WORLD'S PREMIER INDEPENDENT AVIATION NEWS RESOURCE

Home Sign up for AVweb flash Read AVweb flash Aviation Publications Advertise

Log In Search

AVIATION FLIGHT FLIGHT FLIGHT SAFETY/ AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT AIR SHOWS BUSINESS AVIONICS/ BLOGS/
ADVERTISE
NEWS FINDER PLANNING TRAINING ACCIDENTS OWNERSHIP UPGRADES & EVENTS & MILITARY TABLETS PUBLICATIONS

AVWEB INSIDER

The ATC Crisis That Wasn’t »

By Paul Bertorelli | January 27, 2019
Enter your email address here
Controllers are legally prohibited from striking. Thanks to
a last minute stroke of sanity, the public wasn't exposed
to how little that really means. More
Pelican's Perch #18:
FEATURED VIDEO
Mixture Magic
Like 23 Tweet Share Text size:

If you fly recips, what leaning procedure do you use? Chances are
that almost everything your CFI told you about using the red knob
— and most of what you've read and heard since then — is just
plain hogwash! We suggest you forget everything you thought you
knew about the subject, and let AVweb's John Deakin show you
how to optimize engine efficiency and longevity through How To Land An
enlightened mixture management. Airplane On The
Freeway With Style And
By John Deakin | June 14, 1999 Grace (And Survive)
There are few RELATED ARTICLES
things in SPONSORED VIDEO
Say Again? #54: ATC 206 -- Holding
airplanes as
The Pilot's Lounge #89: How We
misunderstood Scare Our Passengers Without
and misused as Realizing It
the mixture The Savvy Aviator #20: The Most
control. Old Dangerous Thing In Aviation?
Wives' Tales (OWTs) abound, many of them spread by The Savvy Aviator #19: Thwarting
POHs, the FAA, and even the engine manufacturers! Not Corrosion

much of what you've read and heard about mixture

management makes sense — much of it is out of context,
ABOUT THE AUTHOR ...
and most of the good stuff is so dry, dull and boring that it's
SPONSORED VIDEO:
tough to get through it without falling asleep.
Michael Goulian
I have flown with pilots who say, "Oh, I never lean, it's just explains what it takes to
too complicated, and fuel is cheaper than an engine win a Red Bull Air Race
overhaul, anyway." What really annoys me is that some of
them even make TBO that way! What they don't think
about is how many problems they have enroute to TBO —
fouled plugs, burned valves, cracked cylinder heads, etc.
— and how much money they waste on fuel. Even worse, PILOT'S FLIGHTBAG
they don't think about how much time they waste making
unnecessary fuel stops. Yeah, yeah, I know, your bladder
John Deakin is a 35,000-hour pilot who
range is more limited than your fuel range. I've heard that
worked his way up the aviation food
before, but it sure sounds like a cop-out, to me. chain via charter, corporate, and cargo
flying; spent five years in Southeast Asia
Ever make an extra stop for "cheap fuel?" Do you feel with Air America; 33 years with Japan
Airlines, mostly as a 747 captain; and
smug when you buy fuel for ten cents a gallon less than now flies the Gulfstream IV for a West
usual? Why, then, do so many pilots fail to learn a little Coast operator.
about their engines and save 20% or more on fuel used? He also flies his own V35 Bonanza
That's just like getting forty cents off per gallon, these (N1BE) and is very active in the warbird
and vintage aircraft scene, flying the C-
days! What am I missing here?
46, M-404, DC-3, F8F Bearcat,
Constellation, B-29, and others. He is
Others will tell me, "I lean to 50° F rich of peak, just like the also a National Designated Pilot
POH says," not realizing that this can be — and often is — Examiner (NDPER), able to give type
ratings and check rides on 43 different
the very worst possible setting they can use!
aircraft types.

