MoGas Tips, Tricks, Concerns, How To

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Allen wrote:



They are also multi-million dollar aircraft engine companies that
recommend against LOP operation. (Unless you are running a FADEC
system).

Yes, suddenly it's OK to run LOP when you give them $10K for their FADEC.

That is because you have zero control over the fuel-air mixture, they do.

Allen

"Allen" wrote in message
. com...


"Allen" wrote in message
. com...
They are also multi-million dollar aircraft engine companies that
recommend against LOP operation. (Unless you are running a FADEC
system).

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Have they ever shown you or anyone else REAL DATA?

No? Gee, why not?


Yes, like Lycoming who recommends 50ROP. Got any idea what THAT will do
to your valves, heads, exhaust system?

Oh, and Columbia recommends LOP for it's IO-550'ed 400 model.

Well gee, think of the lure that TCM would have to produce engines for
aircraft manufacturers if they could tout running lean of peak. They
don't. Why not? Warranty costs. Get a clue.

What warranty? What warranty costs?

You still haven't shown us any DATA, just regurgitating the same BS.

What is the lure that TCM and Lycoming have for running ROP? Oh, just
engines that last 800 hours...maybe. Sure sell a lot of 'em, won't they.
And, hey...if the break, it sure is easy to put a Lycoming into a Bonanza,
or a TCM into a current Cessna, right?

Get a clue yourself. Gullibility is not attractive in adults.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Allen" wrote in message
. com...


"Allen" wrote in message
. com...
They are also multi-million dollar aircraft engine companies that
recommend against LOP operation. (Unless you are running a FADEC
system).

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Have they ever shown you or anyone else REAL DATA?

No? Gee, why not?


Yes, like Lycoming who recommends 50ROP. Got any idea what THAT will do
to your valves, heads, exhaust system?

Oh, and Columbia recommends LOP for it's IO-550'ed 400 model.

Well gee, think of the lure that TCM would have to produce engines for
aircraft manufacturers if they could tout running lean of peak. They
don't. Why not? Warranty costs. Get a clue.

What warranty? What warranty costs?

You still haven't shown us any DATA, just regurgitating the same BS.

What is the lure that TCM and Lycoming have for running ROP? Oh, just
engines that last 800 hours...maybe. Sure sell a lot of 'em, won't they.
And, hey...if the break, it sure is easy to put a Lycoming into a Bonanza,
or a TCM into a current Cessna, right?

Get a clue yourself. Gullibility is not attractive in adults.

Let's see, the company that designed and manufactured the engine says don't
run lean of peak, the aircraft manufacturer (except for a handful of
instances) says don't run lean of peak but Matt Barrow says ok to run lean
of peak. Whom to believe, whom to believe. Talk about being gullible, look
in the mirror.

Don't you think that if running lean of peak would make their engines reach
TBO that TCM wouldn't jump on that in an instant?

On 05/12/06 11:21, Allen wrote:
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Allen" wrote in message
. com...


"Allen" wrote in message
. com...
They are also multi-million dollar aircraft engine companies that
recommend against LOP operation. (Unless you are running a FADEC
system).

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Have they ever shown you or anyone else REAL DATA?

No? Gee, why not?


Yes, like Lycoming who recommends 50ROP. Got any idea what THAT will do
to your valves, heads, exhaust system?

Oh, and Columbia recommends LOP for it's IO-550'ed 400 model.

Well gee, think of the lure that TCM would have to produce engines for
aircraft manufacturers if they could tout running lean of peak. They
don't. Why not? Warranty costs. Get a clue.

What warranty? What warranty costs?

You still haven't shown us any DATA, just regurgitating the same BS.

What is the lure that TCM and Lycoming have for running ROP? Oh, just
engines that last 800 hours...maybe. Sure sell a lot of 'em, won't they.
And, hey...if the break, it sure is easy to put a Lycoming into a Bonanza,
or a TCM into a current Cessna, right?

Get a clue yourself. Gullibility is not attractive in adults.

