dirty plane economical LOP setting. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N641WB/history/20111221/1700Z/52F/KPTS/tracklog
One do my favorite more recent trips: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N923HA/history/20110903/1500Z/KEGE/KJBR/tracklog
180 TAS, did you forget to put the parachute up? since I don't have a Ford or Chevy, this is my closest thing.
Where do you see TAS numbers on Flightaware? All I see is GS. Plus I want to see your TAS #s at FL250!
I just looked at what you filed for that flight. I never go above 18 because I don't have a mask (required in the Columbia), but they claim 236. That is B.S. like most top speed claims by manufacturers. I think with A/C it would be closer to high 220's. I always fly LOP for the gas savings and lower temps. That same 200-202 I see at 16-17k would be 207-209 ROP. I would rather save 5 GPH though.
Look at you hotshots up in the flightlevels! Personally, I've never flown w/ supplemental O2, so I don't go up there. Cool stuff.
Aviators are such elitist nerds. They love to throw around acronyms that only other nerds know. LOP is "lean of peak" a term that means the engine mixture is set lean of peak torque and exhaust gas temperatures (EGT another fun acronym). There is some debate, but most of what I have read is that LOP is safe at 75% power or less and obviously more economical. Above 75% power I worry about LOP being safe long term for piston engines. 202 TAS is cooking at 16.7 gph. My SR22 is not as fast and generally runs 17 gph at 75% power LOP depending on altitude.
Thanks, 'preciate it... Got all the acronyms but LOP... I knew the process of setting lean of peak but didn't equate that with LOP. DUH.
LOP is perfectly fine, if done correctly. But it can burn valves and have other detrimental effects if not done right and carefully monitored. An decent discussion is here: http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/162875-rich-peak-lean-peak.html I have friends that insist on running ROP because they think it is easier on the engine. My belief is that LOP is fine if you can and do monitor EGT and CHT for every cylinder at all times, especially in ascent and descent.
As a former PA-46 driver (Malibu Mirage) lean of peak= making metal before TBO by about 75%. Lycoming engines had bad metallurgy in the crankshafts at the turn of the century and had to be torn down with frequency at around the 400- 500 hour mark. Fuel is cheap insurance to keep the engine together. A graphic engine monitor was a great way to find peak EGT or TIT (turbo inlet temperature) in our case and that extra gallon fuel flow made life a little more comfortable. An engine failure in the teens is't a fun scenario to contemplate, especially if you are IMC (in the clouds.)
Of course, but that's very easy to do with balanced injectors. I've run my Turbonormalized engine at 85% power in cruise for over 800 hours with zero issues.
Agreed. There are plenty of hard-core nerds (myself included) who are convinced running LOP is actually better for the engine than running ROP...in fact the leaner the better. I always cruise LOP. In fact the only time I'm ROP is at takeoff.
Rob, I too generally fly LOP below 180 because the plane just seems happier in the teens and I hate the mask (if you do it though I'd definitely recommend the one with built-in mic). However on that trip I was with one other adult and wanted to get above weather with tops at 23k.
yes, I think LOP great if manufacturer recommends it and you have close flows. my engine has been tuned by GAMI. not only do you save 5 GPH, but you run lower temps.
16-17 ROP? The Columbia 350 runs about 12-13 LOP. If you are running ROP I think your LOP would be 11-13. BTW, Ovation 3 was my 2nd choice, I love that plane!
I had about a 300 nm flight today with a nice tail, so decided to run ROP for heck of it. I was very pleased with the result, my plane has A/C (air scoop underneath), but it still ran book numbers. 17,000 30.5 In/2440 ROP 22.5 GPH 211 KTAS Plane runs smooth and fast ROP, just burns more than 5 GPH more. The above settings are about 75-78% power. You can run it 32.5/2480. I only filed 201 KTAS because I planned to run LOP like I usually do. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N641WB/history/20120204/1840Z/KDRT/52F/tracklog
350 I run about 310-320 LOP. I don't have the expensive oil cooler mod to control oil temps exactly, I have the cheap fix that preceded that with a flap. The 400 doesn't have issues running hot, it has issues running too cold. Except on the hottest days you close the flap to keep the temps up. If I would have opened the flap on this flight my ROP temps would have gone down about 20.
That's great. I suppose the extra fuel probably isn't worth the extra 10 knots if I'm reading your numbers correctly.
correct, that's why I never fly ROP, this was just to test it out for data point. I was most impressed the plane runs book numbers ROP. most the LOP numbers I get are 2-4 short of book.
LOP (16.5gph) at 17k' I get 200TAS. I've never tried ROP. I thought the 400 got in the 220's ROP at 17k'.