Still others will decide on some arbitrary power setting with QUESTION OF THE WEEK
no particular logic in mind. 65% is a very common level. ENGINE-RELATED
They'll carefully set the MP and RPM to the book values COLUMNS Do Big Players Getting Into Urban
for 65% and figure that's all they have to do to attain that VTOL Convince You That It's Real?
Pelican's Perch #7:
power setting. Wrong, it also takes a very careful mixture Run That Fuel Tank Dry! No way. They're just doing this for good PR.
setting, as well! No, the size of the players has nothing to do with it.
Pelican's Perch #8:
Go Ahead, Abuse Your Engine! Maybe. They obviously want to compete.
Don't be afraid of that red knob. Learn to use it! With a few
Pelican's Perch #15: Absolutely. This is going to happen.
pretty obvious exceptions there is nothing you can do with
Manifold Pressure Sucks! OTHER. My opinion doesn't appear as a choice. I'll
the mixture control over a short period of time that will hurt
send you an e-mail. (200 words or less, please.
Pelican's Perch #16:
you or the engine. Used properly, you'll save a lot of fuel, Remember we consider these e-mails for
Those Marvelous Props
your engine will run cooler, cleaner, smoother, and longer, publication unless you specifically say otherwise.)
Pelican's Perch #18:
with less maintenance expense and downtime along the
Mixture Magic VOTE
way to TBO.
Pelican's Perch #19:
Putting It All Together
There! Now that I've gotten all that off my chest, lets see if
we can make a little sense of all this. If you haven't read Pelican's Perch #31:
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1)
my previous columns on manifold pressure and props, this
would be a good time to do so, as this is the third in a Pelican's Perch #32: PICTURE OF THE WEEK
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 2)
series and builds on those earlier efforts.
Pelican's Perch #33:
I'd like to first discuss some things about the fuel we use, Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 3)
then go rather deeply into the operation of a "perfect" Pelican's Perch #34:
engine. After that, I'll offer a little history of why and how Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 4)

our engines are not perfect, and what we can do about it. Pelican's Perch #35:
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 5)
Pyromaniacal Prattling
Pelican's Perch #36:
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 6 —
If you've been to the movies, or watched TV in the last 30 and FINAL!)
years, you've undoubtedly seen the shot where someone
Pelican's Perch #42:
pours a long trail of gasoline on the ground, then strikes a Lycoming Talks About LOP
match and lights it off. If you watch closely enough, the Picture of the Week, January 24, 2019 »
Pelican's Perch #43:
flame is a fairly gentle one, and the flame front moves Detonation Myths It feels good to get out in the desert for a landing on
fairly slowly until it reaches whatever is going to explode, fresh powder...happens about twice a year. Photo by
Pelican's Perch #46:
and then blows up — violently. A favorite shot is the car Dennis Bleazard.
"But My Mechanic Says ..."
gas tank. While Hollywood plays tricks with physics now
Pelican's Perch #55:
and then, this particular one doesn't need much fakery: it's Lead in the Hogwash
quite real.
Pelican's Perch #57:
The Whyalla Report — Junk Science?
But why does the fuel burn so slowly as the fire snakes
Pelican's Perch #58:
across the ground, and why does it blow up so violently
FLYING's Report on Whyalla
when it reaches its intended destination? The short answer
Pelican's Perch #63:
is "mixture."
Where Should I Run My Engine? (Part 1)

By itself, gasoline won't even burn. Try dropping a lighted Pelican's Perch #64:
Where Should I Run My Engine? (Part 2
match on the tarmac and then pouring some liquid
— The Climb)
gasoline onto the flame: You'll put the fire out. This is the
"too rich to burn" case.

Returning to that movie scene, the trail of

gasoline across the ground only burns because
the gas is evaporating, changing into a vapor,
and at some point above the surface the mixture
will support combustion. That little bit of vapor
burns, lighting off the next few molecules, which
light off the next batch, and so on.

If we could closely examine what's going on, the

surface of the liquid fuel would not be burning at
all, there would be a thin layer of very rich vapor
just above it, also too rich to burn. At the point
above the surface where combustion does take
place, the fire burns "up," and all the combustible mixture above that point also burns. Blow a gentle
breeze across this process ("fan the flames"), injecting more air into the process (leaning it out) and
you'll see a much more vigorous flame, and a much faster flame front. Blow even more air, and there
will be too much air (too lean), and the fire will slow down again, and ultimately go out.

Now, what happens when the burning trail of gasoline reaches its destination? If the fire hits a full
gas tank, the fire will simply go out! The liquid is again too rich to burn. But if the tank is partially
empty, there will be a nice volume of combustible gasoline vapor at just the right mixture in the upper
part of the tank. The smallest spark is more than enough to light that off, and the flame front will
expand rapidly in all directions. The rapidly expanding gasses will blow up the tank, scattering the
liquid fuel, nicely mixing it with air, and creating an even larger volume of highly combustible fuel/air
mixture. Technically, this is not an explosion: It's still just burning. But it takes place so quickly that it
appears to explode.

Another example. Propane (or acetylene, or any flammable gas), right out of the tank, makes a
rather lazy, sooty yellow flame that really isn't very hot, only a few hundred degrees. Add air to that
mix, push it out that pipe under some pressure, and it turns into a hissing blue jet of flame at several
thousand degrees. Your gas stove is cleverly designed so that the rising heat sucks air into the gas
stream, making a mixture that burns with a nice hot blue flame. But mix too much air with that gas,
and the flame becomes weaker, weaker, and finally dies out — the fire is burning so slowly it simply
can't leap from molecule to molecule. Well, at least that's the way I like to think of it!

