Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> JabiruEngine-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:21 am Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Over the last week, I've had some fun making some tests with my newly- 

installed Rotec TBI-40 mixture-adjustable, carburetor-replacement  

device on my Jabiru engine. I don't know whether two of these units  

will work on a Rotax, so many of you might want to hit the delete key  

right now.



For the most part, I was flying it LOP (lean-of-peak), but yesterday  

I made a flight and decided that I would try ROP (rich-of-peak). In  

flying LOP, the articles I've read say to keep the power requirements  

low, and LOP will work and you won't burn the engine down. I was  

amazed that this LOP thing even works at all, let alone work as well  

as I've found that it seems too....I guess I'm still a bit of a  

skeptic. After all, if going lean is a bad thing, how can going even  

leaner be a good thing? I won't argue whether or not it's a good or  

bad thing, and there are those of you that may not be able to do any  

leaning at all, as I was until I got this unit.

Three days ago, I made two trips totaling 475 miles, using LOP  

settings, and yesterday I made a 310-mile trip, using ROP settings. I  

had flown the 475 miles leaning out the engine until peak EGT, then  

leaning more until the engine was obviously low on power, and I  

contentedly flew at this setting, watching the scenery crawl by.  

Yesterday I decided to actually GO somewhere, and never mind the fuel  

saving, I just wanted to get there, so I decided to try ROP.

Here are the average numbers from those trips:



LOP:   27.77 miles per gallon;   3.3   gallons per hour;	   93.14  

miles per hour

ROP:  23.66 miles per gallon;	4.37 gallons per hour;	 103.3 miles per  

hour



Altitudes on all of these flight were anywhere from 3000' MSL (with a  

base of 1000') to 10,000 MSL, with throttle settings from 2600 rpm to  

3050. Fuel flow as seen on the gauge, ranged from 2.5 gallons per  

hour to 5.0 not including takeoffs, but including climbs.



So you can see from these figures (admittedly a low number of  

samples) that it does pay to tweak the mixture, and even if flown  

LOP, the speed is not too bad. 	



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs

Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

Electroair direct-fire ignition system

Rotec TBI-40 injection

Status: flying

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:22 pm Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Good Afternoon Lynn,

  

 Just as a quick recap of LOP versus ROP, may we specify what it is that we  are lean of or rich of?

  

 Generally speaking, most folks like to think of rich or lean in relation to  EGT temperature, but the thing we really want to know is whether we are on the  rich side or the lean side of best power. At best power, almost all of the air  that is available will be used. By checking the temperature with an EGT gauge,  we will find that when we are running at "best" power, the EGT gauge will  generally read about 60 degrees F cooler than it will at peak EGT. We therefore  now know that peak EGT occurs on the lean side of best power. Another way to say  that is that best power can be found about sixty to eighty degrees richer than  Peak EGT

  

 The hottest internal combustion temperature will occur when just a bit lean  of best power. Most of our automobile engines are designed to run right at best  power most of the time. Our aircraft engines tend to be designed to run at full  takeoff power for a relatively short time and the cooling capabilities are  designed to be able to handle full power by adding extra fuel to the mixture  which will slow down the rate of burn, move the point of peak cylinder pressure  later in the combustion process and allow us to keep the engine temps below the  redline while developing high power.

  

 So  --- If we are at full or high power running rich and we make the  mixture less rich, we are taking away some of the fuel that has been used to  move the flame front later in the cycle and the cylinder temperatures will rise.  However, if we continue to reduce the fuel flow, the internal temperature will  peak at some rather high number. That will be very close to the best power  mixture. The problem is that our engines are not designed to cool properly at  that high a cylinder pressure. If we continue to make the mixture less rich, it  will eventually get to the peak EGT. That will occur with an EGT that is between  fifty and eighty degrees Fahrenheit hotter than it was at the peak combustion  temperature point. If we now continue to lean the mixture, the EGT will drop.  Less fuel means less fire and the cylinder temperatures and pressures will  continue to drop. At a cruise power of sixty to seventy percent for most light  aircraft engines, the best BSFC  (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption) will be  found with an EGT about twenty degrees F leaner than Peak EGT. (Or about  seventy-five to one hundred degrees away from best power.) It makes  sense that when you are burning less fuel the temperatures will be lower, but  when we are running at very high power settings, we need the extra fuel to keep  the peak combustion pressure and temperatures down. 

  

 Thus, it can truthfully be said that there are times when leaning the  engine will make the heads run hotter, but there are also times when leaning the  mixture will make the heads run cooler.

  

 As Always, It All depends!

  

 Make any sense at all?

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

 Stearman N3977A

 LL22

  

  In a message dated 8/15/2009 1:21:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    JabiruEngine-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson    <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>



Over the last week, I've had some fun making    some tests with my newly- 

installed Rotec TBI-40 mixture-adjustable,    carburetor-replacement  

device on my Jabiru engine. I don't know    whether two of these units  

will work on a Rotax, so many of you    might want to hit the delete key  

right now.



For the most    part, I was flying it LOP (lean-of-peak), but yesterday  

I made a    flight and decided that I would try ROP (rich-of-peak). In  

flying    LOP, the articles I've read say to keep the power requirements  

low,    and LOP will work and you won't burn the engine down. I was  

amazed    that this LOP thing even works at all, let alone work as well  

as    I've found that it seems too....I guess I'm still a bit of a     

skeptic. After all, if going lean is a bad thing, how can going even     

leaner be a good thing? I won't argue whether or not it's a good or     

bad thing, and there are those of you that may not be able to do any     

leaning at all, as I was until I got this unit.

