Turbo engine maintenance

[John Doe]

I'm in the market to purchase a turbo aircraft...(specifically a 1979 Turbo
Lance)

Can someone tell me their experience with the engine maintenace in relation
to having to top overhaul the cylinders? I've heard from some owners that
you should only expect about 800 or so hours on the cyliners before having
to get them topped, while others have said if flown properly they should
make it to the engine TBO.

The plane I'm looking to buy has 800 hours SMOH and they haven't touched the
cylinders since the overhaul. Am I looking at a heavty bill to top the
cylinders soon? (I'm thinking about getting a prebuy done this week) Will a
compression check tell me what I need or does the A&P have to tear the
engine apart to really tell?

Thanks.

[Nathan Young]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:21:21 -0400, "John Doe" >
wrote:

>I'm in the market to purchase a turbo aircraft...(specifically a 1979 Turbo
>Lance)
>
>Can someone tell me their experience with the engine maintenace in relation
>to having to top overhaul the cylinders? I've heard from some owners that
>you should only expect about 800 or so hours on the cyliners before having
>to get them topped, while others have said if flown properly they should
>make it to the engine TBO.
>
>The plane I'm looking to buy has 800 hours SMOH and they haven't touched the
>cylinders since the overhaul. Am I looking at a heavty bill to top the
>cylinders soon? (I'm thinking about getting a prebuy done this week) Will a
>compression check tell me what I need or does the A&P have to tear the
>engine apart to really tell?

My father in law had a Seneca II (Continental TSIO-360s) that ate a
cylinder or two each annual. He was gentle with the throttles, and
used speedbrakes on approaches to slowdown (vs cutting the engines),
so I am not sure the cause, but he definitely went through a lot of
cylinders.

If I was buying a turbo'd (or for that matter high HP per cubic inch)
engine, I would plan on doing a top at least once on the way to TBO.

Contrast that with the Lyc O-360 in my PA28-180. 1400+ since SMOH,
same cylinders, and compressions are still in the mid/upper 70s.

-Nathan

[Mike Rapoport]

It is going to depend a lot on how you fly the airplane and probably on luck
as well. I recently read in Light Plane Maitenance that the alloy used in
cylinders loses about 50% of its strength by 400F, so presumably the
cylinders will last longer if you fly at lower altitudes (where they will
run cooler) and at lower power settings. Of course, what is the point in
having a turbocharged engine if you are going to do that? When I had a Turbo
Lance, I cruised at 75% power and usually cruised in the mid-teens (the
terrain came up to the low teens). I never had an engine or cylinder
problem but I only had the airplane about 360hrs.

Mike
MU-2

"John Doe" > wrote in message
news:_s10f.57789$8q.31419@lakeread01...
> I'm in the market to purchase a turbo aircraft...(specifically a 1979
> Turbo Lance)
>
> Can someone tell me their experience with the engine maintenace in
> relation to having to top overhaul the cylinders? I've heard from some
> owners that you should only expect about 800 or so hours on the cyliners
> before having to get them topped, while others have said if flown properly
> they should make it to the engine TBO.
>
> The plane I'm looking to buy has 800 hours SMOH and they haven't touched
> the cylinders since the overhaul. Am I looking at a heavty bill to top
> the cylinders soon? (I'm thinking about getting a prebuy done this week)
> Will a compression check tell me what I need or does the A&P have to tear
> the engine apart to really tell?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Nathan Young" wrote:

> Continental
> ... ate a cylinder or two each annual.

> Lyc[oming]
> ...1400+ since SMOH, same cylinders, and compressions are still in the
> mid/upper 70s.

Hmmm...sounds familiar.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:21:21 -0400, "John Doe" >
wrote:

below

>Can someone tell me their experience with the engine maintenace in relation
>to having to top overhaul the cylinders? I've heard from some owners that
>you should only expect about 800 or so hours on the cyliners before having
>to get them topped, while others have said if flown properly they should
>make it to the engine TBO.

Are the cylinders 800 hours since new nitrides? oversized steels?
chrome? Factory o-haul? name-brand "new limits" o-haul? field o-haul?

Is it intercooled? What power setting used for cruise? Average cruise
altitude? Oil temp at cruise? CHT at cruise? TIT/fuel flow at cruise?
Oil consumption per hour? Calender time since OH? How long did it
typically "sit" without flying? Pretty sure I've mentioned this
before-how many total hours on the exhaust components SINCE NEW?

If the engine in question is not intercooled, has been operated at 75%
@peak TIT (or 50 degrees ROP) regardless of oil temp/CHT, flown
infrequently, it's entirely possible that the e-valve guides are
going/gone and the cam is well on it's way.

If the engine in question is intercooled, has spent most of it's life
with the oil temp at or below 200 degrees F, CHT at or below 400
degrees F, it's still entirely possible that the e-valve guides are
going.

>The plane I'm looking to buy has 800 hours SMOH and they haven't touched the
>cylinders since the overhaul. Am I looking at a heavty bill to top the
>cylinders soon? (I'm thinking about getting a prebuy done this week) Will a
>compression check tell me what I need or does the A&P have to tear the
>engine apart to really tell?

If the engine isn't making metal, and periodic oil analysis looks
good, and the compression is good (no e-valve leaks) there is no
reason "to tear the engine apart". Don't know too many people selling
'planes that are going to let you "tear the engine apart" as part of a
pre-buy.

E-valve leaks on a Lycoming typically means the guides/valves are
trashed. At 800-1000 hours most big-six Lycoming E-valve guides are
marginal. Have personally had them go to TBO without this being an
issue (e-valves don't leak). Have also had them develop e-valve
leakage, requiring repair.

Again, not sure exactly what you are looking for. I've allegedly
maintained a crapload of turbocharged Lycomings for tens of thousands
of hours of operation, but my crystal ball's busted. Have seen S1AD's
go 1400-1600 hours without "cylinder" issues, have seen them with 400
hours that needed the cylinders thrown in a dumpster. It depends on
both the actual overhaul and the shivering mass of tissue between the
seat back and the yoke...

TC

[John Doe]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:21:21 -0400, "John Doe" >
> wrote:
>
> below
>
>>Can someone tell me their experience with the engine maintenace in
>>relation
>>to having to top overhaul the cylinders? I've heard from some owners that
>>you should only expect about 800 or so hours on the cyliners before having
>>to get them topped, while others have said if flown properly they should
>>make it to the engine TBO.
>
> Are the cylinders 800 hours since new nitrides? oversized steels?
> chrome? Factory o-haul? name-brand "new limits" o-haul? field o-haul?
>
> Is it intercooled? What power setting used for cruise? Average cruise
> altitude? Oil temp at cruise? CHT at cruise? TIT/fuel flow at cruise?
> Oil consumption per hour? Calender time since OH? How long did it
> typically "sit" without flying? Pretty sure I've mentioned this
> before-how many total hours on the exhaust components SINCE NEW?
>
> If the engine in question is not intercooled, has been operated at 75%
> @peak TIT (or 50 degrees ROP) regardless of oil temp/CHT, flown
> infrequently, it's entirely possible that the e-valve guides are
> going/gone and the cam is well on it's way.
>
> If the engine in question is intercooled, has spent most of it's life
> with the oil temp at or below 200 degrees F, CHT at or below 400
> degrees F, it's still entirely possible that the e-valve guides are
> going.
>
>>The plane I'm looking to buy has 800 hours SMOH and they haven't touched
>>the
>>cylinders since the overhaul. Am I looking at a heavty bill to top the
>>cylinders soon? (I'm thinking about getting a prebuy done this week) Will
>>a
>>compression check tell me what I need or does the A&P have to tear the
>>engine apart to really tell?
>
> If the engine isn't making metal, and periodic oil analysis looks
> good, and the compression is good (no e-valve leaks) there is no
> reason "to tear the engine apart". Don't know too many people selling
> 'planes that are going to let you "tear the engine apart" as part of a
> pre-buy.
>
> E-valve leaks on a Lycoming typically means the guides/valves are
> trashed. At 800-1000 hours most big-six Lycoming E-valve guides are
> marginal. Have personally had them go to TBO without this being an
> issue (e-valves don't leak). Have also had them develop e-valve
> leakage, requiring repair.
>
> Again, not sure exactly what you are looking for. I've allegedly
> maintained a crapload of turbocharged Lycomings for tens of thousands
> of hours of operation, but my crystal ball's busted. Have seen S1AD's
> go 1400-1600 hours without "cylinder" issues, have seen them with 400
> hours that needed the cylinders thrown in a dumpster. It depends on
> both the actual overhaul and the shivering mass of tissue between the
> seat back and the yoke...
>
> TC

