Flew Behind the New Engine

Len Lanetti

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
1,199
Location
Malvern, PA
Display Name

Display name:
Lenny
I flew the Mooney with the new engine yesterday.

The day started off normally for a school day as the kids got on the yellow bus...sufficient fuel in their bodies, contents of backpacks double checked and kisses good bye.

Dad calls Flight Service for only the second time in about 6 months. Generally clear below 12,000 is the current weather in the area but a low pressure system is moving in bringing lowering clouds and bumpy weather between 10am and 2pm. Not what I want to hear for full power operation that is surely going to result in speeds at the top of the yellow arc. Hmmm, maybe I can get a few hours in before the bumps arrive. So off I drove to the airport.

Through preflight including a personal look see into the engine compartment sans cowling. It looks great in there...the wide deck version of the O360 required modification of the cooling baffling...the jugs are noticeably bigger, actually I think the cooling fins are what is bigger...the new location for the alternator due to different mounting bracket holes required changes to the baffling as well. Prop governor had to be relocated as I also went with a spin on oil filter version of the O360 instead of one with a screen.

Discussion on break in procedure ensued with mechanics. We all agree fly it hard for at least an hour. Be on the look out for oil on the windscreen. There may be a faint paint burning smell this is normal. Fuel consumption will be high, on the order of 17 GPH (versus the normal 9.5 to 11.5 I typically get in cruise). This was not news as the mechanic had mentioned this before along with an anecdotal story from years ago when a Bonanza driver ran out of fuel short of the runway during an engine break in flight. I review my fuel usage plan and jot it down on my scratch pad. I double check that the fuel selector turns easily and that I'm still able to perform the gymnastics required to change tanks in flight.

So now I'm in the cockpit. The power controls are now in the modern order but the handle on the prop control is black versus blue. The lock mechanism on the throttle is different. During the actual flight I only reduced throttle during the flight in preparation for landing...not enough time to unlearn my muscle memory from the old throttle lock mechanism. I also did not get the chance to fly at reduced power to check the gear unsafe warning horn setting...that will have to wait for later. Other than cycling the prop during the run up I did not move the prop control at all during the flight. Mixture control was pushed in for start up and pulled out for shutdown, otherwise I did not actuate this control for testing nor to get a feel for the verner mechanism.

Went through pre-start check lists through. Did as many items from the after start and run up check lists as possible to minimize ground run time.

Using my starting procedure from the old engine it took me 3 or 4 attempts to get the engine started. Mechanics said we would have to review starting procedure as it started more easily for them when they did the ground runs.

Did a quick mag check with only about 25 to 50 RPM drop on each mag and hardly any difference between the two. Prop cycle was quick and smooth...mechanics had cycled prop on previous ground runs. Oil pressure was right in the middle of the green at 75 PSI according to the 42 year old gauge.

Checked that the pattern was clear, announced that I was rolling on unicom and I used soft field technique of keeping the aircraft rolling from the behind the hold short line to lift off. As I rolled a quick glance at the engine monitor (all cylinders getting hot), tach (close to but not exceeding redline, I figure 2,650 RPM during the initial part of the roll), manifold pressure (pointer above 25 inches, from the angle you can't see the exact number but my rule of thumb is the pointer has to be above 25 inches for my typical density altitudes) and oil pressure (steady, middle of the green which is 75 PSI) showed everything "in the green".

The wind was about 5 knots right down the runway. Tempurture was cool, not over 50 degrees F. With just me and my flight bag the aircraft was light. It felt that the aircraft was ready to fly by the time I had glanced at the right side of the panel for the takeoff roll engine instrument check. I was in the air in about 500 feet. My technique was a bit rusty and the aircraft hopped on the mains once or twice before climbing away.

I held 80 mph and retracted the manual gear. Muscle memory served me well, gear retraction was smooth both from a mechanical standpoint and an ergonomic standpoint. Note that this was the first time the aircraft had flown since the annual inspection where components from the gear system were replaced.

Once the gear was up I lowered the nose and climbed at 110 MPH which is about 10 MPH over my normal climb speed. In that attitude I saw 1,100 FPM climb on the VSI. That rate of climb I held until I reached my initial altitude of 2,800 feet.

