|
Walter:
On yourt last message, the one which is just above this reply, I for one welcome your participation.
I want, however, to address your first message on this thread. And, sorry, Walter, but I'm not buying any of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer. I believe that LOP operation, when done right, reduces fuel consumption with no adverse effects on the engine. But that's all -- I'm not buying the rest of your points in that message.
I won't dwell on all of your points, since the meeting in Key West is a better forum for that, but here is a brief outline.
On the claim of longer-lasting engines, readers understand that we're talking cruise operation, when the component stresses (e.g., temperatures) are so much lower than design limits that the differences are immaterial. To say it differently, the exhaust valve at ROP runs much cooler at cruise than design limits, so running it even cooler at LOP doesn't add life.
Saying that engine monitors are more important to have for ROP than LOP defies logic. To your credit, you and other advocates of LOP admit that proper operation at LOP requires a monitor (or analyzer). While the experience of millions of hours of ROP operation show that the basic guages installed originally is all that is needed for reliable ROP operation of these engines (more on the "robustness" of the engines below).
On LOP being less taxing on pilots, please. The Lycoming experience speaks for itself. And, no, Lycoming is not saying that all pilots are stupid, only that some pilots are lazy, not technically savvy, whatever, and these pilots did screw it up when LOP was the norm. So, since their procedures must account for all pilots, they changed to ROP, the easier, more tolerant procedure.
Your warranty response, citing the TCM TSIO-520BE is misleading, since TCM designed this engine for LOP operation. I see no conflict here. They'll honor a 520 warranty which ran LOP (the recommended mode), but will deny a claim for a 360 which ran LOP (the not recommended mode).
And in the related thread George took issue with my statement to stick with what the manufacturer tells you -- ROP -- by citing other manufacturers like Lancair and Cirrus which approve LOP operation. But this is a Skymaster forum and the readers understand that I was discussing Skymasters.
The other point raised in the other thread deals with the robustness of the engines when operated ROP. As that thread developed, today's second message from Kyle Townsend suggests correctly that these engines can deliver extraordinary reliability at the recommended ROP operation ("robustness" as I put it in an earlier message), provided that they are built with adequate quality control, properly maintained, used frequently, and managed in flight as recommended.
Look, you and George may not see it that way, but I'm not an opponent of LOP. If you happen to own an aircraft eqipped with GAMIs and an analyzer, and you are a technically savvy pilot willing to do LOP engine management in flight, and your engine warranty has expired, then I think you should run LOP. For the fuel savings, not to extend life. If you aircraft is not so equipped, I don't think the fuel savings at today's fuel prices justify buying GAMIs and an analyzer. But maybe soon, when prices are closer to $8-$10 per gallon.
Ernie
|