Engine mixture guidelines

[Mxsmanic]

Up to now when flying in simulation, I've had the simulator take care
of engine mixture adjustments. However, since I'd have to do this
myself in real life, I've decided to make some modest attempts at
managing mixture myself. Unfortunately, the POH and the other sources
I've consulted are rather vague on how mixture should be adjusted.
Can anyone offer general guidelines on when to enrich or lean the
mixture? It seems that max rich is used when maximum power is
required (?), such as at take-off, but I'm not clear when the mixture
should be leaned in particular. And what are the potential
consequences of an incorrect mixture?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Up to now when flying in simulation, I've had the simulator take care
> of engine mixture adjustments. However, since I'd have to do this
> myself in real life, I've decided to make some modest attempts at
> managing mixture myself. Unfortunately, the POH and the other sources
> I've consulted are rather vague on how mixture should be adjusted.
> Can anyone offer general guidelines on when to enrich or lean the
> mixture? It seems that max rich is used when maximum power is
> required (?), such as at take-off, but I'm not clear when the mixture
> should be leaned in particular. And what are the potential
> consequences of an incorrect mixture?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ask your instructor! HAHAHAHAHA!

-----------------------------------------------
DW

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Up to now when flying in simulation, I've had the simulator take care
> of engine mixture adjustments. However, since I'd have to do this
> myself in real life, I've decided to make some modest attempts at
> managing mixture myself. Unfortunately, the POH and the other sources
> I've consulted are rather vague on how mixture should be adjusted.
> Can anyone offer general guidelines on when to enrich or lean the
> mixture? It seems that max rich is used when maximum power is
> required (?), such as at take-off, but I'm not clear when the mixture
> should be leaned in particular. And what are the potential
> consequences of an incorrect mixture?

There are no consequences of doing anything wrong in MSFS. That's why you
like it, remember?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Up to now when flying in simulation, I've had the simulator take care
> of engine mixture adjustments. However, since I'd have to do this
> myself in real life, I've decided to make some modest attempts at
> managing mixture myself. Unfortunately, the POH and the other sources
> I've consulted are rather vague on how mixture should be adjusted.
> Can anyone offer general guidelines on when to enrich or lean the
> mixture?
>
At this point, you may be successful using XP SP2 as a general setting,
however, for better economy you may want to lean back to SP1.

Happy New Year!

Neil

[Andrew Sarangan]

http://www.fsinsider.com/About/Learning-Center-Support/In-the-Cockpit/Controlling-the-Engine.htm


Mxsmanic wrote:
> Up to now when flying in simulation, I've had the simulator take care
> of engine mixture adjustments. However, since I'd have to do this
> myself in real life, I've decided to make some modest attempts at
> managing mixture myself. Unfortunately, the POH and the other sources
> I've consulted are rather vague on how mixture should be adjusted.
> Can anyone offer general guidelines on when to enrich or lean the
> mixture? It seems that max rich is used when maximum power is
> required (?), such as at take-off, but I'm not clear when the mixture
> should be leaned in particular. And what are the potential
> consequences of an incorrect mixture?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> Ask your instructor!

I don't have an instructor.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> There are no consequences of doing anything wrong in MSFS. That's why you
> like it, remember?

I wasn't talking about simulation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> http://www.fsinsider.com/About/Learning-Center-Support/In-the-Cockpit/Controlling-the-Engine.htm

Thanks! Is the stated rule that mixture should be adjusted to just
short of maximum EGT pretty reliable under all circumstances?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Lee]

Just do what is "reasonable and proper"

Ron Lee

[Scott Post]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Up to now when flying in simulation, I've had the simulator take care
>of engine mixture adjustments. However, since I'd have to do this
>myself in real life, I've decided to make some modest attempts at
>managing mixture myself. Unfortunately, the POH and the other sources
>I've consulted are rather vague on how mixture should be adjusted.
>Can anyone offer general guidelines on when to enrich or lean the
>mixture? It seems that max rich is used when maximum power is
>required (?), such as at take-off, but I'm not clear when the mixture
>should be leaned in particular. And what are the potential
>consequences of an incorrect mixture?
>

If you're simulating a rental just leave it full rich.

--
Scott Post

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Up to now when flying in simulation, I've had the simulator take care
> of engine mixture adjustments. However, since I'd have to do this
> myself in real life, I've decided to make some modest attempts at
> managing mixture myself. Unfortunately, the POH and the other sources
> I've consulted are rather vague on how mixture should be adjusted.
> Can anyone offer general guidelines on when to enrich or lean the
> mixture? It seems that max rich is used when maximum power is
> required (?), such as at take-off, but I'm not clear when the mixture
> should be leaned in particular. And what are the potential
> consequences of an incorrect mixture?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

As altitude increases the air gets thinner so you need less fuel to
maintain the proper air to fuel ratio. Running too rich (too much fuel)
causes incomplete combustion resulting in spark plug fouling. Running
too lean (not enough fuel) causes overheating especially the exaust
valves.
The most efficient way to determine the correct mixture is with a EGT
(Exaust Gas Temperature) gauge. As you turn the mixture control out the
EGT will increase to a point and then begin to decrease as the mixture
gets too lean. Lean the mixture until it peaks and then enrichen it
(turn it back in) until it drops 50°C.
Though not as accurate, you can also note a increase in RPM's as you
lean it. Lean to peak RPM then turn it in a full turn.
Remember FULL rich for takeoffs and landings unless your flying at
Leadville, CO or some other really high altitude airport.
Steve

[Jose[_1_]]

> Running too rich (too much fuel)
> causes incomplete combustion resulting in spark plug fouling. Running
> too lean (not enough fuel) causes overheating especially the exaust
> valves.

