X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:35:28 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [205.186.160.203] (HELO server.rmcginc.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTPS id 5020324 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:12:43 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.186.160.203; envelope-from=r.rickard@rcginc-us.com Received: (qmail 17842 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2011 11:12:06 -0700 Received: from 24-107-105-58.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com (HELO ?192.168.1.44?) (24.107.105.58) by rmcomserver.com with SMTP; 14 Jun 2011 11:12:06 -0700 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Winglets? And introducing myself as a very near future 4p owner. References: From: Bob Rickard Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7--944555140 X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8J3) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: X-Original-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:12:05 -0500 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8J3) --Apple-Mail-7--944555140 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Colyn 1760 total time, 1250 since bottom end rebuild, 550 since new pistons (right= before I bought the airplane). Running great, knock on wood - What does George recommend for climb? Bob On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Colyn Case wrote: >> " not many feel comfortable with that" >=20 > Most people are taught to back off the rpm to 2500 and the MP to 32" upon r= eaching pattern altitude. My rationale for maintaining the high setting i= s that if you are full rich, the maximum internal cylinder pressure is less,= even at 38" than it is if you are only somewhat (75-100 ROP) at 32". ....= and also being higher RPM makes the angle of maximum pressure further after T= DC. ....and I think George Braly agrees. >=20 > However, I don't have my "exceeded TBO" proof of the pudding yet. >=20 > Bob, how many hours on your engine now? >=20 > Colyn >=20 > On Jun 13, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Bob Rickard wrote: >=20 >> I am a 4P TSIO 550E guy. I don't have a plenum. >>=20 >> I personally use the climb technique mentioned below every time I fly, as= I am usually flying long distance (> 1000nm). I takeoff full power (38.5MA= P, 43-45gph, 2700 rpm) and keep that to the level off point, usually FL 180-= 220. I then run 34" MAP, 2500 RPM, and lean 100deg LOP which usually result= s in 17-18 gph. I don't touch the motor again until near the pattern and ne= ed to slow down. My motor stays below 380 in the climb on all cylinders unl= ess it's super hot out, at which point I level off for a few minutes half wa= y up, let er cool down, then finish the climb. My climb airspeed is 165 kca= s to 15,000 then 160 the rest of the way. I could climb faster, but the key= is to get air over the motor. Climb rate varies obviously with gross weigh= t and temp, and is well over 1000 fpm, but it would not be if I climbed LOP.= I use this technique to get high and LOP as soon as possible, and routinel= y get 4.5 hours sortie duration or longer. >>=20 >> I am curious about the " not many feel comfortable with that" comment. I= t's what I was taught and nobody has ever mentioned it is a "bad" technique.= Open to comments as to other techniques and why they are used. >>=20 >> Bob Rickard >>=20 >>=20 >> On Jun 13, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Colyn Case wrote:= >>=20 >>> The IVP will climb much faster but you have to have excellent cooling an= d very high fuel flow to do it. George Braly did a seminar on engine cool= ing back a few years which I think is captured here in the archives somewher= e. My main take-aways on cooling: you must have the exhaust tunnel exten= sions and you must insure that cooling air is guided around the bottom side o= f EVERY cylinder. The fuel flow specification is in the TCM document