Oracle1

WTF is what I thought when I tried to decipher the hieroglyphs as well

yr right

Omg

No wonder why there is such a large rate of lame leaving the industry. Maybe they spoken to you.
You are a sheep will the mental intelligence to suit. Go on run lop run against the poh even though Jaba wife would not allow it to happen with her staff. Run with leaking exhaust valves ( that won't happen because no lame will sign that off) against FAA casa sbs etc don't worry about the law. It all be good. You are a moron good and prober. You made not one comment in this post with expection to have a crack a me. You may have your arse and your family in the seat beside you. When you over stress a component it may not fail at that point. It will fail and most likely when some one else is in the seat because you know it all.

Cheers

yr right

Really thousands of hours and you don't know np or wf wow super hero google it then tell the world how dumb you are

Cheers

yr right

Btw common terms used in the use of turbines.
Cheers

yr right

When running a gstio 520 is the rpm measured is what
Cheers

yr right

Or the NG is ok itt ok oil px ok oil temp ok wf is high what's the problem. What you can't understand these are universal abbreviation used in the industry.

Cheers

yr right

On pulling the mixture back and doing a mixture check in a tcm engine the rise is 112 rpm. The mixture is lean ok or rich.

Cheers

yr right

Before you use a DD rivet what must you do. Ms29513- oring is used in what type of environment.
Cheers

Oracle1

LAMES are leaving the industry in droves in part because of people like you, but also because it is such a gross rip off and the product is straight from 1950's This is mainly because of people like you who are unable to innovate and think past their nose. You keep quoting CASA to justify your argument and your existence when CASA and their total bull**** rules and ideas are killing the industry and LAMES careers. Its laughable how you boast about how proficient you are maintaining engines that were designed in the 30's and 40's. You wouldn't last ten minutes at a Toyota dealership as a mechanic.

Wait till the Chinese start building Mooney's etc for their middle class, there wont be any bull**** liability suits in China.

In the meantime enjoy your afternoon in the setting sun because soon there wont be an industry left for you to work in. You have been outsourced to Asia.

P.S. No one is interested in your dyslexic trivial fact competition about what type of o ring you have tied around your balls

rnuts

First one possibly start with pwr recovery wash. GTSIO is prop RPM. Bleed valve stuck and Rich.
Sitting in a hotel room bored so I couldn't help myself..

jdeakin

No one, including Walter, made any such statement. I don't expect you to read, understand, or acknowledge this message, and that's ok. Others may find it interesting.

He did say that he did so experimentally, AFTER determining it was safe by borescoping, and by engine monitor data, both tools that we in GA did not have a few years back. He had the "intellectual curiosity" to go beyond blindly trusting the existing lore. No animals or humans were harmed during these TESTS. CMI (nee TCM) has, more recently and to their credit, greatly modified the new documents coming out of the factory.

We all have been removing cylinders blindly and unnecessarily for slightly low compressions for decades, simply because we did not have the tools to do it any differently, NOR DID WE OR THE FACTORIES HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE.

Walter had the "good luck" to discover that his engine, in his personal airplane (TN Bonanza) had the classic symptoms of yesteryear that would require cylinder rework. Using the new tools (borescope and EMS), he kept on going, while keeping a very wary eye on it. As we suspected, it ran fine for a long time.

It might be interesting to know HOW he ran it. About 20 years ago we were looking at test data, and wondering how these engine would run LOP (Lean of Peak) for the long term. We mutually agreed that we would all run them full time at max possible rated power, LOP. So George, Walter, and John did it, using our own personal airplanes, fully aware that we were taking a risk that we'd have to pay for. Others heard of the "experiment," and joined in, and we all shared data on the Internet Forums (another "tool" that we didn't have before.)

Today, hundreds, if not thousands of pilots are doing it. For the TNIO-550/520 equipped aircraft, that power setting is WOT (Wide Open Throttle, about 30.0"), 2500 RPM, and mixture up to 17 GPH (64 lph), which is roughly 90℉ (50℃) LOP, and 85% to 90% HP. We all ran OUR OWN engines that way (ALL THE TIME) to TBO and well beyond. None of us had a single cylinder removal, and to my knowledge, no one beyond the three of us have either, at least caused by this.

That's DATA, not opinion.

rnuts

Isn't low wf a sign of a dodgy prostate !!

Walter Atkinson

Dexta:

***I have a C172 with the O320-E2D, I have a Single point CHT & EGT fitted, when in cruise I will lean until I get an RPM drop which corresponds to peak, or just past peak EGT. I only do this once I'm running less than 75% power, determined by RPM and density altitude (approx. 2500 @ 2500', 2600 @ 5000' and 2700 @ 9000'). I do not know if I'm running LOP on all cylinders, but it is usually on peak or just lean of peak - 40 deg or so, on cylinder 3 (the one with the EGT probe), but what I do notice is my CHT's which drop from 380-400 degrees to below 350. I am getting about 118 KTAS at 8000' for 30 litres per hour and the engine is running smooth. I have been told that this procedure should not hurt the engine as it is under 75% power. I would love to do the APS course (and will next time it is within 300nm of home) but I'm hesitant to install an EMS in the aircraft (as I'm hoping to upgrade the aircraft in the near future). I could of course run 100 deg ROP but the CHT's get upto 400 and as I understand, the lower the CHTs the better. Of course if the above is all wrong then I would be very interested is learning what I can do practically to run my engine at its best with what I have.***

If you are LOP on the cylinder with the EGT probe and the engine is running smoothly it means that your method is spot on and you DO KNOW that all cylinders are LOP. If the engine is smooth, the F:A ratios are reasonably well balanced, you have a good ignition system and no induction leaks. Everything is fine. If all cylinders are not LOP, your six little engines running in tight formation sharing a common crankshaft will be running rough since they will be making different HPs.

