Ugh! Promoters!

[bbchien]

I got frustrated today watching three other posters trying to actually get some real data from three promoters of $1,000 per visit seminars of lean of peak operations. I've done LOP. On some a/c it works, on some it doesn't.

Over the last three weeks, one of them actually slipped and admitted it might not work in some airplanes. IT's become clear that he has zero data in the TSIO 360, "we have reams of data". Yeah.

One other poster dug into "scientific" discussion and finally got one of them cornered so he responded "that's proprietary".

Another one tears into me for repeatedly pointing out that the emperor has no clothes....

Time for a red board break.

The amazing thing is that this trio goes from board to board as a tag team just before each seminar.....

 

[dmccormack]

I'm wary of just about any high-priced seminar promising secret knowledge the unwashed masses have overlooked.

 

[qbynewbie]

Bruce,

It's the Internet.

Take information offered freely with five grains of salt, assuming that it's worth all the money it cost you. When the source is widely respected and you deem them knowledgeable, consider the information seriously, using only one grain of salt.

Take compliments warily and credit them seriously only from people you know and respect.

Take criticism warily and credit it seriously only from people you know and respect.

It's too easy to let offhand comments or even purposeful comments on the Internet get underneath our skins. You are the same person you were when you got up today and you will be the same person when you go to bed. Any comments that you ran into on the Internet are just noise and affect who you are and the kind of person you are not one single whit.

 

[ScottM]

I have been on one of those for several months now.

 

[SkyHog]

I have been on one of those for several months now.

Me too, ever since I canceled my membership (and resigned my position as a moderator there).

When Phil's gone, I'll be back!

 

[ScottM]

Me too, ever since I canceled my membership (and resigned my position as a moderator there).

When Phil's gone, I'll be back!

I renewed my membership, but I was FRANK(h)ly annoyed at one particular poster and his fan club

Just made the place unfun.

 

[Ghery]

Yeah, but there's lots of good information (primarily from our good Dr. Chien and one or two others) in Medical Matters on the red board. More activity than the equivalent board here. Not quality, just quantity. And for some reason I've had a greater than normal interesting in that general topic recently.

 

[Tom-D]

I got frustrated today watching three other posters trying to actually get some real data from three promoters of $1,000 per visit seminars of lean of peak operations. I've done LOP. On some a/c it works, on some it doesn't.

Over the last three weeks, one of them actually slipped and admitted it might not work in some airplanes. IT's become clear that he has zero data in the TSIO 360, "we have reams of data". Yeah.

One other poster dug into "scientific" discussion and finally got one of them cornered so he responded "that's proprietary".

Another one tears into me for repeatedly pointing out that the emperor has no clothes....

Time for a red board break.

The amazing thing is that this trio goes from board to board as a tag team just before each seminar.....

I've always been taught, run them as lean as they will run smooth, if that is lean of peak, Oh Well who cares. we been doing it that way for as long as I have been flying.

And you don't need the fancy gauges to tell you that.

But when you are selling fancy gauges you got to bait the trap.

 

[ScottM]

I'm wary of just about any high-priced seminar promising secret knowledge the unwashed masses have overlooked.

wise. I too am leary of 'special sauce' type of seminars.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I miss the old days when business owners would at least pretend to be pleasant to the public, as anyone of us are potential customers. I guess its the new business model of perfect honesty or something.

 

[Henning]

wise. I too am leary of 'special sauce' type of seminars.

There really isn't any secret sauce involved (with LOP, not sure about the APS seminar, never been there), it's just about optimizing your fuel/air ratio. Can it be done, of course, and it's been done for decades. Trimmed the Travel Air LOP on carbs going to OSH and astounded the owner with the fuel burn. Do you need fancy instruments? Need? Nope, single probe EGT and CHT was all I had in that BE-95. Do they give you more information in order to diagnose problems and keep one aware of where one sits in the LOP/ROP/Potential damage engine operating envelope (and many other issues unrelated to LOP/ROP operations but will give you an early indication that you have a problem developing before it has a chance to go catastrophic thereby saving its cost in one event)? Yep. Try not to combine/confuse equipment and technique with the person promoting it. All this was around prior to the promotion and served its purpose back then as well. Keep the emotion out of it, emotionality rarely leads to good decission making.