After flying the Brandywine noise abatement procedure I turned crosswind and continued to climb. Once level at 2,800 I started flying a rectangle around the Brandywine airport. I was showing 2,650 RPM on the tach and was pulling 27 inches of manifold pressure as I turned to a high and wide downwind. I was indicating 170 MPH within a moment or two of leveling off. Once the speed built I was showing 180 MPH, only 9 MPH below the redline for my M20C (Note that I think that other years and serial number ranges have a different redline). I'm thinking that at this speed turbulence, bank angle and attitude are something to be mindful of.

After calling Flight Service on the telephone for a weather briefing that morning I gave Philadelphia Approach a call to give them a heads up that I would be circling in the vicinity of Brandywine Airport. It is also close to the Modena VOR which approach uses for departures and arrivals. I figured a call in advance would be better than trying to explain it on frequency. I mentioned that I may be circling in the area for as much as three hours. It appeared to work as when I called them on frequency they recognized my tail number and gave me a squawk code.

I flew the rectangular pattern around the airport for about 15 or 20 minutes but the geography underneath was producing some bumps. I figure I was getting uneven heat rising as I flew over housing developments, water and fields. At that point I climbed to 3,200 and moved east of the airport to fly over open fields as much as possible.

A standard rate turn at the "MACH number" (well it is a fraction of a MACH number) I was traveling is pretty wide. :<)

Went through 3 or 4 air traffic controllers during the time I flew. I flew with all the lights on as an additional security blanket. One controller was very interested in what I was doing and helpful directing traffic in the area so I wouldn't have to change altitudes. Only one controller was testy to me and others. A survey aircraft was in the area, an Aztec, was only a few hundred feet below my altitude. He continued to have me in sight while nearby but I never did see him. One aircraft crossed above me by a few hundred feet but I never had him in sight either. I've determined that acquiring aircraft visually is something that has to be practiced to maintain proficency.

I only flew for about an hour and a half. I did want to try to fly about 2.5 hours on that first flight but it was getting more turbulant as time went on and the system that was approaching got closer. As I was flying pretty close to redline on the ASI I figured it was about time to take it in.

I turned toward the airport and started reducing power and heading down. Power reductions made in 2 inch increments every two minutes and 500 FPM down on the VSI. It worked out pretty well and I turned and leveled to a high downwind for Brandywine with 18 inches of manifold pressure doing about 150 MPH. Speed bled off to the gear extension speed of 120 MPH as I held altitude and I was able to drop the gear at about 3/4ths down the runway. With the gear out I pull the power back to 16 inches and it only takes a few moments to reach my personal flap extension speed of 95 MPH (100 MPH is the start of the white arc on my Mooney). I put in two pumps on the hydraulic flap handle just before turning base. I scan and there is no traffic for the straight in. I concentrate on keeping some power on and managing airspeed with pitch and flaps. I establish and hold 80 MPH about halfway down final and start watching the numbers in the windshield instead of the ASI.

The wind has picked up and I need right rudder and opposite aileron to control the horizontal movement of the numbers in the window. Left right control is good but I round out too high. The stall warning buzzes as I flare, one small "skip" of the mains with the nose high and I'm down. Not my best landing and not my worst. I turn off the runway stop, identify and raise the flaps followed by a quick taxi back to the maintenance hanger with a normal shut down.

Mechanics are surprised to see me back so soon and want to know if everything is OK. I tell them mechanically everything is just great.

So, I still have a few hours of break in and a few more things to check but so far so good.

Len
 
Last edited:
Weather Underground and Weather Channel agree that we've got at least a week of decent weather coming up. It'll be no time till you are ready to take the family somewhere behind that brand new engine :)
 
Sounds like an exciting morning. I'm glad everything worked great...new engine, new gear parts, etc. I can see why you were slightly aprehensive about yesterdays flight.

To many more fun filled hours :dance:
 
Len: good informative post. Glad it went well. Joe is right weather is supposed to be pretty good all week. I'll bet your glad to have your baby back!
 