Thanks TC,

Besides an oil analysis and compression check, what else should I be asking
the A&P to look for during a pre-buy to make sure I'm not buying a trashed
engine?

I seriously doubt the seller is going to tell me he's trashed the engine
running at peak temps.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 21:00:20 -0400, "John Doe" >
wrote:

snip
>> Again, not sure exactly what you are looking for. I've allegedly
>> maintained a crapload of turbocharged Lycomings for tens of thousands
>> of hours of operation, but my crystal ball's busted. Have seen S1AD's
>> go 1400-1600 hours without "cylinder" issues, have seen them with 400
>> hours that needed the cylinders thrown in a dumpster. It depends on
>> both the actual overhaul and the shivering mass of tissue between the
>> seat back and the yoke...
>>
>> TC
>
>Thanks TC,
>
>Besides an oil analysis and compression check, what else should I be asking
>the A&P to look for during a pre-buy to make sure I'm not buying a trashed
>engine?

Cut the oil filter, inspect the suction screen. Look at previous
oil/filter change intervals. If it's had another recent pre-buy doing
all this, you aren't going to see much. If the filter's been changed
"early" (like immediately after you got off the phone setting up the
pre-buy) it's entirely possible somebody's trying to hide something.

All the questions I listed earlier are pertinent. You DO NOT want a
no-name field overhaul with minimal documentation, you DO NOT want
chrome cylinders, you DO NOT want high-time exhaust components, you DO
NOT want an engine that has been sitting for extended periods of time
without being preserved.

>I seriously doubt the seller is going to tell me he's trashed the engine
>running at peak temps.

Play dumb and interested. At a minimum, ask about %power at
cruise/fuel flow/ITT-after all, you want to keep operating it the same
way it's been operated ; ) Ask him/her to take you for an extended
test hop to "see how it flies". Pay close attention to his/her
climb/cruise profile & power settings and the indicated temps. Ask
about performance and altitude & have him/her show you. Check the oil
consumption after 30 minutes in cruise, minimum. Paying for a little
fuel can net you a lot of information.

TC

[Mike Rapoport]

> I seriously doubt the seller is going to tell me he's trashed the engine
> running at peak temps.
>
He may show you on a demo flight so you can see how fast it goes.

Mike
MU-2

[John Doe]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:21:21 -0400, "John Doe" >
> wrote:
>
> below
>
>>Can someone tell me their experience with the engine maintenace in
>>relation
>>to having to top overhaul the cylinders? I've heard from some owners that
>>you should only expect about 800 or so hours on the cyliners before having
>>to get them topped, while others have said if flown properly they should
>>make it to the engine TBO.
>
> Are the cylinders 800 hours since new nitrides? oversized steels?
> chrome? Factory o-haul? name-brand "new limits" o-haul? field o-haul?
>
> Is it intercooled? What power setting used for cruise? Average cruise
> altitude? Oil temp at cruise? CHT at cruise? TIT/fuel flow at cruise?
> Oil consumption per hour? Calender time since OH? How long did it
> typically "sit" without flying? Pretty sure I've mentioned this
> before-how many total hours on the exhaust components SINCE NEW?
>
> If the engine in question is not intercooled, has been operated at 75%
> @peak TIT (or 50 degrees ROP) regardless of oil temp/CHT, flown
> infrequently, it's entirely possible that the e-valve guides are
> going/gone and the cam is well on it's way.
>
> If the engine in question is intercooled, has spent most of it's life
> with the oil temp at or below 200 degrees F, CHT at or below 400
> degrees F, it's still entirely possible that the e-valve guides are
> going.
>
>>The plane I'm looking to buy has 800 hours SMOH and they haven't touched
>>the
>>cylinders since the overhaul. Am I looking at a heavty bill to top the
>>cylinders soon? (I'm thinking about getting a prebuy done this week) Will
>>a
>>compression check tell me what I need or does the A&P have to tear the
>>engine apart to really tell?
>
> If the engine isn't making metal, and periodic oil analysis looks
> good, and the compression is good (no e-valve leaks) there is no
> reason "to tear the engine apart". Don't know too many people selling
> 'planes that are going to let you "tear the engine apart" as part of a
> pre-buy.
>
> E-valve leaks on a Lycoming typically means the guides/valves are
> trashed. At 800-1000 hours most big-six Lycoming E-valve guides are
> marginal. Have personally had them go to TBO without this being an
> issue (e-valves don't leak). Have also had them develop e-valve
> leakage, requiring repair.
>
> Again, not sure exactly what you are looking for. I've allegedly
> maintained a crapload of turbocharged Lycomings for tens of thousands
> of hours of operation, but my crystal ball's busted. Have seen S1AD's
> go 1400-1600 hours without "cylinder" issues, have seen them with 400
> hours that needed the cylinders thrown in a dumpster. It depends on
> both the actual overhaul and the shivering mass of tissue between the
> seat back and the yoke...
>
> TC

Besides an oil analysis and compression check, what else should I be asking
the A&P to look for during a pre-buy to make sure I'm not buying a trashed
engine?

I seriously doubt the seller is going to tell me he's trashed the engine
running at peak temps.

[jmk]

One thing to do is check the turbocharger. Climb to altitude (up
around 18K or so) and pull the RPM back. See how much MP you can get.
[Merlyn used to have a nice chart - might be on their web site.] A
worn turbocharger won't give rated boost up in the thin air (but almost
any piece of scrap metal will give lots of boost down low).

Check the turbocharger housing very carefully for cracks. Case cracks
are not uncommon. Induction leaks are also a pain (usually trivial to
fix, but can be hard (timeconsuming) to find).

OTOH, there is no reason why a well maintained system shouldn't make it
to TBO or close to it (new TCM cylinders being the exception - they
tend to last 400-700 hours, period!). I fly a turbo Arrow and really
enjoy the "high flight." I won't say I wouldn't buy a non-turbo
aircraft, but it would be hard to give up the turbo after having one.

[DL]

If it has a recording engine analyzer installed (many a/c of that class,
performance do), ask for a memory dump of whatever is stored in its memory
and watch that memory dump take place, if possible. That could tell a lot
about how it's been operated.

