I debated whether this really belongs on the chat forum as an "operational" vs maintenance issue but I ultimately decided to put it here since how we treat our engines ties into longevity and maintenance. Sorry if that's a stretch..
Do you ever feel you know and understand something and then later start to question it? That's the case for me with this question. To frame the question and for reference here is a picture of the PA-30 performance chart from the ICS (Killough) POH though I believe it is the same as Piper published.
As we can see from the chart, for each given % power setting we have for a given pressure altitude and standard temperature the expected manifold pressure (MP) and engine RPM settings required to achieve that % power as one would expect... However when it comes to expected fuel flow we have two options... the best economy and the best power settings which vary by as much as 2.6gph (in the 55% chart for instance).
So the question is... how can there really be both best economy and best power settings for the same % power? What does this really mean? Surely if I am flying along at say 65% power using "best power" settings and I lean the engine further to "best economy" then surely I am taking power away. How can "best power" and "best economy" BOTH be 65% power and deliver the same actual speed / performance? According to the other charts, 65% power delivers a specific speed at a specific altitude, and temperature. So if that's always the case (in theory) and I can have 65% power at two different fuel flows then why not always take the more economical fuel flow? That is of course assuming best economy AT peak EGT is not harmful to the engine - hey there's the maintenance angle If if it were harmful why would Piper publish it that way...
Thoughts appreciated...
- Charles