All this is a very good thing, because if any of these substances could burn on their own, the fire
would run right back down the supply line to the tank, and burn it all — quickly!

It's All in the Mixture

How does this translate into the gasoline-powered, spark-fired, internal combustion engines found in
our airplanes (and also in tractors, lawn mowers, and cars)? For purposes of this article, I'll limit my
discussion to normally-aspirated engines, leaving turbocharged ones for a future column.

In the engine that powers my Bonanza (a TCM IO-550), if I flip the boost pump to high with the
mixture rich, I can literally "flood" the engine and kill it, even at takeoff or climb power settings.
(Update Oct. 2005: This column was written in 1999, when I believed that to be true. Alas, it is not
completely so. At low power settings, it is true, and illustrates the principle nicely. But most of these
engines -- including mine -- tolerate the boost pump very well at high power settings. Indeed, the
boost pump can be your friend if taking off with hot fuel in the tanks, or if you climb rapidly, as with
the Turbo'd aircraft.) Any malfunction that pumps "too much" fuel into the combustion chamber
(relative to the air) will do the same thing. The fuel is flowing, the spark is sparking, and the airspeed
is still turning the prop, but there's just too much fuel and not enough air. Flip the boost to "Low" or
"Off" or lean it out with the mixture control and the engine will run again. Given the correct fuel flow,
air flow and spark, it must start and run.

An aside here. Two people report that when they have run a tank dry as I described in
another column, they have had a minor problem re-starting. This may be a possible
explanation if they shoved the mixture in and flipped the boost pump on at high
altitude. The engine goes quickly from "no fuel" to "too rich to run" and can't start. If
you run into this problem, don't change anything but the fuel selector, and maybe flip
the boost on momentarily, just to get the fuel started again to the engine-driven pump,
then turn it off again. That engine will start. After all, it is FAA-certified to do so!

At the other end of the spectrum, pulling the big red knob all the way back cuts off all fuel to the
engine, making the mixture "too lean" and also causing the engine to quit. We do this to shut down
the engine on most airplanes, so this is more familiar territory to most.

Fire in the Hole!

Somewhere in between those two extremes of "too rich to run" and "too lean to run," there is a small
range of mixture settings that will allow the engine to run. At each end of that small range, the engine
doesn't really run very well, but things get better in the middle of the range. It is this range of
"burnable" mixture we need to understand. So, read on.

(This picture, and several others in this column comes from the superb Pratt & Whitney
"The Aircraft Engine and its Operation", February 1955 edition. I have arranged to
have this publication duplicated, copies available for $60. 150 B&W pages, 38 in color.
If you want a copy, drop me an e-note at [email protected].)

The chart above depicts only the lower end of the mixture range, from "no fuel" to about 20% fuel, by
weight. Obviously, any mixture greater than 20% fuel is also "too rich to burn."

Note also that only a very narrow part of this will actually support combustion at all, from roughly 5%
to about 12.5%. Remember we're talking here about weight of both air and fuel. At 20:1 by weight,
the mix is 20 pounds of air, and 1 pound of fuel. By volume, that's about 11,700 gallons of air for
each gallon of fuel.

Let's do a little thought experiment here. Assume you are in cruise at 10,000 feet, with wide-open
throttle and the prop control set to2,300 RPM. Now cut the mixture, shutting the engine down. The
prop governor will attempt to maintain that 2,300 RPM, and for the purposes of this exercise, let's
assume it can, and does. Thus, even with the fuel cut off, the engine is still turning, the pistons are
still pumping air, and you'll still have the same manifold pressure (about 20 inches). All engine
instruments will remain normal, except CHT and EGT which will drop pretty quickly. You establish a
nice power-off descent with enough speed to keep the prop windmilling within the governing range.
(This is a learning exercise, and not an engine-out drill, where you'd reduce to "best glide.")

For most normally-aspirated engines, as you get down around 8,000 or 9,000 msl, the resulting
manifold pressure and RPM will be approximately correct for the classic 65% power setting. How
much power are we getting? None, of course, or 0%. My point is that MP and RPM alone do not
determine power output. Obviously, mixture plays a major part in the power equation, too!

