C to K

[gsengle]

I have a Continental io550, about ten hours shy of TBO, built in 1996, uses a quart about every 5 hours, no metal, good compressions, runs well, seems to generate book power, and is run religiously LOP in cruise. And it's smooth.

 

At 4gph savings, with $5 avgas, that's $40,000 over the life of the engine, aka almost enough to pay for overhaul.

 

So no it's not what I read on the internet sir. It's a community of pilots operating this way, just fine, and yes, reaching TBO, with cooler cylinders all the way. And experts explaining why it is a good practice in great engineering detail. It's even in my AFM.

 

https://www.jpinstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Mike-Bush-Red-BoxRed-Fin.pdf

 

ps most of my cylinders are original too...

 

pps I'll post at TBO in a week or two, and then per your post you'll reconsider? lol

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[DonMuncy]

11 hours ago, Flying Crab said:

I have 1400 hrs. on my engine with the original cylinders. 

First off. I do not criticize anyone flying the way they wish.

If you have had the plane 2 years, it is almost certain that how the previous owner flew the plane has more to do with its longevity than your practices. It is pretty unusual for a 231 to get to 1400 hours without top end work. I think part of that is that a lot of cylinders are wrongly condemned for low compressions. But part of it may be that a lot of people run 231 engines too hot. You can run them cooler either ROP or LOP, but if you are trying to go fast, there is a lot of pressure to run the engine in the red zone.

[Cyril Gibb]

9 hours ago, Flying Crab said:

Don't believe everything you read on the internet boys, you just might end up dating a French model. Fact is, the proof is in the pudding as they said in the old days. If you have an engine that's made it to TBO untouched I'll be listening. Until then I'll be the cat that's running ROP. 

The internet is filled with information, some of it is true and much of it is false.  It can be a useful tool if one knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Personally, I find the evidence for LOP advantages compelling based on scientific evidence.  Engineering studies, engine manufacturers documentation, observational data gathered in labs, government studies and instrumented aircraft in operation.  Namely: lower cylinder temperatures, less fuel use, less pollution (especially lead), less carbon monoxide production, less plug fouling, less lead deposits on valve stems... and more.

However, I'm always open to new information.  Do you have ANY references (not subjective or anecdotal) that documents LOP as being bad?  Or even any objective references that dispute ANY of the advantages I've listed above?

PS. An example of accuracy on the internet from your post:  My son spends a lot of time on the internet.  He's dating a model (true) but she's not French (false)

 

[231LV]

12 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

All 252's came with the MB engine. You might be thinking of the TSIO-360-SB engine.

Yes...the SB....sorry

[Flying Crab]

To each his own. If you believe something works for you stick with it. Been in this industry since 1968.  Have 19,000 hrs of time in cockpits of all sorts. Have had 3 catastrophic engine failures (two at night) on aircraft with reciprocating engines. All three were attributed to exhaust valve failures. Over the years I feel  much better when I see temp gauges right in the middle of the green. So if LOP works for you, go for it. But Like I said I feel better with ROP. The cost of being an old timer.

[gsxrpilot]

It's completely fine to say you prefer ROP operations because you're just more comfortable with it. And that's actually good information for anyone who might be contemplating buying the airplane from you when you're inclined to sell it.  

But stating or implying that ROP is better for engines and LOP is destructive to engines based on your 19,000 hours of anecdotal experience, isn't going to go over well around here. The data is in. It is overwhelming and compelling. And as someone a lot smarter than I once said, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

[John Myers]

Well said gsxrpilot. It's worth noting Lycoming programmed their FADEC iE2 540 to run LOP. Hopefully that engine makes it into more airplanes, one less thing to worry about!

[KLRDMD]

On 5/17/2017 at 8:13 AM, gsxrpilot said:

It's completely fine to say you prefer ROP operations because you're just more comfortable with it. And that's actually good information for anyone who might be contemplating buying the airplane from you when you're inclined to sell it.  

I chose to not buy an airplane once when the long time owner proudly proclaimed that he religiously flew at 50º ROP. 

[Flying Crab]

Hey guys, I never said that ROP was the only way to go, I said "I believe that running lean of peak was saving pennies to spend dollars later on". Having said I feel like the the guy that's denying global warming, which I actually do. The point is I hate to say it but I've been around long enough to know that what's the wonder drug or food or whatever of today is the poison of tomorrow. People that are so-called "experts"  on a subjects whatever they are,  are getting paid by somebody who has a skin in the game. So be skeptical. Don't buy into something just because it's a popular perception. I operate as general rule on the "kiss" method. Heat, to an extreme, is an adversary to metal. Run cool, live long. As I stated in a previous post, I've live through three engine failures, all due to exhaust valve failures. This was back in my Bell47 helicopter days which were notorious for high cylinder head temps. This is the last time I'll post on this subject till I get 2,000hrs. on this engine and we'll see if the same cylinders are along for the ride.

[gsxrpilot]

• ROP is better than LOP for engines
• Global warming is a myth
• Scientists are "so called experts"

Enough said