X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 20:48:45 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm29-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.94.236.255] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with SMTP id 4984389 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 15 May 2011 12:12:57 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.94.236.255; envelope-from=pbricker@att.net Received: from [66.94.237.126] by nm29.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 May 2011 16:12:20 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.117] by tm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 May 2011 16:12:20 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1022.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 May 2011 16:12:20 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 843089.23710.bm@omp1022.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 78595 invoked from network); 15 May 2011 16:12:20 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.69] (pbricker@76.206.248.200 with login) by smtp110.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 May 2011 09:12:18 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: E_DOnNaswBA_C3UUkqdGieqw9axmS6GTFECYQXU- X-YMail-OSG: Lc5bLAQVM1m7ZkbTlLwNrAVsss_mZ_RSff76Rn5PpqVcnPj sOoj.yt0d5x3qaSU38snh8mvQhnXPYrxvwh4gPte.VIAFTS2qBSI.byJdSCl mPMEvgirpZrU2lvpwgouNRr3psSrWHLdsdExKdfHGMIHiBD2Hjow5nXkTpn6 xkTuBP0QvIXjovYP9LVb0Y_AySLIgKTLkSm5B5NFAofVaTLZ49.hV8.nEMYu CGVdxOSNwoavl63OV8SRx7kny2uLRilmzwgf9qNrMuON3zuwb_a2nXAAbxIE jrDUgqdnyCXCrcqUpcwS7ru_NQav3p_1PSAS8AV91TkZzWau44Ke5Rq4KHn3 toO.T5xXIhDBUcISchnlyes6aQEQZXQWmrQQBmJYUq8NbCdjFrEI.X9mBfdz HqaFRv0LMlwtfDNYAkrHatZ2pNxvAhhFG3tlrPZaulF9hjo9sI8on8vH1Bsa xgB24ej2YW9UT.Hpbvq43MG1.AnVQTJPk_7ItzlWjBXR0T7meW.CH5RWXJkt FEBcjv4oex54.Nmv13xpRjedFuOQJCUtkaSpBrHSO X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 X-Original-Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 09:05:28 -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_3388295538_49759189" > 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_3388295538_49759189 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit See, the cruise numbers I gave were WOP, LOP and 2500 rpms. Paul From: Colyn Case Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 18:13:36 -0400 To: Subject: [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 > 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_3388295538_49759189 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
See, the cruise numbers I gave= were WOP, LOP and 2500 rpms.

Paul

From: Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 18:13:36 -0400
To: <lml@lan= caironline.net>
Subject: [L= ML] Re: N23PH Flight time

Thanks Paul.  Are those cruise numbers WOT?

Als= o - I'm confused about standard capacity of Legacy tanks.   Is it 60 or= 66 and how much is normally usable?

thanks,
<= div>
Colyn

On May 13, 2011, at 3:43 PM= , Paul Bricker wrote:

I had an IO-550 in my Lancair ES, whic= h 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.

<= div>I would go LOP when in cruise. At 8000'DA and ~ 70 deg LOP I'd see aroun= d 13.5 gph, going to ~11.5 gph at 11000'. 

I g= enerated a duration spread sheet to verify fuel for long trips. Tested again= st actual flights I had about 3 gal more at the end of a long trip then it w= ould 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 ex= haustion 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 ho= w he ran his engine, and he could have easily run it dry.

Paul Bricker

From: Colyn Case <colyncase@eart= hlink.net>
Reply-To: Lancai= r 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 wa= s oil pressure or fuel pressure.
I believe he was intending to ope= rate LOP on this trip.
Anyone have LOP numbers for an IO-550 at 8000?<= /div>

Again the log records 3:17 of flight but does not i= nclude the climb (7 minutes?)
nor the descent ( 12 minutes? but wa= s 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 ra= te         total burn

14               &nb= sp;53.4
15 &n= bsp;              57
16         &n= bsp;      60.6
17                6= 4.2

If he were really a= t 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 looke= d at the google earth view for the general area.  I'm not sure which fi= eld he landed in but they all looked smallish and maybe intimidating at spee= d.
It's hard to= know what happened in the final moments but the wreckage doesn't look consi= stent 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 exh= austion? 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_3388295538_49759189--