John's very knowledgeable and a nice guy to boot.
I've had the privilege of flying with him once or twice - this was in Jeff Whitesell's Martin 404 at Camarillo a few years ago:
TCM essentially threw away all the old machinery that had served so well (if inefficiently), and installed all-new, modern machinery. They had a strike that resulted in management assembling engines for a time, and they lost a lot of their senior engineering talent.
TCM has been running this ad for a long time in the Cessna Pilot Association's magazine. One shouldn't be prejudiced by appearances but if I wanted to show the technical competence and commitment of my company, the ad would look very different...
I know; these advertisements are embarrassing.
But this is only one of many of its kind. Have you seen the Aspen promotional video showing the inside of their factory and their staff? They issued it when their QA problems were getting a lot of press attention. I can't find the worst of them right now but I wouldn't put this
out if it was my business. And actually my own business looks a lot worse 
Luckily I'm not an expert enough to see anything in Aspen's factory that would concern me. What do you think is wrong about it?
However, I think even a child would consider's Continental's team to look rather dull
As a friend of mine is fond of saying: "I don't think there are a lot of UCAS points there."
Probably only makes sense to Brits of a certain generation.
One thing I cannot seem to find a good answer to: how would the Red Box described by Deakin (RIP) change if you are behind a 10:1 compression ratio engine? It seems basing the red box purely off of power setting seems not suitable in this case, as the fuel air mixture is compressed a good 20 more than in a 8.5:1 CR engine. So logically, the power thresholds for high CR engines should be adjusted downwards? Eg he suggests
“At 65 power, use richer than 100 ROP, or leaner than peak EGT.” And maybe for a 10:1 engine it should be eg 55% power instead of 65%power?
Somewhat related: should it not also matter HOW the 65% is attained? I can use low MP and high RPM or high MP and low RPM to achieve the same power. But in the high MP low RPM scenario, there will be more fuel and more air per working stroke, hence higher detonation/pre-ignition risk, no?
honza wrote:
There is one thing in his articles that confuses me. He agitates against decreasing power after take off claiming the engines have some mixture enhancement feature at full throttle and therefore any power reduction will lead to leaner mixture. Is this really the case? Which engines does it apply to and how does the feature work?
All engines I am familiar with. For example, on my Bonanza with an IO520BA, the throttle linkage also controls the fuel flow, but the initial movement of the throttle primarily leans the engine. Most would notice that with a constant speed prop, it takes a significant reduction of the throttle position before you start to see the MP come down off of full, but if you look at the fuel flow, it is coming down all the way.
Here are some pictures of the linkage in action:
Full Throttle:
Idle
NCYankee wrote:
the throttle linkage also controls the fuel flow
It is like this in Continental fuel injection systems as well as some if not all carburetted engines. I am not so familiar with the latter to confirm the full throttle enrichment is available in all carburettor models.
And yes, as you advance the throttle on take-off with a Conti fuel injection system, max MP is achieved well before maximum fuel flow, especially so on turbocharged engines. On those, one may need to throttle back on take-off to control turbo overboost with a cold oil on automatic wastegate systems. However, despite the throttle-driven fuel flow restriction coming then into place, one is then not hurting the engine , since that is compensated for by the aneroid in the fuel pump increasing fuel pressure as a result of high turbo air outlet pressure, so you end up with the same or similar mixture, when all is properly adjusted. However, if the throttle is slighty retarded from full, with nominal MP on take-off, you will be leaning the mixture, so a bad thing as @NCYankee says above.
On RSA fuel injection systems fuel flow works differently.
By the way, a nice description of Lycoming fuel injection systems can be found here.
Thx for the link @boscomantico
