Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man
...not many people remember Lindburg's "war time" contribution to "long distance" flying in the Pacific.
...as an ex-aircrewman (4 x R-3350's with turbo-compund) I studied and read about his contribution.
|
Wow. R-3350s. I haven't heard anyone mention those since I went through A&P school. Wright Cyclones with PRTs, yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfitzpat
A lot of solid 'engine fundamentals' research comes from aircraft engines. So I'd probably have read about it regardless. But the reason that example came to mind is probably the most memorable entry in my own log books. It is only .7 hours PIC, but the type reads "P-38J"!
What made it even more memorable was I was flanked by 3 P-51Ds. It must have been quite a site from the ground. Eco friendly? Not a bit, we were guzzling leaded fuel like crazy. But I can't quite bring myself to regret it!
-jjf
|
PIC on a P-38J?! I am envious! My all-time favorite though is the F-4U Corsair...R-2800 Double Wasp, 18 jugs, lots o' power!
Vought F4U Corsair - USA
Sorry for the hijack!
I have been told I would not see much in the way of MPG improvement unless I leaned my engine to about 16:1, but it would likely run rougher. Do you really think a wide-band is a good investment? Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfitzpat
Stock tunes are too rich for peak performance. They pour on fuel to avoid heat and detonation. So, for max performance, you need to lean out the stock tune. The danger is when you (or more specifically, any cyl) get leaner than best power, but still richer than stoich. This is when all the ingredients for detonation, heat, fuel, and pressure, are at their highest.
|
I had heard stock tunes were too rich. I know my Dodge truck's factory tune is. I am running a Superchips on the 87 tow tune right now. I don't know if I am getting better mileage, but it does run a lot better.