What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Are high MAP and low RPM settings safe?

C

Camillo

Well Known Member
I finished my RV-9A nearly three years ago.
Since then I fly mainly @3.000 feet @ 21 MAP and 2.350 RPM with 120 knots indicated and 25/26 liters per hour fuel burn.
I like the low noise 2.350 RPM and don't like to see 35 liters on fuel flow.
I am also slightly disappointed to be 20+ knots away from Van's published speed.

So, now that I am building the -4 I looked again at the engine/propeller selection section and I found something I already knew but I didn't focused on. Van's says that the main advantage of a C/S propeller is selecting high MAP and low RPM, thus saving fuel and reducing engine wear, the added value of a C/S being the possibility to achieve less than 75% power at altitudes lower than 8000 feet wihout reducing MAP.

Now, I tried to have full MAP (28+) and reducing RPM but I am a bit afraid to go under 2300 RPM. There is an old story about non going with RPM below the MAP (if 25 then not below 2500; if 21 not below 2100, etc...).

Before attempting the ultimate test (28 MAP and 2200 or less RPM) to achieve the best compromise, is this procedure harmful fon the engine?

Thanks.
Camillo
 
Couple of things:

Vans numbers are for 75% power at 7500 feet.

Since then I fly mainly @3.000 feet @ 21 MAP and 2.350 RPM with 120 knots indicated
Click to expand...

Your setting is nowhere near 75% power and at 3000 feet your are not at optimum altitude for efficiency. Try the published numbers in your airplane and I know you'll be within a mile or two of published numbers.
Take into account some of the airspeed and pitot/static installation errors.

There is an old story about non going with RPM below the MAP (if 25 then not below 2500; if 21 not below 2100, etc...).
Click to expand...

You are correct, it is an old story and in my book an old wife's tale.
The issue however has not been settled and probably never will, think primer war.

Flying over square is not harmful to my engine but to each his own.
 
Oversquare power settings

I would encourage you to acquire a copy of the Lycoming O-320 Operators Manual. The part number is 60297-30, and can be purchased from AERO in stock or downloaded from various web sites. Loads of power settings both high and low are just fine including many that are "over square" and if you use the ones laid out in the operators manual the engine will live a long happy life. Good luck, Russ
 
Last edited:
The O-360 operators manual lists power settings as much as 8" over square, but also, take into account that these are ROP power settings and cylinder pressures. If you fly it LOP, the peak cylinder pressure is less, so to the cylinder it is like running lower MP. Below about 50% power, MP and RPM are meaningless, there is no setting that can harm it. Set power with FF and limit to 75% anyways. I leave the throttle firewalled and only have to back off for cruise below 1500', or if trying to get less than 50% power.

The exception being a counterweighted crank spun at 1800 RPM or less might cause issues.
 
AK4x4 said:
I would encourage to acquire a copy of the Lycoming O-320 Operators Manual.
Click to expand...

+1 Look at the "Limiting Manifold Pressure" line on the power chart; it is MP vs RPM at best power mixture, meaning the 100-200 ROP ballpark.

The limiting factor appears to be detonation. Here's an example from a Lycoming detonation survey, an IO360 angle valve running 28.6/2400, at maximum temperatures per the certification standards. As most would expect, the worst detonation is around 50 ROP, but the zone runs from roughly 100 ROP to 100 LOP.

2d9z9fl.jpg


Note the test was run at 20 degrees ignition advance. More advance, more compression, lower octane, or a combustion chamber with less squish or turbulence would all reduce the detonation margin. Lower CHT and/or intake temperatures would increase the margin.
 
Also make sure you know and follow what if any power settings your propeller manufacture restricts with your engine/prop combination.
 
Check out Mike Busch's latest webinar on flying economical in a $7 avgas world. It addresses the issue. Very good.
 
Russ McCutcheon said:
Also make sure you know and follow what if any power settings your propeller manufacture restricts with your engine/prop combination.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything posted so far. I quoted Russ's post because it is an important one. Some of the metal props have specific restrictions on some high power / low RPM ranges (but I am not aware of any for the O-320).
 
Thanks. The O-320 and the Hartzell C/S propeller, matched together, don't have RPM limitations.

I should have said also that to achieve Van's numbers I had to increase MAP. And I did. See photo below. I was conservative with RPMs. That's why I wrote.

2wc2p8g.jpg
 
You are comparing numbers at your 2500 feet of altitude vs. Vans
published numbers at 8000 feet .
There is a world of difference in speed, try it.
 
First of all, the concept of over square is a myth. Think about this for a minute, the big supercharged radials were up around 60" of MP so how over square was that?

Secondly your indicated and hence TAS could be in error by a lot. Your static port may not be truly static. Do a GPS box test and compare the numbers. Kevin Horton has some great posts on here about doing it.

For more education this thread http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=75132

Or sign up for the online course at www.advancedpilot.com as I assume you are not in the USA or Australia. Mind you a quick trip to Sydney for next weekend would do it.
 
DanH said:
+1 Look at the "Limiting Manifold Pressure" line on the power chart; it is MP vs RPM at best power mixture, meaning the 100-200 ROP ballpark.

The limiting factor appears to be detonation. Here's an example from a Lycoming detonation survey, an IO360 angle valve running 28.6/2400, at maximum temperatures per the certification standards. As most would expect, the worst detonation is around 50 ROP, but the zone runs from roughly 100 ROP to 100 LOP.

2d9z9fl.jpg


Note the test was run at 20 degrees ignition advance. More advance, more compression, lower octane, or a combustion chamber with less squish or turbulence would all reduce the detonation margin. Lower CHT and/or intake temperatures would increase the margin.
Click to expand...

I've seen these before. Do you have any more, and higher resolution?
 
Aren't us fixed pitch prop guys running over square?

On takeoff I regularly see 28" and 2200 RPM.

In cruise at 75% I see 22.5" and 2670 down low (4000 feet DA) truing out at 165 to 170 kts. (It all depends on which data point I look at.)
 
The engine manual defines what MAP and RPM ranges are acceptable.
Generally, above 25" one has to watch what the RPM is.
 
Generally, above 25" one has to watch what the RPM is.
Click to expand...

What so no take off at 30.2" any more?

You statement is only helping reinforce the OWT's.

Now is there anything wrong with 30" and 1800 RPM? Well it depends. Do not do this ROP, but on descent and LOP (prob >90dF LOP) and usually this is an on descent power in a TC/TN aeroplane or 20-30" (as altitude decreases) and 1800 RPM in a NA aeroplane.

Engine management is not something anyone can teach in a internet forum post. Heck APS do it better than anybody, actually nobody else does it, and it takes 2.5 days. So I understand why this may not be easy to accept or understand, based on one this one post. But if you want to learn for yourself with real data, you can.
 
All of the flying schools and those with fixed pitch props at lower attitudes run over square on each take off. No damage to the engine and these engines are abused but they still make TBO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top