X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 14:33:16 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m24.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.5] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTP id 2071348 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 28 May 2007 11:27:56 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.5; envelope-from=PTACKABURY@aol.com Received: from PTACKABURY@aol.com by imo-m24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id q.d1b.a78c1e7 (29679) for ; Mon, 28 May 2007 11:27:04 -0400 (EDT) From: PTACKABURY@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 11:27:02 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: TSIO 550 LOP X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1180366022" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5365 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1180366022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/28/2007 5:36:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, farnsworth@charter.net writes: Are you guys factoring in the return to tank fuel for the Continental engine? Lynn: I believe my indicated and actual fuel flow are the same. I calibrated the fuel flow transducer by adjusting the Chelton EAU k factor so that the indicated fuel burned over time equaled the actual fuel consumed. On the Chelton that means the fuel consumed as indicated by the tank probes equaled the totalizer fuel consumed which is calculated from fuel flow equaled the actual fuel required to full the tank at the pump. However I wonder if fuel flow reading vary more than I suspected when I asked this question a few days ago. I consistently get 209-211 KIAS at 10.5k and 17.5 gph LOP (maybe 75 degrees LOP). You seem to burn an extra gph to achieve similar performance. Hmmmm--could a stationwagon be more aerodynamically efficient than a sports car?? Inquiring minds and all that... paul ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -------------------------------1180366022 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 5/28/2007 5:36:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,=20 farnsworth@charter.net writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000080 size= =3D2>Are you guys=20 factoring in the return to tank fuel for the Continental=20 engine?
Lynn:  I believe my indicated and actual fuel flow are the same.&n= bsp;=20 I calibrated the fuel flow transducer by adjusting the Chelton EAU k factor=20= so=20 that the indicated fuel burned over time equaled the actual fuel consumed.&n= bsp;=20 On the Chelton that means the fuel consumed as indicated by the tank probes=20 equaled the totalizer fuel consumed which is calculated from fuel flow=20 equaled the actual fuel required to full the tank at the pump.  However= I=20 wonder if fuel flow reading vary more than I suspected when I asked this=20 question a few days ago.  I consistently get 209-211 KIAS at 10.5k and=20= 17.5=20 gph LOP (maybe 75 degrees LOP).  You seem to burn an extra gph to=20 achieve similar performance.  Hmmmm--could a stationwagon be more=20 aerodynamically efficient than a sports car??  Inquiring minds and all=20 that...
paul



See what's free=20= at AOL.com.
-------------------------------1180366022--