cjensen

Well Known Member
Ok, as promised in the Eggenfellner thread, here's the article word for word copied from my copy in pdf format-

(It's too long, so it continues in the second post of this thread)

The ?NEW? Old Leaning Technique



There are many ?experts? today with new products and techniques to help customers in the operation of their engines. One that is receiving public attention by way of aggressive advertising is a company manufacturing fuel injection nozzles and espousing an operating technique that is ?better? than that recommended by the engine manufacturer. The newly discovered method of operating on the lean side of peak exhaust gas temperature has been known since Charles Lindbergh employed it to navigate the Atlantic Ocean and Max Conrad established distance records in his Comanche. This procedure was employed on large supercharged and turbocharged radial engines effectively during the era of large transport aircraft such as the Lockheed Constellation and Douglas D-6. Of course those of you who are knowledgeable about that part of aviation history know that there was a full time member of the flight crew, the Flight Engineer, responsible for engine management. He did not have to worry about flying the airplane or dealing with complicated ATC clearance instructions. There was a full panel of engine instruments and controls directly in front of him, including a detonation monitoring system and, in some installations, a torquemeter to avoid critical operational areas.



Operating on the lean side of peak exhaust temperature (EGT) or turbine inlet temperature (TIT) involves leaning the engine until EGT or TIT reaches a maximum and starts to decline. Theoretically it is the area of the combustion regime that corresponds to best economy (most miles per gallon). Lycoming recommends cruise operation at peat EGT or TIT, which is the point where the best economy range starts. For optimum service life, Lycoming suggest operating 50 degrees rich of peak EGT or TIT. On an engine like the TIO-540-AE2A, this translates into a difference in cruse fuel economy of approximately 2-3 gallons per hour compared with peak or lean of peak operation.



Operating lean of peak results in substantial reduction power output, more that 8% from that obtained with best power fuel flow. If leaning is initiated at 75% power and continued through 50 degree F lean side of peak, the actual power output at that point will be approximately 69%. No wonder the indicated fuel flow shows a dramatic reduction. Although the fuel economy seems attractive, the aircraft cruise suffers. To keep from wallowing through the sky, proponents encourage opening the throttle once leaned to regain lost power.



This is where the plot begins to thicken. There is a big difference between normally aspirated and turbocharged engines when employing this technique. With a normally aspirated engine, if leaning is initiated at 75% power and leaning past peak EGT is accomplished, it is unlikely (but not impossible) to induce detonation by opening the throttle to regain power. In our initial examples, both Lindberg and Conrad were operation engines that had little potential for detonation based on the fuel they were using. A highly turbocharged engine is another matter. Employing this same technique will put the engine into a narrow operating envelope where detonation is possible if the mixture is richened slightly. The only reason the engine does not experience detonation is that the mixture is too lean to support it. At this point, there are a number of factures that can assume control over your engine and cause problems. If the initial leaning is not accomplished carefully it is possible that the engine is not really set at 50 degrees lean of peak where intended. Properly leaning an engine is undoubtedly the least understood too area of power management. Most pilots lean too fast when looking for peak, thus they overshoot. Instead of moving the mixture lever gradually, the exercise becomes a series of rapid movements that ultimately fails to arrive at the correct setting. The best technique to establish peak EGT or TIT is to lean in small increments and allow time for the temperature to stabilize after each lever movement. Continuous movement of the mixture control lever should be avoided since it does not allow for adequate stabilizations time. That there are not more problems resulting from improper mixture control is because considerable margin is built in through the development and certification process. With turbocharged powerplants, the potential for causing engine damage through mismanagement is much grater. Remember that those large radial powerplants used as examples for the lean of peak methodology were cautiously operated at cruise powers of 65% and below where the possibility of bad results was greatly reduced.



During the attempt at power recovery, it is a major assumption that opening the throttle to regain power will not cause a richening of the mixture. Unfortunately, some fuel metering units tend to provide richer fuel schedules as the throttle is opened and manifold pressure is increased. This phenomenon is not discouraged since it helps promote engine cooling at high powers. Sometimes the amount of enrichment may vary from unit to unit. When adding manifold pressure on the lean side of peat TIT, this tendency could be catastrophic if the mixture richens significantly from the original desired set point.



