X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:49:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3824299 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:32:39 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.65; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=mYLPLUJPWlJd01Ia1aKWubvOIoROPO+FTbtcfew0HSQxt21lLZA0V0wU567xmWs5; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [216.57.118.62] (helo=ccaselt3) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Mg1kQ-0000OA-Km for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:32:02 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <030b01ca25ba$b8b20660$6d01a8c0@nvidia.com> From: "Colyn Case at earthlink" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fuel Flow Issue Solved X-Original-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:32:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0308_01CA2599.3151D130" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940ce1fcdb0d65316233620bc253e985756350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.62 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0308_01CA2599.3151D130 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I guess I'm not sure of the logic here. If your mechanical fuel pump = fails don't you need high boost to keep the engine running? ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Douglas Brunner=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:17 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Flow Issue Solved Here is how I currently operate my IO-550 on a Legacy. Low Boost on for takeoff and landing. Low boost on over 9,000 for = vapor suppression. Low Boost for takeoff and landing is the recommendation of my HIPAT = instructors (Ernie and Josh). I had not had any problems not using low = boost but what the heck, it is easy enough to do and if it prevents a = loss of power on takeoff or landing it is worth it. Low boost on over 10,000 is recommended by many. I did not use to do = it, but have noticed some surging as low as 9,000 if I do not. I have been told that this is particularly a problem on hot days and = is due to high vapor pressure of hot fuel combined with the lower = ambient pressure at altitude. ------=_NextPart_000_0308_01CA2599.3151D130 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
I guess I'm not sure of the logic here.  If = your=20 mechanical fuel pump fails don't you need high boost to keep the engine=20 running?
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Douglas Brunner =
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 = 6:17=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Flow = Issue=20 Solved

Here is how I currently operate my IO-550 on a=20 Legacy.

Low Boost on for takeoff and landing.  Low boost = on over=20 9,000 for vapor suppression.

Low Boost for takeoff and landing = is the=20 recommendation of my HIPAT instructors (Ernie and Josh).  I had = not had=20 any problems not using low boost but what the heck, it is easy enough = to do=20 and if it prevents a loss of power on takeoff or landing it is worth=20 it.

Low boost on over 10,000 is recommended by many.  I = did not=20 use to do it, but have noticed some surging as low as 9,000 if I do = not.
I=20 have been told that this is particularly a problem on hot days and is = due to=20 high vapor pressure of hot fuel combined with the lower ambient = pressure at=20 altitude.

------=_NextPart_000_0308_01CA2599.3151D130--