 

[docmirror]

It is kind of funny, a physician ranting about a clique or group that promotes it's product/service. And blaming them for failure because his corner case doesn't fit the GA profile.

The last time I got a straight answer from a physician was when I was 8 and asked if I could have a lollipop.

My perspective. I don't have the fancy gauges, haven't attended the APS seminar. I would like to have the fancy gauges, I would like to attend the seminar. However, being an engineer, and a mechanic it prolly wouldn't save me thousands per year over what I am doing right now.

for the Joe Bagadonuts pilot out there, with a pricey plane, and little understanding of stoichiometry(not Dr Bruce) I can see great value in both the seminar and the fancy gauges for both leaning properly, and for engine analysis, to the point of operating both LOP and extending TBO into the +2000 hour realm. Everyone I've contacted that has attended the seminar has raved about the information and research shared. Education is always good, there are a lot of OWTs out there that need to be refuted.

 

[sba55]

I agree. Haven't been to the APS seminar, but everybody I've talked to who has been there found it to be extremely useful.

You don't have to go there if you're willing to spend a lot of time educating yourself, which is possible just by reading a lot of resources that are available for free.

As for them sharing their information - I've learned a lot from those guys on the red forum. I don't expect them to share all the information that they have for free. They have to make money somehow.

-Felix

 

[deafsound]

Just be glad you're not dealing with music promoters.

 

[rpadula]

I renewed my membership, but I was FRANK(h)ly annoyed at one particular poster and his fan club

Just made the place unfun.

LOL. I can't possibly imagine who you're talking about.


-Rich

 

[Dean]

There really isn't any secret sauce involved (with LOP, not sure about the APS seminar, never been there), it's just about optimizing your fuel/air ratio. Can it be done, of course, and it's been done for decades. Trimmed the Travel Air LOP on carbs going to OSH and astounded the owner with the fuel burn. Do you need fancy instruments? Need? Nope, single probe EGT and CHT was all I had in that BE-95. Do they give you more information in order to diagnose problems and keep one aware of where one sits in the LOP/ROP/Potential damage engine operating envelope (and many other issues unrelated to LOP/ROP operations but will give you an early indication that you have a problem developing before it has a chance to go catastrophic thereby saving its cost in one event)? Yep. Try not to combine/confuse equipment and technique with the person promoting it. All this was around prior to the promotion and served its purpose back then as well. Keep the emotion out of it, emotionality rarely leads to good decission making.

It amazes me the amount of pilots that we risk doing $1000's of dollars of engine damage just to save a few bucks on fuel, that's why most A & P's call it the red money knob. Running LOP if not done properly, will do more damage than good.

 

[bbchien]

It is kind of funny, a physician ranting about a clique or group that promotes it's product/service. And blaming them for failure because his corner case doesn't fit the GA profile.

Docmirror, YOU know I don't hold out to promote ANY service.

Funny ha-ha. So I spent about 6K total trying to save 2 gph (2001), on an a/c for which is is not possible to run lop anywhere near 65% power. Seven years later one of them blurts out that the aneroid has now been re-eingineerd (though no STC has been filed), simply confirming that there was no research on the TSIO360EB1B, just injectors sold for same and promoted for same.

Oh well, I've walked away from that, but I like holding their feet to the fire. As Rick has managed to make transparent, they'll not display even a detonation map. They display ONE data point. Laughable.

Then they try to bribe a few skeptics with a "free trip" to the course. This is soooo very charlatanic.....Anyone who tries to hold their feet to the fire is attacked.

Funniest of all, is most of the basic data is available in Curtis-Wright publications. Now they're upset. They've been exposed.

We've been running LOP with very little instrumentation for years, it's called best economy. It's really only a problem if you want to do lean/fast, what they call "go fast" mode.

I wonder when they're holding the next course. $1,000 per head.

 

[docmirror]

Hiya Bruce, I wasn't being funny haha, but funny as in 'an interesting aside'. The medical profession is rife with promotions of unsubstantiated cures, and needless procedures. Not accusing you personally, as I think you've done a good service to the flying community. Your are a minority in your field in this respect.

