I feel like I (jetdriven) am arguing with idiots. Seriously, Nick DeMarco said it right, its "science by consensus". Even when faced with reams of data. LOP burns valves. End rant.

Thanks for being so intelligent, guys.

EDIT: its only a small percentage of members there who are misinformed. But still...

http://www.mooneyspace.com/index.cfm?pa ... eadid=4944

I've given up on that thread.

Ugh. I actually read all 4 pages of that. I'm glad to see that Mooneyspace has some rational, data-driven thinking folks...


Oh, wait, that's YOU Byron! Your sparring partner John sure has his convictions, doesn't he?

I couldn't get through the entire thread as there was so much misinformation but I am curious why some avatars have the words "Won't Leave" above them? Is it kind of like homecoming to West Virginia?

Anybody over there ever hear of APS?

Those Lycoming IO360s are as good as airplane engines get and often run LOP without GAMIs.

A large % the users there reject APS as "junk science" and hold up the 1960s POH and "Experts are everywhere" paper as the holy grail. Whats even worse is some advise new owners to run 50 ROP and a 450 CHT. Book says to.

Ours runs 50 LOP all day with stock injectors. Its funny I had to read Beechtalk to understand how to run my 201.

To quote General Russel Honore, some people are just stuck on stupid.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/qv5m4hTMuWU[/youtube]

Byron, glad you come over to hang out. There is clearly a LOP bias here, with a lot of APS graduates (myself included). My mind is open, and I'm ready to hear a scientific argument about why ROP is better -- I really am. The last one I heard was from an A&P who disliked LOP operations because he raced dirtbikes as a kid, and when the engines ran too lean, the cylinders got this flaky pink residue.

That argument didn't beat the boys from Ada, but maybe the next one will.

Byron,,
Thanks for posting the mooney thread..... I read the whole thing. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Slowly but surely you'll get more folks with some cajones that will back you up there. I like your fact based, sober and rational answers to some irrational comments. Way to go.

What, I just started flying LOP? Now you tell me!

There's a few pilots around here, from all brands, that have been burning their valves like this or a decade or more without replacement.

I lasted through about 3/4 of the first page!!!!......

When we had our Mooney Rocket 305 and started running it LOP.... it was are your guys crazy type of look at the MAPA convention....

I have a couple of jugs off of a TSIO-520 (factory turbo 1650 TIT) that went 1,500 hours LOP and were only pulled due to sidewall scoring. They were OH'd jugs when installed. The valves are still in great shape.

A couple clarifications... the "won't leave" labels show up after you have a few hundred posts there. I wouldn't say a large percentage of the folks on that board are anti-LOP, but there are a few very vocal ones that just keep their heads buried in the sand. There are at least as many vocal LOP folks (like myself and Byron) that are active. Who knows what the lurkers do...

There is a similar breakdown on the MAPA and Mooney Aviating.com email lists as well.

For some reason there are folks that think the science only applies to Continental engines!

Best efficiency is achieved at lambda well above 1 (LOP). The problem there is heat, with no unburnt fuel transporting heat to help to cool. So it only works at low power settings: BUT the power settings in LOP are determined by fuel flow, not manifold pressure & RPM.... that only works ROP. So I can be happily at 75% ROP, and INCREASE turbo boost after the big mixture poll keeping RPM constant, and end up 65% LOP based on fuel flow, which is OK. I still believe that the drop in CHT is a good indication of cooler running engine. If the CHT is lower, I cannot believe the valve runs hotter. So the only thing you burn is the soot because of the surplus oxygen availability... for a cleaner engine. PowerWheel helps to find the settings...