Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:46:10 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp.perigee.net ([166.82.201.14] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b6) with ESMTP id 1701004 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:59:42 -0400 Received: from perigee.net (dial1-240.clt.perigee.net [166.82.201.240]) by smtp.perigee.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g7KHxUmW021381 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:59:40 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <3D628381.42B333EA@perigee.net> X-Original-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:59:30 -0400 From: John Schroeder X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: " (Lancair Mailing List)" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: leaning during climb References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Shannon - Sounds like the FADEC is starting on the conservative side of the spectrum for LOP. After getting a bunch of operational hours and data to help them make the decision, do you think that they would be able re-program their system to move up to a higher power percentage, in the vicinity of 75%, and run lean of peak there - ? George Braly mentioned in an email on this list that he was opposed to a "fuel rail" on the PRISM system. He felt that manual mixture, aided by a good engine monitor, would be cheaper and better. Are they changing their minds? We are also looking at both systems. I would appreciate getting more of your reasoning for going to PRISM. We are looking only at the IO-550 in a Super ES. Thanks, John Schroeder