I suspect most MSFS simulated aircraft do not simulate engine damage
from improper leaning. They will simulate the fan quitting at idle
cutoff though.

> The most efficient way to determine the correct mixture is with a EGT
> (Exaust Gas Temperature) gauge. As you turn the mixture control out the
> EGT will increase to a point and then begin to decrease as the mixture
> gets too lean.

In real airplanes there is a lag. Lean it out slowly. A Cessna 182
manual I remember reading said that it should take about two minutes to
find the peak. This may also not be adequately simulated in
"entertainment level" simulators.

> Lean to peak RPM then turn it in a full turn.

I've never heard "a full turn", though I have heard the less helpful
phrase "a bit". Not all airplanes have vernier controls, and I don't
think MSFS aircraft do either.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

wrote:


> Remember FULL rich for takeoffs and landings unless your flying at
> Leadville, CO or some other really high altitude airport.

No. Lean above 5000 as a general rule. Some aircraft, like my Bonanza,
has a scale on the fuel flow instrument that tells you where to lean to
for every takeoff regardless of altitude.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:


>
>
> In real airplanes there is a lag. Lean it out slowly.

The initial lean should be very quick. It's called the "Big Pull."
Fine tune as slow as you need to. You need to avoid the red box, that's
why you lean quickly.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> I suspect most MSFS simulated aircraft do not simulate engine damage
> from improper leaning. They will simulate the fan quitting at idle
> cutoff though.

Yes. Most types of damage are not simulated in MSFS aircraft, nor is
cumulative damage simulated (as far as I know).

Leaning the mixture beyond a certain point does indeed stall the
engines in the Dreamfleet Baron model I fly in simulation.

> In real airplanes there is a lag. Lean it out slowly. A Cessna 182
> manual I remember reading said that it should take about two minutes to
> find the peak. This may also not be adequately simulated in
> "entertainment level" simulators.

I see a lag in the simulator, also.

> I've never heard "a full turn", though I have heard the less helpful
> phrase "a bit". Not all airplanes have vernier controls, and I don't
> think MSFS aircraft do either.

The Baron has controls similar to the real aircraft, that is, two
levers for mixture.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The initial lean should be very quick. It's called the "Big Pull." Fine tune as slow as you need to. You need to avoid the red box, that's why you lean quickly.

I've only heard of a red fox, not a red box. What is that?

In general, I lean to a bit richer than I ought to be, and then after it
stabilizes, I lean from there. But if you overshoot, that's not good.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tony]

What really happens when you go towards peak EGT is you're assuring a
pretty efficient burn inside the cylinders, the exhaust contains little
unburnt fuel and little oxygen. If you play a little with the mixture
when prop and throttle are firewalled you'll probably pick up some RPM,
even at low altitudes. It's especially noticable on hot days.

In cruise with constant speed props the prop pitch changes a little,
taking a healthier bite of the air so as to use the additional power.
CHT is a simple way of measuring what's going on -- it's telling you,
as you go from rich to lean, when you're getting the hottest -- call
that best -- internal temps. Since the fuel (I was taught) helps in
cooling, you want not to overlean so as to save the valves. That
statement probably deserves some research -- why not run schiometric
(I'm sure I mis spelled that) combustion? Does anyone know for sure?

For that matter, if you do get peak power at max EGT, why run on the
rich side? Wouldn't it make sense in terms of fuel economy to run on
the lean side a bit?

I know the dogma, what I'm interested in is the justification. Any
powerplant engineers out there?

[Jose[_1_]]

> For that matter, if you do get peak power at max EGT, why run on the
> rich side? Wouldn't it make sense in terms of fuel economy to run on
> the lean side a bit?
>
> I know the dogma, what I'm interested in is the justification. Any
> powerplant engineers out there?

Google "lean of peak". There is a company out there (whose name escapes
me right now) that makes engine gauges that are supposed to be so good
you can run LOP safely. The issue is that =at= peak, the temperatures
get too hot in the cylinders, and if you don't run cool enough in the
one cylinder that is being measured by the ordinary gauges, you are
likely to be running too hot in at least one of the others.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>> The initial lean should be very quick. It's called the "Big Pull."
>> Fine tune as slow as you need to. You need to avoid the red box,
>> that's why you lean quickly.
>
>
> I've only heard of a red fox, not a red box. What is that?



At and below 60% there is no red box, put the mixture anywhere you want.

At 65% power use richer than 100 ROP or leaner than peak.

At 70% power use richer than 125 ROP or leaner than 25 LOP.

At 75% power use richer than 180 ROP or leaner than 40 LOP.

At 80% power use richer than 200 ROP or leaner than 60 LOP.


As you transition from takeoff power to cruise power if you are going to
be LOP make sure you lean rapidly to the values listed for LOP ops.
Fine tune as necessary.

[Jose[_1_]]

> As you transition from takeoff power to cruise power if you are going to be LOP make sure you lean rapidly to the values listed for LOP ops. Fine tune as necessary.

Ok. My comments were for ROP operations, which is what all the aircraft
I use reccomend. In that case, you should never hit the red box, and
should lean slowly. If you lean quickly and overshoot, you'll be in the
red box.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:


>
> Google "lean of peak". There is a company out there (whose name escapes
> me right now) that makes engine gauges that are supposed to be so good
> you can run LOP safely.


It's not the gauges, it's the fuel distribution. In order to run LOP
effectively each cylinder must peak at the same, or damned close, fuel
flow and therefore at the same time.