Now, as to your engine and LOP, it's one of those things that bugs me, when people write checks to solve a problem, rather than spending time with books, and investigating the engineering behind things. You would no more diagnose a tumor with a thermometer, than I would invest in a set of injectors and gauges without some proven benefit. Turbosupercharging is a strange beast, although it's been around since the 20s. Every engine behaves a bit different, and throw in the added complexity of aviation and you'll get a lot of testing needed.

I think the APS guys, and the Insight, and JPI folks have valid products for the vast majority of pilots in GA. Unfortunately, your application is that corner case, that is hard to both diagnose, and cure. At this point, my best guess(and only a guess), is that with the right kind of intercooler, wastegate control, timing, and fuel pressure you too could run LOP at higher power. It's possible that the C/R would also need to be reworked and cam profile as well. Most, if not all of these things aren't economically feasible to change.

I understand your dissatisfaction with the products and service. I don't have an axe to grind, as I don't need the stuff to do my thing LOP. You've been a vocal opponent of the product and service, which is fine after having spent your money. My point still stands that the medical profession is about the most clique-ish and/or clannish around, and they often withhold vital information from the general public that can and does affect the care given(think hospital nosocomial rates, and hiding physician mistakes). Again, not accusing you personally, I suspect you're an excellent doctor.

 

[bbchien]

And after that post, you nick name youself "doc"? "DOC?"

 

[Tom-D]

It amazes me the amount of pilots that we risk doing $1000's of dollars of engine damage just to save a few bucks on fuel, that's why most A & P's call it the red money knob. Running LOP if not done properly, will do more damage than good.

What amazes me is how many pilots still do not realize you can't harm an engine by removing fuel.

 

[sba55]

It amazes me the amount of pilots that we risk doing $1000's of dollars of engine damage just to save a few bucks on fuel, that's why most A & P's call it the red money knob. Running LOP if not done properly, will do more damage than good.

Sigh. We've beaten this horse to death, haven't we?

The reason some A&Ps call it the red money knob is because they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to engine management. Running ROP improperly, something the majority of pilots do anyway (acting on recommendations from Lyc/Continental), is far more dangerous. It's much more difficult to run LOP improperly.

I save tens of thousands by running LOP and not doing, or having to do, unnecessary engine work. LOP=bad, TBO=good, etc. has been out of the picture for a while.

-Felix

 

[Henning]

It amazes me the amount of pilots that we risk doing $1000's of dollars of engine damage just to save a few bucks on fuel, that's why most A & P's call it the red money knob. Running LOP if not done properly, will do more damage than good.

You don't get it, LOP is how you prevent $1000s of dollars of engine damage and general wear and tear levels. Aircraft engines just don't have the ability to get into trouble with potentially destructive power situations until you start getting into strongly supercharged engines (52+" MP) and those engines use water injection and/or inter/aftercooling to reduce risk of detonation. We don't run these engines with timing events conducive of detonation.

 

[docmirror]

And after that post, you nick name youself "doc"? "DOC?"

You equate 'doctor' with 'physician'. It happens all the time. No med school for me.

 

[flyersfan31]

Call me a sucker, but I did the online course and learned a TON about engines. I'm a happy customer. Hucksterism aside, I felt like it was very valuable. I don't have GAMIjectors, I fly a T182T, LOP works well. I do it for lower CHTs, not the fuel, that's just a bonus.

 

[n20junkie]

I got frustrated today watching three other posters trying to actually get some real data from three promoters of $1,000 per visit seminars of lean of peak operations. I've done LOP. On some a/c it works, on some it doesn't.

Over the last three weeks, one of them actually slipped and admitted it might not work in some airplanes. IT's become clear that he has zero data in the TSIO 360, "we have reams of data". Yeah.

One other poster dug into "scientific" discussion and finally got one of them cornered so he responded "that's proprietary".

Another one tears into me for repeatedly pointing out that the emperor has no clothes....

Time for a red board break.

The amazing thing is that this trio goes from board to board as a tag team just before each seminar.....

I have been on a red board break for over a year, and might just keep it that way.

 

[n20junkie]

You don't get it, LOP is how you prevent $1000s of dollars of engine damage and general wear and tear levels. Aircraft engines just don't have the ability to get into trouble with potentially destructive power situations until you start getting into strongly supercharged engines (52+" MP) and those engines use water injection and/or inter/aftercooling to reduce risk of detonation. We don't run these engines with timing events conducive of detonation.

