What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Pizza oven CHT temps

flightlogic

Well Known Member
Patron
Had to hold at Tucson RWY 11L for too long the other day. Lots of F16's learning to land at high AoA...
Just as I was cleared to go, I scanned the engine temps and CHT's had spiked at 430. I rolled a bit down the runway, then aborted and headed for the taxi way. Stayed with the nose into the wind and it cooled quickly.
Lessons learned: On a stiff crosswind day, do not hold perpendicular to airflow.
Watch the gauges, not the scenic fighter jets. Always have a plan for where an aborted takeoff can be made, considering runway length. (Tucson not an issue) Be ready to learn a quick lesson on any flight, any day.
 
Good reminder, but 430 deg. F is just an oven... My pizza oven isn't ready to cook until I see 750 ;)
 
I was put in charge of monitoring one of those Green Egg outdoor ovens at a party last year.
The pizza (complete with custom hand made ingredients) came out looking like a carbon 14 dating research project.
WOW... those things can get hot. Needless to say, I was given other duties... like white wine tasting...

Lycoming has a limit published of 500F. But, I am not even comfortable inflight during a summer climb... when they bump the 400 mark.

I suspect I might have even had reverse airflow, from wind crossing 90 degrees direct across the cowl openings at 20 plus knots. Not sure how one would measure such a thing. Theoretical is as far as I will go.
 
Why do you recommend keeping CHTs at or below 380?F, while TCM sets its CHT red line at 460?F and Lycoming sets it at 500?F? Aren't you being excessively conservative?

Both TCM and Lycoming specify CHT limits (460?F and 500?F, respectively) that should be considered emergency limits, not operational limits. Allowing your CHT to get anywhere close to those values for significant periods of time will most likely result in premature exhaust-valve problems and increased incidence of cylinder-head fatigue cracking. I do not like to see CHT above about 400?F, which is the temperature at which the aluminum alloy from which your cylinder head is made loses one-half its tensile strength. (The strength decreases rapidly as the temperature rises above 400?F.) For legacy aircraft, I recommend a maximum target CHT of about 380?F just to provide a little extra cushion, and consider any CHT above 400?F to be grounds for "doing something right now" to get it down. (For modern designs like the Cirrus and Diamond, reduce those CHTs by 30?F or so.)

http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_59_egt_cht_and_leaning198162-1.html
 
Just an FYI on cylinder temps for the lurkers. Though in your situation I wouldn't be too concerned as the internal combustion pressures in the cylinders were nothing.

You remember what your oil temp got up to?

It's 16 here today. I haven't seen a cylinder over 300 in cruise in three months. ;)
 
I would have taken off, the temps would have dropped soon with air flow through the engine. Pull the power back a bit after getting off and it would have cooled quicker yet.

430 CHT is no big deal, don't want to fly around all day at that temp but the engine can take it.

The situation waiting was similar to an OSH departure, lots of airplanes hace taken off there at such CHT's. It's that or get back in line and do it again.
 
I would have taken off, the temps would have dropped soon with air flow through the engine. Pull the power back a bit after getting off and it would have cooled quicker yet.

430 CHT is no big deal, don't want to fly around all day at that temp but the engine can take it.

The situation waiting was similar to an OSH departure, lots of airplanes hace taken off there at such CHT's. It's that or get back in line and do it again.

Agree with David. Most SPAM cans don't even have cyl head temp gauge and probably exceed this all the time. YMMV
 
I suppose the Dynon might have over emphasized the situation.
Agreed, lots of legacy planes never really tell you what's going on.
The fact that the Dynon displayed more RED than it does 99% of the time... influenced me to abort the takeoff. And, I like diagnosing my engine while sitting still. (might have had a very optimistic bird build a nest in there while parked outside for a couple of days in Tucson)
 
adventure

I do like some adventure in my daily activities. It is days like those shown below that cross my threshold.
I did run like heck after getting out though.....
 
Good Choice

I think what you did was a great choice,guys please take some time to learn about your engine and the "actual" limits. Here is a snippet copied from Mike Bush regarding CHT

" I do not like to see CHT above about 400?F, which is the temperature at which the aluminum alloy from which your cylinder head is made loses one-half its tensile strength. (The strength decreases rapidly as the temperature rises above 400?F.) For legacy aircraft, I recommend a maximum target CHT of about 380?F just to provide a little extra cushion, and consider any CHT above 400?F to be grounds for "doing something right now" to get it down"

Safe flying guys

AJ
 
Hey Nick,

Better to verify that it was simply sitting with no airflow across the cylinders too long on the ground than to take off and find it was something else!!!!

