M20F w/201 mods

[Shadrach]

50 minutes ago, skydvrboy said:

I found the article where I got 100 ROP, and I have always waited until over 3000' to start leaning. http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/powersettings.html

I certainly notice the increase in RPM and power when I start leaning during the climb.

That's a pretty old article. I'd bet if you asked Bob today, he'd revise that advice. 100ROP climbs are not kind to your cylinders unless your departing out of someplace like Leadville, CO. 

[carusoam]

Bob was probably still working at the factory when recommending 100°F ROP...

Best regards,

-a-

[Shadrach]

6 minutes ago, skydvrboy said:

Thanks for your help. I'll print that red cone chart and take it with me next time I go flying.  I'm not really concerned with economy at this point, I have economy, maybe too much economy!  I'm most concerned with not damaging my engine.  One question though, how do you determine target EGT if you don't ever fly out of sea level airports?

The Bendix fuel injection that your F is equipped with will compensate for altitude to a large degree. Use the full rich EGT of the leanest cyl as a starting point adjust from there as you climb. In most aircraft I've flown 1200-1250 on the rich side is a healthy number.

[skydvrboy]

I have oil temp, CHT, and EGT.  No numbers on EGT, just the * and 25 degree marks. I climb at 120 to 130 mph and CHT always stays well in the green. On the tank that averaged 8.05 GPH, I flew a 1.5 hr leg at 11,500’, two 1 hr legs at 7,500’, and a 1 hr leg at 4,500. All legs were full throttle except the 4,500 leg at 22” MP.  All cruise was at 50 ROP except 4,500 which was 100 ROP.

I’ll try these suggestions and report back my cruise burn per my OP after I fly again. Thanks guys.

[carusoam]

There is a lot to be gained by having an engine monitor, and fuel flow / totalizer...

You have plenty of reading to accomplish....

You will see these things discussed often.

Best regards,

-a-

[Shadrach]

21 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Everyone’s absolute EGT numbers vary due to probe location but I do (in my case conservatively) shoot for 1250 dF.  

Jim

Indeed you're correct, but almost everything I've flown settles between 1200-1300 at full rich near seal level. My F is an exception in that it will run in the high 1100s. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Shadrach

[skydvrboy]

Last thing for today. To find my target EGT, can I go out on a cold day when the density altitude is sea level? Then all knobs forward and read EGT, correct?

[Andy95W]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

This will depend on fuel load.  Also, the elevator rigging is different from C to F. 

 

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Nose down is due to weight not HP.  The injected  4cyl angle valve is 40lbs heavier than the carburetted parallel valve.  

2 great points, Ross.  

[carusoam]

I was hoping to find a single resource for the target EGT method....

https://mooneyspace.com/search/

Not so lucky...

Best regards,

-a-

[ArtVandelay]

That article is awesome with the exception of it’s guidance on leaning. Get a JPI FS-450 or other fuel flow instrument installed as soon as possible. Then study up on LOP operations on the APS website or by googling “Pelican’s Perch”. 
Until then you are stuck with ROP ops basically per the POH. Just be aware that the worst place for your engine is 40 dF ROP. That is where ICPs (internal cylinder pressures) and CHTs (cylinder head temperatures) are the highest.  Anything leaner or richer is easier on your engine. Max power is 80 dF ROP. The POH leaning guidance is suboptimal. See the graphs below and think about what they are telling you. ICPs and CHTs are the enemy.  Lower is better.

Where did you get these graphics? Particularly the 2nd one.

[Shadrach]

6 hours ago, skydvrboy said:

I have oil temp, CHT, and EGT.  No numbers on EGT, just the * and 25 degree marks. I climb at 120 to 130 mph and CHT always stays well in the green. On the tank that averaged 8.05 GPH, I flew a 1.5 hr leg at 11,500’, two 1 hr legs at 7,500’, and a 1 hr leg at 4,500. All legs were full throttle except the 4,500 leg at 22” MP.  All cruise was at 50 ROP except 4,500 which was 100 ROP.

I’ll try these suggestions and report back my cruise burn per my OP after I fly again. Thanks guys.

