Running props over square?

kiloalpha · June 27th, 2009, 01:18

Out company for years and years have told us to run at 2300 rpms and 23" on the MP. Usually trues us out at 170-172kts and burns about 30-32 gph.

Now we are being told to run at 2200 rpms and 24" of MP. We are told this has no negative effect on the engine as is better for the props since they work more efficiently now. Is this true? Are we going pop cylinders and crack cases now? or is this actually going to work?

We have Lycoming IO-540s that make 290hp. Company research shows a fuel savings of 10% with a 1-2% drop in airspeed.

ATN_Pilot · June 27th, 2009, 01:27

Check your POH. The old rule of squaring up prop speed and MP is a great way to SWAG power settings, but it's usually not the most efficient way to run the engines. Most POHs will show economy power settings with lower prop speeds than MPs.

TUCKnTRUCK · June 27th, 2009, 01:36

The squared ideal has been around forever... and is a good way to ball park figures... but it really depends on the airplane... most turbo'd applications are actually identical engines, but run in a different level of pressure. cranks valve train etc is all the same, and they are nowhere near squared.

i would not worry about damage, esp as 24"2200 is not exactly radical power settings. POH will tell you though.

milleR · June 27th, 2009, 01:50

On our TSIO-520's we run 30"/2450 for climb and high cruise, and 26"/2300 for normal cruise. Pretty good reliabililty so far.

Blip16 · June 27th, 2009, 02:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiloalpha

Out company for years and years have told us to run at 2300 rpms and 23" on the MP. Usually trues us out at 170-172kts and burns about 30-32 gph.

Now we are being told to run at 2200 rpms and 24" of MP. We are told this has no negative effect on the engine as is better for the props since they work more efficiently now. Is this true? Are we going pop cylinders and crack cases now? or is this actually going to work?

We have Lycoming IO-540s that make 290hp. Company research shows a fuel savings of 10% with a 1-2% drop in airspeed.

MP is just a measure of the level of vacuum in the intake manifold. the higher the number, the lower the vacuum, meaning the engine is not working as hard to get air. unless we are talking about turbo, the engine will only suck as much air as it can use.

Orange Anchor · June 27th, 2009, 07:07

For a little perspective of how long this debate has been going on, Lindberg flew lean of peak AND over-square. When he went into the Pacific in WWII he demonstrated the techniques in the P-38 and almost doubled the range. Later (1943) this increased range was used to fly a low level intercept of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto's airplane. One way the intercept was over 400 miles, beyond the range of other US fighters.

Later, the airlines used lean of peak and oversquare to increase the life of their big radials and reduce fuel burn.

tprops4me · June 27th, 2009, 08:22

So then that old rule of "keep the prop on top" is just a myth.

BajtheJino · June 27th, 2009, 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by tprops4me

So then that old rule of "keep the prop on top" is just a myth.

Absolutely. Ask anyone who uses this why and you will not get an answer.

Blip16 · June 27th, 2009, 11:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by tprops4me

So then that old rule of "keep the prop on top" is just a myth.

see my post above.

most people just understand what MP is really reading. at low throttle settings in a non-turbo a/c you have have more pressure in the manifold than when at a high throttle setting.

jynxyjoe · June 27th, 2009, 11:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiloalpha

Out company for years and years have told us to run at 2300 rpms and 23" on the MP. Usually trues us out at 170-172kts and burns about 30-32 gph.

Now we are being told to run at 2200 rpms and 24" of MP. We are told this has no negative effect on the engine as is better for the props since they work more efficiently now. Is this true? Are we going pop cylinders and crack cases now? or is this actually going to work?

We have Lycoming IO-540s that make 290hp. Company research shows a fuel savings of 10% with a 1-2% drop in airspeed.

All sounds good to me.

Read this book

SteveC · June 27th, 2009, 14:41

This discussion always cracks me up a little. The numbers are purely arbitrary based on which units of measurement are chosen. It's just a coincidence that pressure (inches of water column) has the same numbers as the first two digits of the rotation speed (revolutions per minute). I have a hard time imagining that the same rule of thumb would have come into being if we were talking about 43 mm Hg and 38 Hertz. Or 57 mbar and 241 radians per second.

They're just numbers.

mikecweb · June 27th, 2009, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by jynxyjoe

Read this book

That book was actually a textbook of mine in college.