Looks like two people "cut and paste" from Mike's articles!

Holy Cr##----is that the remains of a Piper---and what happened??

See ya at the "office"!

Cheers,

db
 
I hope people aren't criticizing you for exercising caution.

I like to think that I'd have done the same thing.

Everyone has the standard by which a plane has to prove it's ready to fly. This one violated yours and you acted according to your standards.

I salute you.
 
And pointing into wind may not be the best for airflow!

Yes that is counter intuitive.

But until you have tufted your engine, including piano wire hanging tufts and put a video camera in there you will never know.

I can't speak for the entire GA fleet, but tests done by a famous FAA DER and certification company found that sitting into wind actually gave no airflow and tail into wind created airflow. :eek: Yep…..that is not a misprint.

DanH is the resident airflow tester, I wonder if he has done these tests.

Tail draggers not such a good idea as the prop makes some interesting forces at that angle.
 
Last edited:
To be sure.... I see no criticism here in the thread at all... as the OP.
Some was tongue in cheek... but the main point of posting was to generate dialog, and observations. They often surprise.
Tail into the wind... worth looking into and not what one would think.
At any rate, I personally thank all those who reply... as always, I find the site a
thought provoking forum for all RV topics wide and near.
 
Mike Bush writes good stuff, most of it I believe comes from personal experience. If one does as he does an engine will run over 4000 hours as he has done. I've heard him speak a couple times at OSH, he's good at what he does.

But that being said, his business is restricted to certified aircraft where the envelope is much tighter and the outcome more predictable. He offers advice but in practice he works only on certified airplanes, which is good for saving money in that world and here with experimentals. Nothing bad about that. But from a practical point of view and factoring in experience, I still would have taken off like I said. That's life in the real world from my perspective which may or may not be worth anything.

I've read, not from Mike Bush but another mechanic, never take off with oil temp below 170 - for long engine life.

HA-HA! I'd have long engine life all right. I'd seldom fly. Most days this winter I feel good to get it up to 170 inflight. :)

It would be nice if this world were perfect, but it isn't.
 
400 deg F CHT

Why is all of a sudden 400 deg F some line in the sand (that one person has drawn) that is the determining point of a go or no go cooling limit for everyone?

I understand that at ~400 deg F the alloy of aluminum that these heads are made of is roughly one half the strength that it is at room temperature......so?

Lycoming and Continental both know that and have researched it a lot more than Mike Bush. They set the limits where they did because even it the metel gets softer, it still is strong enough to hold together.

Now don't get the idea that I am saying its ok to fly with CHT at 500 deg F all day. I am not!

If my CHT ran at 500 deg F in cruise or even close to that I would be trying to change something.

ECI says 435 deg F is ok all day long and the cyl's will easy go to TBO at that temperature. I asked personalty at OSH.

Before you start lobbing tomatoes at me my CHT's all run below 400 in cruise on the -10. There are a lot of planes that I fly that don't have CHT gauges. Some of them have baffling set ups that look terrible yet the owners and mechanics insist they are ok. Have had no problems on these.

Hope I didnt start a war :eek:
 
Gents, this is not about a particular CHT value being acceptable or unacceptable.

It's a about a pilot spotting an abnormal value while on the roll, "abnormal" merely being not what he usually sees.

Last summer I went for a hop with a visitor. Right at rotation he suddenly relaxed back pressure and chopped the throttle. As we rolled out and turned off the runway, I asked "What's up?". He responded that the stick didn't feel right. It took him about 3 seconds to determine that the elevator trim was not in its usual position.

Yes, he could have continued the takeoff, if he was sure it was the trim setting. He wasn't sure, and didn't waffle, as a 100% sure outcome option (abort) was available. I'd fly with him again.
 
I can't speak for the entire GA fleet, but tests done by a famous FAA DER and certification company found that sitting into wind actually gave no airflow and tail into wind created airflow. :eek: Yep?..that is not a misprint.


But without hard data it is an anecdote.
 