One suggestion:
While you are definitely not hurting anything with your method, you may be leaner than optimal and giving up some performance. You might try setting the mixture on the EGT probe to about 20dF LOP at the altitudes you are flying. See how you like that?

You have proven that you do NOT need to have an EMS to set mixture efficiently or properly if you run LOP. BECAUSE it is smooth, you know that the engine is healthy. If, OTOH, you run ROP and have unbalanced F:A ratios, poor ignition health or induction leaks, you will NOT know it without an engine monitor because it will still be running smoothly! ROP operator need an EMS more than LOP operators!!

jdeakin

It is not "wrong!" A classic message from a thinking pilot, who is treating his engine right.

Good on ya, mate!

Best...
John Deakin

Walter Atkinson

Yr Right, your refusal to answer my two very simple questions lead me to believe that you have no clue what the answers to my two simple questions are and have not been able to ascertain the answers.

Thank you for playing. You may pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

jdeakin

Too non-specific. That's like asking "How much does the average blonde weigh?" There may even be an answer, but it doesn't tell you anything about the blonde you're with!

It takes only a little bit of knowledge. See my message just before this one.

Best...
John Deakin

Walter Atkinson

BTW, for about a decade, as John mentioned, George, John, and I made a concerted effort and were in a race to be the first to destroy an engine running it at high power (about 87-90%) LOP. So far, none of us has succeeded in that effort. We are all miserable failures. The engines love being operated that way.

yr right

Captain there is no inteiigent life here

No as for me being dyslexic you smart arse know it all pr;()k I have not made one issue of that. All I said was I was and not on this post. Someone one else did. As the questions shows you no absolute zero about anything aviation you have contributed zero to this forum. You nothing about nothing you by your own worlds are the meaning of a troll.

Wf is the term used for fuel flow
Np. Is prop speed
NG n1 is compressor speed

Simple terms that we'll you should know.

The aircraft engine may look the same as it did when it was first produced but the use of modern alloys have made them more reliable
Not last at Toyota is that right. You may work there your self as the cleaner. As for being suck in the past we'll stuff me what turbine power aircraft not advanced enough for you.
The reason that ford then Holden then Toyota all pulled out was that clowns like yourself put so much money on them selfs that they could not afford to make cars in this country.
Yeh you seam to no a lot about nothing do you drive a Great Wall yourself. A lot of manufactures send there stuff south of the boarder and it just plain ****.Quality is no where as it used to be.
No go and play in the sand pit because that is where you belong and eat with plastic spoon so you don't hurt yourself.

Cheers

No Hoper

I am perplexed that turbine pilots state that they are unaware of basic engine parameter notation.
Wf fuel flow
Np prop RPM
NG or N1 compressor RPM
TT or TIT Turbine Temperature

Inspections with boroscope have been common practice from atlleast 1990 that I know of.

The question about the rotating exhaust seat has been answered. Whilst not common it exists.

I understand that CASA is not the fount of knowledge but they makes the rules and as a licensed aircraft engineer I have to abide. How far I stretch the rules isn't going to be discussed here.
Operating a private aircraft in a reasonably benign environment does allow one to experiment. Certifying for maintenance on aircraft operating in less than optimal conditions doesn't allow any margin of error.

43Inches

I think this is an argument of Technicians vs Engineers,

Techs will tell you what can/can't be done with regard to pre-defined operating limits set by either the manufacturer or governing body. They're understanding of the exact makeup and physics of the machine is not complete, but more than adequate to perform maintenance/operational tasks and send qualified analysis of performance back to the manufacturer or operator. They can probably perform these tasks better than the engineer that created them.

An engineer will tell you a theory of what can be achieved given analysis, data and creativity (ingenuity). This is then put into limited testing and proved possible and eventually incorporated into everyday use. An engineer does not say no, but may possibly say not yet.

The gas turbine is a good example, it is not a modern concept and actually has basic patents that predate the the piston internal combustion engine. The first powerful turbine engines were fitted to ships in the late 1800s (low powered ones having been used in early 1800s), being steam fired these were not suitable for aircraft. A number of technically minded people worked on turbines throughout the early 1900s for aircraft application, but were unsuccessful, some physicists even said not possible. It was through the combined efforts of a number of engineers designing and patenting various componants that eventually made it possible to create a jet engine.

I don't think there is any doubt that even these "old" technology pistons can be run LOP and safely. It may require more than the standard guages for the average pilot to operate without long term damage but it is possible, but this is possibly true of any leaning, not just LOP.

Having a closed mind and just saying no, is definitly not the attribute of an engineer. An engineer would not dismiss data without looking at it first. In-flight operational data from most piston engine trends is very poor, both in the instrumentation it is gained from to the poor recording of the data by the pilots. Saying that engines have been damaged from being run LOP can not be quantified from a few burnt cylinders and valves as its well know this could be caused by a number of factors. It is very hard to establish whether the pilots were actually operating LOP or not if they themselves don't know how to do it correctly. It is a speculative appraisal which needs to be analysed at a metalurgical level, and possible testing carried out to extract the exact nature of the failure, even this may not possibly come up with an answer without knowing exactly what happened at what setting.

What an engineer would do is to run the engine in a controlled experiment, collect data on the internal runnings, temps, pressures etc. Compare this to the materials, construction of the unit and come up with whether it is more damaging one way or another. This data could then be put into practice and measure the outcomes of operational use from trends and condition monitoring.