Temps for CHTS JPI 700

DavidWhite

Final Approach
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
7,151
Location
Olympic Peninsula
Display Name

Display name:
DW
I just got a JPI 700 installed in my plane, and the hair stood up on the back of my neck when I first took it for a spin with it installed. In a 90 knot cruise climb my CHTs were all above 400, and my #3 was at 440. In cruise my #1 and #2 are at 380, #3 is at 422, and #4 is at 400. Not sure what would cause #3 to be so much hotter, it is a new cylinder (like 100 hours on it).

hoping my engine doesnt explode

Dave
 
I have the same problem. Overhauled O360' #3 runs hot in climb, over 420, but everything 350-380 in cruise. I'm not happy either.
 
I just got a JPI 700 installed in my plane, and the hair stood up on the back of my neck when I first took it for a spin with it installed. In a 90 knot cruise climb my CHTs were all above 400, and my #3 was at 440. In cruise my #1 and #2 are at 380, #3 is at 422, and #4 is at 400. Not sure what would cause #3 to be so much hotter, it is a new cylinder (like 100 hours on it).

hoping my engine doesnt explode

Dave


Nope, but you can lean it out and get them all under 400. The numbers, including the high #3 are nearly the same as the 180hp 172 the other day running WOT leaned for best power doing 125kts at 1750', FF 11.7 OAT in the mid 80s I suspect. When I leaned it to 8.5GPH WOT the CHTs all dropped below 400. You're engine has a CHT redline of 500*.
 
Just because redline is 500 CHT, even Lycoming points out in various documentation that When that happens, you can pretty well guarantee you'll be replacing that cylinder very soon. Why? Because cylinders are built from two metals, one is aluminum, and 500 is very close to the point where the Al will separate from the other part of the cylinder - the Al gets very soft from the heat.
 
Just because redline is 500 CHT, even Lycoming points out in various documentation that When that happens, you can pretty well guarantee you'll be replacing that cylinder very soon. Why? Because cylinders are built from two metals, one is aluminum, and 500 is very close to the point where the Al will separate from the other part of the cylinder - the Al gets very soft from the heat.

Very close, however it does not make the structural conversion temp so it is still strong, 440 is not a problem.

BTW, when I went LOP with it the temp spread across all of them reduced greatly. Open your throttle to full and set your fuel flow to 8.7gph around 2000' and see how happy you are with your CHT there, check speed too, should be around 108kts.
 
Im carbureted, not injected. Don't think I can operate LOP. Good info, though. I wont worry about it.
 
Im carbureted, not injected. Don't think I can operate LOP. Good info, though. I wont worry about it.


I just told you I did it a couple of days ago in the IDENTICAL rig. There is no reason you can't run LOP with a carb. WOT, lean for 8.7 GPH @ 2000', go try, if it's a little rough still head for 9gph... Shoot JohnH a PM.
 
Last edited:
Lycoming recommends 425F or less in climb and 400F or less in cruise. You're not seeing any temperatures that are particularly concerning, although personally I do try to keep my head temps below 380F regardless of Continental or Lycoming. That said, when the 310 wasn't able to keep one of the heads on the left engine below 400F operating LOP on our trip up north earlier this week (remember it was rather hot), I didn't sweat it.

You will typically see a good variance between CHTs, simply because the cooling across the cylinders is uneven. As I said when I saw your plane earlier this week, it looks like your cowl inlets aren't as big as they were on the O-320/O-360 factory airplanes, and it wouldn't surprise me if, because of that, it doesn't cool as well. Having never flown in a 172 of any sort with an engine monitor, I can't comment.

I have found that on carbureted engines, especially these days, Precision has had poor quality control and different carburetors of the same model number on the exact same engine will produce different results as far as LOP/ROP. Next time I'm down by you we can go flying and play around with it.

Your engine won't explode, at least not because of what you're seeing.
 
Very close, however it does not make the structural conversion temp so it is still strong, 440 is not a problem.

BTW, when I went LOP with it the temp spread across all of them reduced greatly. Open your throttle to full and set your fuel flow to 8.7gph around 2000' and see how happy you are with your CHT there, check speed too, should be around 108kts.

This assumes a fuel flow monitor.
 
David:

The #3 on a converted 180hp/172 from what I have heard from virtually everyone who flys this rig, and from my own flights, always runs hotter than the rest of the jugs, and the main idea is to watch for consistency in the CHT-EGT readings (ie none if the indications are so far off the reservation that there is an issue with any one cylinder or cylinders. Your temps are not a problem so far.

My A&P just tells me to stop staring at the monitor all the time...I'm flying with the same one JPIEDM700, for only 40 hours now, and I have to work at not fixating on the damn thing.
 
I told you elsewhere that you were going to have more data than you wanted. :)

There should be a nickname for the JPI induced panic of every new JPI owner. :)

Climb a little faster and build a baseline before panic if they're all running about the same, seems to always be the advice seen everywhere.
 