but i= t ends up being 43+ gph at 38"/2700rpm. =20 >>>=20 >>> Put all that together and you can climb 2000 fpm at 140 knots and still b= e below 380 dF on the cylinders. Not many people feel comfortable doing t= hat though.... >>>=20 >>> What power settings does a velocity need to do that? >>>=20 >>> Colyn >>>=20 >>> On Jun 13, 2011, at 7:50 AM, RONALD STEVENS wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Wow, this was just a great answer, not based on emotions but just pure c= alculations. Like to add that I have seen that a lot of 4p owners do not go h= igher then 18000ft (VFR 17500), and that this might be also because the clim= b does take a long time. >>>>=20 >>>> I have sit in a few Lancair 4p's now and one thing I noticed is that th= e climb rate is not really that great. (1000-1400 fpm), while my old velocit= y easy did 1800-2000fpm (but at 145 IAS). >>>>=20 >>>> Now I understand you guys go faster (+/- IAS 160) but climbing then to L= evel 250 take about 23 min. (more or less, they never let you go direct, rig= ht?) >>>>=20 >>>> Anybody has better numbers or better climb performance tips? >>>>=20 >>>> From: Colyn Case >>>> Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List >>>> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:55:23 -0400 >>>> To: >>>> Subject: [LML] Winglets? And introducing myself as a very near future 4= p owner. >>>>=20 >>>> Another comment on winglets. >>>>=20 >>>> My theory is the most important speed is your SL speed. >>>> Suppose you are flying 1350 nautical miles. >>>> Westbound you have a 40 knot headwind at 5000 increasing to 100 knots a= t fl200. >>>> Eastbound let's say you get a 40 knot tailwind at fl200. (Doesn't it u= sually work out that way?) >>>>=20 >>>> Someone offers you mod A that gives you 10 knots at 5000 or mod B that g= ives you 10 knots at fl200. >>>> ...and let's say your plane does 225 knots at 5000 unmodified. >>>>=20 >>>> mod A gives you 10/(225-40) or 5.4% improvement which you enjoy for 6.9= hours >>>> mod B gives you 10/(270+40) or 3.2% improvement which you enjoy for 4.2= hours >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> So even if the winglets delivered performance up high they don't seem l= ike a very good deal. >>>>=20 >>>> Colyn >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:18 PM, RONALD STEVENS wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Hello guys. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> I like to introduce myself, I am 50, European/American, former Cirrus= >>>>>> SR22 (1100 hours) and Velocity TXL5 (250 hours, just sold this plane)= >>>>>> (total 1400 hours). >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> I am a future Lancair 4p owner (looking to buy one these weeks, so if= >>>>>> you know someone who wants to sell his let me know) and looked at a f= ew >>>>>> Lancair 4p already. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> Now about the winglets (my first question); >>>>>> Some planes I looked at had their winglets, some not. All those that d= id not had one told me it doesn't do anything, the ones they had did told me= it works great, >>>>>> more stability etc, even the CAFE report is telling that it produces >>>>>> more stability at higher altitude. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> But=E2=80=A6even the big Charlie Kohler told me it doesn't add anythi= ng but more >>>>>> drag...thus less speed. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> I have no experience whatsoever with the Winglets. So my question to y= ou >>>>>> guys is, do you have any experience telling you that it does work? (t= his >>>>>> is more for pilots who had both so they can tell the difference) >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> Thanks -- Ronald Stevens >>>>>=20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>=20 >>>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-7--944555140 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Colyn

