|
Walter Atkinson:
Gentlemen, this is why the better aviation forums do not allow "handles" and require the use of correct, full names. The forum is more civil, the members polite to one another, and the education flows more readily. In Australia, criticizing the regulator will get you either fired or vindictively hounded by the regulator, as has happened may times, and still continues. |
Walter, John,
Just to add to the Sunfish remarks: CASA will also sue individuals for defamation, if they get the chance, it is a bit hard to toss the Federal Government as a litigation funder. Even under various states' and Federal "reformed" defamation law, truth is not necessarily an absolute defence. Even under my handle on this blog, I am careful not to write anything that is defamatory. "Freedom" in Australia does not have the same meaning as under the US Constitution, more's the pity. Right now, there is a raging controversy about "freedom of the press", it is a controversy that could not happen in the USA. Tootle pip!! |
Hi Mr Jabs, Just curious as to why LOP is not recommended above 75% power. I would think that cht and egt would be lower regardless of cyl pressure? As you have correctly pointed out, the CHT's would be fine and that is because the ICP's would be fine. Better than doing it ROP. It must be stated this is not possible to achieve (100% that is) on a NA engine but you can and I do if at 1000' up the coast run in the mid 80's as JD has detailed above ;) They love it :ok: |
All the flat CMI (was TCM) and flat Lycomings are very happy at 85% to 90% power LOP (LOP ONLY). |
I consistently and routinely run my turbo Bonanza at 87-90% power in cruise. I have made a few flights from takeoff to let-down at 100% power as part of a proof of concept flight. We did have to reduce power to land! The engines are fine with it. It's all about controlling ICPs and CHTs. This is not possible at ROP mixtures other than full rich.
|
All the flat CMI (was TCM) and flat Lycomings are very happy at 85% to 90% power LOP (LOP ONLY). "OldAkro" Quote:JD. Including turbos? Here's George's opinion: No… the 350 Hp engines are not happy at 85% = ~ 305 BHp. That includes the TCM TSIO-550C (350Hp at 2700) and the Lycoming TIO 540 J2xx series engines (350 BHp at 2575 RPM). The 550C is reasonably happy at 260-265. The Lycomings -- we have less extended experience with - - but based on the test stand operation, those engines typically run at cruise in the 2100 to 2200 RPM range and about 28 to 32” MP and LOP and do OK. But that is much less than the full power 43” x 2575 standard day power. About 260-265 BHp at 2500 RPM is about the range at which I think the 550 c.i. engines are comfortable The TSIO-520NB (typical RAM twin Cessna) at 335 BHp is pushing the limit for max power for a 520, especially the way that RAM sets them up. That 520 c.i. engine doesn’t do well at more than 75-80% power even LOP. It is often difficult to get them to run well LOP. Part of the problem with those engines is managing the TIT values. A typical C 340 running at higher power and LOP will end up with a TIT at the 1630- 1640 range. While that is not a specific issue for the turbocharger - - the rest of the exhaust system can be challenged with continuous operation like that in the twin Cessna exhaust configuration. If you try to push up the BHP you end up butting heads with the TIT and exhaust operational considerations. George |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.