Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:16:36 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-6540415@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.64; envelope-from=douglasbrunner@earthlink.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=lj0LqxWU+V5eDZ501mymjgMDzWANriD+AIHj3tCxst608ri/joYPL7tPP0BDko7M;
  h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
From: Douglas Brunner <douglasbrunner@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Douglas Brunner <douglasbrunner@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Discussed engine management with the team from
 Continental Motors
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"His comment is simply not in harmony with the laws of physics with which a=
ll scientific sources agree."

So are you saying he is wrong?  ;-)


-----Original Message-----
>From: Walter Atkinson <walter@advancedpilot.com>
>Sent: Oct 14, 2013 8:14 AM
>To: lml@lancaironline.net
>Subject: [LML] Re: Discussed engine management with the team from Continen=
tal Motors
>
>Jeff:
>
>**Interestingly, the TCM guy said that LOP operations is not correlated to=
 HP, and that the fuel conversion HP/GPH is not a value measure of HP outpu=
t.  His advice: best to use the graph provided in the manual (which is limi=
ted in RPM and not depicting LOP operations with precision).  He was saying=
 that 19 GPH fuel flow at 34"/2500/19GPH is not the same HP engine output a=
s 31.5"/2500/19GPH (still LOP at 19 GPH but closer to peak); this is differ=
ent from what our friends at GAMI have said.**
>
>His comment is simply not in harmony with the laws of physics with which a=
ll scientific sources agree.
>
>He seems to be confused between HP production ROP in which RPM (mass airfl=
ow) is associated with HP production and LOP HP production in which only FF=
 is a factor.  If you would be so kind as to provide me with his name in a =
PM to the email below, I will help Bill Ross (VP at TCM) improve his knowle=
dge on the matter.=20
>
>Walter Atkinson
><walter@advancedpilot.com>
>(225) 939-7508
>
>
>
>
>
>On Oct 12, 2013, at 6:00 PM, jeffrey liegner wrote:
>
>LML PIlots,
>
>At LOBO Greenville, I discussed engine management with the team from Conti=
nental Motors.  They provided their slides from their presentations (which =
I have reviewed) and I asked them many questions.  I communicated to Jeff E=
dwards that the group would definitely benefit from a group open forum disc=
ussing engine management settings commonly used, with opportunity for other=
s to listen and others to explain why they do what they do, perhaps moderat=
ed by a Continental guy or GAMI people and/or an exemplary Lancair authorit=
y.  Old wives tales would be debunked, poor techniques would be scolded, an=
d new settings could be integrated into all phases of flight for each indiv=
idual.
>
>One thing that was clearly stated by TCM: we should cruise at power settin=
g no more than our Maximum Recommended Cruise.  If you don't have access to=
 the TCM engine manual for turbocharged TSIO550 series engines, here's the =
link:
>
>http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/MaintenanceManuals/OI-18/OI-18.pdf
>CONTINENTAL=C2=AE AIRCRAFT ENGINE PERMOLD SERIES ENGINE=20
>ENGINE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL=20
>
>In my TSIO-550E, the maximum recommended cruise is 262 BHP @ 2500 RPM, whi=
ch is 75% of 350HP.  Elsewhere in the manual, this Rich of Peak (ROP) opera=
tion (75%) is listed to be at 29GPH fuel flow (ROP).
>
>Based on prior LML discussions with help from GAMI experts, and engine com=
pression calculations, the Lean of Peak (LOP) fuel flow (GPH) to horsepower=
 (HP) conversion ration for my TSIO550E is 13.73 HP/GPH (for 7.5:1 compress=
ion ratio).  So LOP operations at 75% cruise (263HP) would be 19.15 GPH.
>
>I will occassionally cruise at 2500/34.0"/19GPH, when the flight is three =
hours or less, which some at LOBO felt is TOO MUCH cruise power (not that t=
his is still below 75% power).
>
>I also occassionally cruise at 2500/31.5"/18 GPH, which is an OK setting f=
or speed and economy.
>
>For long flights (and super economy), I will cruise at 2350/31.5"/16.3GPH =
(64%).  If facing a headwind, I'll give it more gas to 17.1GPH (67%).
>
>I have noticed through a detailed study of indicated airspeed (IAS) at dif=
ferent prop RPM settins (2500-2540-2400-2350-2300) that the Hartzell Simita=
r 3-Blade prop's highest efficiency seems to be at 2350 RPM.  That is, IAS =
is best at same LOP fuel flows when the prop is turning 2350 RPM, independe=
nt of MAP.
>
>I'm sharing these engine settings in case anyone has comments.
>
>Interestingly, the TCM guy said that LOP operations is not correlated to H=
P, and that the fuel conversion HP/GPH is not a value measure of HP output.=
  His advice: best to use the graph provided in the manual (which is limite=
d in RPM and not depicting LOP operations with precision).  He was saying t=
hat 19 GPH fuel flow at 34"/2500/19GPH is not the same HP engine output as =
31.5"/2500/19GPH (still LOP at 19 GPH but closer to peak); this is differen=
t from what our friends at GAMI have said.
>
>Comments welcomed.
>
>Jeff L
>
>--
>For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm=
l
>
>
>
>--
>For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm=
l