[Jose[_1_]]

> It's not the gauges, it's the fuel distribution. In order to run LOP effectively each cylinder must peak at the same, or damned close, fuel flow and therefore at the same time.

Yep, you're right. And this usually requires an engine mod, since stock
airplane engines are not very uniform. In any case, don't these mods
also come with a gauge for each cylender?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> The initial lean should be very quick. It's called the "Big Pull."
> Fine tune as slow as you need to. You need to avoid the red box, that's
> why you lean quickly.

The red box?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> For that matter, if you do get peak power at max EGT, why run on the
> rich side? Wouldn't it make sense in terms of fuel economy to run on
> the lean side a bit?

Aside from the most fuel-efficient mixture settings, which settings
are the _safest_? Which settings put the least wear and tear on the
engine?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

J. Severyn writes:

> It is called the "red fin" in this write-up by Cirrus....same thing.
> http://www.cirrus147.com/training/LOPops-3-195278.pdf

OK, I think I've got it. The red box is the area where you heat up
the engine enough to reduce engine life over the long term, without
any clear advantage for fuel consumption or power. If you are leaner
or richer than the box, you get longer life and a better power/fuel
trade-off.

> Mxs, maybe we can get you to fly a real aircraft if we keep this up.

That would require lots of time, lots of money, and some other things.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

Here's a useful URL.

http://www.atlasaviation.com/external.asp?area=2&ext_url=AviationLibrary%2Fengine%2Dpiston%2Fleanin g%2Dlycoming%2Denginest%2Ehtm

On Dec 31, 1:05 am, Newps > wrote:
> Jose wrote:
> >> The initial lean should be very quick. It's called the "Big Pull."
> >> Fine tune as slow as you need to. You need to avoid the red box,
> >> that's why you lean quickly.
>
> > I've only heard of a red fox, not a red box. What is that?At and below 60% there is no red box, put the mixture anywhere you want.
>
> At 65% power use richer than 100 ROP or leaner than peak.
>
> At 70% power use richer than 125 ROP or leaner than 25 LOP.
>
> At 75% power use richer than 180 ROP or leaner than 40 LOP.
>
> At 80% power use richer than 200 ROP or leaner than 60 LOP.
>
> As you transition from takeoff power to cruise power if you are going to
> be LOP make sure you lean rapidly to the values listed for LOP ops.
> Fine tune as necessary.

[J. Severyn]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> J. Severyn writes:
>
>> It is called the "red fin" in this write-up by Cirrus....same thing.
>> http://www.cirrus147.com/training/LOPops-3-195278.pdf
>
> OK, I think I've got it. The red box is the area where you heat up
> the engine enough to reduce engine life over the long term, without
> any clear advantage for fuel consumption or power. If you are leaner
> or richer than the box, you get longer life and a better power/fuel
> trade-off.
>
>> Mxs, maybe we can get you to fly a real aircraft if we keep this up.
>
> That would require lots of time, lots of money, and some other things.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Bingo! You've got it.

The red box is also where high peak internal cylinder pressures are
encountered. The combination of the high temps and high internal pressures
are detrimental to the life of the engine, and tend to thin out the owner's
wallet very quickly. (or worse)

The same power output (but less than max power) can be attained ROP and LOP,
but the engine runs cooler and more efficiently LOP. But the pilot must
ensure he/she is LEAN enough to stay out of the red box.

If the pilot needs maximum power (say during max. gross weight takeoff),
then ROP operation is normal. But again, the pilot must ensure he/she is
RICH enough to stay out of the red box. Fuel economy is not an issue during
the takeoff......just max power to clear obstacles and safely climb to a
cruise altitude.

Mxs, if you ever make it to the San Francisco Bay area, look me up. I'll
get you a few hours in the air where you can try it out yourself.

John Severyn

[Mxsmanic]

J. Severyn writes:

> The red box is also where high peak internal cylinder pressures are
> encountered. The combination of the high temps and high internal pressures
> are detrimental to the life of the engine, and tend to thin out the owner's
> wallet very quickly. (or worse)
>
> The same power output (but less than max power) can be attained ROP and LOP,
> but the engine runs cooler and more efficiently LOP. But the pilot must
> ensure he/she is LEAN enough to stay out of the red box.
>
> If the pilot needs maximum power (say during max. gross weight takeoff),
> then ROP operation is normal. But again, the pilot must ensure he/she is
> RICH enough to stay out of the red box. Fuel economy is not an issue during
> the takeoff......just max power to clear obstacles and safely climb to a
> cruise altitude.

It seems, then, that the only reason to cross through the red box is
to improve fuel economy (?).

Overall, based on some conflicting stuff I've read in various places,
I've managed to distill a handful of fairly common recommendations:

- Use full rich on take-off and landing, unless you're at a really
high altitude

- At other times mixture isn't critical, but leaning slightly with
altitude saves fuel and provides more power.

It sounds like you can fly around with full rich all the time if you
want, except that you'll waste fuel and potentially dirty the engine
in time. More reasonably, you can lean a bit as you get higher in the
air, reducing fuel consumption and possible dirtying of the engine.
Tweaking the mixture beyond that can save more fuel and (perhaps)
somewhat reduce engine wear, but it requires a lot more attention.

Does this more or less look correct?

> Mxs, if you ever make it to the San Francisco Bay area, look me up. I'll
> get you a few hours in the air where you can try it out yourself.

