DS1980

I wasn't implying I know everything or am a subject expert, but do know enough to offer help. I just want folks to know there is something to the 380 degree CHT. It's Darin, as stated on my signature line.

There are plenty of people who collect this type of data, just not for a profit.

Cruiser, Thanks my man, hope all is well on your end. Perhaps a little, but justifiable. We cannot be giving opinions about these things when there is repeatable evidence to the contrary. Plus I just had hernia surgery and am a little high on Hydrocodone. Might be a factor as well. Thank goodness for narcotic grade pain killers.

Indeed. There is more to engine operation than a course. Someone that says "end of argument" has no argument. 380 degrees wasn't just pulled out of air. Saying that a pioneer of this stuff is just plain wrong is a level of incompetence I will not tolerate. We have many people reading these threads that don't participate because they are either here as a guest or learning. We cannot have people giving out wrong information, as there may be an impressionable pilot here that heeds bad advise.

How long you've been banging on the pots and pans? (drumming) Getting off topic now. I blame ADHD. Oh, and society.

I would like to congratulate everyone so far. This has been a good year for this thread. Lets look forward to a strong 2014!

Read post #44, and stop hiding behind the APS facade. 380 degree CHT is a function of metallurgy, and it is not wrong. How many hours does Busch have on his cylinders? 210% of TBO. If this was his bottom end it would be impressive. But for cylinders to have 4500 hours on them is remarkable. The reason we have something called "TOH" is because of rust and heat. If these are eliminated, then we replace them due to fatigue. It will be interesting to see how far he can take his cylinders. Don't come here with your attitude. I go out of my way to be helpful and courteous. I will make an exception for you. There are many on here that make you look like amateur hour.

So decided to keep the Acclaim? What does the Vans think about that?

Plus the T Mobile girl is hot.

Hank, try to mess around with RPM as well. Maybe slowing down the engine will reduce the CCV, which is more pronounced LOP. Just a thought.

Careful, these are some pretty blanket statements. There are carb engines in airplanes that will run LOP, it just seems to be on a per-airplane basis rather than being model specific. It may be true that your engine cannot run LOP, and there are some carb guys on here that cannot. But it's not correct to say that all carb guys are stuck at ROP. Maybe use takeoff flaps with carb heat? Kidding.

Isn't the Lycoming 0-360 also 380 degrees? Edit: Oh wait, I get it. Wow, I'm slow.

Wait a minute. A guy with a name of PeytonM is a Bears fan? What would #18 think of that?

We're here to help. Do you have specific questions?

How dare you. I'm a Rover kinda guy.

Or as desired. Dang it! I said I was done. Pulled me back in. I blame peer pressure. Oh, and society.

Miscommunication. The question was asked to KSMooniac.

Does too! But really, it's a a large displacement engine putting out modest horsepower, at low RPMs, at constant RPMs, being constantly monitored for oil temp, oil pressure, CHT, EGT, fuel pressure, ect., at altitudes that it cannot possibly produce 100% power, all of this after going through a start checklist, being warmed up, having a low RPM run up to see if everything is working properly, and having gentle throttle movements. If I had to be an engine, I would be a Lycoming!

I would have to say that the relationship between HP/CID is a great measure of stress. Good point about load though, although this method does not tell the whole story or even much of it. I just had to go there. My point that aircraft engines are low stress due to the way we fly them is valid, and the comparison to auto engines is N/A. That was my whole point. Bringing it back to the thread. They still will be low stress using Shell's fuel. Full circle.

Yep, low stress due to altitude. See post #22.

Again, not a good comparison is it? But we are talking about cylinder pressures, not bending forces.

Why not help?

Search for a topic called "New owner leaning question." This is a great start. Next, and more important, what altitude do you fly at? 50 ROP is the worst place to run an engine if producing more than 65% power. If always at 8-10K feet, you're ok. To answer your other questions, the reason why is two fold. First, it produces lower CHTs and is kinder on the engine. The second is it allows us to operate at a mixture called best economy. This allows for about a 5% reduction in speed for a 30% savings of fuel. It won't kill your engine because you are asking it to produce less power. The engine doesn't care how much fuel it is burning, as long as it has balanced fuel to the cylinders to eliminate roughness and as long as it is operating between mixtures that are too rich to burn (8:1) and too lean to burnm (18:1). Once you read the thread, let us know of questions.

John Deakins would disagree with Phil Corman over his view of RPMs. Obviously something that can only be sorted out with a pay-per-view event. But that's a very good publication.

I didn't start it! You started it! I'm telling on you. Byron, this guy is saying that our aircraft engines are "fire breathing dragons capable of reversing the polarity of magnetic north." His words!!! But seriously to compare, 180 HP at 2700, 350 CID. That's 0.51, not that far off from the IO-360.