Also, opening the throttle increases the pressure ration across the turbocharger compressor which in turn, raises the induction air temperature and decreases the air density. This decreased in induction air density will effectively result in a richer mixture. The expert says that operating lean of peak safeguards our engine in the event of a plugged fuel nozzle. Apparently, the expert does not understand how current Precision Airmotive Airmotive fuel injection systems really operate. Fuel in metered at the servo, then sent to the fuel nozzle. Plugging a nozzle actually results in sending more fuel to the remaining open nozzles. This essentially richens the mixture and may be enough to move one or more of the cylinders into detonation. Unfortunately, many of these variables are out of the control of the operator who is relying on the premise that this is just a simple leaning technique.



As the last strike, once the engine has been established in the lean of peak condition, and the throttle has been advanced for power recovery, there is no means to confirm that the mixture is properly leaned. The only way would be to richen the mixture to confirm peak TIT. This could move the engine in detonation. It is also not possible to confirm what margin remains between the setting and the onset of detonation. Detonation is not necessarily marked by the characteristic rattling or pinging readily identifiably by the operator. Instead it may be occasional or sporadic but still with the same potential for causing serious engine damage. The lean of peak methodology places strong emphasis on proper pilot techniques, accurate, calibrated engine instrumentation, and does not allow for confirmation of the proper mixture setting. Any lapse in either can be financially costly or worse.


Contiued below...
 
Last edited:
Lycoming is in complete agreement that if is possible to operate an engine on he lean side of peak TIT. It is done on engines in Lycomings well instrumented Experimental Test laboratory every day. There is nothing detrimental in operating an engine in this manner. However, Lycoming can attest to the fact that things that work well in the test laboratory have not always proven successful in service. In the sales literature provided for this ?new? technique, it is stated that Lycoming recommended this operational procedure in an owner?s manual that dates back to the late ?60?s?. No mention is made why it is no longer recommended on their present engines. That fact is that the technique of operating lean of peak and power recovery was discontinued due to the resulting increase in service issues. Burned pistons, valves, ruined rod and main bearing were traced to the inability of pilots to utilize this technique with the instrumentations and distractions found in the typical general aviation aircraft. If Lycoming felt that this was indeed an efficient and reliable method of operating, you can be sure that it would be in their recommended procedures. Contrary to some beliefs, neither the automotive or aircraft engine manufactures are in secret collusion with the oil companies to drive up fuel consumption. The end customer might be assured that if there is a problem resulting from engine mismanagement, the ?experts? with their fuel nozzles and leaning recommendations will not be offering to pay the warranty policy in the event of a problem, the answer came back that this is regarded as a ?improper operation of the part of the operator?. If you have a problem resulting from operation according to the expert?s recommendations he does not intend to cover your repair or replacement costs.



Lycoming piston aircraft engines are rugged and withstand a lot above and beyond their normal operating requirements. The operating procedures that Lycoming recommends combined techniques that have been found to promote good engine service life and accommodated normal pilot skills. Lycoming does not custom design operations instructions for each pilot skill level or individual aircraft based on instrumentations. Today, pilots must contend with higher traffic levels and more complex ATC demands that reduce the attention time for powerplant management. Electronic engine controls that are currently being developed will allow operation in ranges not feasible today due to full time computer monitoring. In the meantime when one of the ?experts? tells you how to operate your engine better that what the factory recommends, exercise extreme caution. It?s easy for someone to recommend new techniques whey they have no obligation to cover the warranty or out of pocket cost if there are problems down the road.



Operating an engine ?on the edge? is possible provided the pilot is extremely precise, has good instrumentations, and monitors the engine condition full time. For 98% of the pilots, it is an invitation to potential trouble. It only takes one brief episode of mismanagement to incur deep internal damage that will cost money later. Most people do not even realize when it happens since the engine continues to operate without any sign of distress. For a highly turbocharged engine, the supposed fuel savings amounts to $4.00-6.00 per hour. Considering the total operating expense for a high performance aircraft, is the small saving if fuel cost worth the price of an engine? You do not need to ask the ?expert? for help with that one.





