What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Lycoming O-320 power settings for break in

cleve_thompson

Well Known Member
I am nearing time for my first flight in a 9A with a new O-320 Lycoming engine and a fixed pitch Sensenich with a pitch of 81 in. I will need to run my engine at 75% power for the first 30 minutes but I can't find a simple way to determine this power setting. I plan to do this break in at 3000 ft. I have a manifold pressure gauge on an EIS. I would also like to know what power settings for 65% power for the period when I am to alternate between 65% and 75% power.
It would be great if I could just worry about the RPM's as I did in my little Cherokee 140 when I broke in an overhauled Lycoming O320. Would it be safe to assume that 2500 RPM would be close enough? I have never used a manifold pressure before.
BTW: I don't have a fuel flow monitor. I am not a very cerebral person so please keep it simple.
 
Last edited:
Hello Cleve

On my Cessna 172 with a new engine I did the following:
First 30 minutes - full throttle, don't lean, stay under 8000 ft.
Next 1.5 hours vary the rpm between 2500 and 2700, stay under 8000 ft and don't lean.
Until I had 10 hours on the engine I didn't do much leaning and not to much slow flight.

Have fun.

Kent
 
simple enough?

I am nearing time for my first flight in a 9A with a new O-320 Lycoming engine and a fixed pitch Sensenich with a pitch of 81 in. I will need to run my engine at 75% power for the first 30 minutes but I can't find a simple way to determine this power setting. I plan to do this break in at 3000 ft. I have a manifold pressure gauge on an EIS. I would also like to know what power settings for 65% power for the period when I am to alternate between 65% and 75% power.
It would be great if I could just worry about the RPM's as I did in my little Cherokee 140 when I broke in an overhauled Lycoming O320. Would it be safe to assume that 2500 RPM would be close enough? I have never used a manifold pressure before.
BTW: I don't have a fuel flow monitor. I am not a very cerebral person so please keep it simple.

Run it with as much throttle as possible without over-temping the cylinders.

-Geoff
 
I have an RV-4 with O-320 and fixed Sensenich. At 3,000' it runs fairly 'square' i.e. 22"MP gives 2200 RPM and 24" 2400RPM.

75% will be close to 24"MP and 2400RPM, so 2400 RPM or higher and mixture rich should put you in the right region. Its best to stick to lower altitudes to keep the MP and hence the engine internal pressure (BMEP) high.

Worth a read of the Lycoming article here, if you haven't already done so.
 
Ignore MP....

......for now Cleve, since you really don't need one for a FP prop anyway. 2500 RPM is close to 75% for 320's and 360's.

Regards,
 
Thanks all. I hope to fly in a couple of weeks and will probably run between 2400 and 2500 for the 75% at 3000 feet.
 
MAP gauge is for fixed prop planes as well.

Thanks all. I hope to fly in a couple of weeks and will probably run between 2400 and 2500 for the 75% at 3000 feet.
Mr. Thompson if you have a fixed prop, it's a great you have a MAP gauge. I lifted a couple of charts for example. Although for the Lyc 360, percent wise it is close to the Lyc 320.

See the two pwr charts below. The first chart formate is more for fixed prop. The the second chart is more for c/s pitch prop. You see differences, and that is from different props, airplane and installation (scoop/airbox). (click thumb nails below)


(example only check against Lyc engine manual)

You say you want to fly at only 3,000 feet (or 3,500 feet VFR better) you need MAP of 23" or less @ 2,400 rpm.
I like Kent's suggestion above. You should try to run wide open throttle (WOT) or near WOT. That means a climb to about 8,500 feet. May be slit the difference and fly at 5,500' or 6,500'. (3,000' or 8,000' as you know are "hard altitudes", IFR pilots use, who may not be looking out for you.)

Not sure why you want to be at 3,000 feet to break-in. You can break in at any altitude, but flying higher is good for emergency, giving you more glide. Not sure if break-in is better at WOT and higher RPM or partially closed throttle and lower RPM? Probably does not make a difference.

Once you break-in the engine and have time to do some flight test you can make charts like the ones above (either one as you like).

The reason factory planes with fixed props don't have a MAP are two fold:

1) the FAR's say it does not need it.

2) The factory does extensive flight testing (with a MAP gauge) and makes power charts for all kinds of conditions, standard day or hot or cold.....etc.
 