Len Lanetti said:
Once the gear was up I lowered the nose and climbed at 110 MPH which is about 10 MPH over my normal climb speed. In that attitude I saw 1,100 FPM climb on the VSI. That rate of climb I held until I reached my initial altitude of 2,800 feet.

Len, that is great news, glad to see your able to fly the mooney again. One question I have..My M20C says to climb at 115, and 120 for a cooler engine and better visibillity. At 115 I can climb cool enough but it does approach redline. You mention you normally climb out at 100? Is that normal?

Michael
 
AdamZ said:
Len: good informative post. Glad it went well. Joe is right weather is supposed to be pretty good all week. I'll bet your glad to have your baby back!

It certainly was great fun flying the plane again. I did want to get a full 5 hours of break in flight done on Monday as I could have used the airplane this week. For several reasons I won't be able to fly again until Monday when I resume the break in process (weather permitting).

Len
 
Last edited:
Len:


Good story and glad you are back in the air. Will you have enough hours on it to be comfortable to get to LOM on the 14th.?

Gary
 
Michael said:
One question I have..My M20C says to climb at 115, and 120 for a cooler engine and better visibillity. At 115 I can climb cool enough but it does approach redline. You mention you normally climb out at 100? Is that normal?

Michael,

I don't have the flight manual with me but IIRC 80 MPH is close enough to Vx and 100 is close enough to Vy for my purposes.

I've never had an issue with heat using those speeds and I've climbed from just about sea level directly to several thousand feet at 100 MPH using 25 squared in the summer.

Do I remember correctly, were you filling oil to a lower amount than something like 7 quarts due to mechanic recomendation? Where you having heat related issues elsewise?

Len
 
Gary,

With any luck I should finish the initial break in hours on Monday the 9th. I'll still want to fly at least an hour (more would be better) in between a take off and a landing for several more hours. That said, I think my son Matthew has a birthday party on the 14th, though it might be the 15th. Based on that and what needs doing at the house I may or may not be able to make the 14th.

Len
 
Len Lanetti said:
Michael,

I don't have the flight manual with me but IIRC 80 MPH is close enough to Vx and 100 is close enough to Vy for my purposes.

I've never had an issue with heat using those speeds and I've climbed from just about sea level directly to several thousand feet at 100 MPH using 25 squared in the summer.

Do I remember correctly, were you filling oil to a lower amount than something like 7 quarts due to mechanic recomendation? Where you having heat related issues elsewise?

Len

Yes you recall correctly. I just replaced the thingamagiggy on the rear of the engine that measures something, seems the seal was letting oil escape before sending it to the cooler. it is running much cooler in climb now. But i still climb mine at 115 to 120. I am at 400 SMOH now.

Michael
 
Congrats! Keep her cool and run her hard. My new engine seemed to all but stop burning oil at 2 hours on the clock. It burned about 1/2-3/4 of a quart and maybe a fraction from there at 9 hours SMOH.
 
Michael said:
Yes you recall correctly. I just replaced the thingamagiggy on the rear of the engine that measures something, seems the seal was letting oil escape before sending it to the cooler. it is running much cooler in climb now. But i still climb mine at 115 to 120. I am at 400 SMOH now.

Was the thingamagiggy spelled something like vernatherm?

When I have the kids in the back I typically set my pitch attitude to climb or descend at 250 FPM...mostly for their comfort. But other than that you should be able to climb at 100 knots or MPH at 25 squared without an issue.

I don't recall, is your aircraft equiped with a controllable cowl flap?

Len
 
Len:
Great to hear you bird's up and flyin again. Great story.

Question: How will you know when it's broken in? Do you have a graphic engine display?

Sounds like you're really goin to like the performance of your bird with this new engine!!

Best,

Dave
 
Len Lanetti said:
But other than that you should be able to climb at 100 knots or MPH at 25 squared without an issue.

I don't recall, is your aircraft equiped with a controllable cowl flap?

Len

I'm just wondering if you back off on the man pres when your are on climb out to hold the 25^2. I have been told to keep the man all the way in on climbout to keep the engine cool. Do you know if there is any truth to that?
 
