Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [161.88.255.140] (account marv@lancaironline.net)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.3c3)
  with HTTP id 828702 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:13:38 -0500
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Alternative Engines
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.3c3
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:13:38 -0500
Message-ID: <web-828702@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <E8D9A32F94C65B4AB6D8F4730E38460E3B58B5@sdf1.mail.taturbo.com>
References: <E8D9A32F94C65B4AB6D8F4730E38460E3B58B5@sdf1.mail.taturbo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>:

  Craig,
  
    Currently  I am operating an  IO-550 at about 101% of rated torque ( 2500 
x
WOT, rather than 2700 x WOT) at cruise, and then at 100% of rated Hp for
takeoff and climb.
   
  We do this at all altitudes and essentially 100% of the flight hours (except
for descent and landing) , since the engines are turbo-normalized.
   
  We actually have been having rather excellent results doing this over more
than 200 engines.
  
   We do however have them VERY well baffled and keep the CHTs at or below 
380F
.   We prefer straight wait oil, but many are run on multi-weight.
  
    What is your understanding of the automotive experience with the
multi-viscosity oils ???
  
  
  
  Regards,  George