If you fly that injected Lycoming in such a way that you are accessing the entire spectrum of usable mixture settings, you will at some point come to the conclusion that air is free (and it's about the only thing that is in aviation) and that closing the throttle to run ROP is an exercise in deliberate inefficiency.  If you had left the throttle wide open at 4500 and leaned to the same speed  (whatever IAS 22" and 50 ROP yielded), you'd have been burning less fuel with cooler EGTs.

Almost every injected Lycoming that I've flown is smooth enough that it can be flown from take off to the descent using only the mixture for power adjustments. The only time the throttle comes off the stop is when it's time to slow to gear speed.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Shadrach

[cctsurf]

Mike Busch argues against leaning by EGT anyway, he says it is much better to lean by CHT.  EGT is never actually a temperature that is true to anything.  It is an average of the hot exhaust pulses and the cool space between the pulses.  Therefore a gauge marked in increments is just fine.  Relative temperatures help us to know the mixture we are using.

CHT is a far more important number because of the metallurgy of the cylinders.  Too hot and they break down much more quickly.  Busch calls for a red box theory of leaning, which calls us to stay out of the danger zone of temperatures for the cylinder heads. I forget the exact numbers he calls for (I have the old Garwin gauges which don't really indicate temperature as much as trends), but if I remember correctly really conservative is below 380 (which he calls for modern airplanes with better cooling flow), if you have an older plane with a less efficient cowl like ours I think it was top at 395.  Cylinders can be kept cool (as has been noted in this thread) by either excess of fuel or excess of air.  Air is cheaper. 

I was afraid of running LOP until I read in my 1962 manual that it called for running LOP as standard operating procedure.  Because we don't have exact instruments, the best way of leaning (again according to Busch) is to lean to roughness and then increase until the engine runs smooth.  I often am running 50 LOP or better in my carbureted o-360. 

Busch has a number of free webinars on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc-IpamUhzvGsAfMzH2lIcA

 

Edited December 5, 2017 by cctsurf

[N6758N]

Just now, cctsurf said:

I was afraid of running LOP until I read in my 1962 manual that it called for running LOP as standard operating procedure.  Because we don't have exact instruments, the best way of leaning (again according to Busch) is to lean to roughness and then increase until the engine runs smooth.  I often am running 50 LOP or better in my carbureted o-360. 

Mike Busch's aviation maintenance pedigree is pretty short time wise. He hasn't even had his IA for that long of a period of time. It really cracks me up how some of you guys think he is gods gift to pilots who want to know more about maintenance/operating an aircraft. It's a great idea that some owner/operators want to learn more about their machines, but take things this man says with a grain of salt.  Carbureted 360s don't run well LOP because the fuel/air mixture cannot be evenly distributed. If you don't have a digital engine monitor how are you confirming you are 50 LOP?  Every C driver that claims they can run more than 25 LOP I've seen does not have a digital engine monitor. The theory that EGTs are BS is BS, obviously the actual reading will vary depending on probe placement, but you're a fool if you think high EGTs aren't going to end up costing you something, ie. an exhaust system.  Go ahead now Ross, flame on!

[Tx_Aggie]

Those fuel flows are just fine for 9000-11500’ range. The higher you go the better (lesser) fuel flow you’ll achieve in a normally aspirated engine. When I took the C on cross countries at 11000’ I often saw 7.0-8.5 gph fuel flow. You’re numbers look good to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cctsurf]

19 minutes ago, N6758N said:

Mike Busch's aviation maintenance pedigree is pretty short time wise. He hasn't even had his IA for that long of a period of time. It really cracks me up how some of you guys think he is gods gift to pilots who want to know more about maintenance/operating an aircraft.

He may have a short time, but he has done the studies.  He's done the work. He knows the metallurgy.  And when he doesn't he's in contact with Continental and Lycoming about these things.  Has your A&P/IA been awarded the National Aviation Maintenance Technician of the Year by the FAA?

As to running LOP, I can look at the egt I have, it doesn't tell me exactly the temp, it tells me a trend as I said.  I look forward to being able to confirm things much more carefully when I do get my engine monitor installed, but I don't worry about the egt, I worry about the cht and keeping that in the correct area.  If my cylinders are happy, everything is going to be much better.  Exhaust system problems, while not fun are far less of a problem than a cylinder failure...  Cost less, too.  Our exhausts are made from 321 stainless which is designed to operate well between 1500 and 1800 deg Fahrenheit.

