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 3827296 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:21:41 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.195.129.15; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1251436860-291f006b0000-yPXFKn X-Barracuda-URL: http://66.195.129.15:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from relay.ethostream.com (www3.ethostream.com [66.195.129.13]) by barracuda.ethostream.com (Spam & Virus Firewall) with ESMTP id C0FB886AD1F for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:21:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from relay.ethostream.com (www3.ethostream.com [66.195.129.13]) by barracuda.ethostream.com with ESMTP id EuebeRxUFQldESow for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:21:00 -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 14513690013 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 DF7951F149A for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:21:03 -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: <094a01ca279f$51d2c010$f5784030$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_094B_01CA277D.CAC12010" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-Language: en-us Thread-Index: AconVgBZJsKBVPgZSwGDQgb6JupM7gAQ82iQ X-Barracuda-Connect: www3.ethostream.com[66.195.129.13] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1251436860 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_094B_01CA277D.CAC12010 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Charlie, Many thanks for correcting me on this. I am traveling and can=E2=80=99t = check my references for making the change, but am sure the lower fuel = flow was not right for my engine/set up! I=E2=80=99ll go back and = re-read to see where I messed up when we get home from our journey to = Alaska and the west coast on Saturday=E2=80=A6 Bob =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Charlie Kohler Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:36 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Flow Issue Solved =20 Hey Bob =20 Bob, you are getting your figures mixed up. You are quoting figures that = match up to the TSIO 550 C. engine. This is a 310 hp operating at 2600 rpm and 35.5 inches manifold pressure = to achieve that 310 hp. Hence the 36.11/ 38.16 gph. =20 =20 Continental still recommends the fuel flow for the TSIO 550 B. or E. to = 41.73 gph/ 43.44 gph =20 And unmetered fuel pressure at 2700 rpm and 38.5 mp (full power) 32-36 = psi and 41.73 GPH / 43.44 GPH. =20 =20 These figures are from Continentals latest Maintenance manual (M-18). =20 It is listed on page 6-3 in figure (6-2) Engine Operating Limits dated 1 = December 2006. =20 Charlie K. =20 See me on the web at=20 www.Lancair-IV.com =20 =20 =20 =20 _____ =20 From: Robert Pastusek To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:41:55 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=E2=80=9D 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=E2=80=99m 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=E2=80=99 when I failed to turn the = electric pump to low boost at 10,000=E2=80=99 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=E2=80=A6 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_094B_01CA277D.CAC12010 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Charlie,

Many thanks for correcting me on this. I am traveling and = can=E2=80=99t check my references for making the change, but am sure the lower fuel = flow was not right for my engine/set up! I=E2=80=99ll go back and re-read to see = where I messed up when we get home from our journey to Alaska and the west coast on = Saturday=E2=80=A6


Bob

 

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

 

Hey = Bob

 

Bob, you are getting your figures mixed up. You are quoting figures that match up to = the TSIO 550 C. engine.

This is a 310 hp operating at 2600 rpm and 35.5 inches manifold pressure to = achieve that 310 hp. Hence the 36.11/ 38.16 gph.

 

 

Continental still recommends the fuel flow for the TSIO 550 B. or E. to 41.73 gph/ = 43.44 gph

 

And unme= tered  fuel pressure at 2700 rpm and 38.5 mp (full power) 32-36 psi and 41.73 = GPH / 43.44 GPH.

 

 

These figures are from Continentals latest Maintenance manual = (M-18).

 

It = is listed on page 6-3 in figure (6-2) Engine Operating Limits dated 1 December = 2006.


 

Charlie K.

 

See me on the web at

 

 

 

From: Robert Pastusek = <rpastusek@htii.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:41:55 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=E2=80=9D = 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=E2=80=99m 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=E2=80=99 when I failed to = turn the electric pump to low boost at 10,000=E2=80=99 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=E2=80=A6


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_094B_01CA277D.CAC12010--