Aircraft Engine Blog

[hobbes]

I am in no way associated with this website/blog but I would like to
highly recommend it to all. The author of the blog Kas Thomas writes
about aircraft engines and topics associated therein. I have a feeling
that few actually read this blog and its a shame because I find it
interesting and educational. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

http://flytheengine.blogspot.com/

Best Regards,
Nolan

[karl mcgruber]

Yes,

Kas is a well read idiot.



"hobbes" > wrote in message
...
> I am in no way associated with this website/blog but I would like to
> highly recommend it to all. The author of the blog Kas Thomas writes
> about aircraft engines and topics associated therein. I have a feeling
> that few actually read this blog and its a shame because I find it
> interesting and educational. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
>
> http://flytheengine.blogspot.com/
>
> Best Regards,
> Nolan

[karl mcgruber]

Yes,

Kas is a well read idiot.



"hobbes" > wrote in message
...
> I am in no way associated with this website/blog but I would like to
> highly recommend it to all. The author of the blog Kas Thomas writes
> about aircraft engines and topics associated therein. I have a feeling
> that few actually read this blog and its a shame because I find it
> interesting and educational. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
>
> http://flytheengine.blogspot.com/
>
> Best Regards,
> Nolan

[Matt W. Barrow]

"karl mcgruber" <skywagon > wrote in message
...
> Yes,
>
> Kas is a well read idiot.

And you're a nuerotic, psychotic idiot. Still.

[plonk]

>
>
>
> "hobbes" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I am in no way associated with this website/blog but I would like to
>> highly recommend it to all. The author of the blog Kas Thomas writes
>> about aircraft engines and topics associated therein. I have a feeling
>> that few actually read this blog and its a shame because I find it
>> interesting and educational. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
>>
>> http://flytheengine.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Nolan
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:19:52 -0800 (PST), hobbes >
wrote:

>I find it interesting and educational.

What did you understand Kas to mean by his use of the term "lean misfire"?

He wrote, about that term, "...but I think most people understand what the
term means."


--ron

[Darkwing]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:19:52 -0800 (PST), hobbes >
> wrote:
>
>>I find it interesting and educational.
>
> What did you understand Kas to mean by his use of the term "lean misfire"?
>
> He wrote, about that term, "...but I think most people understand what the
> term means."
>
>
> --ron

I've heard of lean bog in two strokes but the only other lean issue would be
detonation.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:19:52 -0800 (PST), hobbes
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>I find it interesting and educational.
>>
>> What did you understand Kas to mean by his use of the term "lean
>> misfire"?
>>
>> He wrote, about that term, "...but I think most people understand
>> what the term means."
>>
>>
>> --ron
>
> I've heard of lean bog in two strokes but the only other lean issue
> would be detonation.
>
>
>

Yes. I didn;t see much there of any interest, really. I also think he's
wrong about the PW 1830. For one thing, a lot of c-47s had Wrights back
then. Most have Pratts now, though.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

> What did you understand Kas to mean by his use of the term "lean misfire"?
>
> He wrote, about that term, "...but I think most people understand what the
> term means."

Maybe he defines that somewhere -- but someone who writes about a
technical matter and throws out a term and states "I think most people
knows what that means" are writing at a technically unacceptable
level.

If a chemistry book uses the term "stoichiometric", gives no
definition but states most people know what that means, there'd be a
lot of unhappy chemistry students, especially when it came time to
fail their test.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:03:04 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>> What did you understand Kas to mean by his use of the term "lean misfire"?
>>
>> He wrote, about that term, "...but I think most people understand what the
>> term means."
>
>Maybe he defines that somewhere -- but someone who writes about a
>technical matter and throws out a term and states "I think most people
>knows what that means" are writing at a technically unacceptable
>level.
>

I think the problem goes beyond that.

Here is a "dictionary" definition:

LEAN MISFIRE
A condition caused by an air/fuel mixture that is too lean to sustain
combustion. Lean misfire causes one or more cylinders to pass unburned fuel
into the exhaust system causing a big increase in hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions.

Kaz writes that "lean misfire" is the cause of the rough running engine
that results as you progressively lean an aircraft engine (at least for
some engines).

Instrumented test benches have not shown this to be the case.
--ron