John Pleisse

Boy...that just stinks.....you should discuss the matter with your airport manager or municipality. I was recently sent off a runway and my prop ran through weeds. If your require significant prop dressing (other than minor filing), it might end up being a T-D. Hang in there with it.

When someone publicly touts running their engines and cylinders 900 past TBO on one hand and wants to offer ways to save a buck or two on the other...I see red flags. Sure, he can make prudent decisions about his own engines, but publicly purporting the notion sends the wrong message to people. I have read his syllabi. Great curriculum. $500 for a weekend.....no so much.

Savvy rarely equates to prudent. I have used Mooney Service Centers all along. Flying costs money, there are no easy ways around good maintanence. I add oil and gas and turn the key.

Quote: Awful_Charlie I've got most if not all of the parts for a Bravo in the hangar on the France/Switzerland/Germany border - where are you? Ben

Any kits or parts around? Anybody buy a set and not use them? I am aware of their cost and install time. John

One thing that a pre heater can do well, in addition to protecting cylinders and rings, is minimize wear on batteries and starters. On a 25 drgree morning, I prime for 8-10 sec's and I literally just touch the ignition swith and it starts right up. In my opinion, a good preheater (including MacGruber's-...SNL bit Ross ) pays for itself, perhaps in one prolonged winter.

I have a Tannis Heater. Having extensive experience with pan heaters, you need more if you live in the northern half of America. The Rieff or Tannis work well, they both require 2-6 hours for complete pre heat. If you live in cold weather...this is essential. 90% of cylinder wear occurs on start up (not running 50 ROP).

Quote: jetdriven Because they say so! Their position is ludicrous'

I'm a CASARA pilot (Cdn analogue to your Civil Air Patrol) + former paramedic. Having a automatic-fixed 406 installation is probably the the cheapest insurance you can buy. Upgrading your old unit from 121 to 406 is <2k all in. Sure, a portable SPOT or similar unit can be purchased for $200, and have some pretty useful additional features, but they are pretty hard to operate when unconscious. I have both. Larry aka BorealOne 1996 Ovation TKS

Quote: jetdriven Has Lycoming's position changed? What is it now? And again, what scientific data is it based on? Or is it an old wives tale? Well one thing is for certain, grabbing the first hit you see on google, doesn't answer that Byron.

Quote: carusoam N4352H, The Lycoming document I summarized is on their website. It is copyrighted 2000, noted on page two. If it is not their current viewpoint, it should not be readily available by any truther. Do they have a document on how to run a Mooney LOP? I would be happy to read and summarize it.

Quote: carusoam N4352h, I could not find a date on the linked paper you provided. The paper indicates that operating LOP is on the "edge" for 98% of GA pilots. Lycoming won't give procedures for specific a/c installations. The only drawback to LOP is detonation. There was no mention of oxygen rich corrosive environment. We should only trust Lycoming because they warrantee the engine. We should not trust "experts" because they do not warrantee the engine My conclusion after reading all four pages... We must be in the 2%, with proper instrumentation, and training. We appreciate the savings a few dollars per hour, we don't mind going a few knots slower on some flights. Our engines are out of warrantee already. I was hoping the Lycoming paper was about how to safely operate LOP. It was more about....it can be done, we know how, and you don't. We are the experts and you are not. It takes knowledge of you fuel system, but we're not telling you how. Overall I feel better about my Continental and think George Braly and co. at GAMI is the real expert. I do like the graph. We need to add the one with the red box next to it. Best regards, -a-

Quote: jetdriven Your point about the detonation margins at 50 LOP is incorrect.