DL

> wrote in message
...
snip.
>
> Play dumb and interested. At a minimum, ask about %power at
> cruise/fuel flow/ITT-after all, you want to keep operating it the same
> way it's been operated ; ) Ask him/her to take you for an extended
> test hop to "see how it flies". Pay close attention to his/her
> climb/cruise profile & power settings and the indicated temps. Ask
> about performance and altitude & have him/her show you. Check the oil
> consumption after 30 minutes in cruise, minimum. Paying for a little
> fuel can net you a lot of information.
>
> TC

[John Doe]

"DL" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> If it has a recording engine analyzer installed (many a/c of that class,
> performance do), ask for a memory dump of whatever is stored in its memory
> and watch that memory dump take place, if possible. That could tell a lot
> about how it's been operated.
>

I know the JDIs have that capability, does the EI analyzers have that option
as well? (I think that's what this one has)

[John Doe]

"jmk" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> One thing to do is check the turbocharger. Climb to altitude (up
> around 18K or so) and pull the RPM back. See how much MP you can get.
> [Merlyn used to have a nice chart - might be on their web site.] A
> worn turbocharger won't give rated boost up in the thin air (but almost
> any piece of scrap metal will give lots of boost down low).
>
> Check the turbocharger housing very carefully for cracks. Case cracks
> are not uncommon. Induction leaks are also a pain (usually trivial to
> fix, but can be hard (timeconsuming) to find).
>
> OTOH, there is no reason why a well maintained system shouldn't make it
> to TBO or close to it (new TCM cylinders being the exception - they
> tend to last 400-700 hours, period!). I fly a turbo Arrow and really
> enjoy the "high flight." I won't say I wouldn't buy a non-turbo
> aircraft, but it would be hard to give up the turbo after having one.
>

Is there an altitude, where you have to start using more and more fuel to
keep the engine cool to a point where it's not worth the extra few knots you
might get by flying higher?

[Mike Rapoport]

If you are talking about the Turbo Lance with an intercooler this isn't a
problem

Mike
MU-2

"John Doe" > wrote in message
news:erE0f.500$L24.30@lakeread01...
>
> "jmk" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> One thing to do is check the turbocharger. Climb to altitude (up
>> around 18K or so) and pull the RPM back. See how much MP you can get.
>> [Merlyn used to have a nice chart - might be on their web site.] A
>> worn turbocharger won't give rated boost up in the thin air (but almost
>> any piece of scrap metal will give lots of boost down low).
>>
>> Check the turbocharger housing very carefully for cracks. Case cracks
>> are not uncommon. Induction leaks are also a pain (usually trivial to
>> fix, but can be hard (timeconsuming) to find).
>>
>> OTOH, there is no reason why a well maintained system shouldn't make it
>> to TBO or close to it (new TCM cylinders being the exception - they
>> tend to last 400-700 hours, period!). I fly a turbo Arrow and really
>> enjoy the "high flight." I won't say I wouldn't buy a non-turbo
>> aircraft, but it would be hard to give up the turbo after having one.
>>
>
> Is there an altitude, where you have to start using more and more fuel to
> keep the engine cool to a point where it's not worth the extra few knots
> you
> might get by flying higher?
>
>
>

[John Doe]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> If you are talking about the Turbo Lance with an intercooler this isn't a
> problem


No intercooler. From what people are saying the company that added the
intercooler has gone out of business.

[Matt Barrow]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
news:erE0f.500$L24.30@lakeread01...
>
> "jmk" > wrote in message
>> OTOH, there is no reason why a well maintained system shouldn't make it
>> to TBO or close to it (new TCM cylinders being the exception - they
>> tend to last 400-700 hours, period!). I fly a turbo Arrow and really
>> enjoy the "high flight." I won't say I wouldn't buy a non-turbo
>> aircraft, but it would be hard to give up the turbo after having one.
>>
>
> Is there an altitude, where you have to start using more and more fuel to
> keep the engine cool to a point where it's not worth the extra few knots
> you
> might get by flying higher?

If you want cooler, use lean-of-peak; lose a few knots, but gain
significantly less fuel and lower TIT/CHT temps.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 07:27:53 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:


>If you want cooler, use lean-of-peak; lose a few knots, but gain
>significantly less fuel and lower TIT/CHT temps.

You might want to contact the LOP/GAMI guy and ask him first. Based on
personal experience, turbo-supercharged TIO-540's have detonation
issues during certain operating regimes. Am thinking the GAMI guy saw
the same issues during testing.

TC

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 07:27:53 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>If you want cooler, use lean-of-peak; lose a few knots, but gain
>>significantly less fuel and lower TIT/CHT temps.
>
> You might want to contact the LOP/GAMI guy and ask him first. Based on
> personal experience, turbo-supercharged TIO-540's have detonation
> issues during certain operating regimes. Am thinking the GAMI guy saw
> the same issues during testing.
>

Who is the "GAMI guy"? Not Deakin?

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182132-1.html


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:28:50 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>Who is the "GAMI guy"? Not Deakin?
>
>http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182132-1.html

You'll have to forgive my language, but somehow if I tell an owner
something out on the shop floor, or in the 'groups based on my
personal experiences (and experiences of other "unknown" professionals
in the industry) it's hearsay and/or an OWT, but if it gets published
on Avweb, it's freakin' stone tablets handed down from the heavens.

Do me a real big favor and don't ask my professional opinion of "teh
$avvey aviaytor".

I am not disputing the advantages to PROPER LOP cruise operation-on
engines proven to operate LOP-for example, the TCM-powered Malibu was
specifically designed to operate LOP. BUT-if you do not know EXACTLY
what you are doing running a turbo-supercharged GA engine LOP you can
DESTROY your engine. If you don't want to take my word for it, re-read
the article at the link you provided.

TC

BTW the "GAMI guy" is:

George Braly-Chief Engineer


From the article you referenced:

George Braly writes:

"The truth of the matter is, if one does a very, very careful
analysis of all of the Service Difficulty Reports, all of the NTSB
accident reports, and sorts through the data, one comes to the
conclusion that almost all of the detonation that is experienced by
pilots is a result of the following:

1. Fuel quality issues;

2. Magneto and harness cross-firing, or improper magneto
timing;

"There are some reports of detonation that were probably
mis-classified as pre-ignition events due to damaged spark plugs or
heli-coil problems in the cylinder.

"And, last, yes, there are some, a few, cases of detonation that
are "for real" and were caused by very misinformed engine operating
techniques by the pilot. If you get in a pressurized Cessna P-210 and
decide to lean the engine in the mountains for your short field
takeoff, because that is the way you used to do it when you had your
normally aspirated C-210, then you can destroy the engine with pure
detonation by the time you turn cross wind in the traffic pattern. It
will absolutely ruin your day.

"However, in general, detonation is a very rare event and is
usually caused by fuel or ignition problems."

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:28:50 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>Who is the "GAMI guy"? Not Deakin?
>>
>>http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182132-1.html
>
> You'll have to forgive my language, but somehow if I tell an owner
> something out on the shop floor, or in the 'groups based on my
> personal experiences (and experiences of other "unknown" professionals
> in the industry) it's hearsay and/or an OWT, but if it gets published
> on Avweb, it's freakin' stone tablets handed down from the heavens.

