X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 08:32:49 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTPS id 4996105 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 27 May 2011 08:44:13 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.161.52; envelope-from=indigoaviation@gmail.com Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so1269096fxm.25 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 05:43:36 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=w/+3lKphM64JC+0AB3wef/Uv7ulPW3PbKgg8vQEr6gfeAsQyyF8kUoRwW93TO7umQQ 857ad5xvfMUY/4OHV1i/fPApwC3L+6SDwOJ59uGKksLw1QhOyLwT5xvpK6ea9lrn1R3i /s5k5gHwTP44oLYclUK23hOpzxAxvlEmob5Oc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.25.152 with SMTP id z24mr2332801fab.133.1306500216866; Fri, 27 May 2011 05:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.74.129 with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2011 05:43:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 08:43:36 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Piston vs turbine? From: swaid rahn X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151740237c53483a04a4414926 --00151740237c53483a04a4414926 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Dave, I miss spoke about the flight levels and I apologize. What I meant was up to FL290. We will not be RVSM Qual. I have about 175 hours behind a Walter 601E also. We have a cabin pressure that goes above 10K when we reach FL22-FL23. I have been told we have a cabin leak which may be true but we also are using plenum air to cool the generator with a 2.5 in duct which I was told was unnecessary. The bottom line is we need a stronger compressor in the walter to make power at FL270 and above. I would prefer a turbine that was more fuel efficient, had a high altitude compressor, 3+ times the TBO, more plentiful in the US, and no metric hardware. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the Walter powered 4P, I am just looking for better like everyone here. Isn't that why we fly experimental acft instead of spam can factory built? Swaid Rahn On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:39 PM, wrote: > Have 437 hours on a Walter 601E. Very happy with the package. > > Dave. > -- Swaid L. Rahn Indigo Aviation, Inc. 940 Mock Road Springfield, Ga. 31329 Cell 912.655.0966 --00151740237c53483a04a4414926 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Dave,
=A0I miss spoke about the flight levels and I apologize. What I meant = was up to=A0 FL290. We will not be RVSM Qual.
I have about 175 hours behind a Walter 601E also.=A0We=A0have a cabin = pressure that goes above 10K when we reach FL22-FL23. I have been told we h= ave a cabin leak which may be true but we also are using plenum air to cool= the generator with a 2.5 in duct which I was told was unnecessary. The bot= tom=A0 line is we need a stronger compressor in the walter to make power at= FL270 and above.
=A0I would prefer a turbine that was more fuel efficient, had a high a= ltitude compressor, 3+ times the TBO, more plentiful in the US, and no metr= ic hardware.
=A0I am not saying there is anything wrong with the Walter powered 4P,= I am just looking for better like everyone here. Isn't that why we fly= experimental acft instead of spam can factory built?
Swaid Rahn

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:39 PM, <davelink2001@comcast.ne= t> wrote:
Have 437= hours on a Walter 601E. Very happy with the package.=20

Dave.



--=
Swaid L. Rahn
Indigo Aviation, Inc.
940 Mock Road
Springfield= , Ga. 31329
Cell 912.655.0966


--00151740237c53483a04a4414926--