Three days ago, I made    two trips totaling 475 miles, using LOP  

settings, and yesterday I    made a 310-mile trip, using ROP settings. I  

had flown the 475 miles    leaning out the engine until peak EGT, then  

leaning more until the    engine was obviously low on power, and I  

contentedly flew at this    setting, watching the scenery crawl by.  

Yesterday I decided to    actually GO somewhere, and never mind the fuel  

saving, I just wanted    to get there, so I decided to try ROP.

Here are the average numbers from    those trips:



LOP:   27.77 miles per gallon;      3.3   gallons per hour;       93.14     

miles per hour

ROP:  23.66 miles per gallon;    4.37    gallons per hour;    103.3 miles per  

hour



Altitudes    on all of these flight were anywhere from 3000' MSL (with a  

base of    1000') to 10,000 MSL, with throttle settings from 2600 rpm to  

3050.    Fuel flow as seen on the gauge, ranged from 2.5 gallons per  

hour to    5.0 not including takeoffs, but including climbs.



So you can see from    these figures (admittedly a low number of  

samples) that it does pay    to tweak the mixture, and even if flown  

LOP, the speed is not too    bad.     



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster,    taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs

Sensenich 62"x46" Wood    prop

Electroair direct-fire ignition system

Rotec TBI-40    injection

Status:  flying





	


 

  [quote][b]

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:28 pm Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Yeah, it makes sense, and I hope I'm doing it right. I lean until the  

peak EGT is found, then either richen about 50 degrees (that's what  

I've read) for ROP, or continue leaning until the EGT's (all four of  

them in my case) also drop about 50 degrees. The CHT's also come down  

in my engine, as well as the power....the engine feels like my car  

does when I turn on the air conditioner...kinda sagging in power. But  

I NEVER do this LOP setting when I am over about 2850 rpm (red line  

3300) or when I am stressing the engine. If I'm doing something that  

would hurt the engine, I'd certainly like to be alerted to it. But I  

only go lean-of-peak EGT when in a slow cruise mode. (When I  

mentioned going to 3050 rpm, I was referring to going to ROP in a low  

power-requirement mode.)



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs

Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

Electroair direct-fire ignition system

Rotec TBI-40 injection

Status: flying

On Aug 15, 2009, at 4:16 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Good Afternoon Lynn,



 Just as a quick recap of LOP versus ROP, may we specify what it is  

 that we are lean of or rich of?



 Generally speaking, most folks like to think of rich or lean in  

 relation to EGT temperature, but the thing we really want to know  

 is whether we are on the rich side or the lean side of best power.  

 At best power, almost all of the air that is available will be  

 used. By checking the temperature with an EGT gauge, we will find  

 that when we are running at "best" power, the EGT gauge will  

 generally read about 60 degrees F cooler than it will at peak EGT.  

 We therefore now know that peak EGT occurs on the lean side of best  

 power. Another way to say that is that best power can be found  

 about sixty to eighty degrees richer than Peak EGT



 The hottest internal combustion temperature will occur when just a  

 bit lean of best power. Most of our automobile engines are designed  

 to run right at best power most of the time. Our aircraft engines  

 tend to be designed to run at full takeoff power for a relatively  

 short time and the cooling capabilities are designed to be able to  

 handle full power by adding extra fuel to the mixture which will  

 slow down the rate of burn, move the point of peak cylinder  

 pressure later in the combustion process and allow us to keep the  

 engine temps below the redline while developing high power.



 So  --- If we are at full or high power running rich and we make  

 the mixture less rich, we are taking away some of the fuel that has  

 been used to move the flame front later in the cycle and the  

 cylinder temperatures will rise. However, if we continue to reduce  

 the fuel flow, the internal temperature will peak at some rather  

 high number. That will be very close to the best power mixture. The  

 problem is that our engines are not designed to cool properly at  

 that high a cylinder pressure. If we continue to make the mixture  

 less rich, it will eventually get to the peak EGT. That will occur  

 with an EGT that is between fifty and eighty degrees Fahrenheit  

 hotter than it was at the peak combustion temperature point. If we  

 now continue to lean the mixture, the EGT will drop. Less fuel  

 means less fire and the cylinder temperatures and pressures will  

 continue to drop. At a cruise power of sixty to seventy percent for  

 most light aircraft engines, the best BSFC  (Brake Specific Fuel  

 Consumption) will be found with an EGT about twenty degrees F  

 leaner than Peak EGT. (Or about seventy-five to one hundred degrees  

 away from best power.) It makes sense that when you are burning  

 less fuel the temperatures will be lower, but when we are running  

 at very high power settings, we need the extra fuel to keep the  

 peak combustion pressure and temperatures down.



 Thus, it can truthfully be said that there are times when leaning  

 the engine will make the heads run hotter, but there are also times  

 when leaning the mixture will make the heads run cooler.



 As Always, It All depends!



 Make any sense at all?



 Happy Skies,



 Old Bob

 Stearman N3977A

 LL22



 In a message dated 8/15/2009 1:21:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  

 lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

 

 <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>



 Over the last week, I've had some fun making some tests with my newly-

 installed Rotec TBI-40 mixture-adjustable, carburetor-replacement

 device on my Jabiru engine. I don't know whether two of these units

 will work on a Rotax, so many of you might want to hit the delete key

 right now.



 For the most part, I was flying it LOP (lean-of-peak), but yesterday

 I made a flight and decided that I would try ROP (rich-of-peak). In

 flying LOP, the articles I've read say to keep the power requirements

 low, and LOP will work and you won't burn the engine down. I was

 amazed that this LOP thing even works at all, let alone work as well

 as I've found that it seems too....I guess I'm still a bit of a

 skeptic. After all, if going lean is a bad thing, how can going even

 leaner be a good thing? I won't argue whether or not it's a good or

 bad thing, and there are those of you that may not be able to do any

 leaning at all, as I was until I got this unit.