And many people accept OWT with NO substantiation. Take it on "faith", ya
know. How much proof do youoffer when you tell someone something on the shop
floor? How many people have never heard one word of substantiation for doing
theings the way they did other than from the logical fallacy of Argument
From Authority?

>
> Do me a real big favor and don't ask my professional opinion of "teh
> $avvey aviaytor".

I won't ask you opinion on spelling and grammar, either! ! :~)
>
> I am not disputing the advantages to PROPER LOP cruise operation-on
> engines proven to operate LOP-for example, the TCM-powered Malibu was
> specifically designed to operate LOP. BUT-if you do not know EXACTLY
> what you are doing running a turbo-supercharged GA engine LOP you can
> DESTROY your engine. If you don't want to take my word for it, re-read
> the article at the link you provided.

You can destroy your engine running ROP, too. You can ruin it using numerous
techniques IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

>
> TC
>
> BTW the "GAMI guy" is:
>
> George Braly-Chief Engineer
>
>
> From the article you referenced:
>
> George Braly writes:
>
> "The truth of the matter is, if one does a very, very careful
> analysis of all of the Service Difficulty Reports, all of the NTSB
> accident reports, and sorts through the data, one comes to the
> conclusion that almost all of the detonation that is experienced by
> pilots is a result of the following:
>
> 1. Fuel quality issues;
>
> 2. Magneto and harness cross-firing, or improper magneto
> timing;
>
> "There are some reports of detonation that were probably
> mis-classified as pre-ignition events due to damaged spark plugs or
> heli-coil problems in the cylinder.
>
> "And, last, yes, there are some, a few, cases of detonation that
> are "for real" and were caused by very misinformed engine operating
> techniques by the pilot. If you get in a pressurized Cessna P-210 and
> decide to lean the engine in the mountains for your short field
> takeoff, because that is the way you used to do it when you had your
> normally aspirated C-210, then you can destroy the engine with pure
> detonation by the time you turn cross wind in the traffic pattern. It
> will absolutely ruin your day.
>
> "However, in general, detonation is a very rare event and is
> usually caused by fuel or ignition problems."

Yes...so?

Matt B.

(Five years and 1400 hours LOP in a TNIO-550 without a burp).

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 07:02:54 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

snip

>> You'll have to forgive my language, but somehow if I tell an owner
>> something out on the shop floor, or in the 'groups based on my
>> personal experiences (and experiences of other "unknown" professionals
>> in the industry) it's hearsay and/or an OWT, but if it gets published
>> on Avweb, it's freakin' stone tablets handed down from the heavens.
>
>And many people accept OWT with NO substantiation. Take it on "faith", ya
>know. How much proof do youoffer when you tell someone something on the shop
>floor? How many people have never heard one word of substantiation for doing
>theings the way they did other than from the logical fallacy of Argument
>From Authority?

How does Avweb differ from "the logical fallacy of Argument From
Authority"?

snip
>> I am not disputing the advantages to PROPER LOP cruise operation-on
>> engines proven to operate LOP-for example, the TCM-powered Malibu was
>> specifically designed to operate LOP. BUT-if you do not know EXACTLY
>> what you are doing running a turbo-supercharged GA engine LOP you can
>> DESTROY your engine. If you don't want to take my word for it, re-read
>> the article at the link you provided.
>
>You can destroy your engine running ROP, too. You can ruin it using numerous
>techniques IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

I'm going to try and keep this simple. The original poster is thinking
about buying one of the most problematic (in my personal experience)
GA turbo-charged aircraft/engine combos. It is rather obvious that his
personal knowledge WRT operation of any turbo-supercharged aircraft is
lacking. Running this engine ROP, even waaay ROP is less likely to put
him the position to do very bad things.

It takes some specific know-how to do "the big pull" on any engine,
and I will definitely agree that 50-75 degrees ROP is the worst
possible place to be. BTW, following the turbo Lance/'Toga POH %power
chart MAP/RPM/ITT/FF settings is practically guaranteed to reduce
engine/cylinder longevity. The only one I personally aware of that is
worse is the original PA46-350P POH numbers.

snip

>Yes...so?

As I recall, I initally suggested that someone considering operating a
TIO540 LOP should get more information WRT detonation from the one
person in the industry that is likely to have that information. As it
happens, the article you referred to mentions this same issue, but not
this particular engine.
>
>Matt B.
>
>(Five years and 1400 hours LOP in a TNIO-550 without a burp).

Nice, when did TCM start making one of those? What's the TC #? It's
pertinent to turbo-supercharged Lycoming operation how?

BTW, I am familiar with the IO-550. I would hope that whatever
organization has the STC to modify an 550 to "TN" status would use
GAMI's research data and at least provide basic
documentation/information for LOP operations, if they are recommended.

Assuming that LOP ops are recommended, I can also assume that there
is a given cruise rpm/FF range used to calculate the proper LOP power
settings at WOT-since this just about the only way I am aware of to
calculate a reasonably accurate LOP % power.

I would further reason, based on IO-550 experience that the TO FF's
need to be increased slightly after adding the "TN" to the IO-
engine. The wonderful self-leaning fuel pump used on the
normally-aspirated 550 was notorious for running too lean ROP/too hot
in TO/climb.

I would also guess that there likely is a warning to avoid all
operation between approx. 50 degrees LOP and 100 degrees ROP at high
power settings. This again, would likely be to avoid detonation.

Where do you suggest that the OP would find TIO-540-S1AD LOP
operational guidelines (based on actual testing, I would hope)
similiar to these?

Perhaps by contacting "the LOP/GAMI guy" ?

TC

(17+ years allegedly maintaining TIO-540-J2B, J2BD, F2BD, S1AD, AE2A &
V2AD's for 100,000+ hours of operation with minimal "burps" if
operated IAW Lyc SI1094D C. 7. & 9.)

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 07:02:54 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>> You'll have to forgive my language, but somehow if I tell an owner
>>> something out on the shop floor, or in the 'groups based on my
>>> personal experiences (and experiences of other "unknown" professionals
>>> in the industry) it's hearsay and/or an OWT, but if it gets published
>>> on Avweb, it's freakin' stone tablets handed down from the heavens.
>>
>>And many people accept OWT with NO substantiation. Take it on "faith", ya
>>know. How much proof do youoffer when you tell someone something on the
>>shop
>>floor? How many people have never heard one word of substantiation for
>>doing
>>theings the way they did other than from the logical fallacy of Argument
>>From Authority?
>
> How does Avweb differ from "the logical fallacy of Argument From
> Authority"?

They demonstrate the data and reasoning behind their positions.

>
> snip
>>> I am not disputing the advantages to PROPER LOP cruise operation-on
>>> engines proven to operate LOP-for example, the TCM-powered Malibu was
>>> specifically designed to operate LOP. BUT-if you do not know EXACTLY
>>> what you are doing running a turbo-supercharged GA engine LOP you can
>>> DESTROY your engine. If you don't want to take my word for it, re-read
>>> the article at the link you provided.
>>
>>You can destroy your engine running ROP, too. You can ruin it using
>>numerous
>>techniques IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
>
> I'm going to try and keep this simple. The original poster is thinking
> about buying one of the most problematic (in my personal experience)
> GA turbo-charged aircraft/engine combos. It is rather obvious that his
> personal knowledge WRT operation of any turbo-supercharged aircraft is
> lacking. Running this engine ROP, even waaay ROP is less likely to put
> him the position to do very bad things.

