts...PM me
Sounds like you really would benefit from a APS course. I have been making a few noises of late about training and engine management, been talking to Andrew denyer at Riverina Airmotive about this too. I think it is about time a few of us who are passionate about educating our fellow aviators did something. I have already a bunch of folk up here begging for it, so in the next year we might have a local version......time will tell. But in the mean time, spend a few $$ and do an APS online course. PM me if you want to know more
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
PS
Let me guess.........you have recently done your CPL and are wondering about all the CR@P you learned, from your text books and from your school and are totally confused.
Please PM me........I will save you a heap in confussion
Let me guess.........you have recently done your CPL and are wondering about all the CR@P you learned, from your text books and from your school and are totally confused.
Please PM me........I will save you a heap in confussion
Richening to peak EGT or <100 ROP produces the higher CHT. Go richer and the CHTs will drop to kinder levels again. See if you can get hold of an operator's manual for any of these engines and have a look at the EGT/CHT vs Fuel Flow tables.
Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 12th Jun 2012 at 12:34.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
MIHC
Correct, although any richer mixture, even to 40LOP at that setting will create higher CHT, and around the 40-80ROP wll be the higher numbers of CHT. Any of these settings would be TOO RICH............or not RICH enough
175-200ROP at those settings is the good place to be if on the rich side.
Correct, although any richer mixture, even to 40LOP at that setting will create higher CHT, and around the 40-80ROP wll be the higher numbers of CHT. Any of these settings would be TOO RICH............or not RICH enough
175-200ROP at those settings is the good place to be if on the rich side.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: a spinning rock
Age: 34
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me guess.........you have recently done your CPL and are wondering about all the CR@P you learned, from your text books and from your school and are totally confused.
Correct, although any richer mixture, even to 40LOP at that setting will create higher CHT, and around the 40-80ROP wll be the higher numbers of CHT. Any of these settings would be TOO RICH............or not RICH enough
175-200ROP at those settings is the good place to be if on the rich side.
175-200ROP at those settings is the good place to be if on the rich side.
Also, if you are running 50ºLOP, will you have to do this at a lower RPM setting?
I'm trying to figure out what would be the best MP, RPM & Fuel Flow settings for various altitudes (2,000-10,000). Preferably settings that "make the engine purr."
Lastly, I am curious about the Descent phase since the POH of the aircraft I'm flying doesn't go into much, or any detail about this phase. Specifically, if we are to descend at 300'/minute (for passenger comfort) What settings will keep the engine nice and warm without bringing it to the border of Yellow line?
Quite a broad topic. The aircraft specifically are Cessna 210L/M/N.
Thanks
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IBG
There are two ways to cool your engine. One is with excess air/oxygen and the other is with excess avgas. Excess air works quicker,is cheaper plus your plugs and combustion chambers look like new at every 100hrly. 4,000 + hours on a IO520M C210 operating this way have convinced me. Cruise 2,400 rpm up to 8,000 ft then 2,500 rpm above that.(You don't fly a 210 to go slow) Manifold pressure not above 24 inches down low then whatever you can get up high.
GG
Re turbines. When the initial cost,the specific fuel consumption and the overhaul/maintenance costs come within a bulls roar of our nasty reciprocating engines let me know.
Cheers RA
There are two ways to cool your engine. One is with excess air/oxygen and the other is with excess avgas. Excess air works quicker,is cheaper plus your plugs and combustion chambers look like new at every 100hrly. 4,000 + hours on a IO520M C210 operating this way have convinced me. Cruise 2,400 rpm up to 8,000 ft then 2,500 rpm above that.(You don't fly a 210 to go slow) Manifold pressure not above 24 inches down low then whatever you can get up high.
GG
Re turbines. When the initial cost,the specific fuel consumption and the overhaul/maintenance costs come within a bulls roar of our nasty reciprocating engines let me know.
Cheers RA
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the other thing we have to assume here is that the pilot actually does indeed own the engine.
I own several aircraft and as an engineer would be aghast if I discovered some pilot had been experimenting after reading something on the internet.
Pilots have very little technical knowledge, period.
The CPL syllabus is little more than a little useless theory and basic principles of a piston engine. It is pretty obvious from other threads, plus my own experiences, that the rating training takes it little further. More often than not it is a POH quiz.