 Three days ago, I made two trips totaling 475 miles, using LOP

 settings, and yesterday I made a 310-mile trip, using ROP settings. I

 had flown the 475 miles leaning out the engine until peak EGT, then

 leaning more until the engine was obviously low on power, and I

 contentedly flew at this setting, watching the scenery crawl by.

 Yesterday I decided to actually GO somewhere, and never mind the fuel

 saving, I just wanted to get there, so I decided to try ROP.

 Here are the average numbers from those trips:



 LOP:   27.77 miles per gallon;   3.3   gallons per hour;       93.14

 miles per hour

 ROP:  23.66 miles per gallon;    4.37 gallons per hour;    103.3  

 miles per

 hour



 Altitudes on all of these flight were anywhere from 3000' MSL (with a

 base of 1000') to 10,000 MSL, with throttle settings from 2600 rpm to

 3050. Fuel flow as seen on the gauge, ranged from 2.5 gallons per

 hour to 5.0 not including takeoffs, but including climbs.



 So you can see from these figures (admittedly a low number of

 samples) that it does pay to tweak the mixture, and even if flown

 LOP, the speed is not too bad.



 Lynn Matteson

 Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

 Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs

 Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

 Electroair direct-fire ignition system

 Rotec TBI-40 injection

 Status: flying



 www.matronics.com/contribution _- 

 ============================================================

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:45 pm Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Good Afternoon Lynn,

  

 The only comment I would make is to be certain that you only use the fifty  rich mode when you are pulling seventy percent power or less. Fifty rich of peak  will give you the hottest cylinder temperature that you can get. It is a mixture  to be avoided at any high power settings. I restrict a fifty rich setting to no  higher than sixty-five percent power, but I tend to be on the cautious side.  Fifty lean of peak is leaner than you need for optimum economy. Twenty lean is  just about perfect at sixty-five percent power. Fifty lean won't hurt a thing,  but you lose a little efficiency.

  

 Sounds like fun though.

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

  

  In a message dated 8/15/2009 5:28:52 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    JabiruEngine-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson    <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>



Yeah, it makes sense, and I hope I'm doing it    right. I lean until the  

peak EGT is found, then either richen about    50 degrees (that's what  

I've read) for ROP, or continue leaning    until the EGT's (all four of  

them in my case) also drop about 50    degrees. The CHT's also come down  

in my engine, as well as the    power....the engine feels like my car  

does when I turn on the air    conditioner...kinda sagging in power. But  

I NEVER do this LOP    setting when I am over about 2850 rpm (red line  

3300) or when I am    stressing the engine. If I'm doing something that  

would hurt the    engine, I'd certainly like to be alerted to it. But I  

only go    lean-of-peak EGT when in a slow cruise mode. (When I  

mentioned going    to 3050 rpm, I was referring to going to ROP in a low     

power-requirement mode.)



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster,    taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs

Sensenich 62"x46" Wood    prop

Electroair direct-fire ignition system

Rotec TBI-40    injection

Status: flying

On Aug 15, 2009, at    4:16 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Good Afternoon    Lynn,



 Just as a quick recap of LOP versus ROP, may we specify    what it is  

 that we are lean of or rich of?



    Generally speaking, most folks like to think of rich or lean in  

    relation to EGT temperature, but the thing we really want to know     

 is whether we are on the rich side or the lean side of best    power.  

 At best power, almost all of the air that is available    will be  

 used. By checking the temperature with an EGT gauge, we    will find  

 that when we are running at "best" power, the EGT    gauge will  

 generally read about 60 degrees F cooler than it    will at peak EGT.  

 We therefore now know that peak EGT occurs on    the lean side of best  

 power. Another way to say that is that    best power can be found  

 about sixty to eighty degrees richer    than Peak EGT



 The hottest internal combustion temperature will    occur when just a  

 bit lean of best power. Most of our    automobile engines are designed  

 to run right at best power most    of the time. Our aircraft engines  

 tend to be designed to run at    full takeoff power for a relatively  

 short time and the cooling    capabilities are designed to be able to  

 handle full power by    adding extra fuel to the mixture which will  

 slow down the rate    of burn, move the point of peak cylinder  

 pressure later in the    combustion process and allow us to keep the  

 engine temps below    the redline while developing high power.



 So  --- If we    are at full or high power running rich and we make  

 the mixture    less rich, we are taking away some of the fuel that has  

 been    used to move the flame front later in the cycle and the  

    cylinder temperatures will rise. However, if we continue to reduce     

 the fuel flow, the internal temperature will peak at some    rather  

 high number. That will be very close to the best power    mixture. The  

 problem is that our engines are not designed to    cool properly at  

 that high a cylinder pressure. If we continue    to make the mixture  

 less rich, it will eventually get to the    peak EGT. That will occur  

 with an EGT that is between fifty and    eighty degrees Fahrenheit  

 hotter than it was at the peak    combustion temperature point. If we  

 now continue to lean the    mixture, the EGT will drop. Less fuel  

 means less fire and the    cylinder temperatures and pressures will  

 continue to drop. At a    cruise power of sixty to seventy percent for  

 most light    aircraft engines, the best BSFC  (Brake Specific Fuel  

    Consumption) will be found with an EGT about twenty degrees F  

    leaner than Peak EGT. (Or about seventy-five to one hundred degrees     

 away from best power.) It makes sense that when you are burning     

 less fuel the temperatures will be lower, but when we are    running  

 at very high power settings, we need the extra fuel to    keep the  

 peak combustion pressure and temperatures    down.