I think you're confusing the GSIO model, which is what TAT/GAMI is running
on their test bed...on mogas and other rotgut fuel -- without a hitch,
>
> It takes some specific know-how to do "the big pull" on any engine,
> and I will definitely agree that 50-75 degrees ROP is the worst
> possible place to be. BTW, following the turbo Lance/'Toga POH %power
> chart MAP/RPM/ITT/FF settings is practically guaranteed to reduce
> engine/cylinder longevity. The only one I personally aware of that is
> worse is the original PA46-350P POH numbers.
>
> snip
>
>>Yes...so?
>
> As I recall, I initally suggested that someone considering operating a
> TIO540 LOP should get more information WRT detonation from the one
> person in the industry that is likely to have that information. As it
> happens, the article you referred to mentions this same issue, but not
> this particular engine.

GSIO, not the TIO.

>>
>>Matt B.
>>
>>(Five years and 1400 hours LOP in a TNIO-550 without a burp).
>
> Nice, when did TCM start making one of those? What's the TC #? It's
> pertinent to turbo-supercharged Lycoming operation how?
>
> BTW, I am familiar with the IO-550. I would hope that whatever
> organization has the STC to modify an 550 to "TN" status would use
> GAMI's research data and at least provide basic
> documentation/information for LOP operations, if they are recommended.

TA Turbo, Western Skyways and a couple others have STC's to TN a IO-550.

>
> Assuming that LOP ops are recommended, I can also assume that there
> is a given cruise rpm/FF range used to calculate the proper LOP power
> settings at WOT-since this just about the only way I am aware of to
> calculate a reasonably accurate LOP % power.

TATurbo (the George Braly you mention) gives a three day seminar with the
conversion or anyone can ante up and take the class.
http://www.advancedpilot.com/explore_001.htm

>
> I would further reason, based on IO-550 experience that the TO FF's
> need to be increased slightly after adding the "TN" to the IO-
> engine. The wonderful self-leaning fuel pump used on the
> normally-aspirated 550 was notorious for running too lean ROP/too hot
> in TO/climb.

What TAT recommends is ensuring the your TO FF is NO LESS than redline.

>
> I would also guess that there likely is a warning to avoid all
> operation between approx. 50 degrees LOP and 100 degrees ROP at high
> power settings. This again, would likely be to avoid detonation.

They call it the "Red Box"

Red Box = No Fly Zone
At and below about 60% power, there is no red box.
At about 65% power or so, 100ºF ROP to Peak.
At about 70%, 125ºF ROP to 25ºF LOP.
At about 75%, 180ºF ROP to 40ºF LOP.
At about 80%, 200ºF ROP to 60ºF LOP


>
> Where do you suggest that the OP would find TIO-540-S1AD LOP
> operational guidelines (based on actual testing, I would hope)
> similiar to these?
>
> Perhaps by contacting "the LOP/GAMI guy" ?

He should take the Advanced Pilot Seminar previously mentioned.
>
> TC
>
> (17+ years allegedly maintaining TIO-540-J2B, J2BD, F2BD, S1AD, AE2A &
> V2AD's for 100,000+ hours of operation with minimal "burps" if
> operated IAW Lyc SI1094D C. 7. & 9.)

Then, of course, Lycoming has this take:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182131-1.html, but they must have more
credibility since they're no on the Internet. :~)


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:31:27 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

snip

>> How does Avweb differ from "the logical fallacy of Argument From
>> Authority"?
>
>They demonstrate the data and reasoning behind their positions.

You might be surprised that I've corresponded with the Deakin dude,
and WRT "factory" turbo Lycoming ops we tended to agree-go figure.

snip
>> I'm going to try and keep this simple. The original poster is thinking
>> about buying one of the most problematic (in my personal experience)
>> GA turbo-charged aircraft/engine combos. It is rather obvious that his
>> personal knowledge WRT operation of any turbo-supercharged aircraft is
>> lacking. Running this engine ROP, even waaay ROP is less likely to put
>> him the position to do very bad things.
>
>I think you're confusing the GSIO model, which is what TAT/GAMI is running
>on their test bed...on mogas and other rotgut fuel -- without a hitch,

I really don't believe that I am confused concerning the relative
reliablility/common maintenance issues vs. standard operational
procedures on turbocharged Lycomings derived from my personal
experience out on the hangar floor.

>> It takes some specific know-how to do "the big pull" on any engine,
>> and I will definitely agree that 50-75 degrees ROP is the worst
>> possible place to be. BTW, following the turbo Lance/'Toga POH %power
>> chart MAP/RPM/ITT/FF settings is practically guaranteed to reduce
>> engine/cylinder longevity. The only one I personally aware of that is
>> worse is the original PA46-350P POH numbers.
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>Yes...so?
>>
>> As I recall, I initally suggested that someone considering operating a
>> TIO540 LOP should get more information WRT detonation from the one
>> person in the industry that is likely to have that information. As it
>> happens, the article you referred to mentions this same issue, but not
>> this particular engine.
>
>GSIO, not the TIO.

GSIO what? With regard to what? If Mr. Braly says that he has data on
the TIO540-S1AD, and detonation is not an issue between 50 LOP and 100
ROP at/above 75%, I would tend to take his word for it. However, if he
says that he has similiar data on the -J2BD, we are going to disagree.

I have seen it. In fact, while attempting to determine it's cause, I
eliminated mechanical malfunction/failure of the ignition, fuel
metering & delivery, turbocharger & control systems and had the fuel
remaining in the tanks tested.

The engine in question was nearly new, and belonged to a gentleman
that is now the largest civilian G1 operator and useta be (maybe still
is) the largest civilian Lear operator in the world. Way back when he
owned a couple of Beech 18's, a ratty old Navajo, and was leasing a
couple of Lears.

The only factor we weren't able to eliminate was the ex turbine
helicopter pilot that was yanking and cranking on the knobs sticking
out of the pedestal. The starboard engine was virtually run-out, which
we guessed was enuff to get it just out of the detonation range.

snip

>> I would further reason, based on IO-550 experience that the TO FF's
>> need to be increased slightly after adding the "TN" to the IO-
>> engine. The wonderful self-leaning fuel pump used on the
>> normally-aspirated 550 was notorious for running too lean ROP/too hot
>> in TO/climb.
>
>What TAT recommends is ensuring the your TO FF is NO LESS than redline.

Afraid that this is a somewhat fallacious statement. There is a quite
specific procedure for testing and properly adjusting the classic TCM
fuel injection system. There are absolute fuel pressure and flow
ranges established. The smart money has always been on pushing the
high end of the scale and having it checked periodically.

On the IO-550-B, this range was tweaked "up" via SB after A36's
started shedding e-valve guides. Prior to adjustment, following POH
operating procedures, I have seen nearly new IO-550's with the
auto-lean pump (borrowed from TSIO apps) that "automatically"
maintained 50-75 degree ROP climbing to altitude.

Unfortunately, as I recall, the adjustment procedure does not require
calibration or verification of the on-board mechanical fuel flow
(pressure) gage. Quite often, a properly set-up -B will exceed the
indicated "redline" slightly rolling down the runway.

Granted, if you are operating LOP, this is only going to be an
operational factor during TO and initial climb.

I'm curious how the auto-lean pump (if indeed it is still present on
your engine) is plumbed. On the straight IO the line that would
typically connect to the upper-deck on a TSIO install was vented to
ambient-dropping the max metered fuel pressure as ambient pressure
dropped in the climb.

