 |
 |
 |
| About the Author ... |
|
John Deakin is a 35,000-hour pilot who worked his way up the aviation food chain
via charter, corporate, and cargo flying; spent five years in Southeast Asia
with Air America; 33 years with Japan Airlines, mostly as a 747 captain; and
now flies the Gulfstream IV for a West Coast operator.
He also flies his own
V35 Bonanza (N1BE) and is very active in the warbird and vintage aircraft
scene, flying the C-46, M-404, DC-3, F8F Bearcat, Constellation, B-29, and
others. He is also a National Designated Pilot Examiner (NDPER), able to give
type ratings and check rides on 43 different aircraft types.
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
I'm
a little nervous writing stuff like this, because I am acutely aware that not
all readers are the same. Some will read this column by itself, without
reading the material in previous columns that has led up to this point. Some
don't care about the dirty details, and simply want to know what to push or
pull and when to do it, without any desire to understand what they're doing,
and why. Some may skim the material, figuring they know most of it already,
and some may use a procedure "out of context."
I can only ask you to be careful when using this material. That's true of
anything in aviation (or life itself!), but a bit more so in this area. A
thinking pilot is always the best safety device in any airplane, and if a
thinking pilot also has the practical knowledge to go with it, so much the
better. In many ways, these engines are far more rugged than many believe, but
ignorance or a few moments of carelessness can easily do major damage to an
engine, with potential catastrophic results to the airplane. The potential for
damage is even greater with supercharged engines of any type.
Finally, this information is heavily slanted towards the engines built by
Teledyne-Continental Motors (TCM). The basic principles of combustion are the
same for all spark-fired, gasoline-powered, four-stroke engines, from your
garden tractor to the monstrous Pratt & Whitney R-4360 of bygone days.
However, some of the details differ, with some slightly different limitations.
It is impossible to cover them all, and since all recent development work that
I'm familiar with has been on TCM engines, those are the ones we'll talk
about.
If you are not prepared to study and understand the underlying principles,
I do not believe you can safely and economically operate these fire-breathers,
and frankly, I wish you wouldn't read this stuff at all. I'm not trying to be
elitist here, just trying to warn the unwary. As someone said, "A little
knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Come to think of it, this may be one reason there is so very little
material of this kind "out there." Maybe no one wants to stick his
or her neck out!
For your information, I have listed previous
related columns. If you have not read them, this would be an excellent time to do
so. They are the foundation for this current column, which has a lot of
"advanced material" in it.
I am hoping to incorporate all those and a good deal more into a book soon.
For those who do not understand this material, I strongly suggest you
simply follow the advice in your POH, or that published by the STC holder, and
do not adopt any other "special" techniques until you fully
understand why you are doing something differently.
There is also no need to change your whole lifestyle, here! Set up your
usual power setting in cruise, somewhere around 65%, and play with the ideas
here. At that power setting, you cannot hurt your engine by playing with the
mixture, RPM or MP. This will allow you to validate these concepts on your
own, and become comfortable with them.
I try to keep a ready stock of some of the old books I've reprinted and
that I've mentioned here before. I do this at no profit, mostly for the
warbird groundschool classes I do. By reprinting them in larger quantities and
selling them to anyone interested, I can sell them to all at lower prices. The
information in them is timeless, as valid today as it was in the days of the
big recips or a garden tractor. For complete (and updated) information,
please see:
Pelican's Perch -- Old Books & Publications
All come with a no-questions-asked, money-back guarantee, although I'm
pleased to say no one has been that unhappy yet!
I really, truly wish I could say "Go get some instruction on these
techniques from a good CFI." I really do. But the sad fact is that you
are far more likely to get bad information even dangerously
bad information than good information in the areas discussed here. Most of
the current crop of CFIs are a terribly inexperienced lot, and since most
modern "flight instruction" is nothing more than teaching the
trainee how to pass FAA multiple-choice knowledge tests and "canned"
practical tests, there is little to no real teaching getting done, and none at
all beyond the basics. Even if you find a very experienced instructor at your
local airport, the chances are he (or she ... I'm an equal opportunity
insulter) has been doing the same old instruction for many years. At the
criminally low rates we pay our CFIs, they don't have the time or the
inclination for advanced study themselves. Once a new instructor gets the CFI
tickets, he or she will probably not see any serious advanced instruction
until he gets that "real job" ... flying turbine equipment.