Experts are Everywhere to help you

Lycoming SSP700
 
Last edited:
Interesting

And they make a couple of good points.

Firstly Lycoming is in complete agreement that LOP operation is a perfectly acceptable thing to do...Cool!

Secondly there seems to be more of a risk of mismanagment on Turboe'd engines...also cool as most of us are normally aspirated.

Thirdly if the MP is pushed up to recover some power we are not necessarily at the mixture point.

I flew about an hour LOP last night and they are right in practice it is tricky to find peak EGT...With my somewhat imbalanced FI system there was an urgency to get there because some of my pots were spending a lot of time in the danger zone. I also found it was much better to do this above 8000ft, and then to keep a constant altitude...I.e keep the MP constant and the throttle wide open.

I also was much more comfortable finding peak EGT from the lean side. I.e at say 24 squared I found the engine would run rough at about 6.8GPH..>So I pulled the mixture to 6.8GPH and richened very slowly from there.

The Dynon tells you when you get there and then you can lean back.

I think that providing you don't start adjusting other things (throttle, prop, altitude) and you do it carefully it should be right where you put it.

With my hot pot #4 I found I ran at 100FLOP to get the head temps down....Not the most efficient place according to the power chart...Gonna have to mess with my baffles I think.

Thatnks for posting the article Chad.

Frank
 
I'm not sure if this was mentioned in the original thread, but Lycoming has the white paper available as a pdf here:

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/engineOperationTips/SSP700A.pdf

It is worth viewing because of the single included chart. It's nice because when you put aside all the stuff about clueless pilots being overwhelmed by ATC, the numbers are still there.

In that light, it would be nice if Lycoming would provide a technical explanation as to why 50 ROP, which is clearly quite close to peak CHT and pressure, is a recommended lean. The paper makes the argument that a cyl might be 'too rich', pushing it from LOP to this just ROP danger zone, but wholly skips the concept that EGT/TIT may not reprepsent the leanest cyl, and 50 ROP might put a cyl in this danger zone as well.

They might have a good explanation (aside from better economy/performance figures for plane makers), but they are not sharing it. In the mean time, I'll keep running turbo Lycomings with a lone stock TIT gauge a 100 degrees richer and a heck of a lot cooler. Fuel isn't cheap and I don't feel great about pouring out all that lead, but top overhauls are still a lot more expensive.

-jjf
 
Whoever wrote that document should be embarrassed.
Yes. Lots of rhetoric and precious little else. There are several GA planes where LOP is recommended. The Piper Malibu is one. My Cessna 182 is another. Following the procedures in the POH for economy cruise puts me at about 10-70 degrees LOP, depending on the cylinder. Flew ABQ-BJC at 11,500 a while ago on 26 gallons and CHTs down around 330. Engine was smooth.

As a small data point, the first run on my cylinders was 650 hours ROP and the exhaust valves were leaking. At top overhaul time a JPI EDM-700 was installed and I learned that where I used to run the engine (ROP) resulted in CHTs well over 400 DF, but the factory gauge still showed middle of the green. Have another 700 on the second run LOP and all is well.

Dave
 
Last edited:
See, here's the thing. When you finish your airplane and start flying it, you can operate your engine however you see fit! You don't have to answer to anybody but yourself. You don't have to "comply" with any methodologies you don't agree with (other than the regs, um, most of the time), and for sure you don't have to follow advice from any of these posts (mine or George's or Yukon's anybody else's)! Do it YOUR way. If you think Lycoming's word is gospel, by all means stick to it. If you think you found your own religion...all the power to ya.

(Today on the way over to LOE, I was running just barely LOP at 17,500' burning 5.6gph getting 33-36 mpg, albeit freezing my hasselhoff.)
 
Some non contributing, inappropriate, and inflamatory messages have been removed from this string. Please refrain from flaming people, ideas, information, manufacturers, and products. Personal experiences are helpful, but hearsay is not. Often there is contrary opinion. Present it in a positive and objective tone.