Iceman said:
I'm just wondering if you back off on the man pres when your are on climb out to hold the 25^2. I have been told to keep the man all the way in on climbout to keep the engine cool. Do you know if there is any truth to that?

Typically as you climb with a nomally aspirated engine the manifold pressure will decrease and you will have to advance the throttle to maintain a set manifold pressure. A good rule of thumb is that you loose about 1 inch of manifold pressure for each 1,000 feet of altitude. I double check manifold pressure as the hundreds altitude pointer passes through the 500 foot mark each revolution. I do this for both climbs and descents as you have to back off on manifold pressure on descents.

As you climb air is thinner and less able to wick away heat so you might have to increase foward airspeed to provide cooling. Using cowl flaps is an option though most folks are hard wired from training to always climb with cowl flaps open.

I use my engine monitor and lean a bit in a climb, many folks stay at full rich during climbs. I was brought up thinking that more fuel also helps with heat reduction but there are many people in the camp that more fuel equals more power which means more heat.

Len
 
Len Lanetti said:
Was the thingamagiggy spelled something like vernatherm?

When I have the kids in the back I typically set my pitch attitude to climb or descend at 250 FPM...mostly for their comfort. But other than that you should be able to climb at 100 knots or MPH at 25 squared without an issue.

I don't recall, is your aircraft equiped with a controllable cowl flap?

Len

Yes thats what it is called :)
and Yes It does have controllable cowl flaps. My POH says to climb at 115. So thats what I do. When I noticed it running on the hot side before, i would bring the nose down some, and climb at 120.

As far as the other post reguarding climbing with full MP and RPM. That is what was recomended by Mooneys long time test pilot. He said it would help cool the engine, and it would not overwork it in the slightest bit.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Question: How will you know when it's broken in? Do you have a graphic engine display?

Sounds like you're really goin to like the performance of your bird with this new engine!!

I have an older graphic engine monitor.

From what I hear the engine is broken in when the oil consumption stabalizes. That I fly 50 hours with mineral oil. I'm going to try and fly at least an hour between take off and landing for all flights in that first 50 hours.

Len
 
Congradulations on the new motor:) Great post:) I'll be doing the same thing on my e model here shortly, and like you have not flown in many months so I completely understand your aprehension. I'm not an A&P but I have done some extensive reading in the last several months about break-in, fuel metering and what not. My POH states not to lean above 75%, which equates to about 24 squared. I'm running an IO-360-A1A. Thats Lycoming's current position as well. The gami boys tell one to lean to the egt that you have at takeoff assuming your getting proper fuel flow for your motor. Proper meaning full spec, no less. EGT's over 1300 should be reason to check that according to them. You can read about their methods on www.avweb.com. Pelican's Perch articles. I dont advocate any method and wouldnt advise you in that regard as the factory doesnt seem to be completely on board with it. Either way, I wouldnt lean above 75% power other than to keep the motor smooth or maintain full fuel flow egt readings.
What were your cht's? You want to keep'em below 400 degrees, 350 would be better. You can anneal the rings otherwise and the high temps are tough on the exaust valves. Obviously, cooler is better so climbs at 120mph are recommended over vx 80mph and vy 105-110 depending on altitude.
Some fuel metering devices enrich the mixture at full throttle which is why the factories and most other credible sources recommend full throttle for take off and climb. Higher rpm's also draw higher fuel flows. Remeber, tbo is based on 100% power at the full fuel flow factory spec. Reduced throttle and leaner mixtures during climbs are harder on the motor than that and may bring about detonation given the right set of variables.
Best of luck with your new motor:martini:
 