The same comments apply to most of the manufacturer's "tech reps"
you will find available to you. Some of these guys have been around for years,
parroting the same old "Old Wives' Tales" (OWTs), born of hearing
some other old-timer telling them what he thought ... also with no data. For
example, there are still a few tech reps out there that will mumble something
about warranties becoming invalid when an engine is run lean of peak (LOP) EGT,
but the real folks at the factory don't say this, and there are no known
records of warranties ever being denied for this reason. Indeed, some of the
engines are required to be run LOP, and both TCM and Lycoming have
stated publicly that running LOP will not invalidate the engine
warranty. In spite of this, one Lycoming tech rep bellowed several times
within a few minutes at me, "I wouldn't recommend lean of peak to my
worst enemy!" Tech reps are often too busy passing out old advice to read
the company line, or like many people, they will never change their opinions,
no matter how incorrect they may be.
That's not to condemn all CFIs, or all tech reps. But the really good ones
are few and far between, and I suspect most of the good ones will agree with
my comments about the bad ones.
Sadly, each user must determine for himself or herself who is putting out
the straight scoop, and who isn't. Be skeptical, always. Including when
reading my stuff, for I've been wrong, too. I've rather gotten to enjoy eating
crow!
I'd like to very briefly review a couple of key things, here. This is
mostly because I have a few dynamite charts just fresh in a couple from
GAMI, and several from my own data. Much of this information is in the charts
and text published in previous columns. However, in this column I would like
to present it a bit differently, more the way I think you should mentally
picture it during actual operation. For example, we could (and did) talk about
the numeric ratios of fuel and air for various power settings. But in flight,
I don't think of them in that way, I look for the reactions I see on the
instruments, and the effect on the machinery.
The first "action, reaction" I'd like to cover is what happens
when you pull the throttle from fully open to fully closed. Obviously, the
throttle plate ("butterfly") moves from a position "edge
on" to the airflow to a position where it almost fully blocks the flow.
At first there is almost no change in the MP ... then as you continue to
retard the control, it starts dropping faster and faster. This is due to the
geometry of the closing valve.
You need to understand that when you open the throttle, you are simply
allowing the engine (and supercharger, if installed) to pull in more air, and
in general, produce more power. When you close the throttle, you are depriving
the engine of air. That's why they call it a "throttle."
It is also important to realize that with throttle movement, you are
probably also changing the mixture ratio, even though you're not touching the
mixture control. On these high-performance engines, full throttle gives a
richer mixture than partial throttle. The relationship between the throttle
position and mixture may not even be linear outside that high-power range. In
other words, suppose you have a part-throttle power setting of 60% power with
a "best power" mixture, and you pull the throttle back to some lower
setting. You will probably not have a "best power" mixture setting
at this new throttle position, and may need to adjust the mixture for the
fuel/air ratio you want if you're going to stay at that setting for some time.
The most important example of this "mixture change with throttle" is
the common power reduction right after takeoff from full throttle (and quite
rich) to 25 inches of MP (much leaner), which has been "sort of
standard" for so long. Making this power reduction is almost universally
a "bad thing" to do, but if you've been taught that way, and have
always done it that way, it's really hard to accept that.
Think about it. Has anyone ever told you why you should
(not!) pull the MP back to 25 inches after takeoff? Have they told you
what happens inside the engine when you do that? In my personal opinion, this
very old power setting ("25 squared") is a carry-over from the big
radials where we have a "Maximum" power (usually limited to
something between one and five minutes) and a "METO" power setting
(which is "good forever.") My guess is that the "old
hands" coming off the big radials onto the flat engines just felt
terrible about running them wide open, and just had to make up some
sort of "lesser power." Just a guess, but it has always been
a bad idea on the high-performance flat engines.