Last edited:
An example chart and DA

......
2) The factory does extensive flight testing (with a MAP gauge) and makes power charts for all kinds of conditions, standard day or hot or cold.....etc.

Here is an example of the Power Performance chart for my Grumman Tiger (fixed pitch prop., O-360 engine). I made it into a spreadsheet and added mpg... note that mpg and knots are both used in the table.

http://home.earthlink.net/~gilalex/Tiger/performance chart.xls

I also used Density Altitude. All of the above discussions should actually be referenced to DA... especially for those of us in the hot SW...:)

When I broke in my Tiger cylinders in June, I flew for an hour at 1500 ft above our 3000 ft airport at 7:00 am. I was pushing 7000 ft DA, and needed over 2650 rpm to reach the requested 75% power...

Higher is not better in summer if you want 75% + power...:)

gil A
 
Fuel Burn

Expect a very high fuel burn during the break in. I was shocked to see 12 gph on my O320E2D while breaking in after overhaul. Have fun, Joe Hesano
 
Keep the gear leg fairing and wheel pants off.

While I can not speak for a 9A with an 0320, I know on my IO360 RV6 75% put me right at the start of the yellow arc. I was able to run hard even when it was bumpy, which it was most of the 10 hours I used for my break in period.
More drag is better at this stage of the game. You dont want to have to reduce power for bumps.
 
CS??

While I can not speak for a 9A with an 0320, I know on my IO360 RV6 75% put me right at the start of the yellow arc. I was able to run hard even when it was bumpy, which it was most of the 10 hours I used for my break in period.
More drag is better at this stage of the game. You dont want to have to reduce power for bumps.

This is for a CS prop though, isn't it? Or you live near Sea Level...:)

The trouble with a FP prop and no wheel pants is the prop will have the wrong pitch for the drag, and be even lower on rpm/power %... add some measurable DA in the mix, and 75% is hard to get...:(

gil A
 
Help me Gil

This is for a CS prop though, isn't it? Or you live near Sea Level...:)

The trouble with a FP prop and no wheel pants is the prop will have the wrong pitch for the drag, and be even lower on rpm/power %... add some measurable DA in the mix, and 75% is hard to get...:(

gil A


Using "big" words like DA just confused little brains like mine. So, in my pea brain I can understand that the fixed pitch prop would not be matched to the drag? So are you saying it would not be able to reach 75% with more drag, like wheel pants?
(yes, CS and below 3000ft for my machine. My neighbors 6 with an 0320 has no trouble cruising side by side with me once he catch's up, so I assume he could still reach manuevering speed area and not be pushing 75%. If it is bumpy, you would have to pull back).
 
I'm not Gil (who's smarter than me), Fairings or NOT?

Using "big" words like DA just confused little brains like mine. So, in my pea brain I can understand that the fixed pitch prop would not be matched to the drag? So are you saying it would not be able to reach 75% with more drag, like wheel pants?
(yes, CS and below 3000ft for my machine. My neighbors 6 with an 0320 has no trouble cruising side by side with me once he catch's up, so I assume he could still reach maneuvering speed area and not be pushing 75%. If it is bumpy, you would have to pull back).
The advice to not put fairings on has been around for a long time, but what does it really matter, not withstanding the RPM issue.

Gil keeps me honest, I should not talk for him, but what I think he's saying is your prop will essentially be OVER PITCHED with out the fairings, so your RPM's will be down. Low RPM = less power. If you are flying at higher DA (density altitude) than you may not be able to get 75% power. Some people live at higher altitudes to start with. So if you depart Denver and want some reasonable height between you and the ground, while you fly around breaking the engine in, the OVER PITCHED prop (low RPM) may keep you from making a full 75% power at that high DA?

Lower RPM = less power. You really don't want too much prop pitch (low RPM) during break-in. It's like being in a car going down the freeway, in the right gear and normal operating RPM, all is well. However in that same gear, going up a steep hill, your lugging the engine down (lower RPM). You really don't want to be "going up hill" too much during break-in. On the other hand you don't want to over revving during break-in either. You want to be in the 2,400-2,600 rpm range in the 75% power, while flying at a reasonable safe altitude above the ground. That is what I think Gil is saying. The fairings make a large diff in speed. I'm not a RV/fixed pitch expert; most of my RV time is with c/s props. The fairings may or may not be a factor in making 75% power.


Gear/Wheel fairings - ON or OFF for 1st flights, Myth or Fact?