Damn I hate to say this, but Henning is right. I have been worried about my high CHTs for about 3 years now. All kinds of advice from all kinds of people but I still ran too hot. I met with Henning down at MLB recently and he had us lean the thing till I thought the vernier mixture control was going to fall out. But the temps came down, the RPM and air speed went up and all was well with my 172n w O360 180hp conversion with the JPI 700 edm and the JPI 450 fuel flow totalizer.

PS, Henning, I never really thanked you for the lesson the other day. But I did appreciate it. So did Leslie. Good luck on your current mission.
 
Damn I hate to say this, but Henning is right. I have been worried about my high CHTs for about 3 years now. All kinds of advice from all kinds of people but I still ran too hot. I met with Henning down at MLB recently and he had us lean the thing till I thought the vernier mixture control was going to fall out. But the temps came down, the RPM and air speed went up and all was well with my 172n w O360 180hp conversion with the JPI 700 edm and the JPI 450 fuel flow totalizer.

PS, Henning, I never really thanked you for the lesson the other day. But I did appreciate it. So did Leslie. Good luck on your current mission.

No worries, glad to go flying and tell your wife I said she's a sweetheart and needs to relax a bit, she flies great. BTW, thanks for lunch.;)

It really is simple how it all really works isn't it, there's no magic.

We had 430 for a high on #3 at 125kts full power right?
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind the cowls on a 172N with the 180 HP conversion are different than David's cowls. The 172N has bigger holes in it (at least the one I flew, which had the 180 HP conversion) than David's 172, and I suspect that impacts cooling.
 
Keep in mind the cowls on a 172N with the 180 HP conversion are different than David's cowls. The 172N has bigger holes in it (at least the one I flew, which had the 180 HP conversion) than David's 172, and I suspect that impacts cooling.

Interestingly enough, smaller cowl inlets can actually provide better cooling by increasing velocity. You can do the most good tuning your airflow at the exit in the lower cowl, lowering the pressure at the exit is more effective sometimes than opening the intake.
 
Interestingly enough, smaller cowl inlets can actually provide better cooling by increasing velocity. You can do the most good tuning your airflow at the exit in the lower cowl, lowering the pressure at the exit is more effective sometimes than opening the intake.

Very true, there is more to it than simply the size of the inlet.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if the difference in this case had a negative impact.
 
Not really to unexpected, but give the baffles a GOOD go over, a good seal will help quite a bit.
 
Very true, there is more to it than simply the size of the inlet.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if the difference in this case had a negative impact.

Well, think about it, the cowl was designed to provide cooling for 160 not 180 HP. if I wanted to increase cooling in a 172 I'd build a little vortex generator at the exit.
 
Well, think about it, the cowl was designed to provide cooling for 160 not 180 HP. if I wanted to increase cooling in a 172 I'd build a little vortex generator at the exit.

That was my point.

Except in David's case, it was designed to cool 145 HP, not 180 HP. The 172N was 160 HP initially.
 
I just got a JPI 700 installed in my plane, and the hair stood up on the back of my neck when I first took it for a spin with it installed. In a 90 knot cruise climb my CHTs were all above 400, and my #3 was at 440. In cruise my #1 and #2 are at 380, #3 is at 422, and #4 is at 400. Not sure what would cause #3 to be so much hotter, it is a new cylinder (like 100 hours on it).

hoping my engine doesnt explode

Dave

Take the JPI out and everything will be fine. :D :rofl:
 
I just got a JPI 700 installed in my plane, and the hair stood up on the back of my neck when I first took it for a spin with it installed. In a 90 knot cruise climb my CHTs were all above 400, and my #3 was at 440. In cruise my #1 and #2 are at 380, #3 is at 422, and #4 is at 400. Not sure what would cause #3 to be so much hotter, it is a new cylinder (like 100 hours on it).

hoping my engine doesnt explode

Dave
What was the fuel flow and/or how did you set the mixture? Unless you were full rich (in which case you'd have to adjust/modify the carb to enrichen further) you could have lowered those CHTs by running a little richer.
 
What was the fuel flow and/or how did you set the mixture? Unless you were full rich (in which case you'd have to adjust/modify the carb to enrichen further) you could have lowered those CHTs by running a little richer.

It's about $20hr more expensive to bring the temp down with fuel instead of air... :popcorn:
 
It's about $20hr more expensive to bring the temp down with fuel instead of air... :popcorn:
Not when climbing with a NA engine. I've tried it both ways and going up to 9 or 10 thousand the difference in fuel consumed was well under one gallon and that's with a twin sucking down an average of 45 gph during that climb.
 
Not when climbing with a NA engine. I've tried it both ways and going up to 9 or 10 thousand the difference in fuel consumed was well under one gallon and that's with a twin sucking down an average of 45 gph during that climb.

I'm not sure how you're doing that. I can make 75% power either side of peak and the difference is about 3.5 GPH. At that my CHT ROP will be about 30* hotter in a climb. In order for me to bring that temp down to where it is LOP I have to toss another 2 GPH onto it, and that's per side.
 