Moving the throttle does not normally affect the RPM, since we are talking
mostly about constant-speed props. But the converse is not true: Changing the
RPM can have a major effect on the manifold pressure (MP). Depending on the
circumstances, and whether you have a supercharger or not, an RPM change can
move the MP either way, and you should understand why. Changing RPM can have
an effect on the mixture, too (fuel pump turns faster/slower, for one thing),
as well as the effective timing.
You need to have a good idea of what is happening in the combustion chamber
when you change any engine control in flight. The normal mixture control is,
of course, the mixture knob, but with the above in mind, you must realize that
the mixture can be changed in many ways, and all these changes can have a
major effect on the combustion event.
If the mixture is full rich and you begin to lean it, a number of things
begin to happen. Most obvious to you in the cockpit, and the fastest
indication of all, is exhaust gas temperature (EGT). As the mixture is
manually leaned from full rich to "too lean to run" with everything
else staying the same, EGT will first rise, peak, and then fall ... with a
very abrupt transition, a very sharp peak. This rise and fall is fairly
symmetrical with fuel flow. That is, if you construct a chart with fuel flow
across the bottom, and EGT up the left side, then plot actual EGT for an
engine at a constant power setting as you change the mixture, you'll find a
very tidy picture with the outline of a nice, symmetrical mountain, fairly
straight slopes, and a fairly sharp peak. Because the EGT responds so quickly
to the smallest inputs, we depend on it for changes and trends, but generally
speaking, we should not pay much attention to the absolute numbers. EGT is a
somewhat phony measurement to start with, because it is averaging the
temperature of a series of "pulses," often right outside the exhaust
port of a single cylinder.
Many turbocharged engines have a turbine inlet temperature (TIT) indicator,
which shows the temperature of the exhaust flow after the exhaust from all
cylinders has been combined, and just before it enters the turbine. This is a
much more meaningful indication of the actual temperature of the exhaust gas,
because this sensor "sees" all six pulses after they have mostly
been damped out by distance. This very real temperature is important for long
turbo life, so it must be monitored, and the limits should never be exceeded.
Moving only the mixture knob, you will change the power produced.
From full rich at sea level, power will increase very slightly as you lean, it
peaks around 80°F ROP, then starts falling off very slightly. (For the
remainder of this article, all temperatures cited will be expressed in degrees
Fahrenheit.) But once leaning goes beyond peak EGT, power falls off in direct
proportion to the change in fuel flow.
Moving only the mixture knob, you will change the cylinder head temperature
(CHT), albeit much more slowly than EGT. CHT will peak at a mixture setting of
about 35° rich of peak EGT, give or take a few degrees. The "slope"
of the CHT curve on the rich side will be a bit shallower than the slope for
the EGT curve, but that is not important to this discussion of pilot operating
technique. We've picked some of this stuff to death in previous columns; this
one is for practical use, in the airplane.
In summary, as you pull the mixture knob out, first the power peaks and
falls, then CHT peaks and falls, and finally, the EGT peaks and falls. Run
through this in your mind until it is firmly fixed, it's very important.
Very few people understand that the combustion event is a variable and
controllable process, and that a pilot can have a very large effect on it
well beyond simply "more fire" or "less fire." Even though
combustion appears to be nothing more than a rapid series of explosions, most
of us realize that it is actually a process that takes a finite amount of time
(measured in milliseconds). Fuel and air is introduced, compressed to about
300 PSI, and fired with a spark well before the piston reaches the limit of
its stroke at top dead center (TDC). In most of our engines, that spark is set
to fire somewhere around 20° of crankshaft rotation before TDC. The resulting
fire takes a little time to get organized and spread from the spark point
throughout the combustion chamber, while the piston finishes its upstroke. The
fire should start burning pretty seriously right after the piston hits the top
of its stroke, and the longer it can burn, the better, at least until just
before the exhaust valve opens.
Any burning that takes place before TDC is not only not productive but
counterproductive, since it resists the turning crankshaft, and represents a
net power loss. I'll call it "negative power" here.
In a perfect world, for a perfect power stroke, we'd like as little
pressure in the combustion chamber as possible before TDC, then we'd like a
very steady maximum pressure of about 800 PSI from TDC to the point where the
exhaust valve pops open. (Think of 850 to 1,050 PSI as a very rough long-term
structural limit on the cylinder heads and pistons, and all associated moving
parts.)
