|
Thanks for that RAM link. I wish someone from that company were available to explain some of their points:
1) "mis-management at LOP settings can cause both dynamic stresses and thermal stresses that hammer main and rod bearings, burn pistons, burn valves, and cause cumulative exhaust system damage."
How do you burn things when your temps are lower?
How do you hammer things when the pressures are lower?
What causes the cumulative exhaust system damage? If it's not from heat, are they trying to make a case that it's chemical damage?
If they've performed the detonation testing, are they saying that LOP is more prone to detonation? (How could that be????)
2) "RAM reminds it’s customers and friends in General Aviation that mixture management of a turbocharged Cessna 414A at FL230 is more complex than the mixture management required of a normally aspirated Cessna 210 at 9,500 feet. "
Sounds like a little doubletalk. They are switching 3 variables in this sentence: aircraft, altitude, and turbo-charged – not a sign of clear thinking (or at a minimum, clear communications). While all would agree that turbo vs. NA are different, the aircraft reference is nonsense. That leaves us with the altitude variable.
All things being equal, how does altitude make mixture management more complex? Naturally, NA have less MP as they climb, etc. But what about turbos? General cooling can be a bigger challenge in the thinner air. And sometimes there's power limitation to protect over-working the turbos. Other than perhaps higher CDT (pre-intercooler) and IAT (post intercooler), what's different in the mixture management? The ideal fuel/air ratio is a constant.
Inquiring minds want to know ...
|