One reason people say leave the fairings off for 1st flights, is because you're going too fast at 75% power. Yes, you will go faster and have more cooling, which is good for break-in. Going fast is not an issue. Granted you are going fast to nowhere, as you stay close to the airport. In my opinion, this is not the issue. I guess if your engine is running TOO cool, like if you are breaking-in during winter, it might be a small issue. There are ways to get engine temp up besides add airframe drag.

The other argument to support NOT putting fairings on before 1st flights, which I agree with, has more to do with rigging. You want to get the elevators and ailerons adjusted and rigged before adding two big aerodynamic parts (gear and wheel fairings), both of which can change trim of the plane. Still of you are good at installing the fairings straight this is also a small issue. However if you make a mistake and have made your wheel/gear and gear/fuselage intersection fairings, changing them would be a bummer, so leaving those off might be a good idea until you can make sure the fairings are on straight. You can tape the gaps up if you want.
 
Last edited:
Ooops - lost message

.....
Gil keeps me honest, I should not talk for him, but what I think he's saying is your prop will essentially be OVER PITCHED with out the fairings, so your RPM's will be down. Lower RPM = less power. You really don't want too much prop pitch (down on RPM) during break-in. It's like being in a car going down the freeway, in the right gear and nornal operating RPM, all is well. However being in that same gear going up a steep hill, your lugging the engine down (lower RPM). You really don't want to be "going up hill" during break-in. On the other hand you don't want to over revving during break-in either. You want to be in the 2,400-2,600 rpm range in the 75% power. I'm not a fixed prop expert. Most of my RV experience is with C/S props.

Gil can correct me, but it's probably not a big deal either way, fairing or no fairing, during initial break-in, but if you find you can't get enough RPM to get 75% power, with reasonable throttle (MAP) than put the fairings on.

Oops... I thought I had answered the question form JonJay a day or two ago... I guess I pressed the wrong button and it disappeared...:(

All comments were for a FP installation, and George's description is in line with what I tried to post...:)

My point was that Density Altitude (DA) does come into play - especially here in the hot SW. At our airport (2940 ft MSL) we are at a DA of 5000 ft when it is 81 F outside - which happens frequently - even 4 days ago!

Since a FP prop is usually pitched to reach 2700 rpm at full throttle at 7000 or 8000 ft (again, use Density Altitude) which is around the 75% power range from the Lycoming charts - this sets the highest DA that 75% can be reached. Leave off the wheel pants and fairings, and the prop pitch will be incorrect as George describes above - with less rpms giving less % power - setting an even lower maximum altitude for 75% power.

JonJays plane with an adjustable pitch prop is a whole different set of circumstances... as is the RV guys living back east at near sea level...:)

When I broke in my Tiger cylinders after a TOH, I flew for an hour in circles at 1500 ft above our airport. In June, even before 7:00 am this gave a DA of about 7000 ft... and 2650 rpm is about 74% power. If I had higher drag, this level of power would not have been obtained.

DA does make a big difference, and needs to be allowed for in the hot SW...:)

If you are breaking in a new RV engine, use a high altitude field, and it's the hot time of year... perhaps having the fairings on might be the best approach?

gil A
 
Fixed pitch 75% pwr settting

I recall from the lycoming tables that WOT at 7500' (which results in approx 22" MP) at redline (2700 +/-) will result in very close to 75% pwr.

You definitely want to use WOT when using a carb, otherwise you won't get even fuel flow to all the cylinders!
 
I recall from the lycoming tables that WOT at 7500' (which results in approx 22" MP) at redline (2700 +/-) will result in very close to 75% pwr.

You definitely want to use WOT when using a carb, otherwise you won't get even fuel flow to all the cylinders!

You may find that this does not hold true in an RV. Due to the efficient ram-air system design, I got an extra inch of manifold pressure. I had to go to about 9,500 feet in order to run WOT and get 75%. This is a good reason to have a MAP gauge on a FP installation.

For break-in, though, you want to run a bit harder so 7500 feet is not a problem if you can keep the prop rpm within limits.