It's unlikely I'll be anywhere near KSFO in the foreseeable future,
except in simulation. If you're on VATSIM and you spot a Baron with
tail number N9119E or a Boeing Business Jet 2 with tail number N9119F,
that's probably me. At this particular instant I'm parked at Gate 10
at KSAN, but not for long, as I'll be returning to KPHX shortly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Up to now when flying in simulation, I've had the simulator take care
> of engine mixture adjustments. However, since I'd have to do this
> myself in real life, I've decided to make some modest attempts at
> managing mixture myself.

Making whole-hearted attempts may prove most effective.
-----

- gpsman

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>> It's not the gauges, it's the fuel distribution. In order to run LOP
>> effectively each cylinder must peak at the same, or damned close, fuel
>> flow and therefore at the same time.
>
>
> Yep, you're right. And this usually requires an engine mod, since stock
> airplane engines are not very uniform. In any case, don't these mods
> also come with a gauge for each cylender?


No, the GAMI's are six injectors that replace the standard six. They
reccomend an engine monitor but it's not necessary. As it happens I can
run real nice LOP without having to buy the GAMI's.

[Peter Dohm]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Jose wrote:
> >> It's not the gauges, it's the fuel distribution. In order to run LOP
> >> effectively each cylinder must peak at the same, or damned close, fuel
> >> flow and therefore at the same time.
> >
> >
> > Yep, you're right. And this usually requires an engine mod, since stock
> > airplane engines are not very uniform. In any case, don't these mods
> > also come with a gauge for each cylender?
>
>
> No, the GAMI's are six injectors that replace the standard six. They
> reccomend an engine monitor but it's not necessary. As it happens I can
> run real nice LOP without having to buy the GAMI's.

It's been much too long since I've known, and I'm too lazy to look it up on
New Year's Eve, but aren't GAMI injectors usually installed using an engine
monitor to obtain the best match for each injector and cylinder combination?
After the inital shop work with an analyzer/monitor, the use of an engine
monitor by the aircraft operator is recommended, but not required--exactly
as you stated.

BTW, I've always presumed that the advantage of a set of GAMI injectors was
simply that they guaranteed a matched set; but you could also have a
similarly matched set of stock injectors by carefull selection from a
sizeable batch, or simply by fortunate happenstance. Is this your real
world experience, or are you basically using the "hottest cylinder" method,
or both?

Peter

[Michael Rhodes]

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 01:05:03 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>
>It seems, then, that the only reason to cross through the red box is
>to improve fuel economy (?).
>

Fuel econonmy, in context with aviation, should not end with a (?).
Complex chores, emotional distractions, boring (if not hypnotic)
seat-warming, unpredictable winds, unpredictable landscape for
touching down; especially at night. Fuel economy could too easily be
life or death, or a major inconvenience. All part of the adventure of
flight. The 'red box', then, doesn't look so threatening, but
intimate knowledge of one's aircraft. It is control of substance.


Enjoyed the thread, excuse the interjection. Never heard of running
LOP at >65% power.
--
Mike

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Rhodes writes:

> Fuel econonmy, in context with aviation, should not end with a (?).
> Complex chores, emotional distractions, boring (if not hypnotic)
> seat-warming, unpredictable winds, unpredictable landscape for
> touching down; especially at night. Fuel economy could too easily be
> life or death, or a major inconvenience. All part of the adventure of
> flight. The 'red box', then, doesn't look so threatening, but
> intimate knowledge of one's aircraft. It is control of substance.

Don't most GA pilots routinely take off with full tanks, anyway?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> Making whole-hearted attempts may prove most effective.

One step at a time.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael Rhodes" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Never heard of running LOP at >65% power.

And you probably won't unless the engine is turbo'ed.

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Don't most GA pilots routinely take off with full tanks, anyway?

PLEASE DON'T feed this troll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Allen

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Michael Rhodes" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Never heard of running LOP at >65% power.
>
>
> And you probably won't unless the engine is turbo'ed.

Why not? I run LOP at 75% with my IO-520.

[Michael Rhodes]

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:43:05 GMT, A Lieberma >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
>> Don't most GA pilots routinely take off with full tanks, anyway?
>
>PLEASE DON'T feed this troll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Allen

Don't feed, Lieberma? Or don't pay? For feeding? Do you advise
thieves, Lieberma?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The bankers, the harlots of
Wall Street, who 'love' all except those homebound, Leiberma? The
lion is going to burn you all, Lieberma, whether I get paid or not.
And likewise I will fully enjoy it; knowing what justice is, Lieberma,
and the lack of it.

It will be it.
--
Michael

[Robert Chambers]

HUH?

Michael Rhodes wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:43:05 GMT, A Lieberma >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>Don't most GA pilots routinely take off with full tanks, anyway?
>>
>>PLEASE DON'T feed this troll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>Allen
>
>
> Don't feed, Lieberma? Or don't pay? For feeding? Do you advise
> thieves, Lieberma?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The bankers, the harlots of
> Wall Street, who 'love' all except those homebound, Leiberma? The
> lion is going to burn you all, Lieberma, whether I get paid or not.
> And likewise I will fully enjoy it; knowing what justice is, Lieberma,
> and the lack of it.
>
> It will be it.
> --
> Michael

[Thomas Borchert]

Bds,

> There are no consequences of doing anything wrong in MSFS. That's why you
> like it, remember?
>

You've put the major problem of our resident troll in two neat sentences.
Nice!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

> Lean the mixture until it peaks and then enrichen it
> (turn it back in) until it drops 50°C.

Not necessary the best advice.

> Remember FULL rich for takeoffs and landings unless your flying at
> Leadville, CO or some other really high altitude airport.

