X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:35:40 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.68] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3826641 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:42:33 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.68; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=Gg3OSxvzIteSl3qzPfMMgO1kYbXbH1zNGub5KxKOUn3ApiJW8p1AtypiVjhern9h; 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-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Mgjv3-0007pS-Gc for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:41:57 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <00e601ca2746$0e566f20$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: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:41:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CA2724.86FACDD0" 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: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940db1bced050ae66d7c4eebd157647533b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.62 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CA2724.86FACDD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bob, how did you simulate a engine-driven pump failure at altitude? Colyn ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Robert Pastusek=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Flow Issue Solved Scott, A very nice summary of your troubleshooting. Glad you were able to = find and fix the problem! =20 As to your last question, I have set up my system (IV-P with = TSIO-550E) to flow 43 GPH on takeoff at 2700 RPM and 38.5" MP--using the = engine-driven fuel pump only. My rationale was/is that if the engine is = set up to flow 43 GPH with both pumps running, it will run very = lean--and may stall--if either pump fails. By depending upon the = engine-driven pump only for normal operation, I can quickly turn on the = boost pump should I need it. I have not experienced a failure, nor = tested this on takeoff, but have simulated this at altitude during = flight test and am comfortable it will work in an emergency.=20 =20 A couple of notes/comments: Several experienced Lancair builder/flyers = do not agree with this concept, and you should also consider their views = in deciding what is right for you. Secondly, the 43 GPH fuel flow I'm = using was the Continental recommendation for several years, but they = have reduced the fuel flow spec to 38-39 GPH in the latest setup = instruction. I re-set mine back to 43 GPH after trying the lower flow = and experiencing cylinder and TIT over-temps during climb through the = teens. The return to 43 GPH solved these issues, BUT there are some = considerations. Selecting high boost at full throttle on takeoff will = definitely flood/stall the engine with my current set up. It stalls at = anything above about 47 GPH at full throttle, and both pumps working at = full throttle generates at least 50 GPH in my airplane. I plan to use = the mixture control as part of my power management in an emergency = situation. Also, I have twice had the engine roll back (my wife is = pretty sure this is a technical term for quitting L) during climb out = after takeoff when the plane was heat-soaked (100+ degrees on the ramp). = This occurred passing 12-13,000' when I failed to turn the electric pump = to low boost at 10,000' as recommended in the Lancair flight manual for = my airplane. I am more careful to get the low boost on earlier on hot = days, and actually turned it on before TO from Las Vegas earlier this = week when the surface temp was 113 degrees. I watched the fuel flow = carefully but no problems at all in the climb to 16,500 for a VFR flight = to Inyokern, CA with the electric pump on low boost for the duration of = flight. =20 Hope this helps. Bob =20 =20 =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Scott Keighan Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:25 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Fuel Flow Issue Solved =20 Hello Everyone, =20 I just thought I would update everyone on my Fuel Flow issue. About a month back I asked for advise about a sudden lack of fuel = flow. Where I used to get 20-21gph on Take off I has suddenly getting = 12-14gph. All run ups were normal but when applying full power for takeoff I = would not get enough flow. When initiating the Electric fuel pump everything = turned to=20 normal. =20 Well this problem turned into quit the hunt to find the issue. To make a long story short I had disassembled and reassembled the = majority of the fuel system from the: Engine driven fuel pump Throttle control unit Manifold spider valve Injectors and lines gascolator fuel flow meter all fuel lines tank vents Electric fuel pump =20 What did it come down to?? =20 A broken O-ring on the inlet side of the Electric Fuel pump fitting. Air was being sucked into the system. I finally discovered it by = putting a vaccum on the fuel lines from the engine to the tanks. When a vaccum could = not be held I traced it to the O-ring. =20 Four weeks of down time and about 80hrs of work to find the .50 cent = problem. Of course I had to reset all my flows of which I now get 24gph and = 22psi on Takeoff. =20 Now I am still not using my Electric Boost for Take Off. Should I or = should I not??? What is the concensis of people in the know. =20 Thanks to everyone whom gave me some input. =20 Scott Keighan L-IV IO-550G =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CA2724.86FACDD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bob,   how did you simulate a = engine-driven pump failure at altitude?
 