pete177 said:
Congradulations on the new motor:) Great post:) I'll be doing the same thing on my e model here shortly, and like you have not flown in many months so I completely understand your aprehension. I'm not an A&P but I have done some extensive reading in the last several months about break-in, fuel metering and what not. My POH states not to lean above 75%, which equates to about 24 squared. I'm running an IO-360-A1A. Thats Lycoming's current position as well. The gami boys tell one to lean to the egt that you have at takeoff assuming your getting proper fuel flow for your motor. Proper meaning full spec, no less. EGT's over 1300 should be reason to check that according to them. You can read about their methods on www.avweb.com. Pelican's Perch articles. I dont advocate any method and wouldnt advise you in that regard as the factory doesnt seem to be completely on board with it. Either way, I wouldnt lean above 75% power other than to keep the motor smooth or maintain full fuel flow egt readings.
What were your cht's? You want to keep'em below 400 degrees, 350 would be better. You can anneal the rings otherwise and the high temps are tough on the exaust valves. Obviously, cooler is better so climbs at 120mph are recommended over vx 80mph and vy 105-110 depending on altitude.
Some fuel metering devices enrich the mixture at full throttle which is why the factories and most other credible sources recommend full throttle for take off and climb. Higher rpm's also draw higher fuel flows. Remeber, tbo is based on 100% power at the full fuel flow factory spec. Reduced throttle and leaner mixtures during climbs are harder on the motor than that and may bring about detonation given the right set of variables.
Best of luck with your new motor:martini:

You read my mind...I posted this same information not more than 10 min ago :) that's funny! ("little more reading?")
 
Last edited:
Len Lanetti said:
I have an older graphic engine monitor.

From what I hear the engine is broken in when the oil consumption stabalizes. That I fly 50 hours with mineral oil. I'm going to try and fly at least an hour between take off and landing for all flights in that first 50 hours.

Len

Unless you have chrome cylinders, I think you'll find that the engine is pretty well broken in within the first few hours of running. Just make sure as much of that as possible is flown at high MP while keeping the cylinders as cool as possible.
 
Lenny:
I'm on track with Lance. What I've seen from the engine gurus that I respect is about five hours should seat the rings and pretty well break things in. Doesn't mean you don't run mineral oil for 50 hours.

I was just wondering if there would be some visible evidence on the engine monitor that the rings were seated and the cylinders were developing proper compression. Wonder if the CHTs would rise a little as they were able to develop the higher compression and internal cylinder pressure that would accompany properly seated rings.
Are you going to download the monitor after 25 hours? I'd be interesting to see what happens to CHTs and EGTs at constant power settings as things settle in.



Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Lenny:
I'm on track with Lance. What I've seen from the engine gurus that I respect is about five hours should seat the rings and pretty well break things in. Doesn't mean you don't run mineral oil for 50 hours.

Dave

If he has ECI cermiNil cylinders, and is following their break in procedure, he already has Phillips 20-W-50 in the engine and does not have to worry about changing from mineral oil, because Phillips is a pure mineral based oil. and can be run the entire engines life, with out worries about break in on new cylinders at any time in the engines life.

If he does not have Phillips in it the warentee is voided. and if any thing happens he is out the cost of repair.

ECI writes these procedures because they know what works. If you would like a copy of these procedures send me your e-mail address I have several copies that come with each cylinder I buy.

Tonight I will try to scan in the whole read, and post it here. It includes a copy of "Oil talk for dummies". (splanes it better than I can)
 
larrysb said:
Congrats! Keep her cool and run her hard. My new engine seemed to all but stop burning oil at 2 hours on the clock. It burned about 1/2-3/4 of a quart and maybe a fraction from there at 9 hours SMOH.

This is very typical for ECI CermiNil cylinders, the recommendation by ECI is 75% for 10 hours and then treat the engine normally.
 
The booklet is downloadable from their website. Zypher engines in florida, the guys doin' my motor also recommend phillips x/c. Suprising to find so many engine builders recommending the same oil.



NC19143 said:
If he has ECI cermiNil cylinders, and is following their break in procedure, he already has Phillips 20-W-50 in the engine and does not have to worry about changing from mineral oil, because Phillips is a pure mineral based oil. and can be run the entire engines life, with out worries about break in on new cylinders at any time in the engines life.

If he does not have Phillips in it the warentee is voided. and if any thing happens he is out the cost of repair.

ECI writes these procedures because they know what works. If you would like a copy of these procedures send me your e-mail address I have several copies that come with each cylinder I buy.