 Thus, it can truthfully be said that there are times    when leaning  

 the engine will make the heads run hotter, but    there are also times  

 when leaning the mixture will make the    heads run cooler.



 As Always, It All depends!



    Make any sense at all?



 Happy Skies,



 Old    Bob

 Stearman N3977A

 LL22



 In a message dated    8/15/2009 1:21:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  

 lynnmatt(at)jps.net    writes:

 --> JabiruEngine-List message posted by: Lynn    Matteson  

 <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>



 Over the last    week, I've had some fun making some tests with my newly-

 installed    Rotec TBI-40 mixture-adjustable, carburetor-replacement

 device on my    Jabiru engine. I don't know whether two of these units

 will work on a    Rotax, so many of you might want to hit the delete key

 right    now.



 For the most part, I was flying it LOP (lean-of-peak),    but yesterday

 I made a flight and decided that I would try ROP    (rich-of-peak). In

 flying LOP, the articles I've read say to keep the    power requirements

 low, and LOP will work and you won't burn the    engine down. I was

 amazed that this LOP thing even works at all, let    alone work as well

 as I've found that it seems too....I guess I'm    still a bit of a

 skeptic. After all, if going lean is a bad thing, how    can going even

 leaner be a good thing? I won't argue whether or not    it's a good or

 bad thing, and there are those of you that may not be    able to do any

 leaning at all, as I was until I got this unit.

    Three days ago, I made two trips totaling 475 miles, using LOP

    settings, and yesterday I made a 310-mile trip, using ROP settings. I

    had flown the 475 miles leaning out the engine until peak EGT, then

    leaning more until the engine was obviously low on power, and I

    contentedly flew at this setting, watching the scenery crawl by.

    Yesterday I decided to actually GO somewhere, and never mind the fuel

    saving, I just wanted to get there, so I decided to try ROP.

 Here are    the average numbers from those trips:



 LOP:   27.77    miles per gallon;   3.3   gallons per hour;          93.14

 miles per hour

 ROP:  23.66 miles per    gallon;    4.37 gallons per hour;    103.3  

    miles per

 hour



 Altitudes on all of these flight were    anywhere from 3000' MSL (with a

 base of 1000') to 10,000 MSL, with    throttle settings from 2600 rpm to

 3050. Fuel flow as seen on the    gauge, ranged from 2.5 gallons per

 hour to 5.0 not including takeoffs,    but including climbs.



 So you can see from these figures    (admittedly a low number of

 samples) that it does pay to tweak the    mixture, and even if flown

 LOP, the speed is not too    bad.



 Lynn Matteson

 Kitfox IV Speedster,    taildragger

 Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs

 Sensenich 62"x46"    Wood prop

 Electroair direct-fire ignition system

 Rotec TBI-40    injection

 Status:    flying



    www.matronics.com/contribution _- 

    ================================================================================================= Use   utilities  Day  ================================================               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  ================================================             - List Contribution Web Site  sp;                             ===================================================


	


	


 

  [quote][b]

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Thanks for those numbers, Bob....I'll give them a try the next time I  

fly...probably tomorrow. I tend to fly just to enjoy the ride, and am  

rarely in a hurry to get somewhere. I'm always in a hurry to leave  

for some place, but not necessarily in a hurry to get there. Know  

what I mean? : )



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs

Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

Electroair direct-fire ignition system

Rotec TBI-40 injection

Status: flying

On Aug 15, 2009, at 6:41 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Good Afternoon Lynn,



 The only comment I would make is to be certain that you only use  

 the fifty rich mode when you are pulling seventy percent power or  

 less. Fifty rich of peak will give you the hottest cylinder  

 temperature that you can get. It is a mixture to be avoided at any  

 high power settings. I restrict a fifty rich setting to no higher  

 than sixty-five percent power, but I tend to be on the cautious  

 side. Fifty lean of peak is leaner than you need for optimum  

 economy. Twenty lean is just about perfect at sixty-five percent  

 power. Fifty lean won't hurt a thing, but you lose a little  

 efficiency.



 Sounds like fun though.



 Happy Skies,



 Old Bob



 In a message dated 8/15/2009 5:28:52 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  

 lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

 

 <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>



 Yeah, it makes sense, and I hope I'm doing it right. I lean until the

 peak EGT is found, then either richen about 50 degrees (that's what

 I've read) for ROP, or continue leaning until the EGT's (all four of

 them in my case) also drop about 50 degrees. The CHT's also come down

 in my engine, as well as the power....the engine feels like my car

 does when I turn on the air conditioner...kinda sagging in power. But

 I NEVER do this LOP setting when I am over about 2850 rpm (red line

 3300) or when I am stressing the engine. If I'm doing something that

 would hurt the engine, I'd certainly like to be alerted to it. But I

 only go lean-of-peak EGT when in a slow cruise mode. (When I

 mentioned going to 3050 rpm, I was referring to going to ROP in a low

 power-requirement mode.)



 Lynn Matteson

 Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

 Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs

 Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

 Electroair direct-fire ignition system

 Rotec TBI-40 injection

 Status: flying

 On Aug 15, 2009, at 4:16 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:



 > Good Afternoon Lynn,

 >

 > Just as a quick recap of LOP versus ROP, may we specify what it is

 > that we are lean of or rich of?

 >

 > Generally speaking, most folks like to think of rich or lean in

 > relation to EGT temperature, but the thing we really want to know

 > is whether we are on the rich side or the lean side of best power.