>> I would also guess that there likely is a warning to avoid all
>> operation between approx. 50 degrees LOP and 100 degrees ROP at high
>> power settings. This again, would likely be to avoid detonation.
>
>They call it the "Red Box"
>
> Red Box = No Fly Zone
> At and below about 60% power, there is no red box.
> At about 65% power or so, 100ºF ROP to Peak.
> At about 70%, 125ºF ROP to 25ºF LOP.
> At about 75%, 180ºF ROP to 40ºF LOP.
> At about 80%, 200ºF ROP to 60ºF LOP

Makes sense to me, but is this TAT TNIO-550 specific, or generic
APSeminar LOP info?

>> (17+ years allegedly maintaining TIO-540-J2B, J2BD, F2BD, S1AD, AE2A &
>> V2AD's for 100,000+ hours of operation with minimal "burps" if
>> operated IAW Lyc SI1094D C. 7. & 9.)
>
>Then, of course, Lycoming has this take:
>http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182131-1.html, but they must have more
>credibility since they're no on the Internet. :~)

Read it when the Deakin dude wrote it. But to paraphrase, SI1094D C7&9
recommends running their turbocharged engines at 65% 125 degrees ROP
"for optimum service life", not the 50 degrees mentioned in the
article.

Again, I have repeatedly seen what happens when you run at 75% at peak
or 50 degrees ROP (elevated CHT and oil temp, accelerated e-valve
guide wear), I don't need to read about it...

Regards;

TC

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:31:27 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
> Read it when the Deakin dude wrote it. But to paraphrase, SI1094D C7&9
> recommends running their turbocharged engines at 65% 125 degrees ROP
> "for optimum service life", not the 50 degrees mentioned in the
> article.

And it's a nice way to foul plugs...

>
> Again, I have repeatedly seen what happens when you run at 75% at peak
> or 50 degrees ROP (elevated CHT and oil temp, accelerated e-valve
> guide wear), I don't need to read about it...

So after all that, what the hell is your point?

And what real DATA do you have other than "what you learned on the shop
floor? Lycoming has somewhat better fuel distribution than TCM, but no
enough to run LOP in STOCK CONFIGURATION?

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:37:52 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:31:27 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>> > wrote:
>> Read it when the Deakin dude wrote it. But to paraphrase, SI1094D C7&9
>> recommends running their turbocharged engines at 65% 125 degrees ROP
>> "for optimum service life", not the 50 degrees mentioned in the
>> article.
>
>And it's a nice way to foul plugs...

Two words. bull and crap. How many 100 hour inspections does it take
to make 100,000 hours? You want to tell me what a fouled plug looks
like?

>> Again, I have repeatedly seen what happens when you run at 75% at peak
>> or 50 degrees ROP (elevated CHT and oil temp, accelerated e-valve
>> guide wear), I don't need to read about it...
>
>So after all that, what the hell is your point?

My main point would be that if you do not have personal experience lab
testing, operating, and/or maintaining the turbo-supercharged
TIO-540-S1AD at LOP cruise, the POH economy/best power cruise, or
Lycoming's SI1094D recommended cruise you should sit down and shut
up.

My first post in this thread quite clearly suggested that someone
considering LOP ops should contact the most knowledgeable person in
the industry before doing so, subsequent posting covered the other two
modes of operation.

>And what real DATA do you have other than "what you learned on the shop
>floor? Lycoming has somewhat better fuel distribution than TCM, but no
>enough to run LOP in STOCK CONFIGURATION?

Again, aside from referencing an Avweb article or two and quoting the
same LOP mantra that I have heard for the last 15 years, what new
information have you offered for public consumption?

If I had relevant LOP related info, I would share it. When I was
getting out of the TIO-540 game, GAMI was just starting to do testing
on Lycoming engines. I am familiar enuff with LOP theory and operation
to know that before performing "the big pull" you should probably get
educated, not just read about it in the 'groups.

Perhaps you haven't personally seen hundreds of thousands of dollars
worth of GA engines/cylinders destroyed by pilot/owners that were
ignorant-not stupid-ignorant-and haven't had to listen to 20+ years
of boo-hoo-hooing about it. So there is no mistake, I am not referring
to destruction by LOP operation.

And while hopping on the LOP bandwagon, not to mention preaching to
the choir, you somehow think you can share some mysterious aspect of
conventional peak-ROP TIT cruise that I've somehow missed.

Sorry, but I've still got the giggles over the "ensuring the your TO
FF is NO LESS than redline" statement.

TC

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

> And what real DATA do you have other than "what you learned on the
> shop floor?

You're in way over your head. If you ever achieve 1/10 the credibility
that TC has in this group, you will have a hundred times what you have
now.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>> And what real DATA do you have other than "what you learned on the shop
>> floor?
>
> You're in way over your head. If you ever achieve 1/10 the credibility
> that TC has in this group, you will have a hundred times what you have
> now.

Well, TC probably does have credibility, but until he SHOWS me some DATA,
I'm not satisfied to take it on faith. He denigrates those who have done a
pretty good job of SUPPORTING their positions with data...real, empirical
data. His rejoinders? His 17 years experience.

Well, there's a bunch like that:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182135-1.html ("But My Mechanic Says ...")

After six responses he's shown me nothing but his curriculum vitale, nothing
of substance and seeks that I take it on an argument from authority...his.


Thanks, no. The "authorities" have been wrong far too often.

So FINALLY, TC, tell me that the Lycoming TIO-540 can/cannot be run LOP.
Don't give me that original BS that it required special skills, training,
blah, blah, blah.

And Dan, I'm finding too many "authorities" with much more than 17 years
experience, that are being found out to be completely full of it...Paul
Krugman comes to mind.

TC, I'm sure you're knowledgeable and have great experience, but in the
words of the old advertisement, "You have to earn your wings every day" (or
in this case, to convince ME).


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[john smith]

> >> And what real DATA do you have other than "what you learned on the shop
> >> floor?

> > You're in way over your head. If you ever achieve 1/10 the credibility
> > that TC has in this group, you will have a hundred times what you have
> > now.

> Well, TC probably does have credibility, but until he SHOWS me some DATA,
> I'm not satisfied to take it on faith. He denigrates those who have done a
> pretty good job of SUPPORTING their positions with data...real, empirical
> data. His rejoinders? His 17 years experience.

[balance snipped]

Matt, I have to agree with TC.
I have read all of Deakin's stuff and talked to him at OSH to make
certain I was understanding what he wrote. I have a different
interpretation of the literature than you do, it conforms with what TC
and Deakin have posted.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:31:24 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>Well, TC probably does have credibility, but until he SHOWS me some DATA,
>I'm not satisfied to take it on faith. He denigrates those who have done a
>pretty good job of SUPPORTING their positions with data...real, empirical
>data. His rejoinders? His 17 years experience.

Are you freaking high? Are you able to read and comprehend the English
language (or at least the variant used the US of A)?

Find one sentence in this thread where I "denigrated" anything or
anybody, other than you.

My initial query concerning sheep quoting Avweb you have reinforced
time and time again, without any help or encouragement on my part.

snip

>So FINALLY, TC, tell me that the Lycoming TIO-540 can/cannot be run LOP.
>Don't give me that original BS that it required special skills, training,
>blah, blah, blah.