That is actually VERY BAD and DANGEROUS advice! You will need to lean
for take-off at density altitudes of 3000 feet or above for max power.
Actual airport elevation is irrelevant in this discussion, density
altitude is all that matters.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> t does indeed stall the
> engines in the Dreamfleet Baron model I fly in simulation.
>

Engines don't stall. Airplanes do.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Thanks! Is the stated rule that mixture should be adjusted to just
> short of maximum EGT pretty reliable under all circumstances?
>

No. It's a very bad rule, actually. Go find more info on leaning on the
net, and you'll see.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> No. Lean above 5000 as a general rule.
>

I would say 3000. But that's pretty much a matter of taste. What's
important is: we're talking density altitude!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Macklin]

That is too much anyway, 50 C is 90 F, really 25 C is more
than enough.



"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message ...
|> Lean the mixture until it peaks and then enrichen it
| > (turn it back in) until it drops 50°C.
|
| Not necessary the best advice.
|
| > Remember FULL rich for takeoffs and landings unless your
flying at
| > Leadville, CO or some other really high altitude
airport.
|
| That is actually VERY BAD and DANGEROUS advice! You will
need to lean
| for take-off at density altitudes of 3000 feet or above
for max power.
| Actual airport elevation is irrelevant in this discussion,
density
| altitude is all that matters.
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> That is too much anyway, 50 C is 90 F, really 25 C is more
> than enough.
>

That will put you right at the point of maximum internal combustion
pressure (and mostly maximum CHT). Is that good for the engine? I doubt
it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Michael Rhodes" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>Never heard of running LOP at >65% power.
>>
>>
>> And you probably won't unless the engine is turbo'ed.
>
> Why not? I run LOP at 75% with my IO-520.
>
I didn't say definitely not, just _probably_ not.

Where does the average pilot (or even the vast majority) run the engine?

[Jim Macklin]

What damages the engine is excess oxygen and any combustion
temperature. Any mixture with a temperature drop means that
there is excess fuel. 25 C is easy to see on the gauge and
with a single probe assures that all cylinders are rich of
peak. A multi-probe system is best as is fuel injection.

At cruise power settings, you can lean aggressively. But
only the pressure wave of detonation will damage the
combustion chamber.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message ...
| Jim,
|
| > That is too much anyway, 50 C is 90 F, really 25 C is
more
| > than enough.
| >
|
| That will put you right at the point of maximum internal
combustion
| pressure (and mostly maximum CHT). Is that good for the
engine? I doubt
| it.
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> >
> I didn't say definitely not, just _probably_ not.
>

I still don't get it. Why "probably not"?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> What damages the engine is excess oxygen and any combustion
> temperature.

I would want some kind of proof before buying any part of that
sentence. LOP operation is used with great success.

> Any mixture with a temperature drop means that
> there is excess fuel.

Nope. Search for "lean of peak" operation.


> But
> only the pressure wave of detonation will damage the
> combustion chamber.

Hmm. I'm not sure the engine experts agree.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Dohm]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Newps,
>
> > No. Lean above 5000 as a general rule.
> >
>
> I would say 3000. But that's pretty much a matter of taste. What's
> important is: we're talking density altitude!
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
You are in agreement with the POHs for the C152 and Tomahawk, which are the
two that I recall at the moment. IIRC, that involved leaning to peak RPM at
full throttle--part throttle operation was another matter. One of them
specifically authorized 25 RPM lean of peak for reduced power operation,
such as transitioning at 60% power--which my rather old instructor refused
to believe even when shown!

Amusing but true. He was quite serious, and the same debate is still
raging--25 years later!!!

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> > Lean the mixture until it peaks and then enrichen it
> > (turn it back in) until it drops 50°C.
>
> Not necessary the best advice.
>
> > Remember FULL rich for takeoffs and landings unless your flying at
> > Leadville, CO or some other really high altitude airport.
>
> That is actually VERY BAD and DANGEROUS advice! You will need to lean
> for take-off at density altitudes of 3000 feet or above for max power.
> Actual airport elevation is irrelevant in this discussion, density
> altitude is all that matters.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
Ok confession time: I've never been PIC with a controllable prop.

3000 feet density altitude fits with 75% power in the POHs that I recall
reading for trainers with fixed pitch props.

OTOH, high power levels are available to a higher density altitude with a
controllable prop--consult the POH. If the POH is old, consult the engine
manufacturer.

(I really wish that I could say "consult an instructor or mechanic at the
local FBO" )

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Matt,
>
> > >
> > I didn't say definitely not, just _probably_ not.
> >
>
> I still don't get it. Why "probably not"?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
I have put on my Great-what's-his-name turbin, inherited from the late
Johnny Carson; and I have read in the stars that one of you has a fixed
pitch prop and the other has a constant speed prop...

Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> OTOH, high power levels are available to a higher density altitude with a
> controllable prop.
>

They are? How would that work? (flying a Tobago with CS prop)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Newps]

Peter Dohm wrote:


>
> 3000 feet density altitude fits with 75% power in the POHs that I recall
> reading for trainers with fixed pitch props.

75% is available to about 8000 feet, depends on temp.


>
> OTOH, high power levels are available to a higher density altitude with a
> controllable prop--consult the POH.

Yes, indeed, consult the POH. The prop is irrelavant to the discussion
unless you've installed one hell of a cruise prop that just won't turn up.

[john smith]

Carnak

Peter Dohm wrote:

>I have put on my Great-what's-his-name turbin, inherited from the late
>Johnny Carson; and I have read in the stars that one of you has a fixed
>pitch prop and the other has a constant speed prop...
>
>

[Peter Dohm]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Carnak
>
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>
> >I have put on my Great-what's-his-name turbin, inherited from the late
> >Johnny Carson; and I have read in the stars that one of you has a fixed
> >pitch prop and the other has a constant speed prop...
> >
> >
>
Thanks!

