ORIGINAL: Cyclic Hardover
Sorry to beg to differ here but you do not know whats right and whats not since there are not specs. "Whats not" could be just fine for all we know. If you had a good flight and took a reading afterwards and you claim "its too hot." Well if it was a good flight, then it obviously was not hot enough.
Sorry but any claims to say these temp guages are an asset, to me are like having false hopes and relying on them could do more harm to the engine than good. Like teaching a kid to ride a bike with a pair of cracked training wheels. The you scratch your head after one of them breaks, he falls and you honestly don't know why?
Sorry but watching a guy take a reading with one of these does prove something to me and knowledge is not on the list.
ACtually,
Fellows like Dave G and C Lee have done enough exhaustive testing to let us know where our model engines should be running, temperature wise. And to suggest someone is "knowledgeless" sinply due to the fact they may like to learn more about their engines by measuring relative temperatures is down right insulting.
A simple test like this : on the test stand (or in an uncowled airframe) a particular engine runs with a CHT reading of 280F. Now the engine is put into a cowled in plane, the modeler doesnt know if there will be adequate cooling, so a ground run up is performed and a CHT temp reading is taken as before. The engine now reads 305F, but he/she knows that up to 350 is safe and the plane will be OK. If an abnormally high reading was taken, the modeler can rectify thge situation (cut larger exit holes, baffle, etc) and fix the problem before they commit to flying, and a possible overheat and deadstick.
Is that not worth anything? It is to me, and many others in this hobby, and thats just one example.
AJC