Continuing our thought experiment, you're at the extreme left end of this chart, all air and no fuel
("too lean to burn"). Now, start easing the mixture control in (moving to the right on the chart). At
some point, that will begin to allow fuel into the air, but still, nothing happens until that "mix" gets to
the 5% point. At about that point, the engine will start rather abruptly. If you look closely at that chart,
the power curve rises just about vertically to around 30% of power, and only a tiny bit more fuel will
bring it to 50% power. After that, it takes larger and larger increases in fuel to get to 100% of
available power. Note there's a fairly wide "flat spot" on top of that curve, where power stays pretty
constant. Note also that if you enrich even further, power drops off again — ultimately, to zero
("flooded out").

Adjusting the mixture level (by weight) to about 8% fuel will get the absolute maximum horsepower
out of that fuel and air mixture, so we call that "Best Power Mixture." No matter how you play with the
mixture, that's the best you can do for sheer, raw power. This setting is useful for maximum speed,
maximum climb, and for converting gas into noise. This is "Maximum Power for the Fuel and Air
available."

Most of the cruise performance charts in General Aviation aircraft POHs either don't mention it all, or
there is a tiny note somewhere that the chart numbers are valid only with a mixture setting at "Best
Power" (at the top of our power/mixture curve). This is often a marketing ploy, as faster airplanes sell
better.

Now here's a slippery concept for many (well, at least I had trouble with it). If we re-lean the mixture
a bit, say 10% (moving back to the left on the chart), the power doesn't drop very much, perhaps
only 5%. Hmm, think about that. 10% less fuel, 5% less power. This seems more efficient — and it is.
We're not getting the maximum horsepower, we're getting a little less, but for a lot less fuel. (There
are many things in aviation that work this way. Give a little here, get a lot there.) Tests have shown
that at about 6.25% of fuel (by weight) we won't get as much power (it'll be roughly 80%), but we will
get the most power per gallon, and we call this "Best Economy".

To look at it another way, by running at "Best Power," we are wasting a little fuel to increase the
power.

In this context, when we speak of "power," we're speaking of the power available from a particular
amount of air and fuel, and not some percentage of "rated power" from the engine. In other words,
this mixture diagram applies whether we have half throttle and 1500 RPM, or any other setting. For
any given setting of throttle and manifold pressure, this chart of combustible mixtures applies.

In fact, sitting on the ground, idling at 1,000 RPM, you can see this. The prop is well out of the
governing range and at its flattest pitch. RPM is thus a direct indication of power. Full rich, flip the
boost pump on, and you may flood the engine out completely. But quickly pull the mixture knob back
to keep it running. With this setup, you can vary the mixture, and watch the results on the
tachometer. Too rich, the RPM will be low, the exhaust will be sooty. Lean it, and you'll come to an
RPM peak. Keep leaning further and the RPM will drop again — eventually to zero. It gets very
sensitive at the extremes, because of the steep slope of the curve on the combustion chart.

The mixture control is the most important "power control" we have! Using the mixture alone, we can
vary the power from zero (lean) to "full," and back to zero (rich). We can't do that with the throttle
(there's always some power at idle) or with RPM (unless we can feather the engine.) Of course, for
practical purposes, the real range of power control through mixture adjustment is from about 30% on
the lean side, to 100%, and back to 30% on the rich side.

Interpreting the Gauges

For far too long, these engines have been run with no science at all. We simply haven't had any
decent instrumentation to tell us what's going on in the combustion chamber. If you've read my
previous columns on manifold pressure (MP) and props (RPM), you now realize that neither MP nor
RPM is a very good indicator of power or what's happening inside the engine. The story they tell is
incomplete, because it ignores the profound effects of mixture.

If your airplane has the old-style Cylinder Head Temperature (CHT) instrument, it probably has a
green arc (or line) to denote normal operating range, with a redline at the upper end, and maybe
even no numeric temperature markings at all. The CHT probe is often not even on the hottest
cylinder, or in a location that will yield useful information. The early single-probe Exhaust Gas
Temperature (EGT) systems were little more than a good thought, because some only measured the
EGT in a single cylinder, or an average of half the cylinders, or maybe an average of all the cylinders
(depending on the probe location). What few realized is that because of a severe mixture
maldistribution, these engines are nothing more than a collection of four or six separate one-cylinder
engines, flying along in loose formation. A single EGT indication from one of them — or even an
average of all of them — is virtually meaningless, because the others are certainly doing something
very different from the one you're watching.

In the big old radials, where we can often watch the exhaust at night, we can see directly what is
happening. At full rich (takeoff and climb), the exhaust is a bright yellow, with visible flames licking
(slowly, relatively speaking) back along the cowling. Lean it out, and the flame turns blue, becomes
shorter, and burns more intensely (quicker). Keep on leaning, and it turns white with a noticeable
loss in power. If you lean it far enough, the fire goes out and the engine quits. In the early days of the
big radials, it was easy enough to learn how to lean the engine by sight at night, develop a "feel,"
and duplicate it closely enough in the daytime. The design of the big radials also allowed a direct
measurement of actual power being delivered to the prop, and this led to some very scientific leaning
methods indeed, based on actual power. This "art" had become a real science towards the end of
the heyday of the big radials — on DC-7s, Connies, and others — both in the airline world and in the
military. By any accounting, there were several hundred million hours of accumulated experience on
large fleets, under highly controlled and monitored conditions, by professional crews who had to
operate in a very consistent and standard way, using some pretty sophisticated tools for those times.

Another wonderful feature of the radial engine is that the intake pipes are all the same size and
shape, and they radiate from a central point. This gives a wonderfully even air distribution to all
cylinders. In many of the radials, there is also a gear-driven supercharger at that central point, which
is just a centrifugal impeller. The fuel is often sprayed into the airflow just before it gets to that
impeller, resulting in a nice, even mixture. As a result, not only is the air distribution very good, but so
is the fuel distribution.

We lost all that with the "flat fours" and "flat sixes" that power most GA aircraft today. There is no
practical way of measuring power directly, the exhaust cannot normally be observed from the
cockpit, and the mixture distribution is often dreadful as the engine is delivered from the factory.
Intake pipes of the "log runner" type are of dramatically different lengths for different cylinders.
Despite this, the actual air distribution is pretty good in the big-bore TCM engines. Most Lycoming
engines, however, have a "plenum" type induction system that provides somewhat unbalanced air
distribution that changes with engine RPM.

Many of these engines have terrible fuel distribution. The carbureted engines are the worst, but
many fuel injected engines are not a lot better. (Fuel injection does have other benefits, however.)
Again, what we really have is six (or four) cylinders flying along in loose formation, each doing their
own thing with regard to mixture, while the pilot has only one mixture control, a "master mixture" if
you will, which simply controls total fuel flow to all of them.

Here's what that looks like in a typical TCM IO-520 or 550, with stock injectors, and all cylinders
instrumented. Some engines are "better," others are "worse."

For simplicity, this chart shows only the six EGTs plotted against fuel flow. In this chart (unlike the
previous one), "richer" is to the left, "leaner" to the right. If you start with "full rich" on the left side,
and lean slowly, you will see all EGTs rise together at first. At about 14.5 GPH, the #1cylinder peaks,
and then starts cooling off on the lean side of peak. Very shortly thereafter, #2 does the same. (#1
and #2 are the rearmost cylinders in the big-bore TCM engines.) We continue leaning, and soon #3
and #4 (the middle cylinders) hit peak EGT and start down, while #5 and #6 continue rising. Finally,
at about 13.3 GPH, the last cylinder peaks. But what has happened to number 1, the first cylinder to
peak? It is now 40 degrees lean of peak (LOP)!

Understanding the Relationships

That relationship between "Best Power" and "Best Economy" is but one aspect of this subject. What
is happening to the EGT while we lean? What is happening to the CHT? What is happening to the
fuel consumption, and the power? More importantly, what is their relationship to each other?

TCM, like Pratt & Whitney and Wright before them, publishes a neat little chart showing this. Some
are surprised that the charts from these different engine manufacturers all look just like each other!
When you think about it, this is not really that strange, because the principles are the same, the
metallurgy is the same, the sparks occur at about the same time and the geometry of the pistons,
rods, and crankshafts are the same, whether the engine is from a DC-7, a Bonanza, or a John Deere
tractor. Here's one such "relationship chart" from TCM:

Now, please stop right here. DO NOT just skip over that chart, it's important. It looks a little
complicated, because there are four parameters on one chart, and each needs to be understood. If
you are not prepared to understand that chart, I don't think you can understand how to operate your
engine properly, much less understand the rest of this column. Please take the time, right now, to
follow me through on this chart!

The entire chart represents data while running at 25.0 inches of manifold pressure and 2,500 RPM.
Those are held constant — only the mixture changes.

Please read the preceding paragraph again, it's VERY important.

The only variable is the fuel flow, plotted across the bottom of the chart, and all four parameters are
plotted against that fuel flow from 75 to 120 pounds per hour (PPH). This gives a lovely picture of the
relationships. Note that "Richer" is again to the right on this chart (I could have swapped some of
these charts left to right to make them all the same, but preferred to stick to "authentic.")

