Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:43:02 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-771451@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <Walter@advancedpilot.com>
Received: from lakermmtao12.cox.net ([68.230.240.27] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2)
  with ESMTP id 771434 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:29:06 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.240.27; envelope-from=Walter@advancedpilot.com
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (really [68.227.132.71]) by lakermmtao12.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP
          id <20050305152819.NVKP2476.lakermmtao12.cox.net@[10.0.1.3]>
          for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Sat, 5 Mar 2005 10:28:19 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2)
In-Reply-To: <list-771124@logan.com>
References: <list-771124@logan.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-732796352
X-Original-Message-Id: <78be151b5699dc2345d81657f3002e19@advancedpilot.com>
From: W Atkinson <Walter@advancedpilot.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Taxiing Matters and mixture settings for take-off
X-Original-Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:28:18 -0600
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2)


--Apple-Mail-1-732796352
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed


On Mar 4, 2005, at 10:28 PM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote:

After about 3500 MSL, WOT, 2600 rpm, start leaning to 120 ROP and 
continue to do this thru the climb.

Scott:

THAT is the point I was trying to make.

So far, everyone who has seen the results of that action on an 
instrumented engine has concluded that it's not a good idea.  Seeing 
the data with their own eyes has been quite compelling.

Of course, you may continue to do that to your engine if you so choose. 
  I choose not to do that, since I can think of no advantage to that 
action and can list several disadvantages.

I grant you that when we raced in Reno, we did things that were not 
good for the engine for longevity concerns, but then, we didn't need it 
to last more than an hour and we needed it get it all out.  It is *my* 
OPINION, based on Reno racing and aircraft ownership experience and 
test stand data that racing concerns are not compatible with longevity 
concerns.

YMMV.

Walter
--Apple-Mail-1-732796352
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII



On Mar 4, 2005, at 10:28 PM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote:


<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>After about 3500 MSL, WOT,
2600 rpm, start leaning to 120 ROP and continue to do this thru the
climb.


</smaller>Scott:


THAT is the point I was trying to make.


So far, everyone who has seen the results of that action on an
instrumented engine has concluded that it's not a good idea.  Seeing
the data with their own eyes has been quite compelling.


Of course, you may continue to do that to your engine if you so
choose.  I choose not to do that, since I can think of no advantage to
that action and can list several disadvantages.


I grant you that when we raced in Reno, we did things that were not
good for the engine for longevity concerns, but then, we didn't need
it to last more than an hour and we needed it get it all out.  It is
*my* OPINION, based on Reno racing and aircraft ownership experience
and test stand data that racing concerns are not compatible with
longevity concerns.


YMMV.


Walter</fontfamily>
--Apple-Mail-1-732796352--