X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 09:24:45 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta31.charter.net ([216.33.127.82] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with ESMTP id 5325716 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:04:38 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.82; envelope-from=farnsworth@charter.net Received: from imp10 ([10.20.200.15]) by mta31.charter.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.02 201-2260-151-103-20110920) with ESMTP id <20111224210402.HSEH4042.mta31.charter.net@imp10> for ; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:04:02 -0500 Received: from karen305d6aa99 ([96.32.82.24]) by imp10 with smtp.charter.net id D9421i0070XV3AQ05942Eg; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:04:02 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=wN5/OdS/7hl3aRTPTViGy5XHc1tS8JMPaEhPXqaRdh8= c=1 sm=1 a=yUnIBFQkZM0A:10 a=iJQyNv5OtPD1cCIz+vZOPA==:17 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=K_HNwH_L-j75YyCxCgMA:9 a=C9fC9twGNxwNeNG7kBsA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=hp2I6WfGl3w96tNu:21 a=sOjkqi6dssYuGrOl:21 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=Tx1xe1-O5Hbpb77JybAA:9 a=ec2Y56-LKuh06QtGLYEA:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=iJQyNv5OtPD1cCIz+vZOPA==:117 From: "Karen Farnsworth" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: Subject: RE: [LML] Performance specs X-Original-Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:04:14 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01AD_01CCC255.AEB97460" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AczCZnFJwnuWlGyeQ5u+A+DfDYFR/AAFQb7g X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01AD_01CCC255.AEB97460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim, You say you have a Super ES. I think that means you are turbo charged and I expect that means a TSIO-550. It seems to me that most of the problems you will encounter with density altitude would be negated by having a turbo charged engine. The one thing that a turbo/supercharged engine won't change is the higher true airspeed that is required to have the same indicated airspeed for normal "standard day" operations. Since the biggest factor causing degraded engine performance for normally aspired engine is lower achievable manifold pressure, the turbo/supercharged engine will maintain its rated manifold pressure to a much higher altitude (either pressure or density) which means normal take-off performance in most cases. My TSIO-550 powered Super Legacy has a wide range of manifold pressure (depending on where I set the waste gate controller) of 45" to 75" MP at sea level. The net result is I push the throttle up until I get 38.5" MP and don't worry what the pressure altitude is. Maybe a little too casual for you but that is what I do in real life and have not raised the "pucker factor" at all. Lynn Farnsworth Super Legacy #235 TSIO-559 Powered Race #44 _____ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jim Scales Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 1:04 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Performance specs _____ Guys, I am trying to tweak my Super ES performance information and would like your input on a couple of things. I want to put together some charts/tables that let me calculate my plane's performance relative to density altitude. The purpose of this information gathering exercise is to put together a chart that can use realistic numbers to help me calculate performance at higher elevations and density altitudes. I want to do some flying out west and feel my tools are lacking where performance calculations for my plane are concerned. I have been able to gather quite a bit of info over the years of flying my ES concerning climb rate, cruise, percentage of HP, as they are affected by density altitude. These seem pretty clear. My gray area is take-off distance. I have never actually done my own tests in this area other than paying attention at my home airport about where down the runway I start flying. If any of you have actual numbers for your ES I would like to see them if you don't mind. Consensus of information that I found on the internet and in Lancair publications seems to be about a 700 ft ground roll on a standard day at sea level for 3400 pound gw. This number appears unrealistic to me. The standard procedure that I have seen in a couple of places seems to require lifting the nose wheel around 55 and climbing at 85. Doesn't mention holding brakes till full power. Can't seem to find information that indicates when this method causes the plane to break ground. (Might be the 700 feet that is mentioned). This strikes me as an aggressive method (might not be, just seems so to me given my experience in my plane). I am not a test pilot and have no intention of flying at what might be the edge of the envelope. I prefer a bit of a conservative number, whatever it might be. I have tried this method on a few occasions and I find it somewhat uncomfortable because the plane tends to settle in a tail low attitude after becoming airborne and seems quite lazy even while still in ground effect. I prefer crisp performance and firm response to control inputs. The 55/85 process doesn't seem to fit these preferences. My method involves 10 degrees of flaps, deliberate, but not speedy, application of power, slight back pressure on stick beginning about 65, holding that pressure until plane flies off. Usually flying occurs at about 85-90 with no "sag" feeling and very positive control response. Climb out is at 100 till 400 feet then 125-130 to altitude. On an approximately standard day this results in wheels off the runway at about 900 feet at about 3200 pounds. At gross of 3400 the number is about 1100. Again I have done no actual measurements, just judging by the thousand foot marks on the runway. I discovered the Koch Chart and found it to be really useful but it is all based on a fairly accurate standard day gross weight ground roll. So is it possible to put together a chart that can help me figure ground roll and climb rate for various gross weight situations? Is one already available that I just don't know about? The Koch Chart only requires ground roll and climb rate for performance calculations relative to density altitude. Being a flatlander I have not ever been that concerned about this subject. Always had plenty of runway and lots of horsepower. I don't want to be that "loose" in my calculations when I encounter high density altitude situations. I prefer to know what to expect as far as airplane performance is concerned. I am probably not able to adequately explain what it is that I am searching for. I believe my primary need is a realistic standard day gross weigh ground roll number that can be safely used to calculate density altitude take off performance. Hopefully some of you can gather from what I have written what else you think I need. I appreciate any input you might have on this subject. I have not seen this subject on LML so maybe I am not the only one who could use this information. Just trying to be safe. Thanks, Jim Scales (almost 1200 hours and very happy) ------=_NextPart_000_01AD_01CCC255.AEB97460 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jim,

 

You say you have a Super ES. I = think that means you are turbo charged and I expect that means a = TSIO-550.