I have stated here before that a LAME would never look in that handbook for anything engineering related to the aircraft.
The owner, Chief Pilot and Chief Engineer normally agree on an engine operating policy for the company. It may be iaw the POH or they may have something written up in the Operations Manual.
If a pilot has a good idea on how to operate the engines a little different then I am sure the management would love to have the opportunity to discuss it.
We have recently seen a pilot accept a 29" Take-off on an aircraft without any consideration to the induction flow on an engine with an inop turbocharger.
I guess we are talking $80,000 of engine, it is not a plaything for a bored 250 hr pilot.
The Chief Pilot, and others, rightfully assume the aircraft is being operated iaw the procedures and guidelines.
Just a thought.
I own several aircraft and as an engineer would be aghast if I discovered some pilot had been experimenting after reading something on the internet.
Pilots have very little technical knowledge, period.
The CPL syllabus is little more than a little useless theory and basic principles of a piston engine. It is pretty obvious from other threads, plus my own experiences, that the rating training takes it little further. More often than not it is a POH quiz.
I have stated here before that a LAME would never look in that handbook for anything engineering related to the aircraft.
The owner, Chief Pilot and Chief Engineer normally agree on an engine operating policy for the company. It may be iaw the POH or they may have something written up in the Operations Manual.
If a pilot has a good idea on how to operate the engines a little different then I am sure the management would love to have the opportunity to discuss it.
We have recently seen a pilot accept a 29" Take-off on an aircraft without any consideration to the induction flow on an engine with an inop turbocharger.
I guess we are talking $80,000 of engine, it is not a plaything for a bored 250 hr pilot.
The Chief Pilot, and others, rightfully assume the aircraft is being operated iaw the procedures and guidelines.
Just a thought.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IBG
If you are taking the time to read John Deakin's web articles then you understand that to operate an engine as he suggests you also need to have balanced fuel injectors and an all-cylinder monitor. To operate without these is courting disaster.
Very, very few operators have bothered to spend the money to equip their aircraft with the necessary equipment and, therefore, to operate LOP is to invite a very short career in aviation. In fact, most operators want their aircraft operated in accordance with a standard, many of which are crazy (like operating 75deg ROP) but it is their train set you are playing with and they set the rules.
By all means discuss what you have read with the CP and the CE but be prepared to hear a lot of old wives tales about engine management, they are rife out there. In my experience I have only worked for one operator (and met another) who have equipped their aircraft appropriately and operate LOP. I have also read of another couple or so operators on this forum who operate LOP. They are rare in the commercial world but a growing number of private operators are picking up the trend.
If you are taking the time to read John Deakin's web articles then you understand that to operate an engine as he suggests you also need to have balanced fuel injectors and an all-cylinder monitor. To operate without these is courting disaster.
Very, very few operators have bothered to spend the money to equip their aircraft with the necessary equipment and, therefore, to operate LOP is to invite a very short career in aviation. In fact, most operators want their aircraft operated in accordance with a standard, many of which are crazy (like operating 75deg ROP) but it is their train set you are playing with and they set the rules.
By all means discuss what you have read with the CP and the CE but be prepared to hear a lot of old wives tales about engine management, they are rife out there. In my experience I have only worked for one operator (and met another) who have equipped their aircraft appropriately and operate LOP. I have also read of another couple or so operators on this forum who operate LOP. They are rare in the commercial world but a growing number of private operators are picking up the trend.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mildura
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but it is their train set you are playing with and they set the rules.
You owe it to your passengers to tell your CP to shove his SOP's (perhaps offer some free education first) and operate the engine in the safest manner available.
As has been said, GA is stuck in the dinosaur age and no one cares because the train of though is "if X amount of GA pilots before me got away with it til they had their 1500/500 twin and moved onto bigger and better things, then why shouldnt the rest of us.." its a shame they never realise that X amount of pilots also speared in or came close to doing so because of aircraft that are stuffed from a lack of basic knowledge that starts from the top down within most organisations. I didnt have one Airframe/Engine/Aerody related question during my CP or HAAMC interview.