The right side of the chart is not necessarily "Full Rich". For whatever reasons, TCM chose to show
just the range of fuel flows from 75 to 120 PPH on this IO-550, while "full rich" at sea level is about
162 PPH

The top curve shows EGT, aligned with the numbers on the right side, from a low of 1,350° at 75
PPH (lean), peaking at about 1,520° F at 95 PPH, and dropping again to 1,380° F at 120 PPH (rich).
This is a classic EGT curve, and many of you will be familiar with it. There, now that's not so bad, is
it? And you thought this chart was too complicated!

Below that is the CHT curve, with the scale at the left. About 310° F at 75 PPH (lean), peaking at
about 425° F at 105 PPH, dropping again to about 405° F at 120 PPH (rich). Note the CHT peaks at
a substantially richer mixture than EGT. (In fact, you'll see that the hottest CHT occurs at the point
where EGT is about 50° F rich of peak (ROP). Hmmm, where have we heard that before?)

The third trace from the top is "brake horsepower" (BHP), which we can just call "Power" as
delivered to the shaft. The numbers for this trace are on the right, and our trace shows 180 HP at 75
PPH (lean), peak at about 250 HP for fairly broad range of fuel flows, and drops only slightly to about
245 HP at 120 PPH (rich). Note that going all the way to "Full Rich" would produce a good deal more
fuel flow and a good deal less power.

Finally, the bottom curve depicts "Brake Specific Fuel Consumption" (BSFC). This fancy-sounding
engineering term is nothing more than the fuel required to produce one horsepower (HP) for one
hour.

A useful trick to help you understand this chart is to lay a clear plastic ruler vertically on the chart.
Keeping it vertically oriented, move it back and forth horizontally. As one end of the ruler moves over
the fuel flow scale at the bottom of the page, the four curves will move up and down along the ruler's
straightedge, just as those parameters move up and down in the real world.

Remember earlier, where I said we could lean a lot and only lose a little power? Well, this curve
gives us a visual idea of how that works. At 75 PPH (lean), it takes about 0.425 pounds to produce
one HP for one hour. In the range 85 to 95 PPH, less fuel is required: about 0.385 pounds of fuel.
Enrich further to 120 PPH, and you'll be burning about 0.480 pounds of fuel to produce one HP for
one hour. In this case, "less is better" if we're looking for economy. BSFC is a very useful term, as it
is a direct indication of an engine's efficiency. Modern automobile engines, contrary to popular belief,
are not very efficient, having BSFCs above 0.42 or so. They are designed to run very clean,
however, and sacrifice some efficiency as a result. TCM engines can achieve BSFCs as low as
0.385 from the factory. With modifications, we're going to do better than that. Not too shabby for
"World War II technology," as so many call it!

Now, here's the crucial concept behind this chart: All four curves are carefully plotted with reference
to the fuel flow scale at the bottom, and this gives us a lovely opportunity to look at the relationships
between them! If you'd like to know what is happening to CHT as you fiddle with EGT, the answer is
here.

For example, let's say we've leveled off in cruise, allowed things to settle down and it's time to lean,
at whatever MP and RPM you choose. Starting from full rich (perhaps well off the right side of this
chart and due to the enrichment feature at full throttle), we start leaning. According to the chart, the
EGT and CHT will rise, and we know this to be true from experience. The power rises only slightly. If
you're going for absolute maximum altitude or speed, that very flat "peak" in the BHP curve that
occurs around 105 to 110 PPH fuel flow will be helpful, and if you're making a high-altitude takeoff, it
will be very helpful. The BSFC is dropping as you lean, of course, you're getting "more efficient."

So as the mixture is leaned, power peaks first, with CHT peaking at very close to the same point. In
practical terms, if we lean to max CHT, we'll have max power for that MP/RPM setting. Doesn't that
make sense, intuitively? Max power, max CHT? It's not precisely true, but it's close enough.

Ok, so power peaks first, stays pretty flat, and then CHT peaks shortly thereafter. With continued
leaning, power and CHT drop together — very gradually at first, then progressively more steeply —
while BSFC continues to improve and EGT continues to rise.

Continue leaning, and EGT peaks and begins to fall, while BSFC continues to improve. Sure, we're
losing power, but fuel consumption is declining even faster, so our "economy" (as measured by
BSFC) is still getting better.