I've got a 900# useful load in my TKS Ovation with the LR Monroy tanks. Fully topped up they will hold 120+ gallons. In other words @ full fuel, it's me and my lunch, and not much more, but it's an unusual mission that requires that kind of range. I've got a few 6h+ entries in the logbook, but more commonly I'm doing 800-1000 nm/4.5-6h legs, and launching with 90-100g (ie generous IFR reserves). Realistic payload for those trips is 300-360 lbs - me + 1 adult or 2 kids + reasonable luggage. Larry - BorealOne 1996 Ovation TKS

Quote: KSMooniac

Quote: KSMooniac One more time Scott..... Absolutely false.....Lycoming has always beleived the science of LOP ops to be worthy and viable. Where they disagree is pilot workload and the likelihood of pilot error in engine management. While this could be dismissed as arrogant, they readily point to the narrow margins at 50 degrees LOP and heavy GA workloads. While you may not like it, it is their warranty and perogative. Again.....GEM's are the modern catylist behind the movement.

Quote: KSMooniac Actually I have run LOP power settings from 50% (actually a bit less) all the way up to 85% power. Regarding Lycoming, just a few posts above jetdriven (Byron) posted an exchange he had with a Lycoming rep that wandered into his hangar and spouted off some very erroneous info regarding LOP ops. LOP ops result in lower peak internal cylinder pressures and cooler CHTs, which yields a much longer fatigue life (ie less chance of cracking). This means that is is highly likely that 2000 hrs of LOP ops will leave a cylinder in great shape for an overhaul whereas ROP ops might lead to cracking due to the higher pressures and temperatures. Angle valve jugs are sole-source Lycoming, and they cost twice as much as parallel valve jugs that have aftermarket competition. This means a potential savings of $4k on a set of 4 if you choose to overhaul instead of replace. One more fact... the detonation margins at 50 LOP are MUCH greater than they are at 50 ROP. Detonation needs high temps and high pressures, and 50 ROP is far more prone to detonation than 50 LOP!

Quote: jetdriven So they Lycoming rep stopped by the shop today to make his rounds. He remarked on my 201 sitting there with no prop or cowl on it, and asked how many hours it had on the engine. I replied 1500. He informed me I only had "500 hours left if I was lucky". I'm glad he reminded me when the engine is going to sieze up. I almost forgot. better get my order in now. He informed me for only 40K I can get an IO-390 on my airplane and gain 5 knots. Ok. Fine. Not for me. Roller tappets are cool, but my 1987 IROC had them and its nothing new. He claimed the airplane is "smoother and quieter" because of them. Seriously. Roller tappets. So I decided to finish him off and tell him we are running 30 LOP and burning 8-8.5 GPH. His look of horror told all, he looked like I just killed a pack of baby seals, exposed myself in the park to some children, or cheated on his sister. Seriously, shrinking away from me. He informs me I am "burning my engine up", to which I reply, how is a 330 CHT burning anything up. At 75 LOP i am worried about enought CHT, its at 280. He says this is cooling "with air, and the extra oxygen and chemicals in the metallurgy, causes the cylinders to burn up." No kidding. Did he go to college? I am laughing now. I suppose Continental has some special "LOP metal" cause some of their engines are only approved for LOP. Anyways, He immediately inspects my cylinders for "burning" as the gray paint turns dark at 500 F. All are nice gray. He is quiet. He asks, how many hours we have ran it this way, (150 hours, enough fuel savings to buy an 1100$ overhauled cylinder already). Nevermind the oil consumption is down to a quart in 12-15 hours or more vs. the quart every 5 hours when we bought it, clean oil analysis, no carbon or trash in the filter, and 75 hours on spark plugs that required no cleaning. The engine tone is a little different but I think the engine is happy running this way. perhaps I am crazt, betting 8K worth of angle-valve cylinders on it, but you, know what, I will take that bet.