Roberta
 
It does not say that and Contenental is not a Lycoming

dan said:
See, here's the thing. When you finish your airplane and start flying it, you can operate your engine however you see fit! You don't have to answer to anybody but yourself. You don't have to "comply" with any methodologies you don't agree with (other than the regs, um, most of the time), and for sure you don't have to follow advice from any of these posts (mine or George's or Yukon's anybody else's)! Do it YOUR way. If you think Lycoming's word is gospel, by all means stick to it. If you think you found your own religion...all the power to ya.

(Today on the way over to LOE, I was running just barely LOP at 17,500' burning 5.6gph getting 33-36 mpg, albeit freezing my hasselhoff.)
Dan it has nothing to do with religion, but I do agree with you, you are free to operate as you sees fit, amen. I don't think the word according to SSP700 says you can't or should not do LOP Op's, only there can be drawbacks. Your engine and airframe seems to be especially tuned well for LOP and think that is great; it makes you a good preacher for this method of operation, but please don't make those who can not operate LOP or are not comfortable feel we belong to the wrong "religion". :D

David Johnson said:
Whoever wrote that document should be embarrassed.
Yes. Lots of rhetoric and precious little else. There are several GA planes where LOP is recommended. The Piper Malibu is one. My Cessna 182 is another. Following the procedures in the POH for economy cruise puts me at about 10-70 degrees LOP, depending on the cylinder. Flew ABQ-BJC at 11,500 a while ago on 26 gallons and CHTs down around 330. Engine was smooth.
David the quote you utilized was one of the ones "robertahegy" deleted. It's inflammatory and respectfully submit that Lycoming has the right and even the obligation to write about engine operation with out words like rhetoric and religion, implying that it's baseless.

To just dismiss it as rhetoric with out supporting data and info, other than you do it with a Continental O470, O540 or IO540, does not really help or apply small 4 banger drivers. Your C182's TCM engine, although a direct drive, air-cooled, 4-stroke engine, similar to a Lycoming, are indeed different and dare say better suited for LOP, for one due to 6 jugs. Are there other differences in LOP op's on a TCM v. Lyc. Possibly, I don't have the data, but Lycoming does.

Anyone can e-mail them Lyc or give them a call if you have a spacific question. It's free and you have nothing to loose. If you don't want to hear their side and dismiss it, than that's a choice to make. They do not say never, you can't operate LOP, just that it has drawbacks. Lycoming has offered LOP experts to the factory in PA to look at data and tests. They declined. I am not Pro or Con, just into full disclosure.

My contribution to the conversation is one size does not fit all. If any pilot feels they are equipped both in knowledge and instrumentation to achieve smooth safe LOP operation, than by all means do it as Dan said. Of course.

Before we get into a rehashed debate, again I repeat no one has said you can't operate LOP, no one, only that there are some potential pit falls. I think Lyc is trying to educate folks on LOP, that is all. They don't "SELL" education, it is free. They are not selling a weekend seminar.

There is no reason to call those who don't use LOP as ignorant or "should be embarrassed" for their rhetoric, implying it's unsupportable. That is not worthy of critical thinking. Again do as you like, LOP does work, and don't feel bad if you don't want or feel you can't physically achieve smooth LOP ops with your engine (with an acceptable delta of egt peeks); there are lots of engines like this.
 
Last edited:
It's a shame that The "Experts are Everywhere" document isn't even compatible with Lycoming's own data. The basis of the article is that LOP ops are OK, and they work, but we're all too stupid to do it right. You might find that insulting. No one from Lycoming has ever offered to show us any data to the contrary--that includes the top management in a meeting we had with them. Anyone who claims that Lycoming has invited us to see any data beyond what they publish is mistaken and it is a misleading statement. No such invitation has been offered. We did offer to have them come to see these effects on the most advanced engine test facility in the world and see these things for themselves. They have not taken us up on that offer.


1) LOP is safer than ROP operation. To those who suggest otherwise, please give an example whereby LOP ops are dangerous. ONE example will do. In ten years, no one has offered one. Maybe today is the day.

2) LOP ops do require a conforming engine to be smooth... but your engine should be set up right even if you fly ROP. Many are not.

3) Lycoming really blew it when they put the part in there about the MP add-back danger. It as been PROVEN multiple times that when you are LOP and add MP in a Lycoming engine the mixture gets leaner (as it should), not richer as Lycoming claims. This lack of undertanding of their own fuel system and how it works is not confidence-inspiring. We told them about that BEFORE they published that document and they chose to leave it incorrectly referenced.