I have done everything from 1,200 drag engines, to boats, and now planes. I might just be a dumb A&P and so forth, but rich will not cause 1,000's of dollars in damage, and LOP done properly won't either. You have to with any engine combonation take into account all aspects. True a turbocharged engine run pig rich will after fire and burn a turbine wheel, and true a lean engine can overheat components, if you forget to keep an eye on it as you climb, and it goes from the cool range, to a very hot EGT due to the climb enrichening the mixture for you. In the end, every plane has to be treated individually, and kept happy by doing what works with your components.

ps I own page two, carry on

 

[kgruber]

UGH! Whiners!

 

[bbchien]

I have done everything from 1,200 drag engines, to boats, and now planes. I might just be a dumb A&P and so forth, but rich will not cause 1,000's of dollars in damage, and LOP done properly won't either. You have to with any engine combonation take into account all aspects. True a turbocharged engine run pig rich will after fire and burn a turbine wheel, and true a lean engine can overheat components, if you forget to keep an eye on it as you climb, and it goes from the cool range, to a very hot EGT due to the climb enrichening the mixture for you. In the end, every plane has to be treated individually, and kept happy by doing what works with your components.

ps I own page two, carry on

And that be the truth.

 

[Henning]

I have done everything from 1,200 drag engines, to boats, and now planes. I might just be a dumb A&P and so forth, but rich will not cause 1,000's of dollars in damage, and LOP done properly won't either. You have to with any engine combonation take into account all aspects. True a turbocharged engine run pig rich will after fire and burn a turbine wheel, and true a lean engine can overheat components, if you forget to keep an eye on it as you climb, and it goes from the cool range, to a very hot EGT due to the climb enrichening the mixture for you. In the end, every plane has to be treated individually, and kept happy by doing what works with your components.

ps I own page two, carry on

Well, what I find rich does is cause exhaust valves to stick, and when rich to power optimization CHTs tend to get pretty high, seeming more often to be the limiting factor rather than EGTs. I don't particularly worry about EGTs below 1650, and depending on what the material is, even higher. The Head/Cyl joint however is a bimetal Acme thread joint with the aluminum on the outside, so...390, 420 for racing applications. Turbos as well take a good amount of heat before destruction, and ROP tends to screw up turbos by coking up the seal in the turbine which allows exhaust into the oil and even worse, causes the bearing to coke up with burnt oil which in my experience is the most common cause of turbo failure. Any ROP mixture will leave you with unburned/patially burned hydrocarbons which polute the engine as well as the environment. When you start doing root cause analysis of failures you can see where ROP costs you in repairs and maint, and any failure on a plane is thousands of dollars which is why $1000 bills are also known as AMUs.

 

[Henning]

And that be the truth.

Might be time to get that TBM.... Really Bruce, you just happen to own two of the powerplants that were just set up wrong, and even the Merlyn pseudo-wastegates don't address the problem (though I can't imagine why they didn't). We both know that you can operate LOP, you just have to constantly tend the engines fiddling and tweaking MP and mixture. The other option would be put on a regular, pressure referenced set of wastegates on on a field approval (not as difficult as you may think, especially if you show them what you propose to do on a 337 then just ask, "How do I go about implimenting this?" Worked well for me). Personally, I'd be more ****ed at TCM than APS though I do see some of your point. The engine monitor in and of itself, view that as an all around diagnostic tool rather than a tool specifically used for finding best LOP, because really, it is much more than that. As for the GAMI injectors, well, if it made your engines run smoother through a more balanced fuel flow, that alone makes them a worthwhile purchase, many of the issues I've dealt with on the Seneca II TSIO-360 engines (and even instruments/avionics) have been vibration related. So while they didn't answer the claim of prime interest, and they probably made a claim they couldn't live up to, you didn't really lose by putting in the GAMIs and engine monitor, you just didn't get everything you felt you were being sold. That pretty much sucks, but life is far to short to get p-ed off by this level of stuff, that costs nobody but yourself, and it costs you something more valuable than money. When you feel p-ed off over this stuff, just look over at your daughters and remember whats really important.

 

[Cruiser]

I am not looking for an endoresment of LOP operations. What I am trying to understand are the risks of doing so.

I am the one that will be pulling the knobs. So what and how I do it is important to me.