You sir, have the 'group persona of an idiot. Again, I would
respectfully suggest that you contact the guy that wrote the freaking
book on GA LOP and ask him whether he recommends that a newbie owner
(with limited/no experience of advanced engine management) of a Turbo
Lance should take-off, grab the mixture control and yank, i.e...

>>>You might want to contact the LOP/GAMI guy and ask him first. Based on
>>>personal experience, turbo-supercharged TIO-540's have detonation
>>>issues during certain operating regimes. Am thinking the GAMI guy saw
>>>the same issues during testing.


Unlike some other people that post in these groups, I post primarily
about what I have allegedly seen-not what I have read, heard, or
dreamed about after eating peyote. On occasion, I do relate what other
people in the industry that I know and respect have allegedly told me
first-person, therefore...

>>>If I had relevant LOP related info, I would share it. When I was
>>>getting out of the TIO-540 game, GAMI was just starting to do testing
>>>on Lycoming engines. I am familiar enuff with LOP theory and operation
>>>to know that before performing "the big pull" you should probably get
>>>educated, not just read about it in the 'groups.


>TC, I'm sure you're knowledgeable and have great experience, but in the
>words of the old advertisement, "You have to earn your wings every day" (or
>in this case, to convince ME).

Where you are mistaken in this case is that I have the need/desire to
convince "you" of anything. Or that I have any concern of my
"credibility" whatsoever in any aspect of my 'group correspondence.
I'm certain that my penis length (assuming I have one) is sufficient,
and I couldn't give a flying-**** whether or not you can **** farther
than I can.

For all you know, I've never set foot in a hangar in my life, let
alone worked on an airplane. By the same yardstick, with all the
advanced knowledge and expertise in quoting other online sources
you've shown me-it's possible you've got a poster of an A36 and a
Tornado Alley Turbo bumpersticker on the wall of your bedroom and like
to masturbate with one hand while typing with the other.

The 'groups for me are just like reality TV and daytime drama, only
with enuff GA content to keep me interested. I really should thank
you, you've made an otherwise drab week rather enjoyable.

TC

[Matt Barrow]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> >> And what real DATA do you have other than "what you learned on the
>> >> shop
>> >> floor?
>
>> > You're in way over your head. If you ever achieve 1/10 the credibility
>> > that TC has in this group, you will have a hundred times what you have
>> > now.
>
>> Well, TC probably does have credibility, but until he SHOWS me some DATA,
>> I'm not satisfied to take it on faith. He denigrates those who have done
>> a
>> pretty good job of SUPPORTING their positions with data...real, empirical
>> data. His rejoinders? His 17 years experience.
>
> [balance snipped]
>
> Matt, I have to agree with TC.
> I have read all of Deakin's stuff and talked to him at OSH to make
> certain I was understanding what he wrote. I have a different
> interpretation of the literature than you do, it conforms with what TC
> and Deakin have posted.

Umm...so what is you interpretation of what Deakin wrote and how does it fit
with TC's contraindication?

I'm sure it is (what TC says) but I still haven't seen DATA.

As well, I'm waiting to see someone refute what Braly has developed and what
Deakin has published.

I've seen a lot of people deny Braly/Deakin, but never produce any contrary
DATA. All I've seen (and I'm sure I've missed a bunch) is CLAIMS.

My "hunch" is that many want to cling to the OWT and possibly a good dose of
ENVY (not to mention a lot of ass-covering from the manufacturers).

I'd love to know the "real deal". I've been going by the GAMI/TAT "book" for
five years and nearly 140 hours and I've had ZERO problems, so that's MY
basis.

Thanks for your input, but please elaborate.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:31:24 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>Well, TC probably does have credibility, but until he SHOWS me some DATA,
>>I'm not satisfied to take it on faith. He denigrates those who have done a
>>pretty good job of SUPPORTING their positions with data...real, empirical
>>data. His rejoinders? His 17 years experience.
>
> Are you freaking high? Are you able to read and comprehend the English
> language (or at least the variant used the US of A)?
>
> Find one sentence in this thread where I "denigrated" anything or
> anybody, other than you.

Your remarks about Braly.

>
> My initial query concerning sheep quoting Avweb you have reinforced
> time and time again, without any help or encouragement on my part.
>
> snip
>
>>So FINALLY, TC, tell me that the Lycoming TIO-540 can/cannot be run LOP.
>>Don't give me that original BS that it required special skills, training,
>>blah, blah, blah.
>
> You sir, have the 'group persona of an idiot.

Yeah...I don't agree with you or at least I'm not willing to take your
"expertise" at face value.

As for "group personna", you may want to refer back to your second post with
it's condescending tone.


> Again, I would
> respectfully suggest that you contact the guy that wrote the freaking
> book on GA LOP and ask him whether he recommends that a newbie owner
> (with limited/no experience of advanced engine management) of a Turbo
> Lance should take-off, grab the mixture control and yank, i.e...

Nice "personna" there.
>
>>>>You might want to contact the LOP/GAMI guy and ask him first. Based on
>>>>personal experience, turbo-supercharged TIO-540's have detonation
>>>>issues during certain operating regimes. Am thinking the GAMI guy saw
>>>>the same issues during testing.
>
>
> Unlike some other people that post in these groups, I post primarily
> about what I have allegedly seen-not what I have read, heard, or
> dreamed about after eating peyote. On occasion, I do relate what other
> people in the industry that I know and respect have allegedly told me
> first-person, therefore...

Hey, nice personna there...
>
>>>>If I had relevant LOP related info, I would share it. When I was
>>>>getting out of the TIO-540 game, GAMI was just starting to do testing
>>>>on Lycoming engines. I am familiar enuff with LOP theory and operation
>>>>to know that before performing "the big pull" you should probably get
>>>>educated, not just read about it in the 'groups.
>
>
>>TC, I'm sure you're knowledgeable and have great experience, but in the
>>words of the old advertisement, "You have to earn your wings every day"
>>(or
>>in this case, to convince ME).
>
> Where you are mistaken in this case is that I have the need/desire to
> convince "you" of anything.

Well, you sure shoot off your mouth as some "authority"...

> Or that I have any concern of my
> "credibility" whatsoever in any aspect of my 'group correspondence.
> I'm certain that my penis length (assuming I have one) is sufficient,
> and I couldn't give a flying-**** whether or not you can **** farther
> than I can.
>
> For all you know, I've never set foot in a hangar in my life, let
> alone worked on an airplane. By the same yardstick, with all the
> advanced knowledge and expertise in quoting other online sources
> you've shown me-it's possible you've got a poster of an A36 and a
> Tornado Alley Turbo bumpersticker on the wall of your bedroom and like
> to masturbate with one hand while typing with the other.

Yeah...your "personna" is really coming through as it did from your first
post on this topic.

> The 'groups for me are just like reality TV and daytime drama, only
> with enuff GA content to keep me interested. I really should thank
> you, you've made an otherwise drab week rather enjoyable.

You've shown me nothing but a way overinflated ego that can't broach being
challenged.

It sure didn't take you long to become shrill and hysterical, did it.

Play your "group personna" games with those here who are into "celebrity"
status (indictive of a mind that never progressed beyond high school).

