Return-Path: Received: from [65.33.166.167] (account ) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.0b8) with HTTP id 1750239 for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:38:12 -0400 From: "Marvin Kaye" Subject: Re: [LML] Plane back Flying To: lml X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.4.0b8 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:38:12 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3D8E62EC.B439EECE@terra.com.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Posted for Marcelo Pacheco : Lorn, The recomendation I heard comes from John Deakin (www.avweb.com) which is to reduce the throttle slightly so the throttle buterfly causes turbulence on the incoming airflow, in order to cause beter fuel atomization. Do you have electronic ignition and/or gamijectors ? Marcelo Pacheco > On the trip back the wind had dropped to zero. Oh well, at least it > was not negative. I climbed out of Chattanooga to 15K. I feel that > 15K is the absolutely best altitude for my aircraft. I varied the RPM > from 2350 to 2450 and the MP from 17.1 inches(full throttle) to 17.0 > inches. I was trying the slightly back throttle position because of a > post on this list last week. The post stated that we would get > slightly better air flow through the carb. I can't refind the post, > so... if anyone can, let me know where it is. In all configurations, > the planes speed did not vary by more than 3 kts. It felt best at: > 2450 RPM, 16.9 inches MP, 7.0 gph and 50% power. At 50% power my true > airspeed was 185 kts and 150 kts indicated.