David has had issues with cylinder's ending before one would expect hour wise. It's possible that the JPI has uncovered a real cooling issue that was the cause of the above.
 
I've replaced #3 and #4.....they were at 1000 and 1100 hours, respectively. They were also overhauled instead of new cylinders.
 
David has had issues with cylinder's ending before one would expect hour wise. It's possible that the JPI has uncovered a real cooling issue that was the cause of the above.

Thing is when a condition is common with a conversion, it's usually gonna be a design issue. They added 35hp, that's right about 9E4 BTU/hr, that's a lot of extra heat to displace.
 
Take the JPI out and everything will be fine. :D :rofl:

That is exactly what my A&P keeps telling me. But I don't believe in the ostrich solution. If it is really not a problem I could learn to live with it. But it does encourage me to continually look for potential off-airport landing sites.
 
I'm not sure how you're doing that. I can make 75% power either side of peak and the difference is about 3.5 GPH. At that my CHT ROP will be about 30* hotter in a climb. In order for me to bring that temp down to where it is LOP I have to toss another 2 GPH onto it, and that's per side.
Yes the fuel burn is higher ROP but you can also make more HP on the rich side and that translates to less time climbing and/or more distance covered during the climb. Either way when you only spend 10-12 minutes climbing a few extra gph just doesn't add up to much. And a LOP climb isn't easy to manage unless your engine it turbocharged or has an altitude compensating injection system. Not impossible but easy to mismanage if things get busy and since the rewards are so small there's not much incentive.

And FWIW, I have no cooling issues climbing ROP in my Baron.
 
I've replaced #3 and #4.....they were at 1000 and 1100 hours, respectively. They were also overhauled instead of new cylinders.

How much calendar time on them? That isn't too bad for an engine with a history of low usage.

But as I said earlier baffles baffles baffles!
 
Im carbureted, not injected. Don't think I can operate LOP. Good info, though. I wont worry about it.

For most carbureted engines if you lean until rough then enrich until smooth you're most likely LOP, possibly at-peak, which will be cooler CHT on the lyc. 360s and 320s.

http://www.7ts0.com/manuals/lycoming/320/O-320-IO-320-AIO-320-LIO-320_OM.pdf

http://www.7ts0.com/manuals/lycoming/360/Lycoming_O-360_OP.pdf

The whole "can't go LOP on carb" is that (I think) you can't guarantee as even a fuel/air mixture across cylinders as you would on a fuel injected engine, but if your carb. engine happens to allow it, go for it imo.

On my Apache (Lyc. O-320-A1A -- 150hp) using this method I can lean the engines out so far I will burn about 5gal/hr per side at 2000rpm. Of course, then I'm flying a twin cruising at 120kts. =D

No EGT/CHT just oil temp.

Good/bad for the engine? I subscribe to Deakins and Busch's interpretation of the data, but only time will tell.
 
He seems to be getting much the same numbers though.

I thought you'd just said how his were higher, and he could supposedly cool them off by leaning out further? How effective this is depends heavily on the specifics of the engine, i.e. how far one can lean before roughness.

It's about $20hr more expensive to bring the temp down with fuel instead of air... :popcorn:

And one is not always able to lean out enough to get the temps down before roughness and/or a significant drop in power. This is why I don't waste my time with LOP climbs - my experiences were pretty much identical to Lance's, plus it took me longer to get to altitude.

I'm not sure how you're doing that. I can make 75% power either side of peak and the difference is about 3.5 GPH. At that my CHT ROP will be about 30* hotter in a climb. In order for me to bring that temp down to where it is LOP I have to toss another 2 GPH onto it, and that's per side.

You can only make 75% power on either side up to a certain altitude. You will be able to make 75% power for a bit longer on the ROP side, and then you'll run out. If your CHT is hotter ROP, then you're not running rich enough.
 

Go LOP and the new ones will make TBO. In 20 years of ownership I've owned 33 cylinders on Lycomings, Continentals and P&W putting over 2000 hours on them. In my time of ownership I've never replaced a cylinder or had a stuck valve or 'morning sickness', nor have any of the planes that were assigned to me to work. I have been running hard LOP since I was a student pilot.

Do what you like, I let the results of Lindbergh and the military of WWII as well as my own results govern my actions, it's also where I garner my advice, YMMV.
 
Last edited:
If my engine will do it, Id happily run LOP. Not sure if my carb is precise enough to allow it, but I will try it next time I'm up.
 
If my engine will do it, Id happily run LOP. Not sure if my carb is precise enough to allow it, but I will try it next time I'm up.

I ran 2 O-360s (carbs with turbos) hard LOP for 1100hrs. The only thing I replied in those engines was the cams. I'd fly that sucker 24/24 at 8.7 gph everywhere.
 
If my engine will do it, Id happily run LOP. Not sure if my carb is precise enough to allow it, but I will try it next time I'm up.

As I said, I have noticed that a number of the carbs Precision is putting out for the O-360s aren't as good as they used to be as far as leaning.
 
Back
Top