Here's an excerpt from my post the percent horsepower thread:

=================================================
Lycoming O-320 B and D series Horsepower Formula (Rich Mixture)

h=(H-((R-r)*(5.58-0.125*(M-m))/100 + 7.35*(M-m)) + 2.0*pa/1000)*sqrt((519-3.58*pa/1000)/(460+ta))

h% = h/H*100

where

Constants:

H= maximum sea level horsepower at maximum manifold pressure (from manufacturer’s data)
R= maximum sea level RPM at maximum manifold pressure (from manufacturer’s data)
M= maximum sea level manifold pressure at rated RPM (from manufacturer’s data)

For Lycoming O-320 -B and -D series:

H= 160
R= 2600 (Sensenich prop limit)
M= 28.6

Variables (inputs)

r= actual RPM
m= actual manifold pressure
pa= actual pressure altitude (altimeter set to 29.92 inHg)
ta = actual air inlet temperature at pressure altitude

Outputs

h = calculated horsepower
h%= calculated percent horsepower

============================

V
 
Last edited:
Thanks...

Thanks Vern... that is good to know on the altitudes.

Did you fly without pants/fairings (wheel pants, that is...:)...) and see the reduced HP due to increased drag?

gil A

I will have MP and even % HP on my Dynon...:)

You may find that this does not hold true in an RV. Due to the efficient ram-air system design, I got an extra inch of manifold pressure. I had to go to about 9,500 feet in order to run WOT and get 75%. This is a good reason to have a MAP gauge on a FP installation.

For break-in, though, you want to run a bit harder so 7500 feet is not a problem if you can keep the prop rpm within limits.

Here's an excerpt from my post the percent horsepower thread:

=================================================
Lycoming O-320 B and D series Horsepower Formula (Rich Mixture)

h=(H-((R-r)*(5.58-0.125*(M-m))/100 + 7.35*(M-m)) + 2.0*pa/1000)*sqrt((519-3.58*pa/1000)/(460+ta))

h% = h/H*100

where

Constants:

H= maximum sea level horsepower at maximum manifold pressure (from manufacturer?s data)
R= maximum sea level RPM at maximum manifold pressure (from manufacturer?s data)
M= maximum sea level manifold pressure at rated RPM (from manufacturer?s data)

For Lycoming O-320 -B and -D series:

H= 160
R= 2600 (Sensenich prop limit)
M= 28.6

Variables (inputs)

r= actual RPM
m= actual manifold pressure
pa= actual pressure altitude (altimeter set to 29.92 inHg)
ta = actual air inlet temperature at pressure altitude

Outputs

h = calculated horsepower
h%= calculated percent horsepower

============================

V
 
Thanks Vern... that is good to know on the altitudes.

Did you fly without pants/fairings (wheel pants, that is...:)...) and see the reduced HP due to increased drag?

gil A

I will have MP and even % HP on my Dynon...:)

For my first few flights I did not have pants or fairings. That was more to make sure that the brakes and tires worked ok.

Now, Van's REQUIRES that the nose wheel pants be installed at all times (part of their SB).
 
...See the two pwr charts below. The first chart formate is more for fixed prop. The the second chart is more for c/s pitch prop...
The second chart may have some uses for a constant speed prop setup but it is more for a fixed pitch prop. I am pretty sure of that because I am the one who made it, except I didn't black out my N number. I tailored it exactly for my needs with an O-360 and fixed pitch Sensenich 83" prop. The chart has two sides and together they lean much more toward the higher RPMs more likely to be run by fixed pitch folks.
 
Last edited:
Why nose pant on?

[QUOTE
Now, Van's REQUIRES that the nose wheel pants be installed at all times (part of their SB).[/QUOTE]

Why?

bevan
 
Percentage of power

Wasn't there a write up in the RVator about percentage of power calcs? I can't seem to put my finger on it at the moment, so maybe someone else will remember the specifics.

As I recall you added the manifold pressure and the RPM hundreds. Example 23" manifold and 24(for 2400 RPM) equals 47 which equated to "X" percentage of power. There was a chart for the various combined numbers and the percentage of power it yielded.

Does anybody else remember this. I'll keep looking in previous RVator's and post it if I find it.

Ted
 
Hi Bevan. The nose-gear service bulletin requires that the nose wheel pants always be in place to help prevent the nose fork from digging into the terrain and folding over.

V
 
Rule of thumb (or Van)

It is difficult to remember but here goes:

Add MP in inches to RPM in hundreds.

eg 23" + 2500RPM = 48

Then if the answer is:
42=55%
45=65%
48=75%
51=85%
54=95%
 
Van's power rule of thumb

Wasn't there a write up in the RVator about percentage of power calcs? I can't seem to put my finger on it at the moment, so maybe someone else will remember the specifics.

