Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:25:19 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [199.185.220.222] (HELO priv-edtnes12-hme0.telusplanet.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b6) with ESMTP id 2370706 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 16:27:41 -0400 Received: from GLLAPTOP ([142.59.189.219]) by priv-edtnes12-hme0.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.17 201-253-122-126-117-20021021) with SMTP id <20030601202740.NMDO10340.priv-edtnes12-hme0.telusplanet.net@GLLAPTOP> for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:27:40 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <00da01c3287c$40a88eb0$6800a8c0@GLLAPTOP> From: "Gerry Leinweber" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: TSIO 550 Rich or Lean of Peak? X-Original-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:27:42 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D7_01C32849.F5F5B4B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00D7_01C32849.F5F5B4B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am new to the world of turbo charged engines. I have read lots of = interesting information on this forum about the issue of how to best = manage the TSIO-550 and frankly, I am a little confused. Yesterday, we flew 6 hours doing some training, so enroute, had time to = do some experimenting. I was surprised to find our actual CHT's were = lower 50 LOP, than they were 50 ROP. As expected, fuel flow dropped = from 20 gph ROP to about 16.1 LOP and we lost some airspeed. We had a = slow build kit, and it took us six years, so due to construction time, = we don't have any warranty left from Continental (that little gotcha - = just another reason fast build is the only way to go today) so want to = do what is best for this longest possible life of the engine. We have = been running 50 Rich. I am getting the impression that in fact, there = is a time to run ROP and a time to run LOP, based on other factors. Any = thoughts? As I am based in Western Canada, attending the course recently praised = in this forum is not a simple option, but I sure would like to know what = the proven facts are about this issue. =20 Gerry Leinweber, =A9=BF=A9=AC @ work=20 , CGLFP ----O---- @ having a blast ' ' ------=_NextPart_000_00D7_01C32849.F5F5B4B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am new to the world of turbo charged = engines. I=20 have read lots of interesting information on this forum about the issue = of how=20 to best manage the TSIO-550 and frankly, I am a little confused.

Yesterday, we flew 6 hours doing some training, so enroute, had = time to do=20 some experimenting. I was surprised to find our actual CHT's were = lower 50=20 LOP, than they were 50 ROP. As expected, fuel flow dropped from 20 = gph ROP to about 16.1 LOP and we lost some airspeed. We had a = slow=20 build kit, and it took us six years, so due to construction time, we = don't have=20 any warranty left from Continental (that little gotcha - just another = reason=20 fast build is the only way to go today) so want to do what is best for = this=20 longest possible life of the engine. We have been running 50=20 Rich. I am getting the impression that in fact, there is a time to = run ROP=20 and a time to run LOP, based on other factors. Any = thoughts?

As I am based in Western Canada, attending the course recently = praised in=20 this forum is not a simple option, but I sure would like to know what = the proven=20 facts are about this issue.

Gerry Leinweber, =A9=BF=A9=AC=20 @ work

&nbs= p; ,

CGLFP ----O---- = @ having a=20 blast

&nbs= p; =20 ' '

------=_NextPart_000_00D7_01C32849.F5F5B4B0--