[Peter Dohm]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Peter,
>
> > OTOH, high power levels are available to a higher density altitude with
a
> > controllable prop.
> >
>
> They are? How would that work? (flying a Tobago with CS prop)
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
Full RPM on a CS prop is usually higher than the fixed pitch prop will allow
under most conditions of flight--especially take off and climb.

Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> Full RPM on a CS prop is usually higher than the fixed pitch prop will allow
> under most conditions of flight--especially take off and climb.
>

Does that mean higher engine power output or just better conversion of the
same engine output?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Dohm]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Peter,
>
> > Full RPM on a CS prop is usually higher than the fixed pitch prop will
allow
> > under most conditions of flight--especially take off and climb.
> >
>
> Does that mean higher engine power output or just better conversion of the
> same engine output?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
Higher power, presuming of course that you also have the throttle full
forward and similar induction systems, etc...

Peter

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:59:53 -0800, Darkwing wrote
(in article >):

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Up to now when flying in simulation, I've had the simulator take care
>> of engine mixture adjustments. However, since I'd have to do this
>> myself in real life, I've decided to make some modest attempts at
>> managing mixture myself. Unfortunately, the POH and the other sources
>> I've consulted are rather vague on how mixture should be adjusted.
>> Can anyone offer general guidelines on when to enrich or lean the
>> mixture? It seems that max rich is used when maximum power is
>> required (?), such as at take-off, but I'm not clear when the mixture
>> should be leaned in particular. And what are the potential
>> consequences of an incorrect mixture?
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> Ask your instructor! HAHAHAHAHA!

He is not willing to pay for an instructor. All of the instructors here have
stopped giving him free instruction.

If he wants an answer he can pay my going rate of $40 an hour via PayPal and
I will reply by email. No refunds if he disagrees with my answer.

[Peter Dohm]

> > (snipped)
> > Ask your instructor! HAHAHAHAHA!
>
> He is not willing to pay for an instructor. All of the instructors here
have
> stopped giving him free instruction.
>
> (snipped)
In that case, like a runaway train without an engine, the entire discussion
will gradually coast to a stop...

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 01:12:46 -0800, Thomas Borchert wrote
(in article >):

> Mxsmanic,
>
>> Thanks! Is the stated rule that mixture should be adjusted to just
>> short of maximum EGT pretty reliable under all circumstances?
>>
>
> No. It's a very bad rule, actually. Go find more info on leaning on the
> net, and you'll see.
>
>

The only things that start more arguments than flying "lean of peak" are
slips with flaps and a discussion of lift.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 13:56:30 -0800, Scott Post wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Up to now when flying in simulation, I've had the simulator take care
>> of engine mixture adjustments. However, since I'd have to do this
>> myself in real life, I've decided to make some modest attempts at
>> managing mixture myself. Unfortunately, the POH and the other sources
>> I've consulted are rather vague on how mixture should be adjusted.
>> Can anyone offer general guidelines on when to enrich or lean the
>> mixture? It seems that max rich is used when maximum power is
>> required (?), such as at take-off, but I'm not clear when the mixture
>> should be leaned in particular. And what are the potential
>> consequences of an incorrect mixture?
>>
>
> If you're simulating a rental just leave it full rich.
>
>

<Ouch!>

But ain't it the truth?

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:27:14 -0800, Mxsmanic wrote
(in article >):

> Up to now when flying in simulation, I've had the simulator take care
> of engine mixture adjustments. However, since I'd have to do this
> myself in real life, I've decided to make some modest attempts at
> managing mixture myself. Unfortunately, the POH and the other sources
> I've consulted are rather vague on how mixture should be adjusted.
> Can anyone offer general guidelines on when to enrich or lean the
> mixture? It seems that max rich is used when maximum power is
> required (?), such as at take-off, but I'm not clear when the mixture
> should be leaned in particular. And what are the potential
> consequences of an incorrect mixture?
>
>

Okay, despite the opinion and experience of many pilots and mechanics, it is
time to point out that most engine and aircraft manufacturers do not
recommend running engines lean of peak. There are some mods out there that
are specifically designed for LOP operation (GAMI injectors, most notably)
and there are a few pilots here who are strong advocates of LOP operation.
Despite the fact that LOP is recommended by some highly respected pilots,
theirs is not the majority opinion, however.

There are even conspiracy theorists who suggest that engine manufacturers
discourage LOP deliberately to shorten engine life and increase sales.
(Apparently they presume that the increased sales outweigh the potential cost
of class-action lawsuits.)

There are equally respected pilots who argue in favor of ROP operation. They
figure that the engineers who built the engine probably know best how to take
care of it. Given that the owner of my flight school agreed with them, I flew
ROP (and probably will again).

The LOP advocates will tell you that running ROP is the reason so many
engines get top overhauls before TBO. I tend to think that the reason for it
is that too many planes don't fly enough, too many pilots don't lean the
mixture at all, and pilots don't inspect the engine for things like damaged
valves which, if not detected, will cause a cracked cylinder.

I have heard very powerful arguments from both sides about it. I do not hold
a strong opinion either way, but since this thread has been dominated by the
LOP crowd I thought I might just mention that not everyone shares their view.
My own practice is to follow the engine's handbook.

Near as I can determine, the biggest problem with LOP operation is that most
engines run pretty rough, especially if the engine is carbureted. They just
don't distribute the mixture evenly to all cylinders and LOP makes it worse.
It is a little easier to be successful at LOP with an injected engine.