IBG
There are two ways to cool your engine. One is with excess air/oxygen and the other is with excess avgas. Excess air works quicker,is cheaper plus your plugs and combustion chambers look like new at every 100hrly. 4,000 + hours on a IO520M C210 operating this way have convinced me. Cruise 2,400 rpm up to 8,000 ft then 2,500 rpm above that.(You don't fly a 210 to go slow) Manifold pressure not above 24 inches down low then whatever you can get up high.
GG
Re turbines. When the initial cost,the specific fuel consumption and the overhaul/maintenance costs come within a bulls roar of our nasty reciprocating engines let me know.
Cheers RA
There are two ways to cool your engine. One is with excess air/oxygen and the other is with excess avgas. Excess air works quicker,is cheaper plus your plugs and combustion chambers look like new at every 100hrly. 4,000 + hours on a IO520M C210 operating this way have convinced me. Cruise 2,400 rpm up to 8,000 ft then 2,500 rpm above that.(You don't fly a 210 to go slow) Manifold pressure not above 24 inches down low then whatever you can get up high.
GG
Re turbines. When the initial cost,the specific fuel consumption and the overhaul/maintenance costs come within a bulls roar of our nasty reciprocating engines let me know.
Cheers RA
Please Jaba or someone else tell me if I am doing something wrong but here is the sequence for a normal flight;
Take-off: everything firewalled,
Climb: everything still firewalled, note EGT passing 1000ft and slowly lean as required to maintain that EGT
Cruise: level off, throttle and RPM still firewalled, cowls closed and let airspeed top out. Lean to desired EGT setting (100o RoP in my case), and wind back prop to desired Fuel Flow. Re lean and a little bit of a fine tune of the RPM and Mixture to acheive 65L p/h and 100o RoP (who gives a **** what the MAP and RPM setting is).
Descent: point nose downward to attain desired RoD, when desired descent IAS is reached, gradually wind back prop maintain it until reaching the bottom of the green arc on the RPM guage, after this use the throttle to maintain IAS - this normally is to maintain a certain MAP as it obviously increases with decreasing altitude, generally around 21-22 inches the whole way down to FAF or downwind using flap to slow down. Still havent touched the mixture or prop, close the throttle and land.
Need to go-around or climb? red-blue-black. Easy. Calculated block fuel flow on the sheets at the end of the month - 65L p/h, Calculated block TAS - exactly as planned.
Another pet hate is pulling the power back after take off - especially in a twin. Lycomings, with the exception of the GSO models do not have take off power timits, and the contys that do still give you 5 minutes. Why not keep the bloody thing firewalled and gain valuable height and airspeed quicker, 5 minutes will see you above the LSALT and estalished on track in the majority of scenarios. Why would you f*ck around with 6 different levers trying to set specific parameters on engine gauges that will distract you from your primary scan while making turns and radio calls at a few hundred feet in the process of flying an IMC departure? I get the feeling that pilots like to be seen to be moving levers and it is gung-ho to be able to make the most dangerous sequence of the flight as difficult as possible.
In the event of an engine failure, the mixture up-pitch up-power up part of the drill is moot, as you already have everything firewalled.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By all means discuss what you have read with the CP and the CE but be prepared to hear a lot of old wives tales about engine management
Last edited by Tee Emm; 13th Jun 2012 at 02:58.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TMG,
I would certainly discuss it first but if they persist in specifying something which I consider to be dangerous then I would vary the settings to a more conservative one. For example, running a richer mixture setting. I would not attempt to run LOP without the appropriate equipment.
You owe it to your passengers to tell your CP to shove his SOP's (perhaps offer some free education first) and operate the engine in the safest manner available.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strangely enough guys I think of all the Chief Engineers about me at the moment. All but one has a Pilot licence of some description.
Of the remainder a couple have PPL and a few ATPL with the majority having a CPL.
Of all these guys most either own, or have owned, at least one aircraft.
A CPL is not much of a qualification, most guys can get one within a year or so.
I think your average Chief Pilot or Chief Engineer should be able to talk things through. You may be surprised with the knowledge and experience they have.
If you think there is some good info on the Internet.. yes there is.
The regs are there....
There is also much rubbish spread about on the Internet and we should all be aware that aircraft are not maintained or operated iaw the Forum websites or magazine articles.
Is this a case of a little knowledge ........ ?
