Silvaire wrote:
If you need reliable commercial tracking, my fairly extensive experience with shipping transatlantic says to ship Fedex to the U.S. and DHL to Europe. Vice versa can be problematic. Best to ship using the company with the best infrastructure on the delivery end. The pickup end is virtually irrelevant because you likely put it in their hands.
I wish I had heard this before I used DHL to ship a very important envelope for which I paid tracking from Germany to the US only to have the tracking work to the US border after which it was lost and 6 months later still not found. Seems DHLs idea of tracking stops at the border.
Peter,
Thanks for posting info on your engine. Interesting thread, and a caution for those of us who habitually potter about on low power settings. Our engines were designed in the days when few would bother trying to save gas costing a few cents a gallon, but I think even modern car engines benefit from a bit of German autobahn now and again.
Silvaire,
Yes, that’s correct. Not the world’s finest powerplant but I bought it cheaply at the end of its life and had a lot of fun with it on Hebridean beaches etc. A previous owner had flown it from Brazil to Spain, so it wasn’t afraid of flying over water.
Jacko wrote:
a caution for those of us who habitually potter about on low power settings.
Very true.
As pre-eminent Aircraft Engine Expert, George Braly says: “Its not how hard you run your engine, it’s how you run your engine hard.”
Peter wrote:
I have just got feedback from another pilot who has come across this and his view was that this is a bunged-up engine due to too much low power and low CHT (high altitude non-turbo) operation.
That is a personal view and not a generally accepted truth. First we get told all the time that turbo engines don’t make TBO because they typically operate at higher power settings than NA engines and now we hear that NA engines suffer because they operate at lower power settings?
FWIW, I don’t subscribe to this explanation at all.
As pre-eminent Aircraft Engine Expert, George Braly says: “Its not how hard you run your engine, it’s how you run your engine hard.”
However, I don’t think this is the whole story, because I have been doing high altitude stuff for 12 years.
I think what happens is that the oil ring (BTW there is only one in my engine – it is an “H” ring so looks like two unless you look closely) gets bunged up but then clears, because in my case most high level flights are followed by low level ones. It’s only a succession of high level flights which might cause this problem in a way which gets noticed.
That is a personal view and not a generally accepted truth. First we get told all the time that turbo engines don’t make TBO because they typically operate at higher power settings than NA engines and now we hear that NA engines suffer because they operate at lower power settings?
I don’t see any problem there 
The issue I seem to have had (not confirmed yet, BTW – need more data) would not be noticed in the NA community generally, since only a tiny % of pilots do real high altitudes. And for you to hear about it they would need to be on forums and be willing to post bad news, which few want to do because they want to sell their plane one day, smoothly 
The issue I seem to have had (not confirmed yet, BTW – need more data) would not be noticed in the NA community generally, since only a tiny % of pilots do real high altitudes
… and of course nobody flies with well-reduced throttle in order to save fuel….
Peter wrote:
would not be noticed in the NA community generally, since only a tiny % of pilots do real high altitudes
And an even smaller percentage practice it regularly.
I for one, in 1,500 hours of SEP, NA ops have only once been over 12,000’ and that was just 1.5 hours.
and of course nobody flies with well-reduced throttle in order to save fuel
Not sure what you mean there because, obviously, almost nobody flies flat out at say 2000ft. Well, not Lyco or Conti engines. Maybe Rotax or Thielert?
There is absolutely no evidence that flying the old stuff at say 65% power at such levels (say 23" / 2400 / 11GPH) is a problem, ever. When my engine was dismantled at 800hrs for the SB569 crank swap it was found to be in excellent condition, with everything except the exhaust valve stems and the cam followers still within “new engine” limits. And by that time (2008) I had done plenty of high altitude stuff, with all low level stuff flown at 23/2400/11.5 which is slightly LOP.
It takes care of itself via the lower pressure when high up. Always wide open throttle up there.
I think, as I said before, the problem is flying a good number of hours at say FL200 (maybe only 30-40% power) and there is a second factor present, which I suspect is the CHT being a bit low, which is why the LHS cylinders suffer more (on the TB20 installation).
Nothings keeping anyone from running 30 – 40 % power down low, it just doesn’t make any sense.
Also, you can run WOT down low and still be under 50% if you lean it enough …
Also, you can run WOT down low and still be under 50% if you lean it enough …
Flying that far LOP will require you to have really well matched injectors, however.
And I don’t see the advantage. Once LOP at all, the engine SFC doesn’t improve by going further LOP, other than via a possible second order effect of running at low RPM (say 2000) to take advantage of the slower burning lean mixture.
