Andrew Gideon wrote:

I know at least one person in person, and others from their postings, that
are getting success running LOP.

You can add me to the list of aircraft owners who religiously run LOP. I
bought my aircraft from a pilot who also operated the engine LOP, and I was
able to get about 2,600 hours out of an engine that had an 1,800 hours TBO.
In the interest of full disclosure there was some cylinder work done to the
engine early on, but I can guarantee it was not because a cylinder got
cooked. It probably had to do with the fact that they were Continental
cylinders.

In my case, my engine's cylinder head temperatures rarely get above 310
degrees F and most times operate in the 285 degree F range during cruise
flight. The times they do climb to 310 or 320 degrees F is when I am
climbing to altitude on a very hot day.

One note: Running LOP requires a meticulously maintained ignition system.
Plugs need to be cleaned every 100 hours or so, plug wires need to be
inspected and replaced if needed, magnetos have to be operating to
capacity, and capacitors cannot fail.

Something as simple as one fouled plug can result in unacceptably high
exhaust gas temperatures that lead to a higher than desired turbo-inlet
temperatures.

I also know at least two persons that
think that LOP is some myth that kills cylinders. One of those two people
tells a story of someone that bought gami injectors, ran LOP, and then
cooked four of six cylinders.

Without knowing their specifics, I can say with experience of operating a
turbo-normalized Bonanza that running LOP does introduce the RISK of
cooking cylinders, but this risk is easily managed, in part, by including
the engine analyzer in one's scan every minute or two.

Leaning to a lean of peak temperature involves pulling the mixture PAST
peak temperature to a relative fuel flow, then allowing airspeed and engine
temperatures to stabilize (perhaps a few minutes of level flight). Once
stable, the mixture is then enrichened to peak temperature in order to
discover peak temperature and then steadily but without delay leaned back
to about 75 degrees lean of peak.

Constant monitoring of the engine analyzer gauge and fine tuning of the
mixture knob is mandatory.

Changing altitudes (usually descending), even in my turbo-normalized
aircraft, does require a slight change in mixture or temperatures can begin
to climb.

What I don't understand - and what that person hasn't answered, BTW,
perhaps because he doesn't know - is why that person that "cooked" four
cylinders would have failed to see a problem immediately on his CHT probes.

My speculation is that it could be one of three reasons. First, but most
unlikely, perhaps the probes were incorrectly installed. Second, maybe
this owner failed to monitor his engine analyzer often enough, which could
be a result of the location of the gauge in the panel or simply the pilot's
weaker instrument scanning discipline. And thirdly, this owner may not
have had the engine analyzer high-temperature alarms properly set up?
Again, just speculation here.

--
Peter