Colyn
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Robert=20 Pastusek
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 = 11:41=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Flow = Issue=20 Solved

Scott,
A=20 very nice summary of your troubleshooting. Glad you were able to find = and fix=20 the problem!

 

As=20 to your last question, I have set up my system (IV-P with TSIO-550E) = to flow=20 43 GPH on takeoff at 2700 RPM and 38.5=94 MP--using the engine-driven = fuel pump=20 only. My rationale was/is that if the engine is set up to flow 43 GPH = with=20 both pumps running, it will run very lean--and may stall--if either = pump=20 fails. By depending upon the engine-driven pump only for normal = operation, I=20 can quickly turn on the boost pump should I need it. I have not = experienced a=20 failure, nor tested this on takeoff, but have simulated this at = altitude=20 during flight test and am comfortable it will work in an emergency.=20

 

A=20 couple of notes/comments: Several experienced Lancair builder/flyers = do not=20 agree with this concept, and you should also consider their views in = deciding=20 what is right for you. Secondly, the 43 GPH fuel flow I=92m using was = the=20 Continental recommendation for several years, but they have reduced = the fuel=20 flow spec to 38-39 GPH in the latest setup instruction. I re-set mine = back to=20 43 GPH after trying the lower flow and experiencing cylinder and TIT=20 over-temps during climb through the teens. The return to 43 GPH solved = these=20 issues, BUT there are some considerations. Selecting high boost at = full=20 throttle on takeoff will definitely flood/stall the engine with my = current set=20 up. It stalls at anything above about 47 GPH at full throttle, and = both pumps=20 working at full throttle  generates at least 50 GPH in my = airplane. I=20 plan to use the mixture control as part of my power  management = in an=20 emergency situation. Also, I have twice had the engine roll back (my = wife is=20 pretty sure this is a technical term for quitting L)=20 during climb out after takeoff when the plane was heat-soaked (100+ = degrees on=20 the ramp). This occurred passing 12-13,000=92 when I failed to turn = the electric=20 pump to low boost at 10,000=92 as recommended in the Lancair flight = manual for=20 my airplane. I am more careful to get the low boost on earlier on hot = days,=20 and actually turned it on before TO from Las Vegas earlier this week = when the=20 surface temp was 113 degrees. I watched the fuel flow carefully but no = problems at all in the climb to 16,500 for a VFR flight to Inyokern, = CA with=20 the electric pump on low boost for the duration of=20 flight.

 

Hope=20 this helps=85


Bob

 

 

 

From: Lancair = Mailing=20 List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Scott=20 Keighan
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:25 PM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Fuel Flow Issue=20 Solved

 

Hello=20 Everyone,

 

I just = thought I=20 would update everyone on my Fuel Flow = issue.

 About a month=20 back I asked for advise about a sudden lack of fuel=20 flow.

Where I = used to get=20 20-21gph on Take off I has suddenly getting=20 12-14gph.

All run = ups were=20 normal but when applying full power for takeoff I would=20 not

get = enough=20 flow.  When initiating the Electric fuel pump everything turned = to=20

normal.

 

Well this = problem=20 turned into quit the hunt to find the = issue.

To make a = long=20 story short I had disassembled and reassembled the majority=20 of

the fuel = system=20 from the:

Engine = driven fuel=20 pump

Throttle = control=20 unit

Manifold = spider=20 valve

Injectors = and=20 lines

gascolator

fuel flow = meter

all fuel=20 lines

tank=20 vents

Electric = fuel=20 pump

 

What did = it come=20 down to??

 

A broken = O-ring on=20 the inlet side of the Electric Fuel pump = fitting.

Air was = being=20 sucked into the system.  I finally discovered it by putting a=20 vaccum

on the = fuel lines=20 from the engine to the tanks.  When a vaccum could not be=20 held

I traced = it to the=20 O-ring.

 

Four weeks=20 of down time and about 80hrs of work to find the .50 cent=20 problem.

Of course = I had to=20 reset all my flows of which I now get 24gph and 22psi on=20 Takeoff.

 

Now I am = still not=20 using my Electric Boost for Take Off.  Should I or should I=20 not???

What is = the=20 concensis of people in the know.

 

Thanks to = everyone=20 whom gave me some input.

 

Scott=20 Keighan

L-IV  =20 IO-550G  

 

------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01CA2724.86FACDD0--