X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com ([66.249.90.176] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.7) with ESMTP id 3120230 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:18:13 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.249.90.176; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c30so1123526ika.3 for ; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:17:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=jT7QUKOpV0kTl4vpH1/k4SpRw+BhalvGYjt4ShtXq/c=; b=yEBuJUiXO+YOGHs0lH96VHVwTwFmumqBXoPRn6mkSbIJyVJkcXehO7oYs68vhST6oQ rC1e36FOmF/ouf/k874+Hy4W6Jm87uZkigtLqiTuQK0Ma99VEqfAyzQLiUButVLq2qSO jvLz+kcD44OxldMyeQT51OThjFNLC6w6uRbsg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=PKIDjFrkZOrFyvv5yXx8ZgIjNRS3a0V/D4nT7IxPm7+cxFCuDJ1mJuc8r+lq60uxpW o7UQQHhk79cvycP9kxhT7jwzOfqIv145ADi72e48rSRrByAeudCikUpq9/1pRxl2VFIq S/p5EE4Zkn7yACQE3Z5B/fHP7ARmY++uiz64E= Received: by 10.210.65.17 with SMTP id n17mr19561622eba.80.1220915857073; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.24.6 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5cf132c0809081617v71662fe1s83f11fa38857ac1c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:17:37 -0500 From: "Mark Steitle" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B Update from Mark? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_102485_18339487.1220915857071" References: ------=_Part_102485_18339487.1220915857071 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Al, Good point on the calibration. No, I'm still working on that. But it has taken a backseat to the MAP table issues. Currently the fuel burn is registering high, resulting in a fuel remaining reading lower than what I actually have in the tanks. I hadn't made the connection between that and the GPH reading, but now I see that they are inter-related. I usually don't fill the tanks to the brim as I can carry 96 gallons total but I only fly about 100-150 miles round trip. Why carry all that extra weight? So, I rely on my capacitive gauges to determine total fuel and fuel used, and then compare that to the fuel remaining reading on the EM-2. Usually the EM-2 reads lower than the fuel gauges which, if I understand correctly, would indicate that the GPH reading is higher than it should be (that's good news). I obviously need to adjust the fuel flow calibration a bit. Also, I can't say whether my EM-2 is in mph or kts. Going by that, it is likely in mph, but I'll have to verify that also. That might shed some light on why the EFIS airspeed is lower than the EM-2. More things to do next weekend, and another reason to go fly. Mark On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Al Gietzen wrote: > The real "jewel" has been the c/s prop. This allows me to cruise at > around 10.6 gph at 4200-4500 rpm, 153 TAS. Until recently, I had been > cruising at 5200 rpm, burning 14-15 gph. Speeds are about the same. > > Mark > > Hi; Mark, > > Is your fuel burn pretty accurately calibrated? My gallons used readout is > still about 5% high, so my burn would be likewise. I typically cruise my > 20B at about 5400 - 5500 rpm, MAP aprox. 18" at 7500' and get 9.3-9.5 gph > when running 50-80F LOP. I expect the MAP readouts may differ a bit as I > found I had to change the calibration on mine to get a correct reading. > > TAS reported is calculated by the EM-2 and is in kts. > > My EM2 reads out mph. I guess you changed the calibration factor. Also > the TAS is about 5% higher than the GRT EFIS readout. > > Best, > > Al > ------=_Part_102485_18339487.1220915857071 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Al,
Good point on the calibration.  No, I'm still working on that.  But it has taken a backseat to the MAP table issues.  Currently the fuel burn is registering high, resulting in a fuel remaining reading lower than what I actually have in the tanks.  I hadn't made the connection between that and the GPH reading, but now I see that they are inter-related.  I usually don't fill the tanks to the brim as I can carry 96 gallons total but I only fly about 100-150 miles round trip.  Why carry all that extra weight?  So, I rely on my capacitive gauges to determine total fuel and fuel used, and then compare that to the fuel remaining reading on the EM-2.  Usually the EM-2 reads lower than the fuel gauges which, if I understand correctly, would indicate that the GPH reading is higher than it should be (that's good news).  I obviously need to adjust the fuel flow calibration a bit. 

Also, I can't say whether my EM-2 is in mph or kts.  Going by that, it is likely in mph, but I'll have to verify that also.  That might shed some light on why the EFIS airspeed is lower than the EM-2.  More things to do next weekend, and another reason to go fly.

Mark 

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Al Gietzen <ALVentures@cox.net> wrote:

The real "jewel" has been the c/s prop.  This allows me to cruise at around 10.6 gph at 4200-4500 rpm, 153 TAS.  Until recently, I had been cruising at 5200 rpm, burning 14-15 gph.  Speeds are about the same. 

Mark

Hi; Mark,

Is your fuel burn pretty accurately calibrated?  My gallons used readout is still about 5% high, so my burn would be likewise.  I typically cruise my 20B at about 5400 - 5500 rpm, MAP aprox. 18" at 7500' and get 9.3-9.5 gph when running 50-80F LOP.  I expect the MAP readouts may differ a bit as I found I had to change the calibration on mine to get a correct reading.  

 TAS reported is calculated by the EM-2 and is in kts. 

My EM2 reads out mph.  I guess you changed the calibration factor.  Also the TAS is about 5% higher than the GRT EFIS readout.

Best,

Al


------=_Part_102485_18339487.1220915857071--