Quote: KSMooniac It is a fallacy to think all of that is required for LOP any more so than for ROP ops. Absolutely, but helpful. Lycoming's stance on LOP ops has been repeatedly shown to be at odds with the science and data, and their position is not defensible from a technical standpoint. Absolutely false.....Lycoming has always beleived the science of LOP ops to be worthy and viable. Where they disagree is pilot workload and the likelihood of pilot error in engine management. While this could be dismissed as arrogant, they readily point to the narrow margins at 50 degrees LOP and heavy GA workloads. While you may not like it, it is their warranty and perogative. Again.....GEM's are the modern catylist behind the movement. There are an infinite number of LOP power settings to choose from if you believe that engines somehow get damaged from running one power setting. (which isn't true) Ah yes....but most under 69%, realistically. Even 1 GPH over a 2000 hr TBO run adds up to more than $10k at average fuel prices today. That is significant to me! Scott, I would never dismiss fuel savings, only quantify them vs. alternatives. Not to mention that running LOP will very likely keep your engine in great condition to run past TBO if you choose, and even overhaul your cylinders instead of replacing them, which is an additional $4k of savings for the angle valve jugs. Prove it. In light of all the benefits, I ask why would anyone run their engine ROP? It is proven to be safe for the engine and provides a known reliability. The LOP movement, while based in science, seems fixated with Lycomings stubborness at almost heratic levels. It's not the science, it's the pratical applicabilty and proven reliability. In Lycoming 4 bangers, all the margins are more narrow, including fuel savings.

Quote: GeorgePerry picture removed. Some didn't appreciate my halloween humor. Sorry if anyone out there felt like their tax dollars weren't being spent wisely. Luckily things are "routine" right now so we occaisonally have some slow moments over head the ship in holding. It took less than 5 seconds to take the photo and then it was back to business as usual. It was my way of keeping in touch with my kids and an attempt to be part of their lives even though they are home alone with their mother, while I'm out at sea. After years away from friends and family while on deployement after deployment, being shot at more times that i want to remember and enduring a tour on the ground in Iraq helping the Army, a guy has to keep a sense of humor. Sorry if I offended anyone, that was not my intent.

Quote: Shadrach John, What you've said about LOP ops is a common misconception. However, LOP or "lean of stoichiometric" operations are pertinent to combustion propulsion science and engineering...period. Just about every Modern/semi-modern injected internal combustion engine on the planet runs lean of stoic, depending on power demand. Lean air/fuel ratios and the technology that enables them has contributed largely to improved fuel economy in every machine that burns hydrocarbons. The main reason auto technology is going towards direct injection is to enable autos to run extremely lean air/fuel ratios in excess of >50:1 which is far leaner than we could ever achieve with our constant flow port injection set ups. It has nothing to do with Continental vs Lycoming. Ignited Avgas cares not about the name embossed on the rocker covers... The genesis of Gami injectors was born out of Continental's intake design (log runner intake) and that systems inherent flaws with regard to fuel distribution (not air distribution, which is another common misconception). Gamis will benefit any Continental with a log runner intake system regardless of whether it is run LOP of ROP. While the owner of GAMI (George Brawly) is also involved with Advanced Pilot Seminars (APS) and also happens to currently operate a Continental, it does not mean that LOP operations are only "pertinent" to "big bore Continentals". I think people should operate as they choose. However, I think it's better to be informed about how that choice affects the combustion event and its effects on CHT and EGT which in turn have an affect on both engine health and economy. Lycoming has no incentive to revise it's POH (BTW, the power settings per the POH are recommendations, not limitations) and in fact has a legal incentive not to revise based on what they've been saying for the past 5 decades. They're tune changed at Oshkosh this year. All of that being said, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of combustion science would have an impossible job reconciling lycoming's past stance that "peak EGT settings are safe, but LOP settings are dangerous". It is an intellectually and scientifically unsupportable position. I fault no one for following the POH, but those recommendations are not always the best course of action. For those that know what they are doing, deviating from the "cook book" can enable them to enhance performance and also be kinder to their engine, for those that don't, running per POH is certainly not going to hurt anything...most of the time.

Quote: jetdriven Perhaps I am crazt, betting 8K worth of angle-valve cylinders on it, but you, know what, I will take that bet.

I showed this to my wife....... our tax dollars having fun!!! I love it!!!

Discussing slips and spins in the context of a 13 hour primary who just bought a Mooney C model is IMHO a bit over the top. Basics. I am sure he'll be back for more.

I have a neighbor whose wife and son's first PP certs were multi in the family Baron. It's relative. You made a great choice. GUMP....carb heat.