Bruce, I understand that you have some feedback loops that essentially counteract your LOP settings. Are you saying that LOP is not a viable operating method in general or are you limiting your critizism to a group of promoters and not the product? I don't recall that I have seem you take a position on LOP operations, only your experience with attempting it. The fact that you went ahead with the investment in GAMIs and tried it makes me believe you saw benefit in LOP operations. Yes? No?

Is there anyone that can offer personal experience with LOP operations and have had engine problems? What were they and do they believe LOP was the cause? I don't mean Bruce's well documented issues or others failed attempts. I mean owners that have operated LOP. I have not seen a post that says I operate LOP and blew up my engine.

I have 20 hrs on a rebuilt IO360A3B6D w/RTs and have to make a decision to operate LOP or not.

thanks,

 

[docmirror]

I am not looking for an endoresment of LOP operations. What I am trying to understand are the risks of doing so.

I am the one that will be pulling the knobs. So what and how I do it is important to me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have 20 hrs on a rebuilt IO360A3B6D w/RTs and have to make a decision to operate LOP or not.

thanks,

At what power setting do you want to use? The short answer is that you will have no added risk of running LOP below about 70% power.

 

[Tom Gresham]

Call me a sucker, but I did the online course and learned a TON about engines. I'm a happy customer. Hucksterism aside, I felt like it was very valuable. I don't have GAMIjectors, I fly a T182T, LOP works well. I do it for lower CHTs, not the fuel, that's just a bonus.

It is interesting, isn't it? Your personal experience, as with more than a thousand others, is that it was worthwhile.

Yet those who have not done the course stand out there telling everyone it's not worthwhile.

Interesting.

 

[bbchien]

I am not looking for an endoresment of LOP operations. What I am trying to understand are the risks of doing so.

I am the one that will be pulling the knobs. So what and how I do it is important to me.

Bruce, I understand that you have some feedback loops that essentially counteract your LOP settings. Are you saying that LOP is not a viable operating method in general

Nope.

or are you limiting your critizism to a group of promoters

Yup.

and not the product? I don't recall that I have seem you take a position on LOP operations, only your experience with attempting it. The fact that you went ahead with the investment in GAMIs and tried it makes me believe you saw benefit in LOP operations. Yes? No?

YUP.

Is there anyone that can offer personal experience with LOP operations and have had engine problems? What were they and do they believe LOP was the cause? I don't mean Bruce's well documented issues or others failed attempts. I mean owners that have operated LOP. I have not seen a post that says I operate LOP and blew up my engine.

That becuase it's like balancing a marble on an upside down salad bowl. When you next scan over there, both engines are in the red box. So I don't try it anymore.

I have 20 hrs on a rebuilt IO360A3B6D w/RTs and have to make a decision to operate LOP or not.

thanks,

Give it a try, see what you think. If you CAN do it, more power to you. I wish my setup could.

Henning missed, that Walt let slip that George has seen fit to modify the aneroid (that enriches the mix in the +70% range) on this engine, though there is no STC for it. It seems that this is the part that makes LOP above 65% near impossible. Below 65% you don't need ANY equipment to run LOP. It's too hard to do much damage wtih only 133 hp moving through the engine. I know a LOT of Seneca operators, and I don't know of ONE who is able meaningfully to run LOP.

I think it was promoted like Eclipse- which still cannot deliver an RNAV FIKI ship years later. It's not good for what ails you, it's good if it doesn't ail you.

And Tom, FWIW, I should have just taken each of the $1,000s I spent and bought a cylinder kit. I would have come out ahead. That goes for the course, which, for which as you note, most of it is published knowledge anyway. Yeah, it's fun to watch ONE IO 550 engine instantaneously plumbed for cyl pressures in real time, but that's a long throw from asking a TSIO 360 EB run LOP usefully. What I was not aware of, is that there is essentially NO TSIO 360 data. But the way you guys dance around the question has made this abundantly clear.

Oh. I'm sorry. It's proprietary! Now you and Wlat be sure now to go around to all six aviaiton boards and promote the next course now. Course = another cylinder, better spent in my type a/c.

Just one man's opinion backed by 2500 hours operational experience.

 

[Tom Gresham]

Angry Bruce, you really need to get a grip.

