LOP - Do's and Don'ts

[RV8R999]

Why is Deakin more an authority than Lycoming? I'm very interested in hearing this rationalization...

[John Clark]

Originally Posted by RV8R999

Why is Deakin more an authority than Lycoming? I'm very interested in hearing this rationalization...

See Hans' post #109. A lot of research and genuine science went into Deakin's writings. The test cell work done by "GAMI" (short for "General Aviation Modifications, Inc.," of Ada, Oklahoma,) was the basis for Deakin's writing on engine management. I suggest reading the whole series and compare it to Lycoming's probably-written-by-an-attorney advice. Rationalization? not really, just good science.


John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

[Ironflight]

Originally Posted by John Clark

See Hans' post #109. A lot of research and genuine science went into Deakin's writings. The test cell work done by "GAMI" (short for "General Aviation Modifications, Inc.," of Ada, Oklahoma,) was the basis for Deakin's writing on engine management. I suggest reading the whole series and compare it to Lycoming's probably-written-by-an-attorney advice. Rationalization? not really, just good science.

I agree completely with John - Deakin is quoting some very good research done by the guys at GAMI, and I subscribe to a lot of what he says about running Lycs LOP. That said, it should be noted (and Deakin notes this himself somewhere), that most of their work applies DIRECTLY to the larger Lycs and Continentals, many of which are turbocharged, and are known to be easily toasted and otherwise damaged by improper operating technique. It has been my anecdotal experience that the four-bangers are pretty rugged and forgiving of abuse, so long as that abuse isn't dished out at close to 100% Power. Lycoming themselves say that at 65% or below, you can't damage the engine no matter where you run the mixture. of course, I have not seen the science that came up with that number....

Paul

[bignose]

Originally Posted by nucleus

Deakin backs his recommendations with science, Lycoming doesn't. That is why Deakin's recommendations are not dogma and Lycoming's are.

Hans

Lycoming is building bullet proof aircraft engines for more than 100 years now.
Certainly they have their own scientific department employing the best engineers you can get...
It's like willing to teach Victorinox how to build military knifes ... or Peterbilt how to make truks and Caterpillar their Bulldozers.

[RVbySDI]

Originally Posted by bignose

Lycoming is building bullet proof aircraft engines for more than 100 years now.
Certainly they have their own scientific department employing the best engineers you can get...
It's like willing to teach Victorinox how to build military knifes ... or Peterbilt how to make truks and Caterpillar their Bulldozers.

Comparisons of "Building" to "Operating" a product are comparing apples and oranges. Telling "Peterbilt how to make truks and Caterpillar their Bulldozers" is not the issue here. No one is discussing the issue of telling Lycoming how to build aircraft engines. This discussion is about how to operate those engines.

[David Z]

Lycoming's reputation is dependant on how the engines are operated.

Lycoming is going to tell us to operate them the best way possible to ensure long engine life and maintain their reputation.

Not everybody has CHT and EGT gauges, yet alone one on every cylinder. That increases the risk of LOP so Lycoming doesn't recommend it.

[RVbySDI]

Originally Posted by David Z

Lycoming's reputation is dependant on how the engines are operated.

Lycoming is going to tell us to operate them the best way possible to ensure long engine life and maintain their reputation.

Not everybody has CHT and EGT gauges, yet alone one on every cylinder. That increases the risk of LOP so Lycoming doesn't recommend it.

I agree with your statement. Lycoming is going to give out directions with the motivation in mind to protect their reputation as you say. True, true.

However, as more substantiated evidence reveals details that show the effectiveness and viability of running engines LOP it is only going to become clearer that the decision by Lycoming to come out against running their engine LOP is being driven by business motivations and not operational limitations of the engines to be able to successfully run LOP without adverse effects.