4) There is nothing wrong with ROP operation--as long as it's done correctly and rich enough.

5) You need an engine monitor MUCH moreso if you fly ROP, than if you fly LOP. If the engine runs smoothly LOP, it is guaranteed that it is a conforming engine. A poorly set-up engine oftentimes will still run smoothly ROP and not let you know that something is wrong. There are many examples of this.

6) I'm not charging anyone for any of the above information. Has anyone here paid anything for any of the information I have provided on this forum? The facts are the facts whether they are free or come at expense. For those who are interested in a very detailed education on these topics, there is a tuition-based course. That should be a surprise to no one. Are you really expecting me to pay you to educate you? Karl Marx would have liked that approach.

Walter
 
Last edited:
Every POH in every aircraft I fly reccomends leaning until engine roughness. This happens somewhere LOP for me, all the time, carb, FI or whatever. Yes, the RPM drops slightly before, but RPM drop and engine roughness are not the same thing.

Once again, this leaves me scratching my head what all the fuss is about and when did this become such a hot debate. What has suddenly changed?
 
Conforming or not so much?

Thanks George, Walter, and Dan for sharing your knowledge and views.

Walter writes, "If the engine runs smoothly LOP, it is guaranteed that it is a conforming engine." My engine will run smoothly with the richest cylinder 150 deg. lean of peak per UBG-16. So, it would seem to be "conforming".

My engine is a parallel valve IO360 with 9.5:1 CR, Lightspeed III, GAMIs, Vetterman, and Sensenich 72FM (dyn. bal.). So, it would not seem to be conforming to an existing type certificate.

I've read everything I can find on the internet about LOP. Sometimes, I find something refer to a "conforming engine". I then read less carefully b/c I've assumed (bad on me!) that my engine is not conforming and that the info is, therefore, less applicable to me.

Does conformity involve performance? Or parts?

I do not mean to nit-pick. Rather, I am curious about how much I've missed by not reading carefully after an author uses the term "conforming".

Thanks for any help.

Monte
 
Good post

Monte good reply and you as well, jcoloccia.

The "company line" with Lyc and overides all their operational info, which is consistent, is operate with in limits: oil temps, CHT, RPM and relative to this discussion.

LOP operations is one thing, but than its LOP ops above 75%. I understand the reason why LOP above 75% is "OK", and it results in lower engine temps and internal pressure than ROP at or below 75% power. Its all true, but the savings in a IO320 is small.

For you Monte you have a LOT OF $$$$$$ involved in your engine, we all do. You built that engine, not as an economy car but a sports car. Does a Ferrari driver ask what the gas mileage is? Unless you have you spacific engine and installation tested (test cell with fancy instruments), you have no idea what the best and safety way to operate is. BTW, detonation is not catastrophic as some point out, it's true. However its impossible to really detect, and if left long enough, you will eventually shorten the engine life. It's also possible detonation can lead to pre-ignition at some point (spark plug damage). Severe detonation can damage bearings. The important point is you DON'T KNOW for sure. So as a protection you operate more conservatively. Trying to get more power with less fuel with your HOT engine has possible ramifications. The no free lunch rule. WHAT ARE THOSE ramifications? I don't know? You have to test your engine on a stand with some test instruments. Walter will tell you that your in danger using a Light-speed ignition, which has been successfully used for over 10 years on lots of planes. Since your engine is really a ONE OF KIND custom engine, the expert opinions on how to fly a Bonanza do not apply to you necessarily.

Lycomings recommendatins include one key, which I think is important LOP or ROP, is power, percent power. We don't need fancy instruments, just RPM and MAP to estimate power. Per Lycs long standing recommendations, if you are below 75% you can lean. The EI timing advance also does not start till about 75% power and does not max out until in the 50's % pwr. It's almost impossible to hurt w/ low power settings. With your HC pistons and hot EI w/ timing advance you are more efficient in general, even if you do not operate LOP. Another way to save fuel is pull the throttle back!! Now there's an idea. ROP lower power is similar to LOP at higher power? I bet you can throttle back, run ROP and fly side by side with RV's running stock engines LOP with equivelent fuel flow. As Lyc points out you loose power with LOP. You can save fuel with the throttle as well as the mixture control. Again NO FREE LUNCH.