Running ROP makes it a little easier to cool the engine if you are getting
pre-ignition or detonation problems. In general, if the engine is starting to
run rough, you want to make the mixture richer, not leaner.

You should also lean the engine aggressively when taxiing. It is real easy to
foul the plugs by taxiing with a rich mixture. I have known some individual
planes that will fail a mag check every time you taxi with the mixture full
rich.

Skydiving planes generally make it to TBO without a top overhaul or any other
major engine work, despite the fact that several times a day, every day, they
take off, climb at full throttle as fast as possible to drop altitude, then
basically coast back to the field with the engine at idle, with pilots who
don't lean at all or who use all different kinds of leaning strategies. Our
instinct is to call that mistreatment of the engine, but in fact it is the
secret to long engine life: run it constantly and keep it out of the red box.

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> The only things that start more arguments than flying "lean of peak" are
> slips with flaps and a discussion of lift.
>

It's not only LOP, it's that 50 or 75 ROP is usually a bad place.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> it is
> time to point out that most engine and aircraft manufacturers do not
> recommend running engines lean of peak.
>

Not quite. MOst don't say anything about it. The new ones tend to
provide settings for it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Dohm]

> > The only things that start more arguments than flying "lean of peak" are
> > slips with flaps and a discussion of lift.
> >
>
> It's not only LOP, it's that 50 or 75 ROP is usually a bad place.
>
Part of the reason that "lean of peak" starts so many arguments, and that
they quickly become so acrimonious, is the failure of contributors to state
whether they are talking about peak rpm or peak egt, what instruments are
available, what power level, and what engine ane prop.

There would still be discussions, and they would still be heated; but there
would be a POSSIBILITY that at least two of the contributors MIGHT be
discussing the same subject.

Peter
<grrr>

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 02:30:43 -0800, Thomas Borchert wrote
(in article >):

> C,
>
>> it is
>> time to point out that most engine and aircraft manufacturers do not
>> recommend running engines lean of peak.
>>
>
> Not quite. MOst don't say anything about it. The new ones tend to
> provide settings for it.
>
>

New what? Manufacturers? Engines? Planes? I don't know of any Cessnas, Pipers
or Beeches that provide settings for it. Or Lycomings or Continentals. What
does Cirrus say?

As you know, LOP has been written about quite a lot in recent years. The one
thing I have noticed is that it is a lot easier to get a high performance
engine to run smoothly LOP than it is for the trainer types.

[Newps]

Peter Dohm wrote:


>
> Part of the reason that "lean of peak" starts so many arguments, and that
> they quickly become so acrimonious, is the failure of contributors to state
> whether they are talking about peak rpm or peak egt,




I have never, ever heard of LOP discussions talk about peak RPM. Why
would that ever even enter the conversation?

[Newps]

C J Campbell wrote:


> New what? Manufacturers? Engines? Planes? I don't know of any Cessnas, Pipers
> or Beeches that provide settings for it. Or Lycomings or Continentals.



The Continental IO-550, which is by far the most popular engine now a
days, comes with LOP in the power settings. These come directly from
Continental.

[Peter Dohm]

> I have never, ever heard of LOP discussions talk about peak RPM. Why
> would that ever even enter the conversation?
>
>
Some trainers, I can not recall whether it was the Cessna 150M or the 152
and can not immediately find the POH, authorized slightly lean of peak RPM
operation at 60 percent power or less. Both aircraft have fixed pitch
props, and only a tachometer--no EGT or analyzer.

Interestingly, the statement was in an area pertaining to training
operations (Chapter 6 or 7 IIRC) rather than in the pace where it would have
been expected. I seem to recall 25 RPM lean of peak, although it could have
been slightly more, and I certainly would not go out and try it without
further reference to the manual. In fact, even though a number of
contributors have pointed out that engines are quite tolerant when operating
at low power, it has been many years and it would be a good idea to verfiy
that the POH is still current.

BTW, when the lean operation was used where applicable, the aircraft became
VERY economical to operate--and the plugs probably lasted much longer as
well.

Peter

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:07:07 -0800, Newps wrote
(in article >):

>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>
>> New what? Manufacturers? Engines? Planes? I don't know of any Cessnas,
>> Pipers
>> or Beeches that provide settings for it. Or Lycomings or Continentals.
>
>
>
> The Continental IO-550, which is by far the most popular engine now a
> days, comes with LOP in the power settings. These come directly from
> Continental.
>
>

Ah. Thanks. I also did not know that the Continental IO-550 was so popular.
What planes use it?

[Jim Macklin]

All the Beech Baron and Bonanza models.


"C J Campbell" > wrote in
message
e.com...
| On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:07:07 -0800, Newps wrote
| (in article
>):
|
| >
| >
| > C J Campbell wrote:
| >
| >
| >> New what? Manufacturers? Engines? Planes? I don't know
of any Cessnas,
| >> Pipers
| >> or Beeches that provide settings for it. Or Lycomings
or Continentals.
| >
| >
| >
| > The Continental IO-550, which is by far the most popular
engine now a
| > days, comes with LOP in the power settings. These come
directly from
| > Continental.
| >
| >
|
| Ah. Thanks. I also did not know that the Continental
IO-550 was so popular.
| What planes use it?
|

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> What
> does Cirrus say?
>

Cirrus provides settings, as does Diamond (and Piper). They use TCM and
Lyc.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> is the failure of contributors to state
> whether they are talking about peak rpm or peak egt,
>

I've never seen anyone talking about peak rpm in connection with
ROP/LOP.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> I also did not know that the Continental IO-550 was so popular.
> What planes use it?
>