1760 tot= al time, 1250 since bottom end rebuild, 550 since new pistons (right before I= bought the airplane).  Running great, knock on wood -

What does George recommend for climb?

Bob<= br>


On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:<= br>
" not many feel comfortable with that"

Most people are taught to back off the rpm to 2500= and the MP to 32" upon reaching pattern altitude.    My rationale= for maintaining the high setting is that if you are full rich, the maximum i= nternal cylinder pressure is less, even at 38" than it is if you are only so= mewhat (75-100 ROP) at 32".   ....and also being higher RPM makes the a= ngle of maximum pressure further after TDC.    ....and I think Geo= rge Braly agrees.

However, I don't have my "exceeded TBO"= proof of the pudding yet.

Bob, how many hours on y= our engine now?

Colyn

On Ju= n 13, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Bob Rickard wrote:

I am a 4= P TSIO 550E guy.  I don't have a plenum.

I per= sonally use the climb technique mentioned below every time I fly, as I am us= ually flying long distance (> 1000nm).  I takeoff full power (38.5MA= P, 43-45gph, 2700 rpm) and keep that to the level off point, usually FL 180-= 220.  I then run 34" MAP, 2500 RPM, and lean 100deg LOP which usually r= esults in 17-18 gph.  I don't touch the motor again until near the patt= ern and need to slow down.  My motor stays below 380 in the climb on al= l cylinders unless it's super hot out, at which point I level off for a few m= inutes half way up, let er cool down, then finish the climb.  My climb a= irspeed is 165 kcas to 15,000 then 160 the rest of the way.  I could cl= imb faster, but the key is to get air over the motor.  Climb rate varie= s obviously with gross weight and temp, and is well over 1000 fpm, but it wo= uld not be if I climbed LOP.  I use this technique to get high and LOP a= s soon as possible, and routinely get 4.5 hours sortie duration or longer.

I am curious about the " not many feel comfortable w= ith that" comment.  It's what I was taught and nobody has ever mentione= d it is a "bad" technique.  Open to comments as to other techniques and= why they are used.

Bob Rickard


On J= un 13, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:

The= IVP will climb much faster but you have to have excellent cooling and very h= igh fuel flow to do it.    George Braly did a seminar on engine co= oling back a few years which I think is captured here in the archives somewh= ere.   My main take-aways on cooling:   you must have the exhaust t= unnel extensions and you must insure that cooling air is guided around the b= ottom side of EVERY cylinder.    The fuel flow specification is in= the TCM document but it ends up being 43+ gph at 38"/2700rpm.   <= div>
Put all that together and you can climb 2000 fpm at 140 k= nots and still be below 380 dF on the cylinders.    Not many peopl= e feel comfortable doing that though....

What power= settings does a velocity need to do that?

Colyn

On Jun 13, 2011, at 7:50 AM, RONALD STEVENS wrote:
Wow, this was just a great answer, not based on emotion= s but just pure calculations. Like to add that I have seen that a lot of 4p o= wners do not go higher then 18000ft (VFR 17500), and that this might be also= because the climb does take a long time.

I have si= t in a few Lancair 4p's now and one thing I noticed is that the climb rate i= s not really that great. (1000-1400 fpm), while my old velocity easy did 180= 0-2000fpm (but at 145 IAS).

Now I understand you gu= ys go faster (+/- IAS 160) but climbing then to Level 250 take about 23 min.= (more or less, they never let you go direct, right?)

Anybody has better numbers or better climb performance tips?
From: Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net<= /a>>
Reply-To: Lancair Ma= iling List <lml@lancai= ronline.net>
Date: Su= n, 12 Jun 2011 12:55:23 -0400
To: <lml@lancaironline.n= et>
Subject: [LML] Wi= nglets? And introducing myself as a very near future 4p owner.

Another comment on winglets.
My theory is the most important speed is your SL speed.
Suppose you are flying 1350 nautical miles.
Westbound you ha= ve a 40 knot headwind at 5000 increasing to 100 knots at fl200.
Ea= stbound let's say you get a 40 knot tailwind at fl200.   (Doesn't it us= ually work out that way?)

Someone offers you mod A t= hat gives you 10 knots at 5000 or mod B that gives you 10 knots at fl200.
...and let's say your plane does 225 knots at 5000 unmodified.
=

mod A gives you 10/(225-40) or 5.4% improvement which yo= u enjoy for 6.9 hours
mod B gives you 10/(270+40) or 3.2% improvem= ent which you enjoy for 4.2 hours


So= even if the winglets delivered performance up high they don't seem like a v= ery good deal.

Colyn


<= div>
more stability etc= , even the CAFE report is telling that it produces
more stability at h= igher altitude.
 
But=E2=80=A6even t= he big Charlie Kohler told me it doesn't add anything but more
drag...thus less speed.
 
I have no experien= ce whatsoever with the Winglets. So my question to you
guys is, do you ha= ve any experience telling you that it does work? (this
is more for pilots= who had both so they can tell the difference)
 
Thanks -- Ronald Stevens
 
<= /div>
<glasair new pnt.jpg><AC home a= fter painting 001.jpg>


= --Apple-Mail-7--944555140--