Alas, physics intrudes. First, as the next picture shows, the mechanical
motion of the crank and connecting rod dictate that the piston motion in the
cylinder is very slow at the top and bottom of its stroke when the crank throw
and connecting rod are aligned with each other. The piston motion accelerates
to "very fast" at mid-stroke, as the crank throw passes 90° to the
connecting rod. This mechanical advantage can be seen clearly in this
illustration:

My primary purpose in showing this picture (again) is to emphasize the
geometry of the moving piston, the crankshaft "throw" and the
connecting rod between them.
In the first picture, the piston is approaching TDC, and is located roughly
where the spark fires. Due to geometry, compression is almost complete,
because the piston has just about reached the limit of its travel, even if the
crankshaft has another 20 degrees to go to TDC. This means the combustion
chamber is very, very small, and it doesn't take much to drive the pressure up
to very high levels. Any buildup from combustion at this point is
"negative power," for it resists the crankshaft motion.
The second picture shows TDC. Any pressure in the combustion chamber
produces no power at all on the crankshaft, just very high forces on the
cylinder head, cylinder hold-down bolts, piston, wrist pin, con-rod,
crankshaft, and engine case. Hmm, seems like I just mentioned the whole
engine! Excessive force in the combustion chamber at this point is very
harmful to the entire engine.
In the third picture, as the piston falls away from TDC (very slowly at
first) the combustion event pressure builds very rapidly, and produces real,
useful power. As the fuel and air burns off, and the piston starts falling
away more rapidly (again, due to geometry) the pressure drops off again, as
quickly as it rose. The longer we can prolong that pressure, the better.
With a little math, confirmed by actual measurement on a test stand, we
know that no matter what the power setting, the very best point for maximum
pressure ("Peak Pressure Pulse" or "PPP" or
"theta") to occur is about 15° to 18° after TDC. This is
"best" in the sense that it transfers the most possible power from
the burning fuel and air to the crankshaft and prop. However, it may not be
"optimal" given other considerations, such as the structural
strength of the cylinder and variations in fuel octane ratings.
For now, let's simplify it and just call it 18° past top dead center.
That's important. There will be a quiz, later. Seriously, there's no way you
can read this in the cockpit, so I hesitate to suggest this as a "memory
item." But it is so central to the whole issue of engine management, we
need some sort of working number to talk about it. This value of 18° is not
optimum for all conditions, but for as long as we have to put up with fixed
timing, it's an excellent working average. In the future
, well, we'll talk
about that another time.
If we plot that pressure on a chart, with degrees of crank angle across the
bottom, and pressure up the left side, it looks like this:

The vertical red line is the spark, the pink is TDC. The blue curve is the
pressure you might see with "no fire," the green is the pressure
pulse with normal high power, and the orange is detonation, about which, more
later.
The real key point here is that any change in mixture (by any cause)
or any change in RPM will change not only the total pressure attained, but
the location of the peak pressure point past TDC. It also changes the shape
of that pressure pulse.
Follow me through here, this is really important. Just as EGT and CHT will
rise, peak, and then fall as the mixture is leaned, the speed of the flame
front will be "slow" at full rich, it will speed up as you lean,
reach a maximum at about the same point the CHT peaks, then it will slow down
again as the mixture goes leaner.
Click for a higher-resolution graphic.
Here is a spectacular graph, with data from a real, running engine. Please
don't skip over this picture! Understanding what this is showing you is
central to this whole issue of engine management! Take the time to
stop, follow me through on this chart, and understand it. If you won't,
or can't, then please forget all that you read here, and just operate your
engine as the manufacturer, the tech reps, or your 300-hour-total-time
instructor taught you. I don't want you blaming me for a destroyed engine!
The GAMI folks have an IO-470 heavily instrumented on what is probably the
most sophisticated test stand in the world. I can sit in a hotel room anywhere
in the world, and have full control over that engine, and record the data from
it in real time, over an Internet connection. Magic, pure magic.