The Cirrus SR22 is probably the most popular application these days.
The Bo, the Columia (?) and Piper uses them, Mooney too, if I am not
mistaken.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:52:18 -0800, Thomas Borchert wrote
(in article >):

> Peter,
>
>> is the failure of contributors to state
>> whether they are talking about peak rpm or peak egt,
>>
>
> I've never seen anyone talking about peak rpm in connection with
> ROP/LOP.
>
>

I have. Some planes don't have EGT or other decent temp gauges. I used to fly
one like that quite regularly, 172RG IIRC. (My own 172RG had an EGT gauge.)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> I have. Some planes don't have EGT or other decent temp gauges. I used to fly
> one like that quite regularly, 172RG IIRC. (My own 172RG had an EGT gauge.)
>

Well, let me rephrase then: I have never seen anyone really recommending LOP
operation without an engine monitor.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:53:08 -0800, Thomas Borchert wrote
(in article >):

> C,
>
>> I have. Some planes don't have EGT or other decent temp gauges. I used to
>> fly
>> one like that quite regularly, 172RG IIRC. (My own 172RG had an EGT gauge.)
>>
>
> Well, let me rephrase then: I have never seen anyone really recommending LOP
> operation without an engine monitor.
>
>

:-)

[Robert Chambers]

Or Gamijectors

C J Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:53:08 -0800, Thomas Borchert wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>>C,
>>
>>
>>>I have. Some planes don't have EGT or other decent temp gauges. I used to
>>>fly
>>>one like that quite regularly, 172RG IIRC. (My own 172RG had an EGT gauge.)
>>>
>>
>>Well, let me rephrase then: I have never seen anyone really recommending LOP
>>operation without an engine monitor.
>>
>>
>
>
> :-)
>

[vincent p. norris]

>The only things that start more arguments than flying "lean of peak" are
>slips with flaps and a discussion of lift.

You forgot "running oversquare." I know two guys who have been flying
about as long as I have (50+ years) who are convinced they'll burn in
hell forever if the cruise "oversquare," even after I've shown them
Lycoming documents recommending it.

They know more about engines than the people who designed and built
them.

vince norris

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:47:59 -0800, vincent p. norris wrote
(in article >):

>> The only things that start more arguments than flying "lean of peak" are
>> slips with flaps and a discussion of lift.
>
> You forgot "running oversquare." I know two guys who have been flying
> about as long as I have (50+ years) who are convinced they'll burn in
> hell forever if the cruise "oversquare," even after I've shown them
> Lycoming documents recommending it.
>
> They know more about engines than the people who designed and built
> them.
>
> vince norris

I debated "downwind turns," too. And you can always get a rise out of a
couple people here by asking, "Why is the Cirrus so dangerous?"

But if you really want a knockdown, dragout fight here, just mention, even
for a moment, the continual spelling of "lose" as "loose." I think that
started one of the longest and most acrimonious threads ever.

[Thomas Borchert]

Vincent,

> You forgot "running oversquare."
>

Downwind turn? Treadmill takeoffs?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Dohm]

> But if you really want a knockdown, dragout fight here, just mention, even
> for a moment, the continual spelling of "lose" as "loose." I think that
> started one of the longest and most acrimonious threads ever.
>
My spell checker doesn't know either--as evidenced by the fact that she
slapped the crap out of me for even asking...

Peter ;-)

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>
> > New what? Manufacturers? Engines? Planes? I don't know of any Cessnas, Pipers
> > or Beeches that provide settings for it. Or Lycomings or Continentals.
>
>
>
> The Continental IO-550, which is by far the most popular engine now a
> days, comes with LOP in the power settings. These come directly from
> Continental.


Here's the dope from the people who design, build, suffer the
liability for, and have to pay warranty costs for engines that fail:

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=support/publications/keyReprints/operation/leaningEngines.html

An excerpt:

"5. The exhaust gas temperature (EGT) offers little improvement in
leaning the float-type carburetor over the procedures outlined above
because of imperfect mixture distribution. However, if the EGT probe is
installed, lean the mixture to 100oF on the rich side of peak EGT for
best power operation. For best economy cruise, operate at peak EGT. If
roughness is encountered, enrich the mixture slightly for smooth engine
operation."

Another one from the same people:

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=support/publications/keyReprints/operation/properLeaning.html

....and an excerpt from it:

"First we must know that cruise power for Lycoming normally aspirated
engines is generally considered to be 55% to 75% of the maximum power
for which the engine is rated. At these power settings, the engine may
be leaned at any altitude. There has been confusion about the reference
to not leaning below 5000-feet density altitude. Remember that this
reference only applies to those power settings above the cruise range
- those normally used for takeoff and climb. Once cruise power has
been set, leaning to best economy should be standard procedure as
damage to the engine will not occur from leaning at cruise power
settings."

And one about running LOP:

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/engineOperationTips/SSP700A.pdf

Their website has a huge amount of info available regarding engine
operation.

Dan

[Robert Chambers]

treadmills you say!

http://www.tapeworm.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/stuff/runway.gif

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Vincent,
>
>
>>You forgot "running oversquare."
>>
>
>
> Downwind turn? Treadmill takeoffs?
>

[vincent p. norris]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:54:41 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>> But if you really want a knockdown, dragout fight here, just mention, even
>> for a moment, the continual spelling of "lose" as "loose." I think that
>> started one of the longest and most acrimonious threads ever.
>>
>My spell checker doesn't know either--as evidenced by the fact that she
>slapped the crap out of me for even asking...

Peter, you ought to lose that spell checker; she has a loose temper.

vince norris