X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:42:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.61] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2580218 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:31:57 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.61; envelope-from=douglasbrunner@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=IHuCNFay4P1juOKcx8sktoL76sRSJEaSdUai77ot+7TGD8R9FG0LsFHZU6j/3dRd; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [74.93.196.177] (helo=DFWK3391) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1J2xWR-00076h-Vh for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:31:20 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <002401c83de0$42056e80$1ed0a60a@DFWK3391> From: "Douglas Brunner" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: GAMI Injectors - question for Walter X-Original-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:31:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01C83DB6.58C42190" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-ELNK-Trace: ad85a799c4f5de37c2eb1477c196d22294f5150ab1c16ac01a238acc8405a5b0cf5e72085e43c49308c1d527917409b9350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 74.93.196.177 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C83DB6.58C42190 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Walter and Others, I have been following this topic with some interest and it has come up = before. I have an IO-550N with GAMI injectors and on my first GAMI lean test it = appears that the spread between the first and last EGT to peak is about = 0.2 gal/hr. In otherwords - pretty darn good. My ram air setup gives = about 1.5 inches increase in manifold pressure. I intend to operate LOP = at "high" altitudes (high teens mostly) and would like a smooth running = engine. =20 Is it the consensus of opinion that using turbo injectors and = pressurizing them creates a smoother running engine? Has this been = consistently demonstrated? The reason that I ask is that people that I respect have come down on = both sides of this issue. Some say that pressurizing the injectors is = crucial, others that it makes no difference. =20 a.. At what altitudes and at what settings LOP (20 deg vs 100 deg) do = you notice this effect? b.. If you turn off the ram air (but still run LOP) does the engine = run more smoothly? Obviously, I can test these issues myself in the future (I am still in = Phase 1), but am interested in others experience. D. Brunner N241DB - 25 hours ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Walter Atkinson=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:59 PM Subject: [LML] Re: GAMI Injectors - question for Walter Mark: One factor you did not mention is that when using ram air, the = pressure in the induction system can be higher than upper deck cooling = air flow. This can cause fuel to actually leak out of injectors causing = blue staining nearby. Yes, but not if you use the turbo-type injectors. **the improvement in engine smoothness when running LOP in high = altitude cruise is DRAMATIC.=20 Due in large part to the better atomization and therefore better = vaporization. Walter ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C83DB6.58C42190 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Walter and Others,

I have been following this topic with = some=20 interest and it has come up before.

I have an IO-550N with GAMI injectors = and on my=20 first GAMI lean test it appears that the spread between the first = and last=20 EGT to peak is about 0.2 gal/hr. In otherwords - pretty=20 darn good. My ram air setup gives about 1.5 inches increase = in=20 manifold pressure. I intend to = operate LOP at=20 "high" altitudes (high teens mostly) and would like a smooth running=20 engine.

Is it the consensus of opinion that = using turbo=20 injectors and pressurizing them creates a smoother running engine? = Has=20 this been consistently demonstrated?

The reason that I ask is that people = that I respect=20 have come down on both sides of this issue. Some say that = pressurizing the=20 injectors is crucial, others that it makes no difference. =

At what altitudes and at what settings = LOP (20 deg=20 vs 100 deg) do you notice this effect?
If you turn off the ram air (but still = run LOP)=20 does the engine run more smoothly?

Obviously, I can test these issues = myself in the=20 future (I am still in Phase 1), but am interested in others=20 experience.

D. Brunner

N241DB - 25 hours

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Walter Atkinson
To: lml@lancaironline.net

Sent: Thursday, December 13, = 2007 2:59=20 PM

Subject: [LML] Re: GAMI = Injectors -=20 question for Walter

Mark:

One factor you did not mention is = that when using=20 ram air, the pressure in the induction system can be higher than upper = deck=20 cooling air flow. This can cause fuel to actually leak out of = injectors=20 causing blue staining nearby.

Yes, but not if you use the turbo-type injectors.

**the improvement in = engine=20 smoothness when running LOP in high altitude cruise is=20 DRAMATIC.

Due in large part to the better atomization and therefore better=20 vaporization.

Walter

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C83DB6.58C42190--