Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:44:35 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1135475@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.49.254.21; envelope-from=walter@advancedpilot.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
In-Reply-To: <list-1135232@logan.com>
References: <list-1135232@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Walter Atkinson <walter@advancedpilot.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lean of Peak question

John:

That is impossible to answer until you know what your F:A ratios are.  
In my engine, you can't lean to roughness because my F:A ratios are so 
even that it never gets rough... it just gets to idle cutoff.  Some 
engines are so bad that they get rough before they get to peak.  It 
depends on the specific engine.

Hence, you question has no definitive answer.

Walter


On May 31, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Halle, John wrote:

Well, probably predictably, I have heard, both online and off from the 
evangelists from both sides of the controversey and exhorted to take 
various courses or buy various pieces of gear, all of which I had heard 
before (and may actually do someday.)  My question, however, was really 
a simple one:  Am I right in assuming that, by leaning until the engine 
ran rough and then enrichening until it was once again smooth as I was 
taught, I was ensuring that at least one cylinder was running lean of 
peak and that the others were, in all probability, also lean of peak or 
too close to peak on the rich side (as described in John Deakin's 
article, which I have read several times?)  It's really an academic 
question that I don't intend to use as the basis for any decision.  
Just curious.

--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/