Sender: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:36:24 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-578980@logan.com>
Received-SPF: neutral
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.166.217.30; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net
From: "colyncase on earthlink" <colyncase@earthlink.net>
References: <web-577883@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] IVP low power settings vs. pressurization
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Good point, George.   I was looking for about 10-12gph.
Curious if a 550 will run smoothly there.

Just curious also, now that the other thread is going, have you determined
that high map/low rpm is more efficient than lower map/higher rpm.
From those frictional loss numbers Walter put out, it would seem so.

(In other words, rule of thumb for best efficiency: set the rpm
as low as you can stand it and still achieve required power?)

Colyn

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: [LML] IVP low power settings vs. pressurization


> Posted for "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>:
>
>   Colyn,
>
>   What  RPM and fuel flow would you be using with the 28:” of MP?
>
>   At 28” x 2100 RPM,  I can get the Hp down to as little as 180 or 190 Hp.
>  How
> much lower do you want to be???.
>
>   Regards,  George
>
> """
>   I've been looking at long range profiles and noticing that a lot of the
> interesting range is below
> 28" MP.  I've heard this is the least that will keep you pressurized at
> altitude.
>
>   Is this really true?
> """"
>