This data was from one run, starting with (1) full power, full rich, then
changing to (2) 50° ROP, then on to (3) peak EGT, (4) 50° LOP, and finally,
(5) 100° LOP. Nothing but the mixture knob was changed. LET ME SAY THAT
AGAIN: NOTHING BUT THE MIXTURE WAS CHANGED.
I could do a whole column on this picture alone, and it is the prime reason
why I have chosen to do this "review."
The points of interest on all these traces are:
- Horsepower (listed in the text box to the right),
- Peak pressure height (read from the left side of the chart),
- Peak pressure location (read along the bottom of the chart),
- Spark timing (-20° i.e., 20° before TDC),
- Pressure rise from compression, then additional rise from combustion,
and where it occurs,
- Overall shape of the pressure event.
Please look carefully at each trace in turn, noting these points.
Please look at the black (or dark blue) trace, also labeled "1."
This is the starting point, at wide-open throttle (WOT), full RPM, and full
rich mixture, as on a normal takeoff. Note the text at the right side of the
chart shows the actual horsepower output is 234 HP (100%, for this engine,
this day). This a very tired, terribly abused test engine, and it just won't
make the full rated 260 HP. Note the peak of the pressure pulse is about 625
PSI, and it occurs at about 18° after TDC. Note the pressure rise doesn't
really change much when the spark fires, it takes a significant amount of time
and crankshaft rotation to get going, finally showing some effect from
combustion at about 2° or 3° BTDC( before TDC). That little rise is a net
loss, but it is probably not really significant.
Now, compare the other traces one by one, point by point. The purple trace
(2), the highest one, is leaner than 1. Of course, you should never see
this condition at high power. We have leaned the mixture without changing
anything else, to about 50° rich of peak EGT (ROP). This is a terrible thing
to do to an engine!
Still looking at (2), we have increased the HP output and peak pressure to
about 245 HP (105%) and 725 PSI, respectively. Remember when we lean from full
rich towards peak CHT, we increase the speed of combustion, i.e., the
flame front moves faster. The evidence of this is plain to see in this trace,
the fire gets organized faster, and the pressure starts to rise much
sooner before TDC, rises much more steeply, and peaks much
sooner, at only about 12° or 14° ATDC (after TDC). It is striking the top of
that poor piston like the hammer of Thor. Note how much pressure is exerted
BEFORE TDC all of it "negative power" which must be made up with
pressure ATDC. We are making this poor engine work a lot harder than the 10
measly NET HP we're getting! The ugly little wiggles at the peak of this trace
are probably the early stages of detonation.
The yellow trace (3) shows a far more benign picture at peak EGT (and how
many of you always thought peak EGT was "worse" than 50° ROP?) HP
is back down to about 2 HP less than the HP at full rich, and the peak
pressure is only about 600 PSI. The peak pressure occurs at about 22° ATDC,
which is not a bad place for it. Not the best point for maximum horsepower
(which is probably between 16° and 18° ATDC), but on the whole, a heck of a
lot better than the purple trace (50° ROP), above.
The blue trace (4) is 50° LOP, and is nearly perfect from an efficiency
point of view. We're only getting 212 HP (90%), and the peak pressure is down
to about 530 PSI. Note there is little or no "negative power" being
produced, as the pressure from combustion does not start to increase until
very close to TDC. Remember the geometry: Any pressure in the combustion
chamber within a very few degrees of TDC is translated into internal forces in
the engine, and is neither "negative" or "positive" power.
That purple line is producing a lot of "negative" power, though!
Finally, the green trace (5) should be self-evident by now. 100° LOP, 150
HP (65%), peak pressure is way down to 400 PSI, and the pressure peaks
at a whopping 30° ATDC! There is minimal "negative power" in the
area just before TDC at this very lean setting.
In summary, at full throttle and full RPM, changing nothing but mixture, we
can easily vary the actual power setting between 245 HP (105%), and 150 HP
(65%)!
