X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:43:48 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm11-vm0.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.44.124] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with SMTP id 4982821 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 13 May 2011 14:12:51 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.44.124; envelope-from=pbricker@att.net Received: from [98.139.44.96] by nm11.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 May 2011 18:12:15 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.66] by tm1.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 May 2011 18:12:15 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1003.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 May 2011 18:12:15 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 366363.13992.bm@omp1003.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 36518 invoked from network); 13 May 2011 18:12:14 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.69] (pbricker@76.206.248.200 with login) by smtp103.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 May 2011 11:12:14 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: E_DOnNaswBA_C3UUkqdGieqw9axmS6GTFECYQXU- X-YMail-OSG: w0Bko.8VM1maSYgqCZLLG4ETOk5oJZOM_roGwX5z9VV_jgz MbkM7nIkIDoZJe.QS4dXStClBsz.tei2LU0mnLlMki_hUVPQRDZt6BcOOC8U axowpRS0si9GQjr6QYgEgBClR7bu6vgOcOT9unDCfMVpgdwMf4tiku_LZ7N6 xZCCmlTW0F0pDbhHm9lp4LAL4jY5t.a6oE1cWtdf2Mo9Ztpb5KiL6_Qfb6S0 IAM5w.dNz7DZpmorlUSCT5cSt8Q0kT.jusU9PkyUku5wBHXbYtZ0zuYO0kp3 leh4AKm8MyixeV2ZmtHhGPPPfWqdTPIjFsJwUqqI8OdfikKS84vKzOYzKQqO c..kfJNvVhYi6AfPGrKP2hn0ieaS.V0VO_QZHFOks3ym_I0MFBKlELHY5KPN 43yVCh0CXWMXXpEOVNzz_MjBTghX8ar4KaLOHOf6m8AqtyTdZNHSN7B0kNhz tQPTLA9cUztiWZnd6j3JapSUbZilfvh3Va42jeL.eMiSU3_6Ty69L6t4eDbf FZ5INti9U2gpdABTapjLQerkgVwsjYaV7TnmNFnbe X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 X-Original-Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:12:09 -0700 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: N23PH Flight time From: Paul Bricker X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: N23PH Flight time In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3388129934_39772728" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3388129934_39772728 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I had an IO-550 in my Lancair ES, which I ran per APS guideline. During takeoff at sea level fuel flow was ~ 30gph, and above ~3000' I would start leaning to match takeoff EGTs during climb. This improved performance but still maintained detonation margin.This engine sucks fuel at high rpms and rich. I used 26 gph average (reducing to 2500 rpms at 500 AGL), even when leaning during climb. I would go LOP when in cruise. At 8000'DA and ~ 70 deg LOP I'd see around 13.5 gph, going to ~11.5 gph at 11000'. I generated a duration spread sheet to verify fuel for long trips. Tested against actual flights I had about 3 gal more at the end of a long trip then it would estimate. I'm pretty comfortable with the assumptions that when into my calculations. I ran my range calculations for a 60 gal usable AC, leaning during the climb to 8000' LOP after that. I assumed a leisurely cruise climb to 8000' averaging 700 fpm. This gives a time to exhaustion of 4 hrs, 16 mins. There are several factors which will radically shorten this. First, was his 60 gal usable? I found I had 4 gals unusable in my ES, but I ran each tank dry (one at a time over an airport at altitude) to determine that. Had he verified usable fuel? This alone shortens TTE to 3 hr 58 mins Also, if he ran ROP the fuel flow would probably be about 18 gph. TTE is now 3 hs 15 mins w/ 60 usable. At 56 usable his TTE is 3 hrs, 2 mins. The bottom line is his time to exhaustion is greatly influenced by how he ran his engine, and he could have easily run it dry. Paul Bricker From: Colyn Case Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 12:12:47 -0400 To: Subject: [LML] Re: N23PH Flight time I don't have definitive information. As far as I know, never took HPAT or equivalent. As