X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 08:04:47 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-iw0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTPS id 4983464 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 14 May 2011 08:23:53 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=mwsletten@gmail.com Received: by iwn6 with SMTP id 6so5906582iwn.25 for ; Sat, 14 May 2011 05:23:20 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; b=VLPA9xsRHJuATioo5JEw6Evs190SpxAZA2fNEk3cqhZG8fLpRhSc9/WSh13DWy2ERm /LPESooRQ64InEKL7qo2uvL9QvUqt+GlComA/R0tjDd+UX7kj/cTZTTtAXPI1/4Flk5v o390K/6GoUP+ee6H7nDNUNjWd+qY9+OXf3mFQ= Received: by 10.43.54.193 with SMTP id vv1mr3038883icb.338.1305375798372; Sat, 14 May 2011 05:23:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from MarkDesktop (hld-main-204-13-115-88.hld.hometel.com [204.13.115.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a8sm1340237ibg.48.2011.05.14.05.23.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 14 May 2011 05:23:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mark Sletten" X-Original-To: X-Original-Cc: "'Colyn Case'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: N23PH Flight time X-Original-Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 07:23:19 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <005d01cc1231$b6b674d0$24235e70$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005E_01CC1207.CDE06CD0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcwRuwD8gJnTvdMxQmuPZiLkAGbU4gAdj7sQ Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01CC1207.CDE06CD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just ground tested the fuel flow on my Legacy (still building). With the nose 15 degrees high I was able to pump all but a gallon from each wing. When I lowered the nose to level I got all but about a quart from each. It seems to me we're doing this backward, however. Won't the NTSB be able to determine if there was fuel aboard? I would think trying to figure out how he ran out of fuel should wait until we know he actually ran out of fuel. -- Mark From: Colyn Case [mailto:colyncase@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 5:14 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: N23PH Flight time 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. 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 = 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 < farnsworth@charter.net> To: lml < lml@lancaironline.net> 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 ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01CC1207.CDE06CD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I just = ground tested the fuel flow on my Legacy (still building). With the nose = 15 degrees high I was able to pump all but a gallon from each wing. When = I lowered the nose to level I got all but about a quart from = each.

 =

It seems = to me we’re doing this backward, however. Won’t the NTSB be = able to determine if there was fuel aboard? I would think trying to = figure out how he ran out of fuel should wait until we know he actually = ran out of fuel.

 =

-- = Mark=

 =

From:= = Colyn Case [mailto:colyncase@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, May = 13, 2011 5:14 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: = Re: [LML] Re: N23PH Flight time

 

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.

<= o:p> 

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'. 

<= o:p> 

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.

<= o:p> 

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. 

<= o:p> 

T= here 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

<= o:p> 

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.

<= o:p> 

T= he bottom line is his time to exhaustion is greatly influenced by how he = ran his engine, and he could have easily run it = dry.

<= o:p> 

P= aul Bricker

<= o:p> 

From: = Colyn Case = <colyncase@earthlink.net>
R= eply-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Dat= e: Fri, 13 May 2011 12:12:47 -0400
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sub= ject: [LML] Re: N23PH Flight time

<= o:p> 

I= don't have definitive information.

A= s far as I know, never took HPAT or = equivalent.

A= s far as I know, total time in last 6 months was the 5 hours engine = breakin time.

T= here 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.

A= nyone have LOP numbers for an IO-550 at 8000?<= o:p>

<= o:p> 

A= gain the log records 3:17 of flight but does not include the climb (7 = minutes?)

n= or 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

I= f you add 3 gallons for climb and take off, the total burns come out = like this:

<= o:p> 

burn rate =         total burn<= o:p>

<= o:p> 

14   =              53.4<= o:p>

15   =              57<= o:p>

16   =              60.6<= o:p>

17   =              64.2<= o:p>

<= o:p> 

I= f 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.

<= o:p> 

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.

I= t's hard to know what happened in the final moments but the wreckage = doesn't look consistent with forward progress once on the = ground.

<= o:p> 

O= n May 12, 2011, at 9:26 AM, MikeEasley@aol.com = wrote:

<= br>

D= o 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.

&= nbsp;

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.

&= nbsp;

L= osing 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.

&= nbsp;

J= ust sorting through the scenario like I do with every Lancair = accident.

&= nbsp;

M= ike Easley

C= olorado Springs

&= nbsp;

I= n a message dated 5/11/2011 1:17:19 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, edmartintx@aol.com = writes:

&= nbsp;         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  <= o:p>

J= . E. MARTIN

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

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

= 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:<= /b> [LML] Re: N23PH Crash<= o:p>

&= nbsp;

Flight Aware shows 3 hours = 50 min, not 3 hours 15 min.  That is a long way on 60 = gallons..<= o:p>

&= nbsp;

Tom<= o:p>

&= nbsp;

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.<= o:p>

&= nbsp;

Ju= st a thought.<= o:p>

&= nbsp;

Ly= nn Farnsworth<= o:p>

<= o:p> 

 

------=_NextPart_000_005E_01CC1207.CDE06CD0--