X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:32:47 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.62] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3546524 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:36:11 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.62; envelope-from=artbertolina@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=fknkDDVIt1rUFq/2YvhYu9j4d6TmQfqB0p8eaktrJMTfy82UGhSPu5g7STftAZJ5; 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 [71.104.154.59] (helo=LAPTOP2) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LiBID-0000VY-O7 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:35:33 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <001501c9a402$1c074c60$b600000a@LAPTOP2> From: "Art Bertolina" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LOP vs ROP Climb: Time and Fuel Burn (LIVP) X-Original-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:35:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C9A3C7.6F0B22F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-ELNK-Trace: 1c57f4aab304e4a6fc8cc707cfd6285a4d2b10475b571120f4e0c171c124c63d2bb542d59fbf12923396037c9e1b016b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 71.104.154.59 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C9A3C7.6F0B22F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] LOP vs ROP Climb: Time and Fuel Burn (LIVP)would like to hear = what George or Walter could add to=20 this conversation. It was my understanding that higher RPM is better for the engine, as long as the prop is not driving engine Art =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Colyn Case at earthlink=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:30 PM Subject: [LML] Re: LOP vs ROP Climb: Time and Fuel Burn (LIVP) Chuck said, So, if you are going to reduce power, between MP or RPM, it is better = to reduce MP since higher RPM keeps PP lower, at least that was their = general conclusion, supported by engine shop experience. I agree at high power settings for the reasons cited, but once you = get down to cruise power settings, if you are going to reduce power = further, reducing rpm removes some friction component while reducing mp = does not. therefore you should get better mileage by lowering rpm. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C9A3C7.6F0B22F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] LOP vs ROP Climb: Time and Fuel Burn = (LIVP)
would like to hear what George or = Walter could add=20 to
this conversation. It was my = understanding that=20 higher RPM
is better for the engine, as long as = the prop is=20 not driving
engine
Art  
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Colyn=20 Case at earthlink
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 = 4:30=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: LOP vs ROP = Climb: Time=20 and Fuel Burn (LIVP)

Chuck said,
So,=20 if you are going to reduce power, between MP or RPM, it is better = to=20 reduce MP since higher RPM keeps PP lower, at least that was their = general=20 conclusion, supported by engine shop experience.
 
I = agree at high=20 power settings for the reasons cited,  but once you get down to = cruise=20 power settings, if you are going to reduce power further, reducing rpm = removes=20 some friction component while reducing mp does not.  therefore = you should=20 get better mileage by lowering=20 rpm.
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C9A3C7.6F0B22F0--