Tonight I will try to scan in the whole read, and post it here. It includes a copy of "Oil talk for dummies". (splanes it better than I can)
 
pete177 said:
The booklet is downloadable from their website. Zypher engines in florida, the guys doin' my motor also recommend phillips x/c. Suprising to find so many engine builders recommending the same oil.

Thank you, saving me the time to figure out how to scan in a page that is 18" long and printed both sides.
 
NC19143 said:
This is very typical for ECI CermiNil cylinders, the recommendation by ECI is 75% for 10 hours and then treat the engine normally.

That's what I hear.

I've got Milleniums running on Aeroshell 100 mineral for break-in.
 
larrysb said:
That's what I hear.

I've got Milleniums running on Aeroshell 100 mineral for break-in.

Is your engine subject to the snake oil AD? If so how do you comply with it on Shell 100?
 
Nope, it's an ancient O-360-A3A in a 1965 Cherokee 180.

The Milly's seem to be settling in very nicely, running real strong too.

I'm thinking I might re-pitch the prop up some. I can easily hit red-line in straight and level flight at low-altitude with plenty of throttle left. No go-fast parts yet either. The new wingtips are being put on now at the annual.
 
larrysb said:
I'm thinking I might re-pitch the prop up some. I can easily hit red-line in straight and level flight at low-altitude with plenty of throttle left.

Are you certain of the tach's accuracy?
 
Len Lanetti said:
I use my engine monitor and lean a bit in a climb, many folks stay at full rich during climbs. I was brought up thinking that more fuel also helps with heat reduction but there are many people in the camp that more fuel equals more power which means more heat.

Len

They should be reading Deakin and looking at one of his fuel flow vs. CHT charts. You were brought up right! [g]

In the turbos, TIT can be used to fine tune fuel flow while at the top of the green MP, prop & mixture. For standard turbo, 1450F TIT gives good CHT results [at/below 380F], and my recollection [subject to Dave S review] is 1320F for turbonormalized.

CHTs are the factor to be looking at. And the sooner you get to the climb [speed/power] configuration which keeps them at/below 380F, the better. If you insist on getting to some altitude at max climb rate, you will pay a heat penalty on the jugs which is difficult to recoup during the remainder of the climb. Deakin has something to say about this, also.

Hope your break-in temps are just high enough and "break" cleanly!
 
I hate to even address this because it always causes a lot of folks to just chime in that can't back up anything they say with any empirical evidence; however, I'll at least talk about climb a little. And I have recorded JPI data to prove what is being said in regard to where CHTs and TIT are on takeoff and in climb and how changing mixture affect those temps. I have about 700 hours on this plane using these techniques and have downloaded the JPI graphic data on several occassions to visually confirm what was occurring during flight. Neat graphs, BTW.

As you know ROP, the power curve is pretty flat. On my engine, about 75 degrees ROP produces max cylinder pressure and max CHT. Since I'm TN, I can produce sea level power up to FL180 or higher. On a NA engine, MP drops as one ascends; not the case in my plane. So, if I run power incorrectly, I can burn up the engine fast.

If we all agree keeping CHTs under 380 is our target, we just need to be ROP enough to get all the power we can without over heating the engine. What works for me is 1280 TIT. If I keep TIT there in the climb, all CHTs will stay under 380. It's a safe place to park the mixture. If I keep CHTs cooler than that, I'm using lower power to climb. On a long runway: so what. On a short field, I adjust mixture to produce the optimum balance between power and CHTs.

As we advance the mixture, we delay the effective timing of the fuel burn: that's what causes the engine to run cooler: not lead in the fuel; not evaporating fuel; not any other thing of significance. At 75ROP we are at stochiometeric combustion: most optimum burn of the fuel air ration (about 15 to 1 in my engine). Further rich delays burn because of excess fuel; further lean delays burn because of excess air. Simply put, delaying the burn one way or another produces less power which leads to cooler CHTs.

If you don't have TIT; use a target EGT. Find the hottest. Take off full rich and after a sustained climb, see where CHTs are. If there are lower than 380, you could lean slightly and be safe (which adds power).