Than it becomes return on investment. So you saved 2 bucks an hour, for 1500 hours, but you shortened your engine life 500 hours? These numbers are pulled out of my hat, just for and example. No one knows if LOP shortens engine life for sure. Walter ran the "House Engine" on a test stand and abused it. OK but would you put that engine on a plane and fly it after the abuse? This is the point of Lycoming. The following are my words, but what I think they are saying: We Lycoming, have a huge amount of experience with this specific operational "philosophy" as well as others, and we know what works for almost most applications, pilots and reasonable tolerances. You can imagine how they feel when some one comes along and changes the game, saying they have a better way and if you don't do it your are not informed. Well it may be better for some, BUT WITH DRAW BACKS.

With the right engine, set up properly, skill, knowledge, instrumentation and more important desire, than LOP may be for you. The best thing since sliced bread. To accuse Lycoming of thinking pilots are stupid is just not true. They know what's going on. You can discount it as backwards non-progressive, ignorant or just plan fear and loathing of pilots who operate their engine's, but that's just not the case. Again write Lycoming with a spacific question about your plane, engine or general questions. I think you will find they are very knowledgeable and not ignorant or dogmatic at all. Writing is usually better for technical questions.

If you do LOP than have all the info and know there are some possible draw backs, that's all. There are always draw backs with everything in aviation, the no free lunch rule. Each engine is different, not only brand, model but individual engines. For example FI injector need to be balanced. It's not a practically hard task or expensive thing to do, especially on an experimental, because we don't need certified GAMI injectors or A&P / AI sign off. On a factory plane however, it could be way more expensive to balance injectors. Do you think a FBO is going to pay for that with a lease back plane? What does GAMI charge for their piece of brass with an orifice in it. A LOT$

Lycoming is thinking of the "BIG PICTURE", the whole world of aviation. Not just what a few persons who successfully achieve LOP ops on their personal Bonanza or RV-7.

Is Lycoming going to promote and specify technique that not every one can do (because the engine can't run LOP)? Are they going to specify a technique that requires the fuel injectors be balanced very precisely and leaves out most Carb engines? No. Do they know about LOP. Of course they have known about it since the 1930's. This is not new to them. This LOP was not just invented.

I Do NOT think Lycoming contradicts themselves, but they're just practical, and its not an insult to all of us pilots and our abilities. To say Lycoming thinks pilots are too dumb to operate LOP is rhetoric. I can assure that is not their position. Like I said there is ALWAYS a trade off in aviation. Even though its unlikely, LOP or ROP operations poorly done can result in possible engine damage and that is the truth. Of course Lycoming does not want their engines to have poor service life or not make TBO, it's the reputation of their product.
 
Last edited:
Monte:

A conforming engine is one which complies with the engineering design features. As you have changed those, it is not conforming to the original type certificate but can still be conforming to YOUR new design criteria.

If it runs smoothly LOP, it has a very good ignition system, balanced F:A ratios and no induction leaks.

Walter
 
gmjetpilot:

In all of the above ramblings, you made one comment upon which I would appreciate some clarification. It seemed to be the central issue among several wanderings.

**Of course Lycoming does not want their engines to have poor service life or not make TBO, it's the reputation of their product.**

If that is true, which I would assume any company would aspire to achieve that goal, why would they recommend the very mixture settings which result in the highest heat and highest internal cylinder pressures and suggest not using mixture settings which result in lower heat and pressure? We all know that heat and pressure are the enemies of metal. How are we to reconcile that scientific inconsistency?

BTW, you mentioned "drawbacks" to operating the engine LOP. Please list ONE. I've asked for this several times now and none seem forthcoming. Please help me out and tell me what "drawback" you are referencing.

Please don't come back with anything about detonation, which seems to be your major concern. The most detonation-prone mixture at any power setting is 40dF ROP, so there is no other mixture that could be worse.

Help me out here. You've made some mighty sweeping statements and we really would like to see some data to support them.

Walter