 

 It seems to me that most of = the problems you will encounter with density altitude would be negated by = having a turbo charged engine. The one thing that a turbo/supercharged engine = won’t change is the higher true airspeed that is required to have the same = indicated airspeed for normal “standard day” = operations.

 

Since the biggest factor causing = degraded engine performance for normally aspired engine is lower achievable = manifold pressure, the turbo/supercharged engine will maintain its rated manifold = pressure to a much higher altitude (either pressure or density) which means = normal take-off performance in most cases.

 

My TSIO-550 powered Super Legacy = has a wide range of manifold pressure (depending on where I set the waste gate controller) of 45” to 75” MP at sea level. The net result is = I push the throttle up until I get 38.5” MP and don’t worry what = the pressure altitude is.

 

Maybe a little too casual for you = but that is what I do in real life and have not raised the “pucker = factor” at all.

 

Lynn = Farnsworth

Super Legacy = #235

TSIO-559 = Powered

Race = #44

 

From: = Lancair Mailing List = [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jim Scales
Sent: Saturday, December = 24, 2011 1:04 PM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] = Performance specs

 

 

 

Guys,

 

I am trying to tweak my Super ES performance = information and would like your input on a couple of = things.

 

I want to put together some charts/tables that let = me calculate my plane's performance relative to density altitude. The = purpose of this information gathering exercise is to put together a chart that = can use realistic numbers to help me calculate performance at higher elevations = and density altitudes.  I want to do some flying out west and feel my = tools are lacking where performance calculations for my plane are = concerned.

 

I have been able to gather quite a bit of info over = the years of flying my ES concerning climb rate, cruise, percentage of HP, = as they are affected by density altitude.  These seem pretty = clear.

 

My gray area is take-off distance.  I have = never actually done my own tests in this area other than paying attention at = my home airport about where down the runway I start flying. If any of you have = actual numbers for your ES I would like to see them if you don't = mind.

 

Consensus of information that I found on the = internet and in Lancair publications seems to be about a 700 ft ground roll on a = standard day at sea level for 3400 pound gw.  This number appears = unrealistic to me. 

 

The standard procedure that I have seen in a couple = of places seems to require lifting the nose wheel around 55 and climbing at = 85.  Doesn't mention holding brakes till full power.  Can't seem = to find information that indicates when this method causes the plane to break = ground. (Might be the 700 feet that is mentioned). This strikes me as an aggressive method (might not be, just seems so to me given my experience = in my plane).  I am not a test pilot and have no intention of flying at = what might be the edge of the envelope.  I prefer a bit of a = conservative number, whatever it might be.

 

I have tried this method on a few occasions and I = find it somewhat uncomfortable because the plane tends to settle in a tail low = attitude after becoming airborne and seems quite lazy even while still in ground = effect.  I prefer crisp performance and firm response to control inputs. = The 55/85 process doesn't seem to fit these = preferences.

 

My method involves 10 degrees of flaps, deliberate, = but not speedy, application of power, slight back pressure on stick beginning = about 65, holding that pressure until plane flies off.  Usually flying occurs = at about 85-90 with no "sag" feeling and very positive control = response. Climb out is at 100 till 400 feet then 125-130 to altitude. =  

 

On an approximately standard day this results in = wheels off the runway at about 900 feet at about 3200 pounds.  At gross of = 3400 the number is about 1100.  Again I have done no actual measurements, = just judging by the thousand foot marks on the = runway.

 

I discovered the Koch Chart and found it to be = really useful but it is all based on a fairly accurate standard day gross = weight ground roll.

 

So is it possible to put together a chart that can = help me figure ground roll and climb rate for various gross weight situations? =  Is one already available that I just don't know about?  The Koch Chart = only requires ground roll and climb rate for performance calculations = relative to density altitude.

 

Being a flatlander I have not ever been that = concerned about this subject.  Always had plenty of runway and lots of = horsepower.  I don't want to be that "loose" in my calculations when = I encounter high density altitude situations.  I prefer to know what = to expect as far as airplane performance is = concerned.

 

I am probably not able to adequately explain what it = is that I am searching for.  I believe my primary need is a realistic standard day gross weigh ground roll number that can be safely used to calculate density altitude take off performance.  Hopefully some of = you can gather from what I have written what else you think I = need.

 

I appreciate any input you might have on this = subject.  I have not seen this subject on LML so maybe I am not the only one = who could use this information.

 

Just trying to be safe.

 

Thanks,

 

Jim Scales  (almost 1200 hours and very = happy)

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_01AD_01CCC255.AEB97460--