High Performance engine wear.

So many wrong things said here, I don't even know where to start. So I won't.

But Bryon, I disagree with the answer. So just memorize the answer they're looking for, and go from there.
But, But, But, I just can't stand that kind of testing. Marked wrong for spouting the correct answer and marked right because you mark the answer that someone declared right? It's just wrong on so many levels.:mad:

I was kind of waiting for you to chime in, as I know you have quite a bit of knowledge in this area. Any bits of wisdom you could shed for me?

By the way, yes, I will memorize the wrong answer for the test and move on, but now I MUST learn.
 
Someone here said, years ago, that:

hi RPM = wear (friction & heat on moving surfaces)
hi MP = stress (higher icp, higher loads on bearings etc)

Both of which are bad.
I do not recall anyone providing a counterpoint to this statement.


I think I already did. Wear isn't just an issue of RPM. There are many factors that go into it: amount of turns total (not necessarily per minute), heat, lubrication, bearing condition. You can run a properly cooled and lubricated engine for longer than you're likely live but remove some of that lubrication or subject it to some excess heat, and you'll likely not make it to TBO (and as in my case, sometimes spectacularly not make it).

Higher MP may cause higher ICP (especially with lower RPMs) but even that's not an absolute. And stress causes wear too.

As we say in my industry "everything is deeply intertwingled."
 
The ATP test question is:

Under normal operating conditions, which combination of MAP and RPM produce the most severe wear, fatigue, and damage to high performance reciprocating engines?

High RPM and Low MAP
Low RPM and High MAP
High RPM and High MAP

The correct answer, according to the test, is HIGH RPM and Low MAP. I just wanted to determine why that was worse on the engine than the other two, when High MAP would certainly bring higher pressures and much more force against the various components than would a low MAP.

No even with the FAA pablum the answer is HIGH MP and LOW RPM. If your test prep books says otherwise, they are giving you the wrong answer.
 
From the FAA's Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (much is crap but it does show the FAA party line on things):

For any given rpm, there is a manifold pressure that should not be exceeded. If manifold pressure is excessive for a given rpm, the pressure within the cylinders could be exceeded, placing undue stress on the cylinders. If repeated too frequently, this stress can weaken the cylinder components and eventually cause engine failure. As a general rule, manifold pressure (inches) should be less than the rpm.
A pilot can avoid conditions that overstress the cylinders by being constantly aware of the rpm, especially when increasing the manifold pressure. Conform to the manufacturer’s recommendations for power settings of a particular engine to maintain the proper relationship between manifold pressure and rpm.

When both manifold pressure and rpm need to be changed, avoid engine overstress by making power adjustments in the proper order:
• When power settings are being decreased, reduce manifold pressure before reducing rpm. If rpm is reduced before manifold pressure, manifold pressure will automatically increase, possibly exceeding the manufacturer’s tolerances.
• When power settings are being increased, reverse the order—increase rpm first, then manifold pressure.
• To prevent damage to radial engines, minimize operating time at maximum rpm and manifold pressure, and avoid operation at maximum rpm and low manifold pressure.
The engine and/or airframe manufacturer’s recommendations should be followed to prevent severe wear, fatigue, and damage to high-performance reciprocating engines.​
 
If you are high RPM, low MP, you are driving the engine with the prop, and that is as bad as it gets on an engine.
 
From the FAA's Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (much is crap but it does show the FAA party line on things):

For any given rpm, there is a manifold pressure that should not be exceeded. If manifold pressure is excessive for a given rpm, the pressure within the cylinders could be exceeded, placing undue stress on the cylinders. If repeated too frequently, this stress can weaken the cylinder components and eventually cause engine failure. As a general rule, manifold pressure (inches) should be less than the rpm.
A pilot can avoid conditions that overstress the cylinders by being constantly aware of the rpm, especially when increasing the manifold pressure. Conform to the manufacturer’s recommendations for power settings of a particular engine to maintain the proper relationship between manifold pressure and rpm.

When both manifold pressure and rpm need to be changed, avoid engine overstress by making power adjustments in the proper order:
• When power settings are being decreased, reduce manifold pressure before reducing rpm. If rpm is reduced before manifold pressure, manifold pressure will automatically increase, possibly exceeding the manufacturer’s tolerances.
• When power settings are being increased, reverse the order—increase rpm first, then manifold pressure.
• To prevent damage to radial engines, minimize operating time at maximum rpm and manifold pressure, and avoid operation at maximum rpm and low manifold pressure.
The engine and/or airframe manufacturer’s recommendations should be followed to prevent severe wear, fatigue, and damage to high-performance reciprocating engines.​

Are there cases where point 1&2 should not be followed?
 