far as I know, total time in last 6 months was the 5 hours engine breakin time. There were conflicting reports about whether the "pressure" problem was oil pressure or fuel pressure. I believe he was intending to operate LOP on this trip. For the APS view on engine breakin see: http://lists.kjsl.com/pipermail/beech-owners/2008-March/073658.html Anyone have LOP numbers for an IO-550 at 8000? Again the log records 3:17 of flight but does not include the climb (7 minutes?) nor the descent ( 12 minutes? but was that power on or power off? one thing very peculiar about the track log is that there is no descent.) 3:17 + 7 + 12 = 3:36 If you add 3 gallons for climb and take off, the total burns come out like this: burn rate total burn 14 53.4 15 57 16 60.6 17 64.2 If he were really at 17 and knew it I think he would have done something about it. I suspect there were other contributing factors. ...like faulty fuel flow reporting, faulty fuel level gauging, max usable fuel less than thought, or maybe it really was oil pressure. I looked at the google earth view for the general area. I'm not sure which field he landed in but they all looked smallish and maybe intimidating at speed. It's hard to know what happened in the final moments but the wreckage doesn't look consistent with forward progress once on the ground. On May 12, 2011, at 9:26 AM, MikeEasley@aol.com wrote: > Do we know this was fuel exhaustion? I know I ran my IO-550 150+ degrees ROP > throughout the break-in process. I also flew low to keep 75% power. That's at > or above 15 GPH. > > I thought I read something about oil pressure. I guess we'll find out more in > time. Only 5 hours on a newly rebuilt engine seems minimal before a long > cross country. A rebuilt engine doesn't constitute a major modification, so > there's really no need to re-enter Phase 1 flight testing for a minimum of 5 > hours, unless there was more work done that just an R&R. > > Losing an engine shouldn't be fatal. What do we know about the pilot and his > training, time in type, etc.? Maybe Colyn can give us a bit more about the > pilot's experience. > > Just sorting through the scenario like I do with every Lancair accident. > > Mike Easley > Colorado Springs > > In a message dated 5/11/2011 1:17:19 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > edmartintx@aol.com writes: >> At high altitude, a stock Legacy with IO-550 should burn >> approximately 10.5 gallons/hour using "lean-of-peak" technique. In this >> example, actual flight time was over four hours with 21 gallons remaining >> (66-gallon capacity). Please see: >> http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N767EM >> >> >> J. E. MARTIN >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karen Farnsworth >> To: lml >> Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 11:22 am >> Subject: [LML] Re: N23PH Crash >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net >> ] On Behalf Of Tom McNerney >> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 07:33 >> To: lml@lancaironline.net >> Subject: [LML] Re: N23PH Crash >> >> >> >> >> >> Flight Aware shows 3 hours 50 min, not 3 hours 15 min. That is a long way >> on 60 gallons.. >> >> >> >> >> >> Tom >> >> >> www.N54SG.com >> >> >> >> If, as has been reported, the engine was new, I would think that it was >> still being broken in. This would lead me to thing that fuel flow would be >> on the high side; thus reducing range. >> >> >> >> Just a thought. >> >> >> >> Lynn Farnsworth --B_3388129934_39772728 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
I had an IO-550 in my Lancair = ES, which I ran per APS guideline. During takeoff at sea level fuel flow was= ~ 30gph, and above ~3000' I would start leaning to match takeoff EGTs durin= g climb. This improved performance but still maintained detonation marg= in.This engine sucks fuel at high rpms and rich. I used 26 gph average (redu= cing to 2500 rpms at 500 AGL), even when leaning during climb.
I would go LOP when in cruise. At 8000'DA and ~ 70 deg LOP I'd s= ee around 13.5 gph, going to ~11.5 gph at 11000'. 