Finally, BSFC bottoms out (at "best economy mixture"), and stays pretty flat between 85 and 90
PPH. If we disregard the small difference between 0.385 and 0.400, we could even stretch the point
a little, and say the BFSC curve is "kinda flat" between 85 and 100 PPH. Look immediately above at
the HP curve, and note that for a small loss of fuel efficiency, we can pick up 25 to 30 HP? Isn't that
interesting? We'll see later how that affects airplane performance and efficiency, a very different
subject. But to make a long story short, if the power setting that results from optimizing engine
efficiency causes your airplane drop below the airspeed range that provides optimum aerodynamic
efficiency, you're not gaining anything! That's a whole 'nother can o' worms. (I feel another column
coming on.)

But What If We Change MP or RPM?

Let's say we have carefully set up a real 65% of rated power, using the required MP/RPM, with the
mixture leaned to Best Power.

What would happen to this if we increased the MP and/or RPM, keeping the mixture constant at Best
Power? More power to the shaft, right? Think about what this might do to that chart. Since the power
moves up, all the curves must move up. Since the peak EGT will occur at a higher fuel flow, it must
move to the right, and all the other traces will move right, too, to preserve the interrelationships.

Here's what that looks like:

Note the left-right relationships don't change on this chart, because we've fiddled the fuel flow scale
at the bottom to keep them aligned.

Heads up, crucial concept coming! Assume that we increase MP to increase power output to
something substantially above 65% power. Now suppose we lean the mixture a bit, until the actual
power drops to exactly 65% power again?

Here's exactly what that looks like:

This is a real picture of a Cessna 414, previously trimmed up very carefully for straight and level
flight at equal MP, RPM, and mixture settings. After that, the throttle is increased, and the mixture
decreased, to produce what you see here, with no tendency to yaw/roll/turn. This situation is actually
very sensitive to very small differences in power.

Remember,both engines are producing exactly the same power!

The left MP is 3" higher than the right, but the left fuel flow is 3.2 GPH lower! Note further, the EGT is
only 10° F higher, but the CHT (as shown by the missing bars on the Graphic Engine Monitor
display) are 1 to 3 bars lower, with each bar representing 25° F.

Ponder this: cooler CHTs, less fuel, same power. Sounds like magic, doesn't it? Why, if we could run
that MP up high enough, and pull the mixture back far enough, we might invent perpetual motion!
Unfortunately, this is another aviation case where a little is good, but "more" isn't. There are other
forces at work.

Geometry and Physics into the Fray

Just as there is a right time to make your move on that blonde across the room, there is a right time
to "light the fire" in the cylinder. (In my experience, the latter is far more easily determined than the
former.) Intuitively, you would think it a simple matter, just light it off when the piston hits TDC (Top
Dead Center). But the fact is, it takes quite a bit of time to light that fire, and for the flame front to
propagate sufficiently to do anything useful. The fuel/air mixture nearest the spark plug must be in
the combustible range, and the fuel molecules must be close enough together to continue the
process. Even under the best of circumstances, combustion is still something of a random process,
so there is a variation from cycle to cycle in the same cylinder. But for the most part, the molecules
cooperate with great glee, flinging themselves into the fire in order to do useful work, even if that's
only to transport us to the site of a $100 hamburger.

The best time to "light the fire" also changes with RPM and mixture. At a high RPM, it takes a short
amount of time for the piston to rise and fall. At a slower RPM, it takes longer. But the flame doesn't
know anything about pistons rising and falling (or crankshafts turning), it's still burning at the same
speed. (Well, almost.) This can change the point at which useful work is done quite dramatically.
When, then, should we "light the fire?"

The answer depends on all three engine parameters — mixture, RPM and MP — so ideally our
ignition timing would be adjusted accordingly. Some of the big radials do in fact have variable spark
settings, but the flat engines most of us fly behind are stuck with fixed timing. (But "Stand by for
NEWS!") Since maximum power is the most critical case, ignition timing is typically set to be
optimum at full takeoff power, and operation at lower power settings is something of a compromise.

At maximum power, long experience has shown that discharging the spark at 20° to 25° before top
dead center (TDC) is about right. That much " lead time" gives the fuel/air charge time enough to
develop a good fire, and the pressure will start to build just as the piston reaches the top-of-stroke.
From that point, the fire gets really serious, and the pressure builds rapidly, just as the piston starts
falling away.

Again, through long experience and actual measurement, it is clear that about 16° to 18° after TDC
is the best place for that pressure peak to occur, in order to extract the maximum amount of useful
work, as shown by the following picture from the Pratt & Whitney book:

As you can see in the first picture, when ignition occurs the crankshaft knuckle is reaching the top of
its arc, which also puts the piston very close to the top of its stroke. At first glance, igniting the
charge at 22° before TDC seems like it would be counterproductive, since the piston is still coming
up. However, in reality, it takes some time for the fire to get going, and by the time that happens, the
piston is already pretty much topped out, so the building pressure cannot really produce the
"negative power" you might have expected at this point.