 > At best power, almost all of the air that is available will be

 > used. By checking the temperature with an EGT gauge, we will find

 > that when we are running at "best" power, the EGT gauge will

 > generally read about 60 degrees F cooler than it will at peak EGT.

 > We therefore now know that peak EGT occurs on the lean side of best

 > power. Another way to say that is that best power can be found

 > about sixty to eighty degrees richer than Peak EGT

 >

 > The hottest internal combustion temperature will occur when just a

 > bit lean of best power. Most of our automobile engines are designed

 > to run right at best power most of the time. Our aircraft engines

 > tend to be designed to run at full takeoff power for a relatively

 > short time and the cooling capabilities are designed to be able to

 > handle full power by adding extra fuel to the mixture which will

 > slow down the rate of burn, move the point of peak cylinder

 > pressure later in the combustion process and allow us to keep the

 > engine temps below the redline while developing high power.

 >

 > So  --- If we are at full or high power running rich and we make

 > the mixture less rich, we are taking away some of the fuel that has

 > been used to move the flame front later in the cycle and the

 > cylinder temperatures will rise. However, if we continue to reduce

 > the fuel flow, the internal temperature will peak at some rather

 > high number. That will be very close to the best power mixture. The

 > problem is that our engines are not designed to cool properly at

 > that high a cylinder pressure. If we continue to make the mixture

 > less rich, it will eventually get to the peak EGT. That will occur

 > with an EGT that is between fifty and eighty degrees Fahrenheit

 > hotter than it was at the peak combustion temperature point. If we

 > now continue to lean the mixture, the EGT will drop. Less fuel

 > means less fire and the cylinder temperatures and pressures will

 > continue to drop. At a cruise power of sixty to seventy percent for

 > most light aircraft engines, the best BSFC  (Brake Specific Fuel

 > Consumption) will be found with an EGT about twenty degrees F

 > leaner than Peak EGT. (Or about seventy-five to one hundred degrees

 > away from best power.) It makes sense that when you are burning

 > less fuel the temperatures will be lower, but when we are running

 > at very high power settings, we need the extra fuel to keep the

 > peak combustion pressure and temperatures down.

 >

 > Thus, it can truthfully be said that there are times when leaning

 > the engine will make the heads run hotter, but there are also times

 > when leaning the mixture will make the heads run cooler.

 >

 > As Always, It All depends!

 >

 > Make any sense at all?

 >

 > Happy Skies,

 >

 > Old Bob

 > Stearman N3977A

 > LL22

 >

 > In a message dated 8/15/2009 1:21:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,

 > lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

 > 

 > <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>

 >

 > Over the last week, I've had some fun making some tests with my  

 newly-

 > installed Rotec TBI-40 mixture-adjustable, carburetor-replacement

 > device on my Jabiru engine. I don't know whether two of these units

 > will work on a Rotax, so many of you might want to hit the delete  

 key

 > right now.

 >

 > For the most part, I was flying it LOP (lean-of-peak), but yesterday

 > I made a flight and decided that I would try ROP (rich-of-peak). In

 > flying LOP, the articles I've read say to keep the power  

 requirements

 > low, and LOP will work and you won't burn the engine down. I was

 > amazed that this LOP thing even works at all, let alone work as well

 > as I've found that it seems too....I guess I'm still a bit of a

 > skeptic. After all, if going lean is a bad thing, how can going even

 > leaner be a good thing? I won't argue whether or not it's a good or

 > bad thing, and there are those of you that may not be able to do any

 > leaning at all, as I was until I got this unit.

 > Three days ago, I made two trips totaling 475 miles, using LOP

 > settings, and yesterday I made a 310-mile trip, using ROP  

 settings. I

 > had flown the 475 miles leaning out the engine until peak EGT, then

 > leaning more until the engine was obviously low on power, and I

 > contentedly flew at this setting, watching the scenery crawl by.

 > Yesterday I decided to actually GO somewhere, and never mind the  

 fuel

 > saving, I just wanted to get there, so I decided to try ROP.

 > Here are the average numbers from those trips:

 >

 > LOP:   27.77 miles per gallon;   3.3   gallons per hour;       93.14

 > miles per hour

 > ROP:  23.66 miles per gallon;    4.37 gallons per hour;    103.3

 > miles per

 > hour

 >

 > Altitudes on all of these flight were anywhere from 3000' MSL  

 (with a

 > base of 1000') to 10,000 MSL, with throttle settings from 2600  

 rpm to

 > 3050. Fuel flow as seen on the gauge, ranged from 2.5 gallons per

 > hour to 5.0 not including takeoffs, but including climbs.

 >

 > So you can see from these figures (admittedly a low number of

 > samples) that it does pay to tweak the mixture, and even if flown

 > LOP, the speed is not too bad.

 >

 > Lynn Matteson

 > Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

 > Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs

 > Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

 > Electroair direct-fire ignition system

 > Rotec TBI-40 injection

 > Status: flying

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 > www.matronics.com/contribution _-

 >  

 ====================================================================== 

 =========================== Use utilities Day  

 ================================================              -  

 MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  

 ================================================            - List  

 Contribution Web Site sp;                          

 ===================================================





 www.matronics.com/contribution _- 

 ============================================================

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 5:10 pm Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Good Evening Lynn,

  

 I certainly do!

  

 To steal from a lister on another list:

  

 "The flight IS the reason. The destination is just an excuse!"

  

 And I really must brag. Our granddaughter received her private pilot  airplane certificate today flying her Jabiru powered Legend Cub which she built  from a kit.

  

 We will have a few younger aviators after all.

