X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:04:59 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from barracuda.ethostream.com ([66.195.129.15] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3827297 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:21:42 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.195.129.15; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1251436861-1d4301170000-yPXFKn X-Barracuda-URL: http://66.195.129.15:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from relay.ethostream.com (www1.ethostream.com [66.195.129.11]) by barracuda.ethostream.com (Spam & Virus Firewall) with ESMTP id 3938B86AD22 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:21:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: from relay.ethostream.com (www1.ethostream.com [66.195.129.11]) by barracuda.ethostream.com with ESMTP id KLEIo6uuHhAxZByP for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:21:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ethoserver.ezone.net (netblock-66-159-252-106.dslextreme.com [66.159.252.106]) by relay.ethostream.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 838DF57C04D for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:21:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from HTBOB001 (unknown [10.0.0.151]) by ethoserver.ezone.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505011F14AB for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:21:04 -0500 (CDT) From: "Robert Pastusek" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: [LML] Re: Fuel Flow Issue Solved Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Fuel Flow Issue Solved X-Original-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:20:55 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <094f01ca279f$52071680$f6154380$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0950_01CA277D.CAF57680" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-Language: en-us Thread-Index: AconVf/ApNo/h8YZQlqEh4iZuXLZ9QAQv0GA X-Barracuda-Connect: www1.ethostream.com[66.195.129.11] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1251436861 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at ethostream.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=1.6 tests=HTML_MESSAGE X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.7425 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0950_01CA277D.CAF57680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I ran a tank empty and let the engine quit, then timed how long it took to recover power on high boost. Not a true simulation of pump failure, but gave me what I wanted to know.how long to recover the engine with the electric boost pump with no fuel in engine/manifold lines. Answer: less than five seconds, (but it seemed like more, even when I knew it was going to happen!) Secondary finding: Leaving the boost pump on high causes my engine to restart fairly quickly but it stalls again right away from an overly rich mixture unless you get it off (or to low boost?) as soon as the engine restarts. I did not test the low boost option. Bob From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Colyn Case at earthlink Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:36 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Flow Issue Solved Bob, how did you simulate a engine-driven pump failure at altitude? Colyn ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Pastusek To: lml@lancaironline.net 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! 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. 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. Hope this helps. Bob 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 Hello Everyone, 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 normal. 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 What did it come down to?? 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. 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. 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. Thanks to everyone whom gave me some input. Scott Keighan L-IV IO-550G ------=_NextPart_000_0950_01CA277D.CAF57680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I ran a tank empty and let the engine quit, then timed = how long it took to recover power on high boost. Not a true simulation of pump = failure, but gave me what I wanted to know…how long to recover the engine = with the electric boost pump with no fuel in engine/manifold lines. Answer: less than five seconds, (but it seemed like more, even when I knew it was going to = happen!) Secondary finding: Leaving the boost pump on high causes my engine to restart = fairly quickly  but it stalls again right away from an overly rich mixture = unless you get it off (or to low boost?) as soon as the engine restarts. I did not = test the low boost option.


Bob

 

From:= Lancair = Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Colyn Case at = earthlink
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:36 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Flow Issue Solved

 

Bob, &nb= sp; how did you simulate a engine-driven pump failure at = altitude?

 

Colyn<= o:p>

----- Original Message -----

Sent:<= /b> 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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

Hope this helps…


Bob

 

 

 

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

 

Hello Everyone,

 

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

normal.

 

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

 

What did it come down to??

 

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.

 

Four wee= ks 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.

 

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.

 

Thanks to everyone whom gave me some input.

 

Scott Keighan

L-IV &nb= sp; IO-550G  

 

------=_NextPart_000_0950_01CA277D.CAF57680--