I think what you did was a great choice,guys please take some time to learn about your engine and the "actual" limits. Here is a snippet copied from Mike Bush regarding CHT

" I do not like to see CHT above about 400?F, which is the temperature at which the aluminum alloy from which your cylinder head is made loses one-half its tensile strength. (The strength decreases rapidly as the temperature rises above 400?F.) For legacy aircraft, I recommend a maximum target CHT of about 380?F just to provide a little extra cushion, and consider any CHT above 400?F to be grounds for "doing something right now" to get it down"

Safe flying guys

AJ

And Mahlon R. has a slightly different view -

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=792047&postcount=44

Key sentence from the above link -

"...BTW, I am a firm believer that Lycoming cylinders running chts in the 425 or slightly more area will last just as long as one running at 300- 350 CHT. Years in the engine overhaul business bears that belief out...."
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ85WA
I think what you did was a great choice,guys please take some time to learn about your engine and the "actual" limits. Here is a snippet copied from Mike Bush regarding CHT

" I do not like to see CHT above about 400?F, which is the temperature at which the aluminum alloy from which your cylinder head is made loses one-half its tensile strength. (The strength decreases rapidly as the temperature rises above 400?F.) For legacy aircraft, I recommend a maximum target CHT of about 380?F just to provide a little extra cushion, and consider any CHT above 400?F to be grounds for "doing something right now" to get it down"

Safe flying guys

AJ



Boy, this is a scary thought. I would think that with this reasoning, any cylinder temporarily at 410-420, would fail at some very low RPM setting. Certainly at climb power where you are likely to see this kind of temperature.

I am not even remotely an engine exepert, but I haope this is not true!!
 
Boy, this is a scary thought. I would think that with this reasoning, any cylinder temporarily at 410-420, would fail at some very low RPM setting. Certainly at climb power where you are likely to see this kind of temperature.

I am not even remotely an engine exepert, but I haope this is not true!!

Losing half it's strength sounds scary, until you consider that it was engineered to probably several times more than that, so losing 1/2 does not put it anywhere near the danger zone. If it did these things would be falling out of the sky left and right, seeing as most older GA plans don't even have a real CHT readout. Not that I know enough to advocate accepting these temperatures long term, but I certainly wouldn't worry about imminent danger, more so just general engine longevity.

Chris
 
But without hard data it is an anecdote.

Sure, but even better, they have the video! So there is data and it is not an anecdote. This was done for certification testing. No anecdotes allowed.

So rather than trying to be a wise guy (which I and many here are getting a bit tired of), have you ever done any testing like this? Anecdotal observations would be enough to add to the conversation. The RV installation may well be different.
 
warm oil before takeoff.

I use a sump heater for at least five hours before a winter start up.
Have never seen the suggestion to get oil to 170 before takeoff.
I will check, but I am quite sure I am below that, even with pre-heat.... for most winter flights. Maybe oil should evolve into a different thread.
My thread was more about the abort.... than anything else.
Thanks for all the replies though.... I love this stuff. 43 years and never boring being an aviator.
 
Sure, but even better, they have the video! So there is data and it is not an anecdote. This was done for certification testing. No anecdotes allowed.

Who is "they", certifying what, and can you post a link to the video?

So rather than trying to be a wise guy (which I and many here are getting a bit tired of), have you ever done any testing like this?

No, and I challenge your conclusion ("...found that sitting into wind actually gave no airflow and tail into wind created airflow."), unless you're speaking of doing so with the engine not running. Prove me wrong.
 
A lot of what Mr. Busch says makes sense, but to use 400 as a limit because that's where the Al loses half its strength is silly.

The inconel in a turbine engine surely loses much more than 50 percent of its room temperature strength in the first stage of the turbine, but it's designed for it, so it doesn't matter.


I think what you did was a great choice,guys please take some time to learn about your engine and the "actual" limits. Here is a snippet copied from Mike Bush regarding CHT

" I do not like to see CHT above about 400?F, which is the temperature at which the aluminum alloy from which your cylinder head is made loses one-half its tensile strength. (The strength decreases rapidly as the temperature rises above 400?F.) For legacy aircraft, I recommend a maximum target CHT of about 380?F just to provide a little extra cushion, and consider any CHT above 400?F to be grounds for "doing something right now" to get it down"

Safe flying guys

AJ
 
Dan, there are no links of the video test posted on the internet. but here are the words of one of the two people in the cockpit of the test aircraft.

What happens is the creation of a strong, high pressure "donut" around the prop with low pressure behind the spinner. Air moves toward the spinner, now having higher pressure at the spinner than in the cowl. Air moves into the cowl with lower pressure out the cowl flaps. Hence, better airflow with the run-up done dead downwind.

If facing into the wind, none of this happens and no more air moves through the cowl than if the engine is off. It's a head-shaker, but that's what the data showed.

They taxied back from the runup bay thinking something was severely wrong, turned out it was just the belief of preconceived ideas that was wrong.

You can email him if you wish. walter 'at' advancedpilot.com, he set up the camera under the cowl. When you get it straight from the horses mouth, prove yourself wrong and post it here.

If George Braly was not so busy I would suggest calling him. [ed. Civility violation. Last sentence removed by me. dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lycoming and Continental both know that and have researched it a lot more than Mike Bush. They set the limits where they did because even it the metel gets softer, it still is strong enough to hold together.

