X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 18:13:36 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4982901 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 13 May 2011 15:49:46 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.67; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=hB5HLvXaAr7B/eKJS/DxEUCsc+DBoZUaPRu1f6nz1ZjTvX2F5Qe1lYvA3jtb8lm9; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [216.57.118.194] (helo=[192.168.1.102]) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QKyMK-0003lH-UE for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 13 May 2011 15:49:13 -0400 From: Colyn Case Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-121-591438638 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: N23PH Flight time X-Original-Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:49:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940efcb30e015e041b468805f4bf97a665c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.194 --Apple-Mail-121-591438638 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks Paul. Are those cruise numbers WOT? Also - I'm confused about standard capacity of Legacy tanks. Is it 60 = or 66 and how much is normally usable? thanks, Colyn On May 13, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Paul Bricker wrote: > 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. >=20 > 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'.=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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.=20 >=20 > 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 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Paul Bricker >=20 > From: Colyn Case > Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List > Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 12:12:47 -0400 > To: > Subject: [LML] Re: N23PH Flight time >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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 =3D 3:36 > If you add 3 gallons for climb and take off, the total burns come out = like this: >=20 > burn rate total burn >=20 > 14 53.4 > 15 57 > 16 60.6 > 17 64.2 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > On May 12, 2011, at 9:26 AM, MikeEasley@aol.com wrote: >=20 >> 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. >> =20 >> 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. >> =20 >> 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. >> =20 >> Just sorting through the scenario like I do with every Lancair = accident. >> =20 >> Mike Easley >> Colorado Springs >> =20 >> 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 =20 >>=20 >> J. E. MARTIN >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karen Farnsworth >> To: lml >> Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 11:22 am >> Subject: [LML] Re: N23PH Crash >>=20 >> =20 >> =20 >> 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 >> =20 >> Flight Aware shows 3 hours 50 min, not 3 hours 15 min. That is a = long way on 60 gallons.. >> =20 >> Tom >> www.N54SG.com >> =20 >> 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. >> =20 >> Just a thought. >> =20 >> Lynn Farnsworth >=20 --Apple-Mail-121-591438638 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
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 <colyncase@earthlink.net>Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List = <lml@lancaironline.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 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 =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               =  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:
        &nb= sp; 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>
T= o: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sen= t: 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
=

<= /span>

= --Apple-Mail-121-591438638--