Gene Kearns wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:48:27 +1000, "K. Smith"
wrote:



We clearly disagree on this. I've read the references as you have I'll
put a few links in case anyone else would like to have a look & as
always a technical discussion would be great;

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main...ngEngines.html

http://66.102.7.104/custom?q=cache:i...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main...erLeaning.html



......and if there is anybody that really cares, here is a more recent
service publication that essentially refutes the "Lycoming Flyer
Reprints" era publications.... The Lycoming Flyer was a sorta annual
chatty newsletter published from 1964 until 1980 with four issues
published since, in 1991 and 1992.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/supp...ps/SSP700A.pdf

With this latter service publication, Lycoming has returned to their
original position, that lean of peak is fine as long as the engine is
"managed."

Bear in mind that this technology doesn't compare well with the
discussion at hand. Getting off the "flame Fitch" bandwagon, lean
burn technology requires vigilant human intervention or computer
control. Modern Lycoming aeronautical reciprocating engine technology
employs neither.

A modern lean burn engine is computer controlled and water cooled.

A new Lycoming aircraft engine is 1930's technology:
-is air cooled
-has fixed timing, regardless of RPM, load, etc.
-has a manually variable mixture setting (the pilot can screw up fuel
management royally)
-has a true throttle and not a demand lever as employed by computer
controlled technology
-may be "lugged" or overstressed by improper propeller setting
-is carbureted (updraft, possibly side draft) or fuel injected using a
mechanical metering device
-burns a boutique grade of fuel
-redlines at 2700 RPM and, at that speed, is considered a high
performance engine.

K, if you'd like to debate Lycoming aircraft engines, I'd be happy to
in a forum more applicable and appropriate. I don't know what you
know about Lycoming, but I live within driving distance of the
Lycoming Corporate Headquarters and have been through the Lycoming
factory school and toured the manufacturing and assembly plant on
more than one occasion. Wrench in hand, I touch at least one Lycoming
engine every day. Knowing what I know about these engines, I know
that comparing them to modern lean burn outboard engines is truly
comparing apples and oranges.

Using this data as a basis for argument mere perpetuates a flawed,
demonstrably inaccurate, and unproductive argument.

Please enter the 21st Century....

So now you say big super lazy Lycomings can't run lean what at
output/ltr about the same as a 60s VW beetle, yet you want to support
these Ficht idiots who try to do it in 2 strokes no less with absolutely
no piston cooling whatsoever!!! plus outputs up over 70Hp/ltr.

I've joined the 21st century Gene as did the 7000 chucked from OMC
during the biggest ever consumer recreational spending spree.

I don't have to say it doesn't work because that's beyond doubt now, I
do have to maintain what we've been telling the NG since early 98 the
exact reasons "why" it wouldn't work then & now why it actually didn't work.

Just for the record one of the links I gave you was to the same
"experts are everywhere" page.

Be aware Gene the reason liar Harry supported Ficht was that his mob
were funding it!!! the union pension funds & the dealers saw me as
detracting from sales when all they were really interested in was
ripping recreational boaters off, which they did & to some extent
deserve what they got.

K