[jetdriven]

His personal Turbo 310 has engines that have almost 4000 hours and they soldier on, an occasional cylinder due to exhaust valve guide wear and burned valves, which is common.  I am not a huge proponent of leaning to CHT.  You can lean some engines right into the middle of the red box in winter and they wont show above 360 CHT.  My buddy's 260HP Bonanza with the Liquidair baffles wont go above 290 CHT regardless, unless its right when pistons start getting holes in them. Its airplane specific.

Better, set the mixture to 15 LOP, and if CHT creeps above your threshold, lean a little more. EGT primary.....  CHT, secondary.

[Shadrach]

25 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

His personal Turbo 310 has engines that have almost 4000 hours and they soldier on, an occasional cylinder due to exhaust valve guide wear and burned valves, which is common.  I am not a huge proponent of leaning to CHT.  You can lean some engines right into the middle of the red box in winter and they wont show above 360 CHT.  My buddy's 260HP Bonanza with the Liquidair baffles wont go above 290 CHT regardless, unless its right when pistons start getting holes in them. Its airplane specific.

Better, set the mixture to 15 LOP, and if CHT creeps above your threshold, lean a little more. EGT primary.....  CHT, secondary.

This describes my engine.  It has what I would call a relatively narrow red box in that it takes a fair amount of mixture ham fistedness to exceed 370df in the summer.  In the winter, I would have to climb high and work on heating it up to approach that number in level flight.  Even with OATs in the 90s I can run 20-30 LOP at 2500MSL with out getting to 360.   In the winter that setting and altitude barely yields 330 on the hottest and 1 and 4 are <300, meanwhile the ASI in bouncing in and out of the yellow.

[Shadrach]

20 hours ago, skydvrboy said:

Last thing for today. To find my target EGT, can I go out on a cold day when the density altitude is sea level? Then all knobs forward and read EGT, correct?

It would be most useful if the DA was somewhere near sea level.  When full rich, the fuel servo compensates to maintain the constant F/A ratio (225-275 ROP depending on application).  That's great at ~100% horsepower.  As available MP falls of in the climb or when departing a high DA airport, full rich is not only no longer efficient, but it also decreases power.  

Target EGT is a simple method for staying rich enough but not too rich.  Peak EGT temperature decreases as power decreases with altitude.   Consider the following hypothetical scenario (all numbers are wide open throttle):

Sea level   -   Peak EGT 1525df, full rich EGT is 1250 (Target EGT).  Full rich mixture 275df ROP.

1000ft       -   Peak EGT 1525df, 1250 EGT mixture 275df ROP

2000ft       -   Peak EGT 1510df, 1250 EGT mixture 260df ROP

3000ft       -   Peak EGT 1500df, 1250 EGT mixture 250df ROP

4000ft       -   Peak EGT 1490df, 1250 EGT mixture 240df ROP

5000ft       -   Peak EGT 1475df, 1250 EGT mixture 225df ROP

6000ft       -   Peak EGT 1460df, 1250 EGT mixture 210df ROP

7000ft       -   Peak EGT 1445df, 1250 EGT mixture 195df ROP

8000ft       -   Peak EGT 1430df, 1250 EGT mixture 180df ROP

9000ft       -   Peak EGT 1415df, 1250 EGT mixture 165df ROP

10,000ft    -   Peak EGT 1400df, 1250 EGT mixture 150df ROP

11,000ft    -   Peak EGT 1385df, 1250 EGT mixture 135df ROP

12,000ft    -   Peak EGT 1370df, 1250 EGT mixture 120df ROP

[jetdriven]

In fact, as you climb, you can lean to a hotter value than Target EGT. Mine is 1285.  ChT around 330. At 5000’ the CHT is 300. Leaning to 1350 (target plus 50) gives me the 330 CHT again. At 10k, lean to 1400. That’s still 150 ROP. Climb rate improves a little and the CHT goes back to 330. But Target is always a safe number to start with. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by jetdriven

[Shadrach]

8 hours ago, jetdriven said:

In fact, as you climb, you can lean to a hotter value than Target EGT. Mine is 1285.  ChT around 330. At 5000’ the CHT is 300. Leaning to 1350 (target plus 50) gives me the 330 CHT again. At 10k, lean to 1400. That’s still 150 ROP. Climb rate improves a little and the CHT goes back to 330. But Target is always a safe number to start with. 