Of the remainder a couple have PPL and a few ATPL with the majority having a CPL.
Of all these guys most either own, or have owned, at least one aircraft.
A CPL is not much of a qualification, most guys can get one within a year or so.
I think your average Chief Pilot or Chief Engineer should be able to talk things through. You may be surprised with the knowledge and experience they have.
If you think there is some good info on the Internet.. yes there is.
The regs are there....
There is also much rubbish spread about on the Internet and we should all be aware that aircraft are not maintained or operated iaw the Forum websites or magazine articles.
Is this a case of a little knowledge ........ ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: a spinning rock
Age: 34
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for adding the skepticism Baron. I know that the POH is to be read with caution, but in the performance numbers they show that while cruising at 6,000ft with 2,200RPM/24"MP/Fuel Flow 75pph you'd still be doing around 158 for your TAS. We plan for 145 during cruise anyway so it'd still be reasonable and quieter.
The other thing that I learned from a 17,000+hr pilot here with 4,000 on 210's is when he leans, he leans until the engine is rough and gives the Mixture a turn till it's smooth again. It's an old technique, but since Deakin says he wouldn't recommend running LOP without the proper equipment, then what does that men in regards to the "lean till rough" technique?
The other thing that I learned from a 17,000+hr pilot here with 4,000 on 210's is when he leans, he leans until the engine is rough and gives the Mixture a turn till it's smooth again. It's an old technique, but since Deakin says he wouldn't recommend running LOP without the proper equipment, then what does that men in regards to the "lean till rough" technique?
----he leans until the engine is rough and gives the Mixture a turn till it's smooth again. It's an old technique, but since Deakin says he wouldn't recommend running LOP without the proper equipment, then what does that men in regards to the "lean till rough" technique?
That popular technique more or less puts you in the range to MAXIMISE the chance of detonation, with all that implies. If you are going to run RoP, you need to be richer than that technique produces.
I would also make the point that a LAME (who hasn't made a study of the subject as a pilot) knows no more about how to operate an engine than anybody else. Maintaining and operating are not synonyms. Indeed, some of the most appalling rubbish I have heard on engine operation ---- including complete ignorance of LoP operations, and hence rejection --- has come from LAMEs.
Read everything Deacon has written on the subject, he really does know what he is talking about. It is nothing new, for those of us who remember operating big piston engines, and the same rules apply to little ones. In the G.O.Ds even the manufacturers handbooks for Lycoming and Continental engines had all the proper graphs for the running envelope for their engines.
You do need (as Deacon says) multi-point CHT, plus multi-point EGT is better, to make the best of LoP, and having Gammi injectors tuned to your engine is a big help. With all the engines, low RPM and high boost for a given HP output will give the best fuel flow, "properly" leaned.
As for IBG's operating technique, I would particularly recommend a close scrutiny of the engine manufacturer's handbook, along with the works of Deacon. Unless, of course, time is so precious, those few extra minutes, that the cost of fuel and engine maintenance doesn't rate, and that is a business decision.
Tootle pip!!
Where each of those 6 cylinders ends up on its lean curve, when the engine’s ‘smooth again’, is anyone’s guess.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 13th Jun 2012 at 09:39.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK folks, there is some good advice here, and some not so good so I will try to do some sorting out. But geez the content of a thread on pprune is NEVER going to take the place of good education, with data backed facts. And doing it for real.
Clintons post, was to be humble about it, the best so far, I am not one of the three amigo's but he knows exactly what I am talking about. I can only suggest IBG whoever you are read your PM and call me. It really pisses me off when someone on here asks a seriously good question or bunch of them, and expects to get ALL the education in a reply on pprune. Then when there is a solution to their quest for knowledge for some reason they won't pick up the phone.
Lets get one thing straight from the start, AVGAS, ULP etc etc, all have about the same energy in them, it is the way we burn it that matters. This could be several pages long just this. but lets remember the IO520 and my IO540....apart from subtle fuel system and a few minor manufacturing differences are the same bloody thing. The AVGAS can't tell.
PLOVETT
This is not quite true, some TCM's and recently I have found a few Lyc's will have pretty well balanced injectors from the factory, not all, not most, but some. If you do not have an engine monitor, which is safer? Playing around on the ROP side or on the LOP side?
