|
Kyle:
I'm going to combine a few comments into one post. Some of these things are not in answer to you, but to others.
The scientific study you would like to have done has already been done... long ago. The results were very compelling and support the statements George, Tom and I have made in this thread and in others. The study was over a sample size of 400 MILLION flight hours of data. No one I know (who has read it) thinks there is any reason to duplicate it. It would be very expensive to do so, and to what end? TCM and Lycoming DATA agrees with that study.
More recently, the FAA conducted a study which proved beyond any doubt that lead is not a lubricant for valves, but that OWT won't go away either.
The concern over the cost of an engine monitor to save gas is misplaced in my opinion. Engine monitors tend to pay for themselves all at once and in spades. The cost savings is not over fuel, it is over a serious engine problem which threatens your wallet and/or your life. My best calculations figure that my engine monitors pay for themselves at least once every two years in maintenance savings alone. I have a growing list of pilots who have saved their engines and their LIVES becasue they had an engine monitor. That's not at all an exaggeration. Do not buy an engine monitor to help you lean the engine. It will do that, but buy and engine monitor to save you maintenance costs, save your engine, and maybe yourself. I don't know a single pilot who understands how to interpret an engine monitor who is now comfortable flying without one. It was an unexpected effect of having the information so radily available.
__________________
Walter Atkinson
Advanced Pilot Seminars
|