As I recall you added the manifold pressure and the RPM hundreds. Example 23" manifold and 24(for 2400 RPM) equals 47 which equated to "X" percentage of power. There was a chart for the various combined numbers and the percentage of power it yielded.

Does anybody else remember this. I'll keep looking in previous RVator's and post it if I find it.

Ted

I read this years ago and have used it as a rule of thumb in many A/C's. It it works pretty well. The way it was written referenced an index where a change of 3 equals 10% power.

Add the first RPM/100 plus mp and get a "power index". A power index of 48 = 75% power. For every change in index of 3, change the power estimate by 10%.

24 squared gives a power index of 48. Say you are running 2200RPM and 23" mp. That gives a power index of 45, three less than 48, so the power estimate is 65%.

Say you have an FP prop and develop 2150RPM on the takeoff roll at 29.5 inches. That gives a power index of 51, 3 above 48, so that would be 85% power.
 
Last edited:
Steve, Difficult to remember, Hah!!

That's one heck of a memory Steve!! You are exactly correct.

Found the RVator, August 1997. In was in an article that Van wrote regarding "Real World Performance" relating to claims being made by some aircraft companies, magazines and alternative engines. Excellent reading!! Those contemplating alternative engines for thier planes should read the whole article. Still valid information today, over ten years later.

Here is the part on "Determining Power."

"For the normally aspirated Lycoming engines we are using, the following formula provides quite accurate results.
Manifold pressure (inches of mercury) + RPM (in hundreds) = the percentage of full power shown below. (This is a simple approach to determining power output. For more precise power determinations, refer to the Lyc. Operations Manual for your engine.)

54 = 95%
51 = 85%
48 = 75%
45 = 65%
42 = 55% For Example:
22 in. MP + 26 hundred rpm = 48 = 75%
23 in. MP + 25 hundred rpm = 48 = 75%
24 in. MP + 24 hundred rpm = 48 = 75%

Note that although the rpm varies by 200, the percent power remains the same because of the varying manifold pressure. The lesson here is that with a fixed pitch prop, rpm alone does not an accurate indicator of power. The pitch of the prop determines how hard the engine has to work (Manifold pressure) to spin the prop at a given rpm. Different props turning at a given RPM will require different amounts of power."


I used to carry a chart of this in my fixed pitch RV-6. Found it to be very usefull.

Ted
 
Last edited:
22 in. MP + 26 hundred rpm = 48 = 75%
23 in. MP + 25 hundred rpm = 48 = 75%
24 in. MP + 24 hundred rpm = 48 = 75%

Just keep in mind that in reality the power produced by a given MP and RPM also depends on the altitude (the power goes up with altitude). So the above formulae are only approximate. If we also consider the effect of temperature, the power values from the above formulae could be out by 5 to 10%.
 
...........the power goes up with altitude...........

Just keep in mind that in reality the power produced by a given MP and RPM also depends on the altitude (the power goes up with altitude). So the above formulae are only approximate. If we also consider the effect of temperature, the power values from the above formulae could be out by 5 to 10%.

Kevin, help me with that please because it is not intuitive.

I can see that as the air gets colder there is more mass of air coming into the engine, therefore more fuel, therfore more work done. But how does the engine 'know' the altitude changed for a constant manifold presure? I can see the exhaust gets out a little easier, but we are not talking about that are we? I presume it is a small effect.

The prop will have less air to work against, but the c/s unit will just adjust the pitch to make it a bit harder.

What am I missing?
 
To be honest, I don't claim to completely understand the mechanism by which power varies with altitude. But if you look at piston engine power charts from Lycoming, Continental and Pratt&Whitney, they all show a significant increase of power with altitude at a constant RPM and MP. I think the lower exhaust back pressure at altitude improves the scavenging of burnt gases during the intake stroke, and this leads to a power increase. The lower pressure in the crank case may also help ring sealing. There may be other reasons too.

If you look at the power chart for the O-360-A series engines, and see what power it predicts for 2700 rpm and 21" you should get approximately the following (assuming standard temperature):

0 ft 67%
4000 ft 72%
8000 ft 76%

Note that the rule of thumb quoted above says that 2700 rpm and 21" would produce 75% power.
 