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

  

  In a message dated 8/15/2009 7:57:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Thanks    for those numbers, Bob....I'll give them a try the next time I     

fly...probably tomorrow. I tend to fly just to enjoy the ride, and    am  

rarely in a hurry to get somewhere. I'm always in a hurry to    leave  

for some place, but not necessarily in a hurry to get there.    Know  

what I mean? :  )



	


 

  [quote][b]

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:51 am Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Congrats to your granddaughter, AND for building a Jabiru-powered  

bird. She's young enough to go for the PP, while I had to settle for  

the Sport Pilot...heart surgery kept me from trying for the PPL, but  

at 72, the SP is all I need. : )



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs

Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

Electroair direct-fire ignition system

Rotec TBI-40 injection

Status: flying

do not archive



On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:09 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Good Evening Lynn,



 I certainly do!



 To steal from a lister on another list:



 "The flight IS the reason. The destination is just an excuse!"



 And I really must brag. Our granddaughter received her private  

 pilot airplane certificate today flying her Jabiru powered Legend  

 Cub which she built from a kit.



 We will have a few younger aviators after all.



 Happy Skies,



 Old Bob



 In a message dated 8/15/2009 7:57:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  

 lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

 Thanks for those numbers, Bob....I'll give them a try the next time I

 fly...probably tomorrow. I tend to fly just to enjoy the ride, and am

 rarely in a hurry to get somewhere. I'm always in a hurry to leave

 for some place, but not necessarily in a hurry to get there. Know

 what I mean? : )

 www.matronics.com/contribution _- 

 ============================================================

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 5:43 am Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Good Morning Lynn,

  

 One of the very few things that the FAA has done well is the Sport Pilot  thing. As long as we manage to avoid having a physical denied, most of us can  transition to that mode when required.

  

 Flying is still FUN!

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

  

 As an aside, had she built the Cub as a "sport" category airplane, she  would only be allowed to use a gross of 1320. By building it under the  experimental provisions, she can use a 1600 pound gross.

  

 Big difference in payload!

  

  In a message dated 8/16/2009 5:51:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    JabiruEngine-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson    <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>



Congrats to your granddaughter, AND for    building a Jabiru-powered  

bird. She's young enough to go for the PP,    while I had to settle for  

the Sport Pilot...heart surgery kept me    from trying for the PPL, but  

at 72, the SP is all I need. :    )



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200,    #2062, 737.3 hrs

Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

Electroair direct-fire    ignition system

Rotec TBI-40 injection

Status: flying

do not    archive



On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:09 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com    wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Good Evening Lynn,



 I certainly    do!



 To steal from a lister on another list:



    "The flight IS the reason. The destination is just an excuse!"



    And I really must brag. Our granddaughter received her private  

    pilot airplane certificate today flying her Jabiru powered Legend     

 Cub which she built from a kit.



 We will have a few    younger aviators after all.



 Happy Skies,



 Old    Bob



 In a message dated 8/15/2009 7:57:58 P.M. Central Daylight    Time,  

 lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

 Thanks for those    numbers, Bob....I'll give them a try the next time I

 fly...probably    tomorrow. I tend to fly just to enjoy the ride, and am

 rarely in a    hurry to get somewhere. I'm always in a hurry to leave

 for some place,    but not necessarily in a hurry to get there. Know

 what I mean? :    )

 www.matronics.com/contribution _- 

    ================================================================================================= Use   utilities  Day  ================================================               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  ================================================             - List Contribution Web Site  sp;                             ===================================================


	


	


 

  [quote][b]

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 7:47 am Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

And most likely, a better resale value if she should ever decide to  

do that when she builds her next plane. : )



I never went for the PP certificate, content to learn to fly in my  

Kitfox, and content with the Sport Pilot certificate.



Flying is very much fun! Even today when I was flying around Michigan  

International Speedway (site of today's NASCAR race), watching out  

for banner-towing operations, peering through the thick haze, and  

keeping a wary eye out for the blimp, which hasn't shown up yet. I  

tried the LOP settings that you suggested....20 lean of peak  

EGT...and saw CHT's of 303-312 F., pretty much what I had recorded in  

my earlier tests, but in those I didn't have a specific goal for  

setting the EGT to. I have seen my CHT's as close as 1degree F. apart.

Just to remind other Jabiru fliers, I have my CHT probes mounted  

smack dab right down onto the head (via a drilled hole into the head  

and a smaller electrical terminal holding the wires MUCH closer to  

the head than the Jabiru-installed spark plug location), so my CHT  

numbers will be about 50-75 degrees F. hotter than those that use the  

spark plug location, with the "business end" of the probe sticking up  

into the cooling air. I feel like I should mention that, just to  

remind others that my readings WILL be different.



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 739.7 hrs

Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

Electroair direct-fire ignition system

Rotec TBI-40 injection

Status: flying

do not archive



On Aug 16, 2009, at 9:36 AM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Good Morning Lynn,



 One of the very few things that the FAA has done well is the Sport  

 Pilot thing. As long as we manage to avoid having a physical  

 denied, most of us can transition to that mode when required.



 Flying is still FUN!



 Happy Skies,



 Old Bob



 As an aside, had she built the Cub as a "sport" category airplane,  

 she would only be allowed to use a gross of 1320. By building it  

 under the experimental provisions, she can use a 1600 pound gross.



 Big difference in payload!

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

imap8ntr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:54 am Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

NO NO not true. ALL LSA's must have a  gross of 1320,  either registered as an experimental E-LSA or S-LSA.   You can only have a gross above 1320 in the US if it is registered other than a  LSA.  Experimental or not has nothing to do with it.