The Flightcraft turbo Bonanza had to sit on the ramp in 90 degree weather with full fuel for an hour (so everything would get nice and hot), then made a sustained climb to FL180 to be certified. So TIT/CHT management in this plane is critical.

Most folks don't understand all of this, and can't fly this way without a graphic engine monitor. Using an analog gauge is fine if that's all one has, buy you are only monitoring one cylinder: in the case of my plane, it's quite clear that the hottest cylinder changes: in a climb it's number 3; in cruise it's number 4. Interesting huh?


Best,

Dave
 
Mr. Madding!! It's nice to see you here on this board. Welcome. Looking forward to you're well thought our commentary!!

Best,

Dave
 
larrysb said:
Yeah, it is working right.

What I meant to ask was have you checked the calibration of the tach? Mechanical tach's are notorious for reading as much as a few hundred high or low and often contribute to what some pilots think is a higher or lower than expected cruise speed. In your case it could simply be tach error that makes engine appear to exceed redline RPM in level flight at low altitude. IIRC any approved prop won't allow the engine to exceed rated RPM in level flight at sea level. (I could be wrong there).
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Mr. Madding!! It's nice to see you here on this board. Welcome. Looking forward to you're well thought our commentary!!

Best,

Dave

Thanks, Dave. And it's Dick- the Mr. Madding makes me feel old!

So for your turbonormalized system it's 1280F TIT in climb, rather than the 1320 I recall someone else mentioning for their aircraft at least a year ago. Do you use the EZScan software which gives a graphic of the cylinder temps? Makes it real easy to see a baffling problem, which is something you don't really detect by just looking at the graphic engine monitor during flight. I rate baffling as the #1 cause of heat problems in the T210. On my particular one, the long flexible baffling strip on the right cowl must slide under the front corner piece of flex mounted on the front right corner of the metal baffling in order to prevent a gap, which is created when you just slap the right cowl on. So I always tell the mechanics that I'll cowl the airplane when they're finished. Know your airplane, and I can tell that you do! Thought about you last night watching a National Geographic show about climbers on Mt. Everest and what happened when one ran out of Oxy at 25,000 ft. The numerous long trips you take in the flight levels really demand a high level of professionalism to be consistently safe.

Keep your stories coming- we can all learn from them. And stop by MGY some time for some good food [ask Dr. Bruce].
 
Last edited:
Dave Siciliano said:
Are you going to download the monitor after 25 hours? I'd be interesting to see what happens to CHTs and EGTs at constant power settings as things settle in.

Dave,

It is an older type monitor without the downloading capability.

I'm trying to jot down notes on temps, speeds, settings, etc while I fly but it is a little hard flying, looking, checking, writing, smiling all at the same time.

Len
 
Sorry Lenny. Knew you had the monitor; didn't know which version. It'd still be interesting to see if you observe and change in CHTs or EGTS as the engine breaks in. I would think, but don't factually know, as it becomes more efficient, the CHTs at a given power setting would rise slightly. I'll query one of the engine gurus on another board.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Sorry Lenny. Knew you had the monitor; didn't know which version. It'd still be interesting to see if you observe and change in CHTs or EGTS as the engine breaks in. I would think, but don't factually know, as it becomes more efficient, the CHTs at a given power setting would rise slightly. I'll query one of the engine gurus on another board.

I've read that during initial break-in you should see a 20-30 F fairly abrupt rise in CHT followed by a similar drop when the ring seating occurs. I've never seen it though, just a gradual lowering of CHT over the first few hours.

Keep in mind that there's nothing magical about following a particular break-in regime to the letter, the main thing is that you run high power and most importantly high MP (what you really want is high BMEP) during the first few critical hours as the rings seat. The idea is that this pressure forces the rings into the cylinder walls, mating them before the oil there gets crisped into varnish. At the same time it's important that you avoid high CHT so slow high power climbs are as problematic as low power descents.
 
Here's how Walter Atkinson responded to my query.

Dave
==========================================================

Temps will decrease as soon as the rings seat. If you happen to be looking right at the JPI at that moment, you will see the CHT drop by 5-10 degrees on the cylinder that just broke in. It doesn't happen to all of them at the same time.

Walter

 
Back
Top