Let's see, the company that designed and manufactured the engine says don't
run lean of peak, the aircraft manufacturer (except for a handful of
instances) says don't run lean of peak but Matt Barrow says ok to run lean
of peak. Whom to believe, whom to believe. Talk about being gullible, look
in the mirror.

Don't you think that if running lean of peak would make their engines reach
TBO that TCM wouldn't jump on that in an instant?

Have you read the John Deakin articles on AVWeb? He talks in great length
about LOP operations and why the manufacturers (generally) don't recommend
it in the POHs.

The articles have a lot of data to back up the claims.

Regardless of which camp you're in, they're a very good read.

Best Regards,

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 05/12/06 11:21, Allen wrote:
"Allen" wrote in message
. com...

Let's see, the company that designed and manufactured the engine says
don't
run lean of peak, the aircraft manufacturer (except for a handful of
instances) says don't run lean of peak but Matt Barrow says ok to run
lean
of peak. Whom to believe, whom to believe. Talk about being gullible,
look
in the mirror.

Don't you think that if running lean of peak would make their engines
reach
TBO that TCM wouldn't jump on that in an instant?

Have you read the John Deakin articles on AVWeb? He talks in great length
about LOP operations and why the manufacturers (generally) don't recommend
it in the POHs.

The articles have a lot of data to back up the claims.

Regardless of which camp you're in, they're a very good read.

Best Regards,

Yes.

Lower octane autogas is quite common in mountain states where the
elevation is high. Non turbo-charged car engines have a bigger
denotation margin at higher elevation and require less octane.

Maybe you can have him explain how he's doing such a great business in when
maybe 5% of the aircraft are being run LOP?

Maybe you can have him explain how that happens when the EGT is symetrical
on either side of peak EGT, and the CHT is actually cooler...much cooler?

I believe Dawley's exhaust business is benefiting from people running
INCORRECTLY lean of peak. The problem isn't necessarily running lean
of peak, which most people know should produce cooler (not hotter) EGTs
and CHTs.

The trouble comes with everyone TRYING to run LOP (or, just plain
leanER) to save gas, without the proper instrumentation, technique, or
knowledge.

Heat kills exhaust systems. Dawley has noticed a spike in their sales
since gas prices went through the roof, and they believe it is due to
everyone trying to run LOP. I have no reason to doubt them.

People are saving a few bucks on gas, but are spending a few hundred on
more frequent exhaust system replacement costs. I would imagine this
may translate into other repair costs as well. It's the nature of the
beast.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Allen wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message
...


Allen wrote:



They are also multi-million dollar aircraft engine companies that
recommend against LOP operation. (Unless you are running a FADEC
system).

Yes, suddenly it's OK to run LOP when you give them $10K for their FADEC.


That is because you have zero control over the fuel-air mixture, they do.

Which isn't their argument now. They flat out say it isn't good for the
engine period.

On 12 May 2006 12:00:24 -0700, "M" wrote:

Lower octane autogas is quite common in mountain states where the
elevation is high. Non turbo-charged car engines have a bigger
denotation margin at higher elevation and require less octane.

So that's why "super" mogas in Florida is 93 octane but only
92 octane in the Seattle area. Thanks everyone for the replies
(usenet is good for something besides arguing about politics
afterall!).

Bela P. Havasreti

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Allen wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message
...


Allen wrote:



They are also multi-million dollar aircraft engine companies that
recommend against LOP operation. (Unless you are running a FADEC
system).

Yes, suddenly it's OK to run LOP when you give them $10K for their FADEC.


That is because you have zero control over the fuel-air mixture, they do.

Which isn't their argument now. They flat out say it isn't good for the
engine period.

That is correct, because you can't control the fuel flow to all cylinders
precisely enough. The FADEC system will not allow the engine to run in an
condition that will cause damage. If a CHT is too high or EGT too high
guess what happens. It INCREASES the fuel flow to that one cylinder to
bring it down. It can also retard the ignition on that one cylinder only to
correct the condition. It never LEANS further to cool cylinders or EGT
temps.