PLONK

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:50:15 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>PLONK

ROTFLMAO

Thanks again;

TC

[John Doe]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:21:21 -0400, "John Doe" >
> wrote:
>
> below
>
>>Can someone tell me their experience with the engine maintenace in
>>relation
>>to having to top overhaul the cylinders? I've heard from some owners that
>>you should only expect about 800 or so hours on the cyliners before having
>>to get them topped, while others have said if flown properly they should
>>make it to the engine TBO.
>
> Are the cylinders 800 hours since new nitrides? oversized steels?
> chrome? Factory o-haul? name-brand "new limits" o-haul? field o-haul?
>
> Is it intercooled? What power setting used for cruise? Average cruise
> altitude? Oil temp at cruise? CHT at cruise? TIT/fuel flow at cruise?
> Oil consumption per hour? Calender time since OH? How long did it
> typically "sit" without flying? Pretty sure I've mentioned this
> before-how many total hours on the exhaust components SINCE NEW?
>
> If the engine in question is not intercooled, has been operated at 75%
> @peak TIT (or 50 degrees ROP) regardless of oil temp/CHT, flown
> infrequently, it's entirely possible that the e-valve guides are
> going/gone and the cam is well on it's way.
>
> If the engine in question is intercooled, has spent most of it's life
> with the oil temp at or below 200 degrees F, CHT at or below 400
> degrees F, it's still entirely possible that the e-valve guides are
> going.
>
>>The plane I'm looking to buy has 800 hours SMOH and they haven't touched
>>the
>>cylinders since the overhaul. Am I looking at a heavty bill to top the
>>cylinders soon? (I'm thinking about getting a prebuy done this week) Will
>>a
>>compression check tell me what I need or does the A&P have to tear the
>>engine apart to really tell?
>
> If the engine isn't making metal, and periodic oil analysis looks
> good, and the compression is good (no e-valve leaks) there is no
> reason "to tear the engine apart". Don't know too many people selling
> 'planes that are going to let you "tear the engine apart" as part of a
> pre-buy.
>
> E-valve leaks on a Lycoming typically means the guides/valves are
> trashed. At 800-1000 hours most big-six Lycoming E-valve guides are
> marginal. Have personally had them go to TBO without this being an
> issue (e-valves don't leak). Have also had them develop e-valve
> leakage, requiring repair.
>
> Again, not sure exactly what you are looking for. I've allegedly
> maintained a crapload of turbocharged Lycomings for tens of thousands
> of hours of operation, but my crystal ball's busted. Have seen S1AD's
> go 1400-1600 hours without "cylinder" issues, have seen them with 400
> hours that needed the cylinders thrown in a dumpster. It depends on
> both the actual overhaul and the shivering mass of tissue between the
> seat back and the yoke...
>
> TC

TC,

Thanks for taking the time to comment on my posts. The plane just went into
the shop today for a prebuy and I'll have some words within a day or two on
the status of the engine.

It appears you're not a big fan of the Turbo Lance. What do you recommend
as a better combo? I've look at an A36 but they're quite a bit more cash
for not alot of gain. I think my other option is to give up on the turbo
and just look for a straight tail lance that's in good shape.

[Mike Rapoport]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
news:MUD2f.1804$L24.723@lakeread01...
> Thanks for taking the time to comment on my posts. The plane just went
> into the shop today for a prebuy and I'll have some words within a day or
> two on the status of the engine.
>
> It appears you're not a big fan of the Turbo Lance. What do you recommend
> as a better combo? I've look at an A36 but they're quite a bit more cash
> for not alot of gain. I think my other option is to give up on the turbo
> and just look for a straight tail lance that's in good shape.

John, the used airplane market is pretty efficient and, yes, an A36 is
better in every way than a PA32. When I purchased a Turbo Lance as my first
plane I did it because. it offered a good combination of positive atributes
relative to the price. It is the same at all levels, Piper is low quality
compared to Beech and Citations don't compare to Falcons.

Mike
MU-2

[John Doe]

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:31:27 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> You might be surprised that I've corresponded with the Deakin dude,
> and WRT "factory" turbo Lycoming ops we tended to agree-go figure.
>

And what exactly is that?

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:43:21 -0400, "John Doe" >
wrote:

>TC,
>
>Thanks for taking the time to comment on my posts. The plane just went into
>the shop today for a prebuy and I'll have some words within a day or two on
>the status of the engine.
>
>It appears you're not a big fan of the Turbo Lance. What do you recommend
>as a better combo? I've look at an A36 but they're quite a bit more cash
>for not alot of gain. I think my other option is to give up on the turbo
>and just look for a straight tail lance that's in good shape.

Have allegedly been around the block with the Turbo Lance, the Turbo
Saratoga (fixed-gear and retract-SP) but not the 'toga II TC. Have
been under the hood of a couple of 'toga II's, took one for a ride and
liked what I saw, but they were coming out as I was getting out of the
business-have no real experience with them.

When I got out a few years ago, the Turbo T-Lance was cheaper than
anything else in it's class. Personally, I was never too fond of the
way that they behaved in the air (compared to the T-tail or straight
tail NA Lance, or the Cherokee 6), and don't care for the engine
installation at all.

Unfortunately, and please don't take this personally, it means that
they tended to attract a certain type of owners, and often were not
well-maintained or operated properly. As Mr. R has indicated, it also
meant, however, a few years ago, you could buy a lot of airplane for
less.

The engine/install has recurring AD issues on the exhaust, a funky
up-draft cooling system, and runs HOT. The Turbo 'toga SP installation
is almost identical, and also runs hot, but not quite as hot for some
reason (cruise speed?).

If you look at the Deakin dude's thoughts on max CHT/oil temp with
regard to engine longevity, a stock T T-Lance operated at 75% power at
cruise is going to exceed these numbers during operation at even
slightly elevated OAT's. Basically, a lot of the time it is going to
be a 65% power cruise aircraft.

Even operating at 65% it can be pushing acceptable CHT/oil temp
limits. Put Turbo 'toga upper cowl "gills" on a couple, didn't seem to
help much-but it did help keep the paint on the top cowl from
blistering after shut-down. As I indicated to you in earlier posts,
for whatever reason, the intercooler kit removes most of these
limitations. I'm sorry I don't have more info, but the last I had
heard, the intercooler company's assets had been sold, which is a darn
shame.

Had one intercooled Turbo 'Toga SP that I took care of (before, during
and after the intercooler install), and really, really enjoyed flying
it. I assume the flight characteristics changed from both the tapered
wing and the straight tail. A 300 hp Cherokee Six, or Lance can also
be a nice choice. If you are a flat-lander and not hell-bent for
speed, their performance is better than what you would expect. It is a
lot harder to abuse the normally-aspirated engine, and the
installation condition (baffling, etc) is not as super-critical.

The A36, unfortunately is in a different class. The cruise performance
is excellent, and there really is no comparison between the
construction of the aircraft and it's mechanical systems. Again, as
Mr. R indicated, you don't get something for nothing. They are more
expensive to purchase, but realistically are not really that much more
expensive to maintain (if you compare to the Lance or the retract-SP).

I allegedly had the opportunity to take care of a couple of the
factory IO-550 versions, and converted one to the IO-550
configuration. Never had the opportunity to fly it, but had one show
up on the ramp with an STC-installed 350 HP TIO-540. If that
installation works as well as the Chieftain does, it would be just
about the ultimate A-36. In theory would make real close to the same
power @ 65% as the IO-550 @ 78% (max continuous HP).

Unless things have changed a whole lot in the few years, a clean A36
is as close to a sure thing to buy, fly, and if you don't bend it,
sell at a profit as you get in GA.

Hope some of this helps;

TC