X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:03:37 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.63] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c4) with ESMTP id 2685892 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:49:25 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.63; envelope-from=douglasbrunner@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=B5p5VE1xGuDndi4vVEqzD5V7OQZoLFxT233Wh8KNqrWGBYrxPQXRkr3VLc715llj; 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 [70.119.48.191] (helo=DFWK3391) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JHguE-0008ER-Mx for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:48:47 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <000301c85dcf$10a96710$0302a8c0@DFWK3391> From: "Douglas Brunner" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Pressurized Injectors X-Original-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:10:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C85D3B.31F03AA0" 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: ad85a799c4f5de37c2eb1477c196d22294f5150ab1c16ac04d04932202c5b85b337a6c0cc9726562863d4fd39d8c8811350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 70.119.48.191 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C85D3B.31F03AA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Adam, Thanks for the input. I wasn't really concerned about the fuel flow - I = know that it will be higher with a MAP of 15.2 vs 16.3. What I was concerned about was the ability to run smoothly lean of peak. It appears that using Ram Air makes the engine run roughly, LOP at high = altitude. How is your plane coming? Doug ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Adam Molny=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:41 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Pressurized Injectors >Without Ram Air (MAP =3D 15.2) the engine ran smoothly down to about = 60 deg LOP or 8.8 gal/hr >With Ram Air (MAP =3D 16.3) the engine only ran smoothly to Peak or = 11.2 gal/hr =20 Doug - =20 Assuming RPM is the same, your engine is making more power at 16.3 MAP = than at 15.2. Therefore, it makes sense that you would burn more fuel. = Try reducing throttle to 15.2 with ram air engaged, and see if the fuel = burn is the same as 15.2 without ram air. =20 -Adam Molny ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C85D3B.31F03AA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Adam,
 
Thanks for the input.  I wasn't = really=20 concerned about the fuel flow - I know that it will be higher with a MAP = of 15.2=20 vs 16.3.
 
What I was concerned about was the = ability to run=20 smoothly lean of peak.
 
It appears that using Ram Air makes the = engine run=20 roughly, LOP at high altitude.
 
How is your plane coming?
 
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Adam Molny
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 = 10:41=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Pressurized=20 Injectors

>Without Ram Air (MAP = =3D 15.2)=20 the engine ran smoothly down to about 60 deg LOP or 8.8=20 gal/hr

>With Ram Air (MAP = =3D 16.3) the=20 engine only ran smoothly to Peak or 11.2=20 gal/hr

 

Doug =96

 

Assuming RPM is the same, your engine is = making more=20 power at 16.3 MAP than at 15.2. Therefore, it makes sense that you = would burn=20 more fuel. Try reducing throttle to 15.2 with ram air engaged, and see = if the=20 fuel burn is the same as 15.2 without ram = air.

 

-Adam=20 Molny

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C85D3B.31F03AA0--