I agree, and I lean for performance in the climb.  I take OAT into account and after 4000 I do whatever is needed to hold CHT to less than 370 in summer and less than 340 in winter.

But...

My post was meant to be rudimentary.   There are all sorts of things that I do with my airplane that I'd not advocate someone else do, at least not at my recommendation.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Shadrach

[Shadrach]

23 hours ago, N6758N said:

Mike Busch's aviation maintenance pedigree is pretty short time wise. He hasn't even had his IA for that long of a period of time. It really cracks me up how some of you guys think he is gods gift to pilots who want to know more about maintenance/operating an aircraft. It's a great idea that some owner/operators want to learn more about their machines, but take things this man says with a grain of salt.  Carbureted 360s don't run well LOP because the fuel/air mixture cannot be evenly distributed. If you don't have a digital engine monitor how are you confirming you are 50 LOP?  Every C driver that claims they can run more than 25 LOP I've seen does not have a digital engine monitor. The theory that EGTs are BS is BS, obviously the actual reading will vary depending on probe placement, but you're a fool if you think high EGTs aren't going to end up costing you something, ie. an exhaust system.  Go ahead now Ross, flame on!

No Flames here. I think Mr. Busch is a very bright and thoughtful guy that gives the best advice he can based on the latest information available. I also think he is very well credentialed which in and of it self doesn't impress me. I like that when he makes an argument, he uses facts and data to support it, not his credentials.  As I mentioned in another thread, some of the deepest, steamiest piles of horse excrement I've ever encountered were proceeded by I've got 1X,XXX and insert Old Wives Tail of choice. Like most of us, I am sure Mr. Busch has made statements that could have been worded better, but by and large, I think his public statements are well considered and articulate.

 I am dubious about the notion that any LOP setting be considered a practical mixture setting for 95% of the carbureted fleet, but there are those who say they can/could and do. There are two long time posters on this board that claim to have used LOP ops in C models. They seem to comprehend the concepts and have a practical understanding of the application. There's no way that I'd suggest that they aren't able to do what they say they are able to do from the confines of my keyboard. However, I will say that I personally never witnessed a carbureted aircraft engine running smoothly beyond about 5 LOP ,which was produced by the lean to roughness and enrichen until smooth method.

I agree with you that an EGT range means something if not the exact number. Without context an EGT does not tell much. An  EGT in the 1500s might indicate a clogged injector on take off while it might suggest and ignition problem at 12,000ft.

Elevated EGTs shouldn't have much impact on exhaust life but might be detrimental to exhaust probes. Like the pistons in the cylinder, the exhaust components are not exposed to temperatures any where near EGT temps, if either were, we'd be holing aluminum pistons long before exhaust components failed. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Shadrach

[Andy95W]

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

 I am dubious about the notion that any LOP setting be considered a practical mixture setting for 95% of the carbureted fleet, but there are those who say they can/could and do. There are two long time posters on this board that claim to have used LOP ops in C models. They seem to comprehend the concepts and have a practical understanding of the application. There's no way that I'd suggest that they aren't able to do what they say they are able to do from the confines of my keyboard. However, I will say that I personally never witnessed a carbureted aircraft engine running smoothly beyond about 5 LOP ,which was produced by the lean to roughness and enrichen until smooth method.

Same here.  And if the airplane isn't equipped with an engine monitor that shows all EGTs, CHTs, and preferably fuel flow, I don't think it is even possible to determine whether or not a carbureted engine is LOP.  The only time I've personally witnessed an O-360 run smoothly LOP was on engine shut down at idle cutoff. 

BTW, I'm also on the fence about Mike Busch along with @N6758N.  He's definitely done his research, though, and certainly doesn't throw out unsupported opinions.  As an additional resource, I think he is extremely useful.

[N6758N]

11 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

Same here.  And if the airplane isn't equipped with an engine monitor that shows all EGTs, CHTs, and preferably fuel flow, I don't think it is even possible to determine whether or not a carbureted engine is LOP.  The only time I've personally witnessed an O-360 run smoothly LOP was on engine shut down at idle cutoff. 