Between your nasty characterizations ("bribe"???) and misrepresentations ("let it slip"), it's becoming hard to take you seriously.

Recap: I don't work for GAMI or APS, and I don't promote anything, other than sound operation of engines. Your continued harping on this now is beyond the pale. You have been told, repeatedly, that I am not part of APS or GAMI or TA Turbo or any company in aviation, yet you continue to repeat this falsehood. ("You guys . . . ")

Go to the course or not. i don't care. Operate LOP or not. I don't care.

But don't post misrepresentations about people (I'm trying to keep this civil) and expect to not have it challenged.

Just one man's opinion backed by more than 2500 hours of LOP operation.

 

[bbchien]

Between your nasty characterizations ("bribe"???) and misrepresentations ("let it slip"), it's becoming hard to take you seriously.

You get a grip. Truth? Ever heard of it? "Bri_e"? I have never used that word. Search all the strings. You're using that word, not I. Your patronizing tone is self-defeating....

So what makes your 2500 hours move valid than mine? So far I haven't seen a shred of evidence gathered in a TSIO 360EB nor have I found a single Seneca II operator who in any meaningful way can run LOP. The disclosure of the "the aneroid!" wasn't you, so whad the heck are you so twisted about? How about the way you treated CheckoutMySix?

Tom I don't care if you promote it or not. You're at least not hawking hardware or courseware. Go ahead and make TV shows, I enjoy 'em. But I will be around to point out that this stuff is not "good for what ails you", as in LOP is good for exhaust leaks. That whole discussion was just egregious. It's good if it doesn't ail you.

On a Seneca II, it's best to take the money and buy cylinders. That's just how it is.

 

[Tom Gresham]

You get a grip. Truth? Ever heard of it? "Bri_e"? I have never used that word. Search all the strings. You're using that word, not I. Your patronizing tone is self-defeating....

Riiiight . . .

Message 17:

"Then they try to bribe a few skeptics with a "free trip" to the course. This is soooo very charlatanic.....Anyone who tries to hold their feet to the fire is attacked."

 

[Tom Gresham]

I am not looking for an endoresment of LOP operations. What I am trying to understand are the risks of doing so.

Cruiser, I'm not an expert at this, but I've been studying it for about eight years, and I have about 2500 hours of LOP operation in five airplanes (7 engines).

I haven't found any particular risks in running LOP, if you know what you are doing. That last part is in there because some people get confused about what "lean" means.

When you hear mechanics talking about being "too lean" they actually are talking about running ROP, but not as rich as you should be.

It is not easy to realize that the people with whom you trust your plane for maintenance, and who have decades of experience, are just flat ignorant on this subject. Sadly, that is the case.

Let me shift a bit here, though. It is not necessary to have an engine monitor in order to run LOP, even though the two are often linked.

Having said that, an engine monitor is very important, in my view. Just yesterday I was talking with a pilot who offered this story. He and his airplane partner had been trying to figure out why one cylinder was always hotter than the others. The mechanics checked the baffling, checked injectors, etc. No one could figure it out. He was climbing away from the airport when the engine monitor indicated that one cylinder suddenly dropped from being hot to ZERO ETGs. He immediately turned back, called for the trucks, then started getting vibration in the engine.

When he opened the cowl, one of the cylinders broke off and fell off the engine. It was the cylinder next to the one which had been reading hot. The failed cylinder had developed a crack, which was squirting hot gases onto the adjacent cylinder.

The point is that he identified the problem with the engine monitor before feeling the vibrations. It doesn't matter for this story, but he runs ROP in all phases of flight.

No matter how you set the mixture, a multi-cylinder monitor is important to have, and to know how to use.

 

[Tom Gresham]

Funniest of all, is most of the basic data is available in Curtis-Wright publications. Now they're upset. They've been exposed.

Sonofagun! You exposed the truth!

Except . . . that since the first class, APS has given credit to Curtis, WAD, and P&W. It also gives out copies of the books that CAD and P&W published in the 1950's.

http://advancedpilot.com/store.html

Should anyone want copies of these books, they also are for sale. Very instructive. A big thanks to John Deakin for the high-quality reproductions of these rare publications.

Honestly, it's hard to imagine why the folks at APS would be upset that someone has "discovered" and is "revealing" what they have been saying for years.