The second picture shows perfect TDC. No matter what the pressure in the combustion chamber is
doing, there is no "mechanical advantage", no leverage, as the piston is just pushing straight down
on the connecting rod, which is pushing straight down on the crankshaft throw. Combustion chamber
pressure at this point produces no useful work at all (but it sure loads the bearings.)

The third picture shows the approximate position of the assembly at the peak pressure point (PPP).
If the pressure peaked a little sooner the piston would be at the top of its travel, with less mechanical
advantage on the crankshaft, and engine stresses would get very, very high. At about 16° after TDC,
some decent mechanical advantage is just beginning to take place, and that allows time for the rest
of the combustion event to "push" the piston down. If the peak of the pressure pulse occurs much
later than 16° , the initial peak would have a greater mechanical advantage, but then much of the
energy in the later stages of the combustion event would be lost. On balance, a PPP at 16° after
TDC turns out to be about the best you can do. Another compromise.

At very high power settings (such as takeoff power), we've found that throwing extra fuel into the
mixture (providing an enriched mixture at the rich side of the flat peak of the BHP curve) helps keep
temperatures down and allows us to develop even more power without the risk of detonation. This is
why many engines have a "power enrichment" feature at full throttle. We're willing to waste some
fuel for a worthy cause during takeoff, especially since we usually don't run at that high power for
long. What would happen if we got all the way up to this very high power, and then pulled the RPM
back? (Don't try this at home, folks!) Well, with the spark occurring at 22° before TDC and PPP
occurring at 16° after TDC at full RPM, there is a very precise time interval between spark and PPP.
The crankshaft rotation is 38° (22° + 16° ). If we reduce the RPM by 20%, the crankshaft will turn
only 30° (80% of 38° ) by the time PPP occurs, so now the peak pressure will occur at only 8° past
TDC.

The preceding analysis is actually a bit of an oversimplification. In reality, there are other factors at
work such as the rate of compression at the slower crank speed, so the relationship between RPM
and PPP timing isn't really linear. In this case, the PPP would probably occur more like 12° after
TDC.

In any case, at maximum MP and reduced RPM, the peak pressure will be much higher, because the
combustion chamber will be much smaller when PPP occurs. Since the pressure will be much
higher, the temperature will be much higher, and this increases the risk of detonation. More on this
later, but here's the same picture, this time illustrating classic detonation:

This is the reason for the old rule of thumb, "Always reduce manifold pressure before reducing RPM,
and increase RPM before increasing manifold pressure."

This is not a bad rule, and it never hurts to do it this way. But you should understand that it really
only applies in the high-power case where the engine is operating at maximum combustion
pressures and temperatures, and detonation is therefore a possibility! If you're cruising at 22" and
2,100, and want to increase to 24" and 2,400, it doesn't really matter which control you adjust first,
you won't hurt a thing. Sure, as a matter of habit, run the RPM up, then do the MP. But the engine
isn't going to blow up if you do it the "wrong" way.

What about mixture at very high power settings? Remember, the engine manufacturer has optimized
everything to produce all that power, and many parameters will be running within very narrow
tolerances. Remember also the opening of this column, where I mention how much difference
mixture makes in the speed of combustion. At takeoff power, if we bring the mixture control back a bit
from full rich, the rate of combustion speeds up, and puts that pressure pulse closer to TDC. Again, a
very bad thing. (Combustion speed reaches maximum around 50° F to 75° F rich of peak EGT, and
further leaning causes it to slow down again.)

Our POHs instruct us to use full-rich for takeoff. The extraordinarily rich mixture is required to assure
that detonation does not occur. The conventional wisdom is that the purpose of the "excess" fuel is
to cool the engine, but in fact its primary purpose is to slow the combustion rate and delay the PPP,
which eliminates the risk of detonation by reducing the pressure peak. This does, in fact, result in
cooler operation, but that's actually a second-order effect of the delayed PPP. (If we could just retard
the ignition timing for takeoff, we wouldn't need to throw all that extra fuel at the problem.)

Here's what Pratt & Whitney thought a combustion event looked like, back in 1948:

Note how the pressure rises gradually to the point at which the spark occurs. It then rises very
rapidly as the piston comes up to TDC, and continues to rise thereafter, mostly because the piston
hasn't dropped very far, due to the geometry of the piston rod, and crankshaft throw. Wouldn't it be
lovely if we could keep that same pressure on the piston, all the way down? We can wish, can't we?

I don't know how Pratt & Whitney got that picture, but it's certainly pretty good, because here's the