Answer: Safer on the LOP side, and if I had all weekend to run a course for you, you would understand why. But too many other questions to answer here. The rest of your post about operators and being smart in investing in stuff, you know it!! It is sad but true.
TMG
You start out well, but let me fine tune your ops, and why is it you are using 100ROP? What is your reason for it? Best power is probably a fraction leaner, and your speed will not suffer, peak EGT would be better, but this depends on MP and RPM. What engine are you using? At 65LPH and if you were LOP that would be about 85% power, and I bet you are not.
When you get to TOC and you settle things out.....SET RPM FIRST, fiddling with RPM later will alter the "nominal" EGT value you are using as a reference point (one of the troubles when a F/P prop is used). So set your RPM where it is happy, if you want more speed and to produce more power use more RPM on the rich side, however on the lean side power is determined by fuel flow. Little trick here is as the peak EGT point moves around with RPM if you use a higher RPM, you can then be on the leaner side of peak with a bit more fuel flow, and go a bit faster. But really we are splitting hairs a bit here and I never bother. I just set around 2300 (more up high) and go LOP according to the "rules".
So I am going to guess your mission is above 6500 feet, so level out, 2300 and lean to 10 LOP on the last cylinder to peak. Typically this will be about 65% power. and whatever fuel flow this is, so long as you are on the lean side of peak, no matter what you do with RPM, or MP, if you are on the LOP side, the fuel flow will determine power.
Critical concept here;
ROP> Power is determined by MASS AIRFLOW
LOP> Power is determined by FUEL FLOW
If I guess you have a C206
and the 300HP IO540 angle valve, a typical economical power setting would be WOT/2350/49-50LPH, and if I flew it like that I bet the CHT's would be way down, I would have a lot less $$ spent on fuel, and your trip time would be within a minute of mine.
Should I sign you up for one of Andrew's and my courses which we have not even developed yet
The rest of your post
And the only reason you should pull anything back after takeoff is a noisy C185 prop.....will split the eardrums of the neighbours, so maybe then and only a little.
As for JPI/Auracle's etc etc...... You can run LOP safely if the cylinders are well balanced, and you can do it without anything more than an accurate fuel flow meter, it is a piece of cake.....WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Playing around on the ROP side is more risky than the LOP side, especially at lower powers (75% or less), but please do not for a minute think I am saying you should not have one, you should, end of discussion
All that being said, you have a C210/206/185 BE33/35/36 or any of the twins, what on earth are you thinking not having one when they are THE BEST safety and maintenance tool anyone can have. I have run a few seminars on maintenance tools, being borescopes/leak down and an EMS, but the bottom line is you need education. An EMS is useless unless you REALLY KNOW what it is telling you, and 99% of people do not.
Whyalla Airlines crash would never have happened had CASA required my standards. My standards are and would be for all commercial ops, every engine has an EMS and every pilot done an APS course or equivelent of which there are none. Simple as that. No negotiation whatsoever. Yes I am serious and not compromising.
I must add something here, reading all the John Deakin articles is a great read, but you do not get the full understanding, not the full education. If you are one of a very small number of folk, you might work the rest out, but a serious hands on application of education is required, and watching the real stuff on the only engine set up on a dyno I know of is hard to replicate.
Advanced Pilot
Sorry I cant sit here all night and go into pages of details, I need to go home for a start, but this stuff is never going to be taught on a thread on pprune.
Andrew Denyer and myself will talk more again about putting together good pilot to pilot courses, I will talk to the APS guys again in a few weeks about them being involved or us just doing our own thing, but if I had enough support from the industry we would make this happen sooner, and sure it would cost money, and it would probably cost us not make us money to do it. But it would be worth it. The other option is spend $1K plus a trip to the USA and do it there. Good value for money if you ask me.
Clintons post, was to be humble about it, the best so far, I am not one of the three amigo's but he knows exactly what I am talking about. I can only suggest IBG whoever you are read your PM and call me. It really pisses me off when someone on here asks a seriously good question or bunch of them, and expects to get ALL the education in a reply on pprune. Then when there is a solution to their quest for knowledge for some reason they won't pick up the phone.