 Ivan

 [quote]   ---

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:26 am Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Good Afternoon Ivan,

  

 Our Granddaughter's Cub is not licensed as an experimental LSA. 

  

 It is a plain old Homebuilt registered under the old fashioned  Experimental Homebuilt (51 percent) category. The builder determines the  gross weight. In this case, the Legend folks suggest that a builder of their kit  airplane use 1600 for the maximum gross and that is what our granddaughter  decided to do. She has it adequately equipped for night and IFR and plans to fly  it in those conditions under the same rules that apply to any other homebuilt  that has been built under the Owner Built and Maintained auspices of the  regulations.

  

 She and the airplane have nothing to do with the Light Sport Aircraft  category. Nothing wrong with the LSA, but if you qualify for the homebuilt  experimental category, there is a lot more discretion left to the builder. She  is also flying under "normal" pilot rules, not the Sport Pilot Rules.

  

 Make any sense at all?

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

  

  In a message dated 8/16/2009 1:54:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  imap8ntr(at)cox.net writes:

 [quote]   NO NO not true. ALL LSA's must have a    gross of 1320,  either registered as an experimental E-LSA or    S-LSA.  You can only have a gross above 1320 in the US if it is    registered other than a LSA.  Experimental or not has nothing to do with    it.

   Ivan

   [quote]     ---

sailor(at)mindspring.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:41 am Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Sent from my iPhoneHollis Babb

256-506-2834





On Aug 16, 2009, at 1:53 PM, "Ivan" <imap8ntr(at)cox.net (imap8ntr(at)cox.net)> wrote:



[quote]  NO NO not true. ALL LSA's must have a  gross of 1320,  either registered as an experimental E-LSA or S-LSA.   You can only have a gross above 1320 in the US if it is registered other than a  LSA.  Experimental or not has nothing to do with it.

 Ivan

 [quote]   ---

imap8ntr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:23 pm Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Sorry,  I misread the email.   It read "had she built" as a sport category and I mistakingly read it as she had  built.  Sorry for the reversal of words and confusion.

  

 Thanks

 ivan

  

  

 [quote]   ---

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:17 pm Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Good Evening Ivan,

  

 No problem at all. I know that I do not use all the correct terms as I am  not all that familiar with the applicable regulations. 

  

 I did get out the FARs when she and her father were building the airplane  and we all agreed that building it under the fifty-one percent program was the  best for her. 

  

 She will also use that airplane to get her instrument rating and we wanted  to make sure it would be legal to fly actual IFR even though such a requirement  is not necessarily required to take the IFR check ride.  She will be flying  regularly in and out of Palo Alto. Since low fog conditions often require IFR  approaches in and out of that area, IFR capability is pretty important.

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

  

  In a message dated 8/16/2009 4:23:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  imap8ntr(at)cox.net writes:

 [quote]   Sorry,  I misread the email.     It read "had she built" as a sport category and I mistakingly read it as she    had built.  Sorry for the reversal of words and confusion.

    

   Thanks

   ivan

    

    

   [quote]     ---

imap8ntr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:12 pm Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Bob

 Thanks for all that info.

 Merry flying,

 Ivan

  

 [quote]   ---

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:54 am Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

I'm also working on finally getting a MAP sensor for my engine, so I  

will be able to do some testing and see...hopefully...some  

performance-enhancing ignition timing advance. When I first got the  

Electroair system, they would not provide me with a MAP sensor as  

they did not have any means for setting up the advance curve, which  

would have required an engine test cell, or extensive testing at  

various altitudes to establish the timing curve. Being as how I was  

the first to install the Electroair on a Jabiru engine....that we  

know of...I wanted to wait to try anything new beyond the fixed  

ignition timing.

I was also reluctant to take on any testing that would have required  

going up beyond 10,000 feet MSL, as that is my legal limit as a Sport  

Pilot. Now, Electroair

has another plan, and I'm going to do some testing under the new plan.



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 739.7 hrs

Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

Electroair direct-fire ignition system

Rotec TBI-40 injection

Status: flying

On Aug 18, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Terry Phillips wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>



 Lynn & Bob



 Thank you for the detailed resonses. The Rotec TBI sounds like a  

 very promising development for the Jabiru. I think there is much to  

 be gained (or fuel saved) by LOP operation. I will look forward to  

 future reports.



 Terry

 do not archive



 --------

 Terry Phillips

 Corvallis, MT

 ttp44&lt;at&gt;rkymtn.net

 Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Tail feathers done; working  

 on the wings.





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 58401#258401

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

BobsV35B(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:13 am Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Good Afternoon Lynn,

  

 Have you tried doing the GAMI Lean Check yet?

  

 I would be very interested in your results.

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

  

  In a message dated 8/18/2009 12:54:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    JabiruEngine-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson    <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>



I'm also working on finally getting a MAP    sensor for my engine, so I  

will be able to do some testing and    see...hopefully...some  

performance-enhancing ignition timing    advance. When I first got the  

Electroair system, they would not    provide me with a MAP sensor as  

they did not have any means for    setting up the advance curve, which  

would have required an engine    test cell, or extensive testing at  

various altitudes to establish    the timing curve. Being as how I was  

the first to install the    Electroair on a Jabiru engine....that we  

know of...I wanted to wait    to try anything new beyond the fixed  

ignition timing.

I was also    reluctant to take on any testing that would have required  

going up    beyond 10,000 feet MSL, as that is my legal limit as a Sport  

Pilot.    Now, Electroair

has another plan, and I'm going to do some testing under    the new plan.