Check one of Mike's webinars. You'll find out that Mike doesn't cite Mike's research when coming up with this number. He cites a gentleman (whose name I can't remember) in Kansas (I think) who has researched this.

I use 400 as a guide, mostly because I haven't been given a compelling reason not to.

But what about primer? Should I use it? (g)

Keep laughing, fellas. Life is short.


Someone-is-wrong-on-internet.jpg
 
Last edited:
But what about primer? Should I use it? (g)

Keep laughing, fellas. Life is short.

Yes, don't you know you'll fall out of the sky if you don't use primer? Oh, and I thought a slider has always been far superior to your tip-up. That is what I read on the internet anyway.
 
Mike Busch is a great speaker and a good salesman. That doesn't mean he knows more than Lycoming does about Lycoming engines. His 'service' which I will not be renewing, spent weeks looking at my data and sent me on wild goose chase after chase trying to find a cold start problem that was diagnosed on this forum in 5 minutes from one posted EGT chart. Sticking valves. Even after finding the sticking valve problem and correcting it...Savvy argued with me that it wasn't the problem. When you spin a prop by hand and there is no compression....until the valve clicks closed...the valve was sticking. Very underwhelmed by their 'expertise'.

Mike Busch is a resource, but to nullify an engine manufacturers numbers because of something Mike said...that's just silly. Run your engine any way that makes you happy of course.
 
Regarding CHT over 400 F.

Regardless of who you believe, keep in mind that there is a huge difference between spending just a few minutes in a climb with CHT's slightly over 400 F., and hours on end at reduced power cruising with them over 400 F.
An RV with an even marginal level of install quality on the baffling / cooling system should be able to cruise with CHT's below 400, so if that is the case, you need to fix something. If the problem is just occasional short excursions over 400 then I would not categorize it as a problem.
My personal O-360 powered RV-6A does this. I think a contributing factor is the ECI millennium cylinders I have. I do not think they cool quite as well as Lycoming cyl.
 
I am no engine expert by any means and not to defend anybody but my Lycoming O360 manual states on page 3-6:

"For maximum service life, cylinder head temperatures should be maintained below 435dF (224dC) during high performance cruise operation and below 400dF (205dC) for economy cruise operation."

I operate mostly at economy cruise so I keep the CHT's below 400dF but don't get too concerned if they climb slightly above that for brief periods during a climb.

:cool:
 
Ahhh, Walter and George, two very bright guys. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that the subject was George's Bonanza, and the "certification" was the Liquidair STC?

Here is a cross section of Walter's donut, data taken from CR3405, total pressure distribution behind the prop disk as measured with a rake. Note that distribution rises from about 0.85 Qfreestream to about 1.1~1.2 near the outer edge of the cowl.



The inboard flow in Walter's theory depends on that gradient. With that in mind, consider the pressure distribution across the Bonanza's 1950's cowl inlet, as compared to a design based on more recent data (CR3405 being one source):





The old style includes significant inlet area near and even behind the spinner, where pressure would be very low. A design with inlets moved outboard and upward, combined with a sealed propshaft region, would not offer nearly so much gradient. The whole point of such an inlet placement is to position the inlet in a more favorable region of the propwash, and to flatten the gradient across the inlet itself.

Such an inlet is not going to respond to relative wind direction the same as the subject Bonanza. In fact, the response would vary considerably based on a number of additional factors. Differences in blade root airfoil and fore and aft proximity of the blade to the inlet would be good examples. Better cooling on the runup pad by facing downwind is not valid as a general statement.

But don't take my word for it, as Walter has written on the subject. Here's a whole version, circa 2004. In particular, note the last several paragraphs.

As has been correctly noted, all airflow is only from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. Take the condition suggested here: Wind 360 @ 10 knots. With the wind directly pointed AT the nose of the airplane, the angle of attack on the moving air by the prop near the hub will be very low, if not zero. Very little air moves into the cowl since there is no real high pressure developed. The air movement is nearly the same with the engine OFF as with it running--10 knots. Not much.

Now, turn the aircraft 180 degrees to the wind. The angle of attack of the relative wind against the prop is now very high. The wind is coming around the fuselage and hitting the prop tips at a very high angle of attack. This results in a large thrust vector and high pressure area in a donut-type shape around the nose of the airplane as Barry and Del noted. The low pressure areas are outboard of the prop arc and behind the spinner and inside the cowl. The prop blast moves toward these low pressure areas. As soon as the air pressure moves behind the spinner, it chases the low pressure area in the cowl and in the air goes! There is a low pressure below the cowls since the prop blast below the airplane is creating low pressure in the cowl flaps. The air chases that low presure and the air movement is on out of the cowl flaps. The air moves from front to back through the cowl.

With any angle other than directly downwind or directly into the wind there is essentially NO air movement under the cowl! Essentially, none! That was a surprise.

So, the correct answer is that directly downwind gives the most cooling, with directly into the wind second (the same with the engine running or not running!) and essentially no cooling air movement at any other angle.

We watched this in amazment as we taxiied around in a circle. The tufts would be limp at all headings other than directly into the wind and dead downwind. There was a little tuft movement when INTO the wind and the tufts would stand out straight with a LOT of air movement when we passed through dead downwind. I do run-ups into the wind unless the OAT is very high, then I do them dead downwind to help keep CHTs under control on the ground. Sometimes it gets some interesting remarks from the tower! <g>

There's nothing like measuring and observing something to find out what's really happening!

This is true on a tricyle gear airplane as the prop is basically 90 degrees to the ground. This effect is NOT observed in taildraggers. In taildraggers, the only position that gives any air movement is INTO the wind. Also, there are serious prop-stress issues which result when doing runups at ANY angle other than directly INTO the wind in a taildragger. Stay directly INTO the wind in a taildragger.

Walter Atkinson
Advanced Pilot Seminars

 
Neurons

Little did I know, my departure from Tucson to the high country north... would get so many neurons firing. Great input though.... thanks guys.
 
let me repeat the post from page two with some highlights.


And pointing into wind may not be the best for airflow!

Yes that is counter intuitive.

But until you have tufted your engine, including piano wire hanging tufts and put a video camera in there you will never know.

I can't speak for the entire GA fleet, but tests done by a famous FAA DER and certification company found that sitting into wind actually gave no airflow and tail into wind created airflow. Yep…..that is not a misprint.

DanH is the resident airflow tester, I wonder if he has done these tests.

(Again, non civil language removed MJS)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DanH is the resident airflow tester, I wonder if he has done these tests.

As before, no, but it is interesting. Air always flows from high pressure to low pressure, so we need only record pressure differential, which only requires the little digital manometer and two total pressure probes (two lengths of 1/8" PVC tube with diffusers on the ends so they don't register impact pressure). Put one in the upper cowl volume and the other in the lower cowl volume, then connect them both to the manometer ports. Point into the wind and then downwind. The orientation with the higher number on the manometer has the most cooling flow across the engine. The actual values will be small, which is why I suggest a digital manometer.

How small? Here's a clue. My notes only record two on-the-runup-pad pressure differential measurements, taken about 4 years ago. The pressure taps were in the oil cooler entrance and exit ducts. The differential across the cooler was about 1" H2O at 1450 RPM during warmup. Other notes suggest the cooler is more restrictive than the engine fins; inflight measurements suggest that the cooler pressure differential runs 30~50% higher than the plenum differential at the same airspeeds (5.5 vs 3.5 at 120kias, and 12.2 vs 8.5 at 165ktas). With mine, I'd expect something in the 0.5" ballpark for plenum differential measurements at idle. I have no idea what to expect with an old Bonanza.
 
Wow, all this is very interesting. Although every one seems to forget that cooling depends more on how much of the hot air you can get rid of. It is pointless to have an abundance of cool air comming into the air inlets, but if you cant get rid of the hot air you would have a high CHT regardless of how big your cowl inlets are.
 
One more data point to chuck into the campfire: I flew a Grumman Tiger for a few years. That thing NEVER saw cht's below 400 on 3 out of 4 cylinders. My partner and I overhauled the engine at just over 2000 hrs when it became obvious we were going to have to do at least a top OH. Same temps on the new cylinders after. Mr. Lopresti did a great job making the Tiger fast, but cooling was a problem on the design.

Did I like the fact that I saw those temps on every flight (when it wasn't winter, that is)? Not a bit. Are Tigers known for exhaust valve problems? Definitely. But having said that, that engine went to full tbo twice. So, going back to the original post, if I saw 430 degrees on the runway after a long pre-takeoff hold, and I was in my old Tiger, I would certainly have taken off. If I aborted under those conditions, that bird would never have made it into the air. If, however, I was in my 6A, in which I have yet to see temps over 350, and normal is low 300's, I would be very concerned and would have aborted, because those temps would be very unusual in THAT airplane, and I'd want to know for sure what the issue was before launching; 430 degrees isn't necessarily a no-go in and of itself, but the aberration from the norm would be a cause for concern. Context is everything.
 
Back
Top