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

[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/trou...es/SSP700A.pdf

http://www.lycoming.com/support/tips...Operations.pdf

http://www.lycoming.com/support/publ...dfs/SL185B.pdf

[Jack Ranga]

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

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

This'll Be a cracker of an event

[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?


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!

Or what about this for really great advice!!! Noise, prop damage and technically how is this so???

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.

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 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

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.

[Jabawocky]

Yep

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

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/trou...es/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

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]

blackhand

2 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.

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!

[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