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster,    taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 739.7 hrs

Sensenich 62"x46" Wood    prop

Electroair direct-fire ignition system

Rotec TBI-40    injection

Status: flying

On Aug 18, 2009, at    9:18 AM, Terry Phillips wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   --> JabiruEngine-List message    posted by: "Terry Phillips"  

    <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>



 Lynn & Bob



 Thank    you for the detailed resonses. The Rotec TBI sounds like a  

 very    promising development for the Jabiru. I think there is much to  

    be gained (or fuel saved) by LOP operation. I will look forward to     

 future reports.



 Terry

 do not    archive



 --------

 Terry Phillips

 Corvallis,    MT

 ttp44&lt;at&gt;rkymtn.net

 Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300    slow build kit - Tail feathers done; working  

 on the    wings.





 Read this topic online    here:



    http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=258401#258401






	


	


 

  [quote][b]

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:04 pm Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Hello, Bob-

I haven't done them yet, but I've got the form(s) printed out, and  

I'm ready and waiting for a less blustery day.

I'll be posting them as soon as I've got some info. I love doin' this  

stuff......: )



Might you be the Old Bob S., whose post I saw on one of many sites  

I've visited recently concerning LOP?



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 739.7 hrs

Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

Electroair direct-fire ignition system

Rotec TBI-40 injection

Status: flying

do not archive



On Aug 18, 2009, at 3:07 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Good Afternoon Lynn,



 Have you tried doing the GAMI Lean Check yet?



 I would be very interested in your results.



 Happy Skies,



 Old Bob



 In a message dated 8/18/2009 12:54:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  

 lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

 

 <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>



 I'm also working on finally getting a MAP sensor for my engine, so I

 will be able to do some testing and see...hopefully...some

 performance-enhancing ignition timing advance. When I first got the

 Electroair system, they would not provide me with a MAP sensor as

 they did not have any means for setting up the advance curve, which

 would have required an engine test cell, or extensive testing at

 various altitudes to establish the timing curve. Being as how I was

 the first to install the Electroair on a Jabiru engine....that we

 know of...I wanted to wait to try anything new beyond the fixed

 ignition timing.

 I was also reluctant to take on any testing that would have required

 going up beyond 10,000 feet MSL, as that is my legal limit as a Sport

 Pilot. Now, Electroair

 has another plan, and I'm going to do some testing under the new plan.



 Lynn Matteson

 Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

 Jabiru 2200, #2062, 739.7 hrs

 Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

 Electroair direct-fire ignition system

 Rotec TBI-40 injection

 Status: flying

 On Aug 18, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Terry Phillips wrote:



 > 

 > <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>

 >

 > Lynn & Bob

 >

 > Thank you for the detailed resonses. The Rotec TBI sounds like a

 > very promising development for the Jabiru. I think there is much to

 > be gained (or fuel saved) by LOP operation. I will look forward to

 > future reports.

 >

 > Terry

 > do not archive

 >

 > --------

 > Terry Phillips

 > Corvallis, MT

 > ttp44&lt;at&gt;rkymtn.net

 > Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Tail feathers done; working

 > on the wings.

 >

 >

 >

 >

 > Read this topic online here:

 >

 > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 58401#258401

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >





 www.matronics.com/contribution _- 

 ============================================================

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:23 pm Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

Good Evening Lynn,

  

 I am probably the guilty party!

  

 What list was it?

  

 Looking forward to seeing your results.

  

 Do Not Archive

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

 AKA

 Bob Siegfried

 628 West 86th Street

 Downers Grove, Illinois  60516

 LL22

 N20318

 N2858P

 N3977A

 Granddaughter's Cub is N416MS

 Based at PAO

  

  In a message dated 8/18/2009 6:05:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Might    you be the Old Bob S., whose post I saw on one of many sites  

I've    visited recently concerning  LOP?



	


 

  [quote][b]

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:53 pm Post subject: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some

It wasn't a list, but on one of the websites, or one of the links to  

(possibly) GAMI, there was a letter signed by an "Old Bob S_____",  

and, as I recall, it was a testimonial about a product. Sorry I can't  

recall it, but I've been looking at too many articles the past few  

days. I just tried to search using my browser's "history", but didn't  

find the posting.



And, yes, Siegfried WAS the last name....I didn't want to use it in  

case you didn't want it used.

I also just noted that you are almost right under my flight path when  

I go to Oshkosh. I usually go between JOT and LOT, then between the  

two D airports...can't think of their names as it is too close to my  

bedtime....and then head north. (I'm based close to 3NP, Napoleon,  

MI, where the Maule got its start)



Hopefully, I'll get a GAMI Lean Test in tomorrow morning. I'll be  

using the longhand method, using my Grand Rapids Tech. EIS, and  

recording with a pencil, and a sharp eye out for traffic, of which  

there usually isn't around here at that time of day....or most days.  

I may conduct a couple of tests just to be sure of complete results.  

I'll post soon after.



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 739.7 hrs

Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop

Electroair direct-fire ignition system

Rotec TBI-40 injection

Status: flying

do not archive



On Aug 18, 2009, at 9:23 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Good Evening Lynn,



 I am probably the guilty party!



 What list was it?



 Looking forward to seeing your results.



 Do Not Archive



 Happy Skies,



 Old Bob

 AKA

 Bob Siegfried

 628 West 86th Street

 Downers Grove, Illinois  60516

 LL22

 N20318

 N2858P

 N3977A

 Granddaughter's Cub is N416MS

 Based at PAO



 In a message dated 8/18/2009 6:05:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  

 lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

 Might you be the Old Bob S., whose post I saw on one of many sites

 I've visited recently concerning LOP?

 www.matronics.com/contribution _- 

 ============================================================

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> JabiruEngine-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum