most pilots I meet are clueless as to proper engine management

[texasag93]

This is a quote from another thread.

I assume that I am one of these people.

I generally by the performance charts in the POH and run 75 degrees lean of peak when doing a cross country.

When just puttering around in the 182, I run 2300 RPM and 23 on the prop. The CFI from our club said 'run 23's and you will be fine.'

Where do I learn about engine management?

 

[gprellwitz]

Great question. One frequently recommended resource is John Deakin's Pelican's Perch series at AvWeb. http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/

Many here will tell you that the POH is a very poor instruction manual in proper engine operation if you care about your engine.

 

[hindsight2020]

Great question. One frequently recommended resource is John Deakin's Pelican's Perch series at AvWeb. http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/

Many here will tell you that the POH is a very poor instruction manual in proper engine operation if you care about your engine.

No kidding. Several Cessna POH recommend 50 ROP EGT as a desirable "economy cruise" setting alternative to best power. That's the highest CHT setting in the curve!

On my fixed pitch carbed O-320 I lean to rough then bump it juuuuust slightly to get it smooth again below 5K, and throttle to an RPM that yields less than 75%. Above 5k, WOT and mixture to best power (max RPM that one can get), since CHT will never go that high. That's pretty stupid simple and no gauges. Things gives 7.5-8gph no matter what you do. As long as you run 75% or less below 5k you can't fry the thing.

Ignore the POH when it comes to engine leaning. If I had an EGT gauge I'd probably lean to peak EGT below 5k (75% power or less). I'm probably close enough to it with the pull-to-rough method anyways.

One thing is true in all of this. There is no reason to be flying at full rich. None. Full rich is a de facto choke setting for cold starts in these things, the POHs are dead wrong in recommending such use.

 

[Henning]

This is a quote from another thread.

I assume that I am one of these people.

I generally by the performance charts in the POH and run 75 degrees lean of peak when doing a cross country.

When just puttering around in the 182, I run 2300 RPM and 23 on the prop. The CFI from our club said 'run 23's and you will be fine.'

Where do I learn about engine management?

Pelican Landing is a good start, but operating WOT 75*LOP is a very good aggressive start. The key is in understanding why you want to do that and what information you can extrapolate from the charts, like measuring %HP off of IAS rather than MP & RPM then recording the the power ratings by FF & RPM while WOT using the mixture and fuel as the governing control rather than throttle and air.

As for 23/2300, why 2300? Why 23"? When would it be preferable engine management to use redline RPM? How about running more MP? What major internal engine event can I control with RPM thereby reduce my chances of getting into detonation?

 

[poadeleted21]

This is a quote from another thread.

I assume that I am one of these people.

I generally by the performance charts in the POH and run 75 degrees lean of peak when doing a cross country.

When just puttering around in the 182, I run 2300 RPM and 23 on the prop. The CFI from our club said 'run 23's and you will be fine.'

Where do I learn about engine management?

Do you believe in voodoo? You might have to start before this thread is finished. I'd listen to your CFI or find an old mechanic who flies and hear what he has to say. Go to about 7500' and it doesn't matter much anyway. I'm always above 7500', below I'm climbing mixture rich or at 15MP descending, so it doesn't matter there either.

 

[jnmeade]

I'd listen to your CFI or find an old mechanic who flies and hear what he has to say.

I'd respectfully submit these are the two worse sources of engine management information in most cases. Most CFI's are the young "see one, do one, teach one" variety who barely know how to lean, let alone know what is going on in an engine. The old one's often are the "peak EGT then enrich it 75 or 100F.
The old mechanics around here are about a myth bound as a bunch of witch doctors. They have all manner of rules of thumb that they don't really understand themselves but assert with great vigor.
I'd look at Deacon, Busch, Brady for a few.
The POH is indeed a doubtful source of information in some aspects of engine management.

 

[poadeleted21]

I'd respectfully submit these are the two worse sources of engine management information in most cases. Most CFI's are the young "see one, do one, teach one" variety who barely know how to lean, let alone know what is going on in an engine. The old one's often are the "peak EGT then enrich it 75 or 100F.
The old mechanics around here are about a myth bound as a bunch of witch doctors. They have all manner of rules of thumb that they don't really understand themselves but assert with great vigor.
I'd look at Deacon, Busch, Brady for a few.
The POH is indeed a doubtful source of information in some aspects of engine management.

Like I said.

And I said HIS CFI not any CFI. His CFI seems to have common sense, something lacking in 99.999% of these discussions. I have had some doozies of suggestions from CFIs, they are typically a bad source for this info.

Not to mention the sources you site have a vested interest in selling fuel injectors and/or $800 seminars on engine management. Find and old A&p with 4000 hours behind the engines he maintains and bets his life on.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Depends on the engine, I'm not a fan of LOP, nor are the companies I have flown for.

Good trick is to use carb heat to check if you are too lean, no drop, fatten it up a bit.

 

[BillTIZ]

I fly an IO-360 rated at 210HP with MP, Fuel flow meter, and GEM engine monitor.
Takeoff, full throttle, 2800RPM, mixture leaned to fuel flow as directed by POH and Density Altitude. Power back to 25MP, 2500RPM, fuel flow to about 11gph for climb.

Cruise is normally above 9000MSL, we have tall hills around here. Full throttle will get MP between 19 and 21 depending on altitude. 2400 RPM, 2350 is a little quieter, lean to 1380F on the hottest cylinder, for this engine it is normally #4. Yields about 9.5 GPH.

The engine has about 1200 hrs on it, barely burns 1 qt of oil every 50 hrs and still looks clean at the 50 hr oil change. No hint of black in the oil.

We always lean to temp, 1380F, engine roughness starts at about 1450F, regardless of altitude.

 

[douglas393]

I fly a turbo 182, and was taught to lean to peak TIT(which has always been 1570 or less), but then I am probably guilty of being clueless. I also fly almost exclusively at 65% power or less(except for climbs), just not in a rush.

Doug

 

[jbarrass]

Check your type club. Many have pilot proficiency programs a couple days long to teach the nuances of the type. The Comanche proficiency program includes a large load of engine management information. I think that's true for other programs as well.

 

[denverpilot]

I generally by the performance charts in the POH and run 75 degrees lean of peak when doing a cross country.

In what airplane and engine type?

When just puttering around in the 182, I run 2300 RPM and 23 on the prop. The CFI from our club said 'run 23's and you will be fine.'

You don't say if its a restart 182 with a Lycoming, or an older 182 with a Continental O-470 variant, and which one?

Where do I learn about engine management?

Well, there's a lot of "answers" in this thread, but not a single person asked what you're flying, so take all with a grain of salt until you've researched the specific aircraft and engine combination.

What are you flying? Be specific, including engine letter code if you know it.

 

[peter-h]

Some time ago I wrote up some notes on simplified engine management - here.

I don't fly LOP. I've done careful tests and cannot see any benefit in MPG - for the same IAS.

There sure is a benefit in MPG via flying a bit slower which is what you get when LOP because the engine is making less power than at peak EGT But you can achieve exactly the same MPG improvement at peak EGT, by using less throttle...

Also, I have GAMIs but still can't go much LOP, without excessive roughness.

The case for a lower RPM is that you get reduced mechanical losses, and there is a second order effect in that with a lean mixture the lower RPM places the spark in a better time point for the crankshaft angle. I normally fly at 2400 in cruise but for the very best MPG, at higher altitudes (10k+) I use 2200 and this gives me another few %.

 

[timwinters]

Where do I learn about engine management?

In Ada, OK.

But, if you have a carbureted, low compression engine that was designed to burn 80 octane then save your money and just fly it, lean the p!ss out of it and enjoy the ride. It's difficult if not impossible to hurt it, especially an O-470.

 

[Ted]

I've spent thousands of hours running these engines on the ground and in the air specifically looking at performance, detonation, and other operational characteristics. I offer courses designed to help people learn how to operate their engines properly and get long life out of them.

If you're interested, PM me.

 

[jnmeade]

the sources you site have a vested interest in selling fuel injectors and/or $800 seminars on engine management. Find and old A&p with 4000 hours behind the engines he maintains and bets his life on.

The sources I cite (not site) developed the injectors as a result of a lot research which revealed how bad conventional flat engine operation is so their developments are a way to improve the situation they studied. If they can make some money out of doing things better, good for them. It's the capitalist way.

I agree with you that an old A&P with lots of time behind those engines can make them run but I don't agree that he makes them run optimally or in my best financial and safety interest.

 

[Ted]

I agree with you that an old A&P with lots of time behind those engines can make them run but I don't agree that he makes them run optimally or in my best financial and safety interest.

A&P school doesn't teach you how to operate an engine, at least not beyond basics. The reality is that A&Ps aren't taught much about the physics behind engine operation, which is important to proper engine management. What they are taught is what the old A&P tells them. See where this is going?

There's not much for these folks to learn on, either. It's hard on a ground run to illustrate how these engines operate in the air, and most of the junk they have to work on doesn't have an engine monitor, anyway. They're taught how to start it up, do a run-up, etc.

So now let's take an A&P who's also a pilot. What's to say he knows much, either? He knows the Bonanza that comes in needs cylinders every year, and the guy talks about operating it leaned out, so he assumes LOP is bad. What he doesn't realize is the Bonanza owner doesn't know what he's doing, either, and is actually operating at 20F ROP - no wonder he's cooking cylinders.

CFIs aren't much better, same reason. Many CFIs aren't technically inclined, and haven't had the chance to fly planes instrumented properly so as to see how the engines really work.

 

[poadeleted21]

The sources I cite (not site) developed the injectors as a result of a lot research which revealed how bad conventional flat engine operation is so their developments are a way to improve the situation they studied. If they can make some money out of doing things better, good for them. It's the capitalist way.

I agree with you that an old A&P with lots of time behind those engines can make them run but I don't agree that he makes them run optimally or in my best financial and safety interest.

Thanks for the spelling correction, my forum post editor had the night off.

I'm sure Bill Gates knows a thing or two about computers, probably not who I'd use to assist with my next computer purchase. Once you've bought into the cult of Apple, I'm sure Steve Jobs would have been the guru you wanted to talk to. These engine discussions always turn into religious discussions with a hint of truth, and that truth is probably insignificant for the way 99.9999% of us fly. I would disagree on the safety front, the guys I know build the engines themselves, run them hundreds and hundreds of hours per year into wildfires over the rockies and I've never heard of one needing a premature overhaul or even cracking a cylinder and have been doing so for over 3 decades. Maybe they're not running them the most fuel efficient way, but not unsafe and they're not hurting the engine. They do what works and what's best for the engine, not what some guy sitting in an office running redbox software selling fuel injectors or preparing powerpoints for their next $800 seminar says.

 

[AggieMike88]

You don't say if its a restart 182 with a Lycoming, or an older 182 with a Continental O-470 variant, and which one?

What are you flying? Be specific, including engine letter code if you know it.

Nate; The OP is talking about a 1975 C182P. http://metroflyersclub.com/c182n55wb.html

 

[denverpilot]

Nate; The OP is talking about a 1975 C182P. http://metroflyersclub.com/c182n55wb.html

He has great taste then. Our exact airplane, our exact engine.

(I believe late in the P-model you could get the O-470U which is an odd-ball of the O-470 world, but I see that this one has the O-470S, which is a big blubbery low-compression, carb'd beast with no brains. That airplane is early in the '75 model year at S/N 63900. Ours is near the end, about 300 later. Amazing how many they made that year.)

Select a reasonable power setting, lean it until it won't run well, enrichen to smooth, and you're pretty much done in the O-470S without an engine monitor. Looks like you have a single point digital CHT/EGT in the photos. Try to keep CHT below 380. Remember that the spread between the other cylinders and the one with the temperature probe may be significant on that engine.

You'll find roughness is usually right at peak EGT or so close to it, it won't matter.

In the summer you may find it won't run cool enough at peak EGT even with the cowl flaps open, in climb -- or even on a really hot day, in cruise. Enrichen a bit more and/or pull the throttle back a bit. Temperature becomes the limiting factor on how much you can lean it.

Since it's in a club, expect that at least one of the other pilots won't be doing anything useful like that. So all your hard work to treat the engine well, will be for naught.

Ted may have more insights, for an O-470S with better instrumentation on it.

 

[Henning]

Thanks for the spelling correction, my forum post editor had the night off.

I'm sure Bill Gates knows a thing or two about computers, probably not who I'd use to assist with my next computer purchase. Once you've bought into the cult of Apple, I'm sure Steve Jobs would have been the guru you wanted to talk to. These engine discussions always turn into religious discussions with a hint of truth, and that truth is probably insignificant for the way 99.9999% of us fly. I would disagree on the safety front, the guys I know build the engines themselves, run them hundreds and hundreds of hours per year into wildfires over the rockies and I've never heard of one needing a premature overhaul or even cracking a cylinder and have been doing so for over 3 decades. Maybe they're not running them the most fuel efficient way, but not unsafe and they're not hurting the engine. They do what works and what's best for the engine, not what some guy sitting in an office running redbox software selling fuel injectors or preparing powerpoints for their next $800 seminar says.

The proof is in the pipe, what color you got?

 

[Sleepingsquirrel]

I think your right Henning ,I often check my exhaust and find an ashen white/grey deposit. Sometimes there are tendrils of some kind of deposit. I figured it was lead that condenses on the relatively cool pipes. I don't think it's from the pistons because it still run well.

 

[texasag93]

In what airplane and engine type?

When just puttering around in the 182, I run 2300 RPM and 23 on the prop. The CFI from our club said 'run 23's and you will be fine.'

You don't say if its a restart 182 with a Lycoming, or an older 182 with a Continental O-470 variant, and which one?



Well, there's a lot of "answers" in this thread, but not a single person asked what you're flying, so take all with a grain of salt until you've researched the specific aircraft and engine combination.

What are you flying? Be specific, including engine letter code if you know it.

1975 182P with a Continental O-470-S 230 HP. I want to say that the engine has around 200 hours on it. I am a member of a club, so I did not buy this airplane but I do care about taking care of it.

 

[murphey]

Depends on the engine, I'm not a fan of LOP, nor are the companies I have flown for.

Good trick is to use carb heat to check if you are too lean, no drop, fatten it up a bit.

If there's no drop on the carb check, do I lean or not? Don't understand the phrase "fatten it up a bit".

 

[NineThreeKilo]

If there's no drop on the carb check, do I lean or not? Don't understand the phrase "fatten it up a bit".

If you dont get a drop you are too lean and need to richen the mixture up


If you have a good analyzer, it's all about temps, run the thing really hot and it aint going to handle it well as you rack the hours on.

For injected engines, If you do go LOP, remember to not just ram the mixture forward if you have to climb as you will peak it out in the transition.

This is one of the reasons I dont lean towards teaching too much LOP stuff to my students, I let them know what it is and leave it at that. A 60hr wonder, or for that matter a 100hr hero, has enough to pay attention to without playing around with LOP.

 

[tonycondon]

as long as you're flying regularly it doesn't really matter.

 

[bflynn]

Clueless as to proper engine management?

Heck, pilots can't even agree on what proper engine management is! One group thinks the other is clueless and vice versa.

 

[bbchien]

Yup. The responses here are evidence in favor ot the title of the string.

 

[poadeleted21]

Yup. The responses here are evidence in favor ot the title of the string.

What do you do? Did you buy $8K in engine instrumentation, attend courses on how to use it, invest a couple thousand in tuned fuel injectors, analyze data dumps from your engine monitor on fancy software, argue ad nauseum with the peanut gallery on multiple pilot forums.... or just fly the plane like people for the past 70 years have been flying them with great success?

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I asked a CHT question on AOPA the other week and got a variety of responses. Quite simply, I don't know what is and isn't good for the engines I run, due to the odd power ranges they are ran at. LyCo IO-360, usually between 1850-2000 RPM, very low airspeed. CHT rich of peak (at least 100 rich of peak) is usually in the 400-450 range.

 

[denverpilot]

Yup. The responses here are evidence in favor ot the title of the string.

Hopefully not mine. I read all this stuff you guys with fuel injection and fancy GAMIjectors can do and just laugh... Our engine just won't play that way.

I've taken it up high and tried all the "tricks" to try to get it LOP and running smoothly and it just can't do it.

And who are these people who can get 23" MP? Lucky bastards. Hehe. We have problems running engines hard enough to break them in properly up here.

 

[jesse]

What do you do? Did you buy $8K in engine instrumentation, attend courses on how to use it, invest a couple thousand in tuned fuel injectors, analyze data dumps from your engine monitor on fancy software, argue ad nauseum with the peanut gallery on multiple pilot forums.... or just fly the plane like people for the past 70 years have been flying them with great success?

Define great success?

The reality of it is that most of these engines are pretty damn tough and it's really hard to figure out what caused a failure when there is a failure or shortened life. It could be operation, it could be a maintenance mistake, it could be something wrong with the original metal, etc. Hardly anyone develops their opinions based on real science. They just do what someone else says and mock whatever someone else is doing.

Some engines it just really doesn't matter -- other engine's like Dr. Bruce's it really does matter unless you want to waste tremendous amounts of money.

Cylinder prices haven't been increasing at the rate in which fuel prices have increased. At some point fuel will get high enough that even if proper LOP operation were destroying cylinders (it doesn't) you'd still save money with the fuel savings..

A lot of this run-really-rich stuff came from the mindset that cylinders were expensive and fuel is cheap. That equation just really isn't so anymore.

What I really can't grasp though is how someone can simply ignore the science of proper LOP operation and say it's bad. Lower temperatures, check. Lower pressures, check. Less lead gunking things up, check. Less fuel being used, check... Hmm

You can do anything wrong. If one does have the ability to operate LOP correctly (not everyone does) then ignoring that option is kind of silly. But hey, to each their own.

What I see are people whom cannot operate LOP correctly or simply don't understand it just trash it. Makes a lot of sense.

I really don't care what owner's do with their engines. I give my advice and they can take it or leave it. I'm not the one that has to cut the check at the shop next year.

I did mess with LOP up high in a IO-470 powered Bonanza the other day and it simply isn't able to run LOP. Way too rough. Granted fixing the issue (I suspect part of the blame is on the ignition side and the other part is on the fuel delivery) would pay for itself in not-that-many-hours.

The Bonanzas I've flown that are balanced enough to run LOP flown by owners that understand the science..those guys aren't replacing cylinders..and they're saving a lot of money.

 

[Ted]

What do you do? Did you buy $8K in engine instrumentation, attend courses on how to use it, invest a couple thousand in tuned fuel injectors, analyze data dumps from your engine monitor on fancy software, argue ad nauseum with the peanut gallery on multiple pilot forums.... or just fly the plane like people for the past 70 years have been flying them with great success?

$8k in engine instrumentation? A standard JPI EDM 760 (for a twin) is about $5k installed, about $3k for a single. This pays for itself pretty quickly in fuel savings (if you run LOP), assisting with diagnosing engine problems, and allowing you to make sure you keep your cylinders happy. GAMIjectors only make sense if you're planning on running LOP, otherwise it's a waste of money. Engine monitors? Not so much.

I think the APS course is a bit more in-depth than what is really necessary for most people, and the problem is that they don't fly with you, so you're given this new information and then told to go out and figure out for yourself what to do with it.

Then there's the question of how you define success. Dave S. has used all this fancy instrumentation and taken the courses, and in the process his P-Baron had extremely impressive longevity on its engines, where P-Barons are typically known for having poor engine longevity. So what's success, the people who didn't make TBO before, or the people who realized maybe there's something to this equipment, and have had much better engine life as result?

Of course, to the person flying a Cherokee, it's largely irrelevant. But Bonanzas are known for eating cylinders (BTW they're a real pain to change, since the lower cowl is riveted on and those lower cylinder nuts are hard to access). Bruce's TSIO-360s are known for not being the most reliable. The IO-520s I fly are known for cylinder issues (same goes for IO-550s).

In 400 hours with the 310, the fuel savings we were able to get by running LOP using the engine monitor equated to about $20,000. So even if the engine monitor was $8k (it wasn't), even if I spend $1200 for GAMIjectors (I didn't), and even if I paid for a course (well, that would be silly since I teach engine courses), I would have come out well, well ahead.

You may now continue with your regularly scheduled bantering.

 

[poadeleted21]

Define great success?

The reality of it is that most of these engines are pretty damn tough and it's really hard to figure out what caused a failure when there is a failure or shortened life. It could be operation, it could be a maintenance mistake, it could be something wrong with the original metal, etc. Hardly anyone develops their opinions based on real science. They just do what someone else says and mock whatever someone else is doing.

Some engines it just really doesn't matter -- other engine's like Dr. Bruce's it really does matter unless you want to waste tremendous amounts of money.

Cylinder prices haven't been increasing at the rate in which fuel prices have increased. At some point fuel will get high enough that even if proper LOP operation were destroying cylinders (it doesn't) you'd still save money with the fuel savings..

A lot of this run-really-rich stuff came from the mindset that cylinders were expensive and fuel is cheap. That equation just really isn't so anymore.

What I really can't grasp though is how someone can simply ignore the science of proper LOP operation and say it's bad. Lower temperatures, check. Lower pressures, check. Less lead gunking things up, check. Less fuel being used, check... Hmm

You can do anything wrong. If one does have the ability to operate LOP correctly (not everyone does) then ignoring that option is kind of silly. But hey, to each their own.

What I see are people whom cannot operate LOP correctly or simply don't understand it just trash it. Makes a lot of sense.

I really don't care what owner's do with their engines. I give my advice and they can take it or leave it. I'm not the one that has to cut the check at the shop next year.

I did mess with LOP up high in a IO-470 powered Bonanza the other day and it simply isn't able to run LOP. Way too rough. Granted fixing the issue (I suspect part of the blame is on the ignition side and the other part is on the fuel delivery) would pay for itself in not-that-many-hours.

The Bonanzas I've flown that are balanced enough to run LOP flown by owners that understand the science..those guys aren't replacing cylinders..and they're saving a lot of money.

Great success = flying a couple of 172s, 182s,210,206,T182RG and 337 on Timber spotting/fire patrol aircraft over the most unforgiving terrain and conditions the lower 48 has to offer for a few decades without an engine issues. I was in there near daily with the guy who built and flew the engines. His only 2 issues through the years was that during the off season the planes weren't flown enough and every now and then you'd get a rusty cylinder that uses too much oil, and the rear engine on the 337 was impossible to cool.

To OP, keep the CHTs down, power below 75% or so (and 23/23 is doing just that) and have fun. If engine gadgets and that sort of thing tickle your fancy, by all means learn the voodoo.

 

[Sleepingsquirrel]

It also helps to keep one of these handy while adjusting the red knob!

 

[jesse]

Great success = flying a couple of 172s, 182s,210,206,T182RG and 337 on Timber spotting/fire patrol aircraft over the most unforgiving terrain and conditions the lower 48 has to offer for a few decades without an engine issues. I was in there near daily with the guy who built and flew the engines. His only 2 issues through the years was that during the off season the planes weren't flown enough and every now and then you'd get a rusty cylinder that uses too much oil, and the rear engine on the 337 was impossible to cool.

To OP, keep the CHTs down, power below 75% or so (and 23/23 is doing just that) and have fun. If engine gadgets and that sort of thing tickle your fancy, by all means learn the voodoo.

One can run a lot of engines at less than ideal parameters and it's still unlikely you'll ever experience a catastrophic failure. That's the problem with this stuff -- you can do a lot of things and get a similar result.

 

[timwinters]

I posted something similar to this over at CPS on Saturday in a "leaning" discussion...

Maybe it's dumb luck.

Maybe it's installing all the EGT sensors EXACTLY the same distance from the cylinders.

Maybe it's a result of regularly analyzing the induction system for leaks.

Maybe it's because the god of all things cylinders was involved in the last OH of this engine. (My engine's cylinders had quite a bit of customizing done to them. Some of it we can talk about...some of it we can't.)

Maybe it's dumb luck.

One thing's for sure, I DON'T add carb heat in the winter, all that does for 57D is decrease performance. My engine likes COLD AIR and I've never had carb ice issues (fingers crossed).

Example...

...today, 6500', WOT, 22"/2300rpm, lean 'till rough, enrichen 'till smooth, 10.8 GPH, 128 kts IAS. I didn't check the OAT in cruise but on the ground (500' ASL) was 39dF.

Note: the instrument is NOT in the "normalized" mode.

Not too bad for a carbureted O-470-L, eh?



I typically see spreads of 30 to 50dF in the summer, 10 to 30 in the winter. With my engine the denser the air, the tighter the spreads.

 

[Ted]

Great success = flying a couple of 172s, 182s,210,206,T182RG and 337 on Timber spotting/fire patrol aircraft over the most unforgiving terrain and conditions the lower 48 has to offer for a few decades without an engine issues. I was in there near daily with the guy who built and flew the engines. His only 2 issues through the years was that during the off season the planes weren't flown enough and every now and then you'd get a rusty cylinder that uses too much oil, and the rear engine on the 337 was impossible to cool.

To OP, keep the CHTs down, power below 75% or so (and 23/23 is doing just that) and have fun. If engine gadgets and that sort of thing tickle your fancy, by all means learn the voodoo.

That doesn't sound very difficult. Your engine doesn't care what terrain you're flying over, and those engines aren't very high-stressed overall.

It sounds like he did have room for improvement, though, given the rusty cylinders. And how many hours over those decades? I've got about 3500 hours of engine run time under my belt with no engine failures. Does that mean I'm doing something right? If, on my first solo flight, the engine explodes, did I do something wrong?

 

[poadeleted21]

That doesn't sound very difficult. Your engine doesn't care what terrain you're flying over, and those engines aren't very high-stressed overall.

It sounds like he did have room for improvement, though, given the rusty cylinders. And how many hours over those decades? I've got about 3500 hours of engine run time under my belt with no engine failures. Does that mean I'm doing something right? If, on my first solo flight, the engine explodes, did I do something wrong?

I'm going to guess somewhere around 50,000 hours over those decades given the usage. They've been flying them since the early 80's The plane might not care, your engine out options over the idaho/montana wilderness in smoke are zero, so the pilot does care about the engine he's flying behind.

 

[Ted]

I'm going to guess somewhere around 50,000 hours over those decades given the usage. They've been flying them since the early 80's The plane might not care, your engine out options over the idaho/montana wilderness in smoke are zero, so the pilot does care about the engine he's flying behind.

Why does that pilot care any more or less than I care flying in Canadian wilderness, over the Gulf of Mexico, or over the North Atlantic? How many hours between overhauls? Did they overhaul to new limits? Whose cylinders did they use?

My point is you're being very narrow in your mindset, and there are multiple answers to the question. I have friends who fly their planes ROP with great success and are happy with it, because they're in a hurry. I like flying their planes, but they pay for the fuel. I'm in less of a hurry, and so the massive amount of money that we've saved operating LOP pays for a lot of upgrades to the plane (no repairs required this far). So the real question: are you happy with your engine's reliability and your fuel consumption? How about endurance? You haven't owned the Bonanza long enough to see its reliability, but you have owned it long enough to see fuel consumption. If the answer to those questions is yes, then keep on truckin' and have fun. If the answer is no, maybe these other ways of managing the engine offer you some benefit.