Turbo engine maintenance

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.)

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

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

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?

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

"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

"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

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.

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

"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