Joe Gremlin · June 27th, 2009, 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveC

I have a hard time imagining that the same rule of thumb would have come into being if we were talking about 43 mm Hg and 38 Hertz. Or 57 mbar and 241 radians per second.

They're just numbers.

Keggers. If we're talking hypothetically about what to call the arbitrary units of measurement we're going to use, I want one of them to be called keggers. Set the MP to 44 ft pounds of diesel dust and set the prop to 720 keggers. Unless its a three blade prop, in which case you'd set it to 1122 quarter keggers.

Kegger silliness aside, I agree completely with your statement. The units are arbitrary. I think the reason the no oversquare myth continues to exist is because its really easy to teach and its pretty much always safe in terms of being harmful to the engine.

Inverted · June 27th, 2009, 21:03

Most planes I have flown the POH's show many over squaring settings. Prop on top is a myth as others are saying. It reminds me of the lean of peak scare everyone has. Same type of deal.

Orange Anchor · June 27th, 2009, 22:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveC

This discussion always cracks me up a little. The numbers are purely arbitrary based on which units of measurement are chosen. It's just a coincidence that pressure (inches of water column) has the same numbers as the first two digits of the rotation speed (revolutions per minute). I have a hard time imagining that the same rule of thumb would have come into being if we were talking about 43 mm Hg and 38 Hertz. Or 57 mbar and 241 radians per second.

They're just numbers.

How about the WWII German and Brit fighters in 'atmospheres'?

spbrian · June 28th, 2009, 01:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuickCFI

see my post above.

most people just understand what MP is really reading. at low throttle settings in a non-turbo a/c you have have more pressure in the manifold than when at a high throttle setting.

untrue statement, at low power settings you have less pressure and at full throttle you have ambient pressure (whatever the pressure is at the altitude you are at)

Blip16 · June 28th, 2009, 04:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by spbrian

untrue statement, at low power settings you have less pressure and at full throttle you have ambient pressure (whatever the pressure is at the altitude you are at)

more vacuum pressure, i didn't put that in there. the engine is working harder to get air so the vacuum goes up. at full throttle it is ambient because there is no vacuum pressure

kiloalpha · June 28th, 2009, 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by jynxyjoe

All sounds good to me.

Read this book

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inverted

Most planes I have flown the POH's show many over squaring settings. Prop on top is a myth as others are saying. It reminds me of the lean of peak scare everyone has. Same type of deal.

Thanks everyone for your input. I'll look into that book.

It's in the POH as okay to go over so I'll believe anything printed in that. As far as lean of peak, I do that on occasion, but I've seen people with GamiInjectors on their BE35 lean it way out and blow out rings all the time. I always try to lean to the point of engine roughness then back rich about "a smidge." We don't have EGT (I don't understand why) but we have a CHT and I try to keep it around 150-180 degrees.

Barty · June 28th, 2009, 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuickCFI

more vacuum pressure, i didn't put that in there. the engine is working harder to get air so the vacuum goes up. at full throttle it is ambient because there is no vacuum pressure

You need to stick to either referring to it as pressure or vacuum. Personally, I find it easier just to refer to everything in terms of pressure and pressure differential when talking about engine load. What we are referring to as vacuum is really a difference between atmospheric pressure and the lower pressure in the manifold. In this way, it also makes it easier to understand what is really going on with a turbocharger/supercharger. Both are merely devices that either work to keep manifold pressure equal to what it would approximately be at sea level or to provide pressure higher than ambient. Generally, most aircraft turbochargers fall into the former category.

But there is no "vacuum pressure."

TallFlyer · June 28th, 2009, 15:31

All of this is good reading:

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182544-1.html

trafficinsight · June 28th, 2009, 15:56

150 to 180 is pretty cold for cylinder heads.

Roger, Roger · June 28th, 2009, 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by trafficinsight

150 to 180 is pretty cold for cylinder heads.

IIRC his CHT gauges are in degrees Celsius. According to Google, 180° C comes out to about 360° Fahrenheit. Another oddity of the Commander...

kiloalpha · June 28th, 2009, 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger, Roger

IIRC his CHT gauges are in degrees Celsius. According to Google, 180° C comes out to about 360° Fahrenheit. Another oddity of the Commander...

Yeah it's in Celsius. The commander is a weird plane, but it flys real good.

roundout · June 28th, 2009, 18:10

Here's something for the "prop on top" people to munch on:

When the engine is not running the MP is 29-30 and the RPMs are 0. You never hear anybody complain about that power setting.