=
I generated a duration spread sheet to verify fuel for long trips. Test= ed against actual flights I had about 3 gal more at the end of a long trip t= hen it would estimate. I'm pretty comfortable with the assumptions that when= into my calculations.

I ran my range calculations = for a 60 gal usable AC, leaning during the climb to 8000' LOP after that. I = assumed a leisurely cruise climb to 8000' averaging 700 fpm. This gives a ti= me to exhaustion of 4 hrs, 16 mins. 

There are= several factors which will radically shorten this. First, was his 60 gal us= able? I found I had 4 gals unusable in my ES, but I ran each tank dry (one a= t a time over an airport at altitude) to determine that. Had he verified usa= ble fuel? This alone shortens TTE to 3 hr 58 mins

A= lso, if he ran ROP the fuel flow would probably be about 18 gph. TTE is now = 3 hs 15 mins w/ 60 usable. At 56 usable his TTE is 3 hrs, 2 mins.
=
The bottom line is his time to exhaustion is greatly influenc= ed by how he ran his engine, and he could have easily run it dry.
=
Paul Bricker

= From: Colyn Case <colync= ase@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancai= ronline.net>
Date: Fri, 13 = May 2011 12:12:47 -0400
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [LML] Re: N23PH Flight time

I don't have definitive inf= ormation.
As far as I know, never took HPAT or equivalent.
As = far as I know, total time in last 6 months was the 5 hours engine breakin ti= me.
There were conflicting reports about whether the "pressure" pr= oblem was oil pressure or fuel pressure.
I believe he was intendin= g to operate LOP on this trip.
For the APS view on engine breakin&= nbsp;see:  http://lists.kjsl.com/pipermail/beech-owners/2008-March/07= 3658.html
Anyone have LOP numbers for an IO-550 at 80= 00?

Again the log records 3:17 of flight but do= es not include the climb (7 minutes?)
nor the descent ( 12 minutes= ? but was that power on or power off? one thing very peculiar about the trac= k log is that there is no descent.)
3:17 + 7 + 12 =3D 3:36
If you add 3 gallons for climb and take off, the total burns come out like = this:

burn rate         total burn

14             &n= bsp;  53.4
15                57
=
16       &= nbsp;        60.6
17              =  64.2
<= br>
If he were = really at 17 and knew it I think he would have done something about it.
I suspect there wer= e other contributing factors.   ...like faulty fuel flow reporting, fau= lty fuel level gauging, max usable fuel less than thought,  or maybe it= really was oil pressure.

I looked at the google earth view for the general area.  I'm not sure = which field he landed in but they all looked smallish and maybe intimidating= at speed.
It's= hard to know what happened in the final moments but the wreckage doesn't lo= ok consistent with forward progress once on the ground.

On May 12, 2= 011, at 9:26 AM, MikeEasley@aol.com = wrote:

Do we know this was = fuel exhaustion? I know I ran my IO-550 150+ degrees ROP throughout the break-in process.  I also flew low to = keep 75% power. That's at or above 15 GPH.
 
= I thought I read something about oil pressure. I guess we'll find out more in time.  Only 5 hours on a newly rebuilt engine seems minimal before = a long cross country.  A rebuilt engine doesn't constitute a major modification, so there's really no need to re-enter Phase 1 flight testing = for a minimum of 5 hours, unless there was more work done that just an R&R.
 
Losing an engine shouldn't be fatal.  What do= we know about the pilot and his training, time in type, etc.?  Maybe Colyn can give us a bit m= ore about the pilot's experience.
 
Just sorting throu= gh the scenario like I do with every Lancair accident.
 
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs=
 
In a message dated 5/11/2011 1:17:19 P.M. M= ountain Daylight Time, edmartintx@aol.com writes:
  &n= bsp;       At high altitude, a stock Legacy with IO-550 should burn approximately 10.5 = gallons/hour using "lean-of-peak" technique.    In this example, actual flight time was over four hours with 21 gallons remaining= (66-gallon capacity).  Please see:   http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N767EM 

J. E. MARTIN
= -----Original Message-----
From: Karen Farnsworth <farnsworth@charter.net>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net&= gt;
Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 11:22 am
Subject: [LML] Re: N23PH Crash

 
 
From:<= font size=3D"2" face=3D"Tahoma"> Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tom McNerney
Sent: Monday, M= ay 09, 2011 07:33
To: lml@l= ancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: N23PH Crash
 
Flight Aware shows 3 hours 50 min, not 3 hours 15 min.  That is a long way on 60 gallons..
 
Tom
www.N54SG.com
 
If, as has been reported, the engine was new, I would think that it was still being broke= n in. This would lead me to thing that fuel flow would be on the high side; thu= s reducing range.
 
Just a thought.
 
Lynn Farnsworth

--B_3388129934_39772728--