Lets get one thing straight from the start, AVGAS, ULP etc etc, all have about the same energy in them, it is the way we burn it that matters. This could be several pages long just this. but lets remember the IO520 and my IO540....apart from subtle fuel system and a few minor manufacturing differences are the same bloody thing. The AVGAS can't tell.
PLOVETT
If you are taking the time to read John Deakin's web articles then you understand that to operate an engine as he suggests you also need to have balanced fuel injectors and an all-cylinder monitor. To operate without these is courting disaster.
Answer: Safer on the LOP side, and if I had all weekend to run a course for you, you would understand why. But too many other questions to answer here. The rest of your post about operators and being smart in investing in stuff, you know it!!
It is sad but true.TMG
You start out well, but let me fine tune your ops, and why is it you are using 100ROP? What is your reason for it? Best power is probably a fraction leaner, and your speed will not suffer, peak EGT would be better, but this depends on MP and RPM. What engine are you using? At 65LPH and if you were LOP that would be about 85% power, and I bet you are not.
When you get to TOC and you settle things out.....SET RPM FIRST, fiddling with RPM later will alter the "nominal" EGT value you are using as a reference point (one of the troubles when a F/P prop is used). So set your RPM where it is happy, if you want more speed and to produce more power use more RPM on the rich side, however on the lean side power is determined by fuel flow. Little trick here is as the peak EGT point moves around with RPM if you use a higher RPM, you can then be on the leaner side of peak with a bit more fuel flow, and go a bit faster. But really we are splitting hairs a bit here and I never bother. I just set around 2300 (more up high) and go LOP according to the "rules".
So I am going to guess your mission is above 6500 feet, so level out, 2300 and lean to 10 LOP on the last cylinder to peak. Typically this will be about 65% power. and whatever fuel flow this is, so long as you are on the lean side of peak, no matter what you do with RPM, or MP, if you are on the LOP side, the fuel flow will determine power.
Critical concept here;
ROP> Power is determined by MASS AIRFLOW
LOP> Power is determined by FUEL FLOW
If I guess you have a C206
and the 300HP IO540 angle valve, a typical economical power setting would be WOT/2350/49-50LPH, and if I flew it like that I bet the CHT's would be way down, I would have a lot less $$ spent on fuel, and your trip time would be within a minute of mine. Should I sign you up for one of Andrew's and my courses which we have not even developed yet
The rest of your post
And the only reason you should pull anything back after takeoff is a noisy C185 prop.....will split the eardrums of the neighbours, so maybe then and only a little.As for JPI/Auracle's etc etc...... You can run LOP safely if the cylinders are well balanced, and you can do it without anything more than an accurate fuel flow meter, it is a piece of cake.....WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Playing around on the ROP side is more risky than the LOP side, especially at lower powers (75% or less), but please do not for a minute think I am saying you should not have one, you should, end of discussion
All that being said, you have a C210/206/185 BE33/35/36 or any of the twins, what on earth are you thinking not having one when they are THE BEST safety and maintenance tool anyone can have. I have run a few seminars on maintenance tools, being borescopes/leak down and an EMS, but the bottom line is you need education. An EMS is useless unless you REALLY KNOW what it is telling you, and 99% of people do not.
Whyalla Airlines crash would never have happened had CASA required my standards. My standards are and would be for all commercial ops, every engine has an EMS and every pilot done an APS course or equivelent of which there are none. Simple as that. No negotiation whatsoever. Yes I am serious and not compromising.
I must add something here, reading all the John Deakin articles is a great read, but you do not get the full understanding, not the full education. If you are one of a very small number of folk, you might work the rest out, but a serious hands on application of education is required, and watching the real stuff on the only engine set up on a dyno I know of is hard to replicate.
Advanced Pilot
Sorry I cant sit here all night and go into pages of details, I need to go home for a start, but this stuff is never going to be taught on a thread on pprune.
Andrew Denyer and myself will talk more again about putting together good pilot to pilot courses, I will talk to the APS guys again in a few weeks about them being involved or us just doing our own thing, but if I had enough support from the industry we would make this happen sooner, and sure it would cost money, and it would probably cost us not make us money to do it. But it would be worth it. The other option is spend $1K plus a trip to the USA and do it there. Good value for money if you ask me.