Are there cases where point 1&2 should not be followed?

Are there? Yes, when is subjective to many factors not the least of which is if you are at boosted manifold pressures or not. I'll leave my throttles WOT and take off with 2675 RPM, when I get cleaned up, nose down, and transitioned to cruise climb I'll pull back to 2500 RPM and grab the mixture and pull it back until the engine falls off the pipe watching the EGT come through the top, then richen it back up to about 10° LOP. When I get to the top of my climb I'll lean it back until I fall off the pipe again, but this time I just richen back up to where I get a surge in power and the resonance fills back in the exhaust note. Depending on conditions this ends up between 25°&50° LOP and gets me 175-180kts on 21gph. If I want/need to extend my range, I then pull back on the props some more and slow down some. At this mixture setting I am at zero risk of detonation even pulled the RPM well below the green arc with WOT.
 
Looking at the book for Gleim, (the computer program is ASA, not gleim) It goes on to note that this is the opposite that we learn as commercial pilots for modern high performance engines. It specifically examples the engines on a DC-6. It also references pg 145 of the Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, which I do not have.
 
A quote from the book:

The most severe rate of wear and fatigue
damage occurs at high RPM and low MAP.
High RPM produces high centrifugal loads
and reciprocating inertia loads. When the
large reciprocating inertia loads are not cushioned
by high compression pressures, critical
resultant loads can be produced. Thus, operating
time at maximum RPM and MAP must
be held to a minimum and operation at maximum
RPM and low MAP must be avoided.


So, is it better to keep the props at a lower rpm for landing, and then bring them back up if a go around should become necessary?
 
Looking at the book for Gleim, (the computer program is ASA, not gleim) It goes on to note that this is the opposite that we learn as commercial pilots for modern high performance engines. It specifically examples the engines on a DC-6. It also references pg 145 of the Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, which I do not have.

Foreflight documents section
 
A quote from the book:

The most severe rate of wear and fatigue
damage occurs at high RPM and low MAP.
High RPM produces high centrifugal loads
and reciprocating inertia loads. When the
large reciprocating inertia loads are not cushioned
by high compression pressures, critical
resultant loads
can be produced. Thus, operating
time at maximum RPM and MAP must
be held to a minimum and operation at maximum
RPM and low MAP must be avoided.


So, is it better to keep the props at a lower rpm for landing, and then bring them back up if a go around should become necessary?
Sounds like a made up phrase:D
 
So, is it better to keep the props at a lower rpm for landing, and then bring them back up if a go around should become necessary?

No. Leave them at high RPM for landing. I usually push them forward about the time they're off the governors.

I'll respond with a bit more wisdom another evening - just got done with drywalling (after working on a failed water pump/fan/radiator, rusted off exhaust, and other stuff I'm forgetting) and heading to bed now.
 
A quote from the book:

The most severe rate of wear and fatigue
damage occurs at high RPM and low MAP.
High RPM produces high centrifugal loads
and reciprocating inertia loads. When the
large reciprocating inertia loads are not cushioned
by high compression pressures, critical
resultant loads can be produced. Thus, operating
time at maximum RPM and MAP must
be held to a minimum and operation at maximum
RPM and low MAP must be avoided.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said.

Do that in a racing engine and it will go "kaboom" in the blink of an eye.
 
A quote from the book:

The most severe rate of wear and fatigue
damage occurs at high RPM and low MAP.
High RPM produces high centrifugal loads
and reciprocating inertia loads. When the
large reciprocating inertia loads are not cushioned
by high compression pressures, critical
resultant loads can be produced. Thus, operating
time at maximum RPM and MAP must
be held to a minimum and operation at maximum
RPM and low MAP must be avoided.


So, is it better to keep the props at a lower rpm for landing, and then bring them back up if a go around should become necessary?

Once you bring the throttles back far enough and the engine can't sustain the RPM the governor is set for, the blades are already at their flat pitch so pushing the props forward at that time will have no effect on RPM. Once on final with the power back is when I go forward with the props.
 
Back
Top