Now, consider for a moment. Remember these lines are showing pressure in
PSI within the combustion chamber, NOT the HP. (For the techies, HP can be
calculated by numerical integration of the areas below each line, as
well as measured directly on the test stand.) Compare the black line (250 ROP)
at 234 HP, and the yellow line at 232 HP (peak EGT). Both are producing just
about equal amounts of power, right? The lean setting produces about 35° lower
CHT (that's not a typo).
That's where we're running when we suggest LOP operations, folks. Leaner,
cleaner, and cooler.
The mixture control is not the only control that affects the mixture.
Here's a picture of what happens to that power pulse if you take off with full
power (as you should), and simply reduce to 25" MP (as so many of us did
for so long, and shouldn't have).
Click for a higher-resolution graphic.
The red trace is full normal takeoff power, full rich, 238 HP on this tired
IO-470 engine. The blue is after pulling back the throttle to about 25 inches
MP and 195 HP, with no other changes by the pilot. The peak pressure drops,
and moves to a "better" angle. That sure looks good at first glance,
right? But note the EGT, which translates into a big increase in CHT as well.
EGT at the lower power setting is 100° hotter! On many of these engines,
leaving it there will often run the CHT far over 400°, possibly leading to
what we're calling "thermal runaway." We believe only a
short-duration severe "thermal runaway" just once can
destroy an engine and probably lead to failure on that same flight. Repeated
"mild" thermal runaways will almost certainly do long-term damage.
Yes, many got away with this initial power reduction for many years, but the
overhaul statistics aren't very good, either.
Finally, RPM may change the mixture a bit, but it has an even greater
effect on the power pulse. Here's a series of pictures showing what happens to
the power pulse when you reduce RPM only.
Click for a higher-resolution graphic.
Only the RPM is changed, the throttle and mixture control settings remain
the same.
Why does the power pulse change so much? By changing the RPM, we are
changing two things: the effective timing and the effective mixture.
First, effective timing. The spark lights the fuel-air mixture off at the
same physical point of crank rotation (20 BTDC), and the flame front moves at
the same speed (in feet per second) throughout the combustion chamber.
However, the piston is not moving at the same speed (in feet per second). At
reduced RPM, the crankshaft is turning more slowly, and it takes a longer
period of time for the piston to rise to the top and fall again, while the
combustion is taking place at the same high speed. Net effect, the peak
pressure occurs at an earlier angle. Note also that the peak pressure is
higher, but the HP is lower. This power loss is from the additional
"negative power" produced before TDC, and the change in the angle of
the crankshaft (less mechanical advantage) at peak pressure.
Second, reducing the RPM also leans the mixture a bit, which also
accelerates the burn time of the mixture, having an effect similar to
advancing the timing slightly.
This chart shows the classic reason for the rule-of-thumb, "Always
reduce MP before reducing RPM." It's really only critical at very high
power settings, but over the years, it has become a mantra for all settings.
There are a few exceptions to the "rule," where the engine
manufacturer has gone to the trouble of certifying the engine for an RPM
reduction first. The old IGSO-540 on the Twin Bonanzas and Queen Airs were
like this, and the modern IO-550 is certified for the Germans at 2500 RPM (285
HP) instead of 2700 (300 HP). Reduce RPM first at takeoff power on engines
that have not been tested for it, and you're a test pilot again.
In summary, it's probably best to just leave your engine at full takeoff
power, period. In my personal opinion, noise is such a major issue these days,
I consider it worthwhile to pull the RPM back 200, and risk slightly greater
wear and tear on my engine. Your mileage may vary. But please quit
pulling the MP back to 25 inches!
It is now becoming evident that we did not know as much about detonation as
we thought. (I am at least speaking for myself, here!) The classic explanation
of detonation involves the entire contents of the combustion chamber rising to
a temperature where it all "explodes" at once. That simply doesn't
happen. Even some of the old literature refers to "light,medium and
heavy" detonation. If the mixture all blows up at once, how can there be
such a variation? There is much more to the story, but that will have to wait
for another day, and another column, perhaps. For now, I'll say only that a
little detonation now and then is not only not harmful, but probably
beneficial.
I'm out of time and space this month, to be continued next. Patience!
Be careful up there!

Copyright Aviation Publishing Group. All rights reserved