BTW, I'm also on the fence about Mike Busch along with @N6758N.  He's definitely done his research, though, and certainly doesn't throw out unsupported opinions.  As an additional resource, I think he is extremely useful.

Agreed Andy. Using a single gauge EGT needle or just the pull until it runs rough and then enrich method, there is no way to determine LOP numbers. Even if you could get one to run LOP for a while, it would never be consistently reliable. 

 I do think Mike Busch has good ideas and while his opinions might not be unsupported, they aren't all experience/fact driven. My issues with him are that some folks tend to take verything he says too literally. "Mike B has 4,000hrs on the bottom end of his Continental powered twin Cessna, so therefore I must be able to do the same with my Lycoming equipped Mooney." or "Mike B says you can challenge/ get a second opinion when your A&P/IA diagnoses an issue or give me bad news, so therefore my mechanic must be wrong" I read all of the articles he publishes in the AOPA mag and his underlying tone is always that the pilot/owner should prescribe to his ideas and not trust what their own people/experience have told them. I think his articles can make us mechanics look bad. Educated pilots/consumers are good things, but they need to trust their own people at some point too.

[Shadrach]

On 12/6/2017 at 1:35 PM, N6758N said:

Agreed Andy. Using a single gauge EGT needle or just the pull until it runs rough and then enrich method, there is no way to determine LOP numbers. Even if you could get one to run LOP for a while, it would never be consistently reliable. 

 I do think Mike Busch has good ideas and while his opinions might not be unsupported, they aren't all experience/fact driven. My issues with him are that some folks tend to take verything he says too literally. "Mike B has 4,000hrs on the bottom end of his Continental powered twin Cessna, so therefore I must be able to do the same with my Lycoming equipped Mooney." or "Mike B says you can challenge/ get a second opinion when your A&P/IA diagnoses an issue or give me bad news, so therefore my mechanic must be wrong" I read all of the articles he publishes in the AOPA mag and his underlying tone is always that the pilot/owner should prescribe to his ideas and not trust what their own people/experience have told them. I think his articles can make us mechanics look bad. Educated pilots/consumers are good things, but they need to trust their own people at some point too.

I am not an aviation maintenance technician.  However, years ago I did some time in a full service repair station.  I would like to think that I can appreciate the immense responsibility that those who put signature to log book carry every day.  There is little incentive for an A&P/IA to venture off the beaten path...and then there are folks like Mike Busch. He is a pioneer because he challenges the status quo.  No one has ever become notable by being agreeable. There are others; the gents at APS and GAMI come to mind. Those guys have become who they are (in a word celebrity AMTs) by challenging the status quo with data driven analysis that in many cases have revised commonly used procedures and installations.   Think for a moment how revolutionary some of these individuals have been...I've witnessed how they've been treated for daring to challenge convention.  For years I watched Walt Atkinson  (APS instructor and colleague of G. Braly) get flamed on various web boards while trying to help people understand for free what APS  now charges thousands.  Flamed by experienced pilots, not ignoramuses...well as it turns out for all of their experience and bravado, almost everything Walt was saying was correct; so maybe they were ignoramuses.   I have seen the same with Mike Busch.  It takes the courage of your convictions to run  two Continentals to 4000+ hours...in all kinds of weather.   

In my opinion, the problem is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Mike Busch, it's that there seems to be some resentment of those challenging some of the current dogma...er uh...I mean practices.   I don't think thuat's necessarily bad if it's done with careful study. We are in an age that allows us to log and share data like never before.  It's no wonder that new ground is being broken. 

Mike Busch isn't making mechanics look bad, mechanics make themselves look bad.  If a customer asks you if their Lyc 4 cyl can go 4000 hours on a bottom end given that Mr. Busch did it with a  TSIO520.  Articulate a reasoned position...even if it's simply "we've never done that and it makes me uncomfortable".  Ad hominem attacks (and that's all I've seen here) diminish your position not strengthen it. 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Shadrach

[N6758N]

Just now, Shadrach said:

  If a customer asks you if their Lyc 4 cyl can go 4000 hours on a bottom end given that Mr. Busch did it with a  TSIO540.  

Huh? Pretty sure his 310 has TSIO-520s...?