Kevin, having mulled it over all afternoon, my guess is exhaust back pressure and low sump pressure aside (which I presume are minor) the effect is because the standard temperature drops with altitude. No more no less. It makes sense for Lyco to present its curves against altitude - that is what the pilot knows about - but in fact the real issue is the colder air into the engine. (Standard temp drops with altitude doesnt it?) The engine has no idea how far above the ground it is.

You know much more about these hings than I, so if you have another tought I would be interested.
 
The Lycoming power charts do have a formula to correct the power for temperature, but the magnitude of this correction is way too small to account for the change of power they show with altitude. For example, on an O-360-A, at 2700 RPM at 21" MP, at a constant 5 deg C, the Lycoming power chart, plus correction for non-standard temperature, shows:

0 ft 68%
4000 ft 72%
8000 ft 75%

So, assuming that Lycoming knows how the power of their engine varies with temperature and altitude, the explanation is something other than the effect of temperature.
 
Temp has less affect than air density or altitude

Ke but in fact the real issue is the colder air into the engine. (Standard temp drops with altitude doesn't it?) The engine has no idea how far above the ground it is.

You know much more about these hings than I, so if you have another thought I would be interested.

Take this example: 21"/2400 rpm , at sea level std day (59F) and 8,000' at std day (30.5F)

Sea level (59F) = 62.4% pwr

8,000 ft (30.5F) = 71.4% pwr

Now take the 8,000 ft case and at temp (59F) = 69.4% pwr​

The altitude changed power 9% (71.4%-62.4%); Temp alone was only worth 2% (71.4%-69.4%).

Why the difference?

One, Throttle pumping loss - At sea level to maintain 21" you need to close the throttle (a lot). At 8,000 ft the throttle is wide open or near WOT. The engine has to suck past the closed throttle at sea level but not at 8,000 ft. This extra effort to suck past the closed throttle butterfly costs HP. This is called PUMPING LOSS.

Two, exhaust back pressure (pumping loss). As someone mentioned the exhaust backpressure is less at altitude. Depending on exhaust design this can be a small advantage or none. The problem is you can only optimize the exhaust for one altitude (air density) and RPM. Variable exhaust geometry would be cool but too complicated for our RV's purpose. So the affect of this can vary depending on exhaust.

Three, in the above example the temp was 2% of the added power, but really there's more air going into the engine at 8,000' even if the MAP's & RPM & Temp are equal. The MAP gauge is a dumb vacumn gauge. It does not compensate for temp or mass air flow. In cars they have mass air flow sensors, as well as a MAP sensor for a reason. So your indicated power is lower than actual power as you climb. Lycs power curves probably has correction built in.

*******************

The normal situation as you climb is not constant MAP. Usually as you climb MAP drops since you're at or near WOT. Even with the temp drop pressure drops (MAP) so you have less air and less power. Temp has less affect on PISTON engine power than air density. Higher altitude = less air density. Less air density = less air for the engine to breath. Your engine knows what altitude it's at.

When piston engines need to make more power they put a turbo or blower on to compress the air (increase air density), not an ice box to cool the air. However when you compress air you do make the air hotter, which is a draw back. So some turbos have inter-coolers to cool the air back down. That's a little about making more power, but its also about not detonating the engine and melting it (hot air + more power = possible detonation). Some turbos don't use an inter-cooler, The engine makes more power even despite the hotter induction air temp. Engines never have have a problem getting fuel into them. The problem has always been getting more airflow. That is why cars or plane engines use tricks like "angle valves", 4-valves per cylinder, nitrous oxide and turbos. The more AIR you can pump the more power you make.

Temp has a huge affect on Jet engine power. Jet engines have no breathing problem, but they do have thermal issue. As you climb the air-frame has less resistance, but the jet engine can still breath in thin air, with it's extra "lung capacity". An extra bonus for a jet is the cooler temps as you climb, which helps the engines thermal limits. The jet engine needs oxygen as well, but its breathing capacity is like a Kenya Olympic marathon runner. The runner can run fast as long as they are cool. A piston engine makes all the power it can at sea level and starts to wheeze as soon as it starts climbing to altitude, colder temps or not. Cooling is important to the piston engine but its ability to breath is the limiting factor.

Colder temps does affect air density a little and engine HP, but the affect is also on the prop and wing. The prop makes more thrust and the wing makes more lift. On a cold day takeoff you get the bonus of more prop thrust, wing lift and HP. All three give the impression of more performance, but only part is just from a HP increase.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top