Let's compare some actual numbers flying Lean of Peak and Rich of Peak, and why we choose to fly one way vs. the other. Enjoy the view going into Crystal Coast, MRH.
Let's compare some actual numbers flying Lean of Peak and Rich of Peak, and why we choose to fly one way vs. the other. Enjoy the view going into Crystal Coast, MRH.
I’m learning! Great video.
Thank you Pete!
Good job showing real life comparisons between ROP / LOP!
Awesome video. I just a ASEL pilot, but videos like this are super helpful. Not only to me to experiment with, but also to show the pilots around me that get very religious with behind ROP or LOP no matter what.
👍☑ Tks for your take on this never ending discussion.
Brilliant informative flight Pete
Great video Pete. I have tried lean of peak in my bonanza and it is fine with it at lower altitudes but for some reason above 8,000 she just doesn’t run smooth lean of peak but her temps are great rich of peak at that altitude (and we want the sped too). I think I have too much of a spread on my cylinders so she just likes rich of peak more.
Mike Busch explains very well why lean of peak is best.
I'm confused about the numbers on your engine display vs the terms LOP and ROP and their relationship to stoichiometry. The numbers on your display were 15.8, and after adjusting it displayed 14.1. I assumed these were air/fuel ratios. Are there units involved here that I'm not aware of? The reason I ask is I'm an auto repair technician, not a pilot, but and when it comes to gasoline air/fuel ratios, 14.7:1 is stoich, and anything lower than 14.7 (like 14.2) is richer than stoichiometry and anything above 14.7:1 (like 15.8) is leaner than stoichiometry. These are opposite to what you described. Cars run as rich as 12.5 under hard acceleration, idle and cruise about 14.7 and can lean cruise at light load at highway speed at 16:1 - 18:1 for best economy.
I wish we had a ratio number. These are fuel flow numbers, in gph. Hope it makes more sense now. Piston aircraft typically use gallons per hour references while turbo props and jets use pounds per hour.
@@ProPilotPete thank you! That makes perfect sense now. I'm actually a bit surprised, considering O2 sensor technology has been used in automotive for over 40 years and accurate wideband sensors for at least fifteen years, that aircraft engines don't implement a wideband O2 sensor to assist in achieving the optimal mixture. BTW, love your channel, and your Baron. I've always wanted to fly and started with some lessons many years ago but quickly realized it was beyond my means. I've always loved the Baron and dreamed of flying one. Thanks for the great content.
@@wrenchoperator6435 thanks for watching and commenting. It’s sad that aviation technology is so far behind the automotive industry, mainly due to regulation, certification, and of course government bureaucracy.
@@wrenchoperator6435 There are several reasons that they don't use an O2 sensor. First, we run lead in our fuel. The sensors would fail rather quickly. Also, we don't run cats, so the typical upstream/downstream sensors won't work, so you'll loose calibration extremely fast. Next, they aren't needed. EGT thermocouples are extremely simple and robust. At constant loads, they are very accurate at measuring peak A/F ratios across all cylinders. Complicated is the enemy of GA aircraft. People have been trying to unsuccessfully implement other engine designs into GA for decades while spending 100s of millions and none have taken off for a reason. Once you learn how to operate them, the simple design works well, is easier/cheaper to operate and maintain.
What do you normally do MP wise on the descent so you're not shock cooling the engine?? about an inch a minute? I'm a new baron pilot.
That’s a turbo technique. Non-turbo I bring it back to 20”s to keep from accelerating, or to the bottom of green, around 15-16”s, just enough to keep gear horn from blaring andcenogh power not to allow shock cooling.
@PilotPete247 thanks Pete for the info. So just make sure I’m following, even at say 8000 feet you’ll still bring it back to 20’’ initially?
@@mattrowe5597 yes, if I’m trying not to accelerate, like about to descend thru clouds or turbulence. If it’s smooth air I just keep it below 25”s. 20”s and 500’ pm descent seems to hold current speed.
I tried lop on a G58 I was flying. I found it slowed me down 15 knots which translated to an extra 10% time on the airplane each hour. When your flying a plane that costs 600 an hour to fly, the extra 60 bucks in time doesn’t make up for the 45 bucks in fuel savings. I think the chance of not doing lop correctly is too risky on 100,000 worth of engines anyway.
I hear ya, just going by what we’ve seen and how the last motors did. Like I said in the video, it’s not so much about fuel savings as it is about running cooler cylinder head temperatures in order to hopefully protect the investment. I get the other side of the debate, as we used to run ROP too. We are trying the LOP team now so time will tell.
@@ProPilotPete Thanks and keep us updated if you have any issues. They seemed to run fine and cool for me either way but definitely cooler LOP. One thing I would like to see you address and/or do a video on is what you do on the way down or if you have an intermediate level off on the way down. I wasn't ever sure when or or how much I should enrichen or whether I should just go back ROP at the top of the descent while still at lower power settings. I guess in the end, I just liked going 195 knots better than 180 knots and I figured the extra 1/10 of an hour less each hour I was putting on the airframe and engines made up for the cost savings from the fuel so for a Baron, I like ROP. On a Bonanza, I can see where LOP might make more sense.