Roger, Roger · June 28th, 2009, 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiloalpha

Yeah it's in Celsius. The commander is a weird plane, but it flys real good.

Yes it does...I would imagine it helps to be used to the funky nosewheel steering though.

June 27th, 2009, 01:18	#1
kiloalpha Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 520	Running props over square? Out company for years and years have told us to run at 2300 rpms and 23" on the MP. Usually trues us out at 170-172kts and burns about 30-32 gph. Now we are being told to run at 2200 rpms and 24" of MP. We are told this has no negative effect on the engine as is better for the props since they work more efficiently now. Is this true? Are we going pop cylinders and crack cases now? or is this actually going to work? We have Lycoming IO-540s that make 290hp. Company research shows a fuel savings of 10% with a 1-2% drop in airspeed. __________________

June 27th, 2009, 01:27	#2
ATN_Pilot Old Skool Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: ATL Posts: 6,037	Re: Running props over square? Check your POH. The old rule of squaring up prop speed and MP is a great way to SWAG power settings, but it's usually not the most efficient way to run the engines. Most POHs will show economy power settings with lower prop speeds than MPs. __________________

June 27th, 2009, 01:36	#3
TUCKnTRUCK Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MHT Posts: 655	Re: Running props over square? The squared ideal has been around forever... and is a good way to ball park figures... but it really depends on the airplane... most turbo'd applications are actually identical engines, but run in a different level of pressure. cranks valve train etc is all the same, and they are nowhere near squared. i would not worry about damage, esp as 24"2200 is not exactly radical power settings. POH will tell you though.

June 27th, 2009, 01:50	#4
milleR Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Md Posts: 158	Re: Running props over square? On our TSIO-520's we run 30"/2450 for climb and high cruise, and 26"/2300 for normal cruise. Pretty good reliabililty so far.

June 27th, 2009, 07:07	#6
Orange Anchor Old Skool Join Date: May 2008 Location: ATL Posts: 1,743	Re: Running props over square? For a little perspective of how long this debate has been going on, Lindberg flew lean of peak AND over-square. When he went into the Pacific in WWII he demonstrated the techniques in the P-38 and almost doubled the range. Later (1943) this increased range was used to fly a low level intercept of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto's airplane. One way the intercept was over 400 miles, beyond the range of other US fighters. Later, the airlines used lean of peak and oversquare to increase the life of their big radials and reduce fuel burn. __________________ If you have integrity, nothing else really matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else really matters.

June 27th, 2009, 08:22	#7
tprops4me Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Grand Rapids, Mi. Posts: 445	Re: Running props over square? So then that old rule of "keep the prop on top" is just a myth.

June 27th, 2009, 14:41	#11
SteveC Ameliorator Join Date: May 2003 Location: GRR Posts: 11,074	Re: Running props over square? This discussion always cracks me up a little. The numbers are purely arbitrary based on which units of measurement are chosen. It's just a coincidence that pressure (inches of water column) has the same numbers as the first two digits of the rotation speed (revolutions per minute). I have a hard time imagining that the same rule of thumb would have come into being if we were talking about 43 mm Hg and 38 Hertz. Or 57 mbar and 241 radians per second. They're just numbers. __________________ . If life gives you lemons, throw 'em into a quart of vodka. ~Red Green

June 27th, 2009, 21:03	#14
Inverted Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Walnut creek...Airport: KLVK Posts: 60	Re: Running props over square? Most planes I have flown the POH's show many over squaring settings. Prop on top is a myth as others are saying. It reminds me of the lean of peak scare everyone has. Same type of deal.

June 28th, 2009, 15:31	#20
TallFlyer Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: PAJN Posts: 905	Re: Running props over square? All of this is good reading: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182544-1.html __________________ www.cjlacour.com PPL 12/16/04 Inst. 5/30/05 CSEL 9/6/07 CMEL 9/6/08

June 28th, 2009, 15:56	#21
trafficinsight Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: RHV USA! Posts: 659	Re: Running props over square? 150 to 180 is pretty cold for cylinder heads.

June 28th, 2009, 18:10	#24
roundout Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: kftw Posts: 1,064	Re: Running props over square? Here's something for the "prop on top" people to munch on: When the engine is not running the MP is 29-30 and the RPMs are 0. You never hear anybody complain about that power setting. __________________ http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm this reference tool contains examples of the proper spellings and usages of the following words: your, you're, there, their, they're, than, then

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode