X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:45:02 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from secure5.liveoakhosting.com ([64.49.254.21] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTPS id 1135282 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 31 May 2006 18:34:44 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.49.254.21; envelope-from=walter@advancedpilot.com Received: (qmail 11558 invoked from network); 31 May 2006 17:34:00 -0500 Received: from 216-107-97-170.wan.networktel.net (HELO ?10.0.1.4?) (216.107.97.170) by rs5.liveoakhosting.com with SMTP; 31 May 2006 17:34:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Original-Message-Id: <513267ac01eeddcabda64dcc6215ae2a@advancedpilot.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Walter Atkinson Subject: Re: [LML] Another Lean of Peak question X-Original-Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:33:59 -0500 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.624) David: **I know the new and rebuilt 550's in Legacys run pretty well LOP -- even without GAMI injectors. Do the rebuilt 540's do this also??? Or do you need GAMI injectors to run them LOP?** The 540s are not as well balanced without GAMIjectors as the 550G. As a matter of fact, some of them are a real bear to balance. **Do 540's run just as efficiently LOP (ie same SFC) as 550's???** The TIO-540 and TSIO-550 have very nearly the same CR. They have very nearly the same BSFC(min), so the answer is "yes, they're pretty close in efficiency." Walter