X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4552028 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:09:45 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=3jtQBdTzPyV+fq4oCU/u8ZPrJJGN11HvhaDVxyWhycI= c=1 sm=0 a=rPkcCx1H5rrOSfN0dPC7kw==:17 a=arxwEM4EAAAA:8 a=r1ClD_H3AAAA:8 a=UretUmmEAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=pedpZTtsAAAA:8 a=Hl1Gy0H5AAAA:8 a=uan1AHLI__nuWlgSS1YA:9 a=dL6W7aP417IYYF-kp2wA:7 a=JjPT-mmHmUdg4Wegk8KkNg6-bzEA:4 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=iVkDmfvjeKcA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=eJojReuL3h0A:10 a=2J4lNLEmvAIxelHE:21 a=qFjp_rf7EfeHmHUl:21 a=ZvPxGFSDVfDPjWpYzdoA:9 a=3Aq-BOhixpyNPw7b0coA:7 a=e4pvKvyS70Cwpw7mzVaT0R0SgRUA:4 a=rPkcCx1H5rrOSfN0dPC7kw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 174.110.167.5 Received: from [174.110.167.5] ([174.110.167.5:54243] helo=EdPC) by cdptpa-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 04/BA-02631-58B10DC4; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:09:10 +0000 Message-ID: <145716122BFA4C5F8BE1E7D8F923DC86@EdPC> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:09:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01CB7A75.F8A2C410" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CB7A75.F8A2C410 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Mark, Injectors are certainly large enough - six injectors at 60 lb/hr would = give you a max flow rate capacity of around 58 gallons/hour - far more = than you are reporting fuel burn wise. I guess what I am wondering is how your manifold pressure is registering = at WOT. The PP as I recall can have a problem providing = reliable/consistent manifold pressure - no good source? So exactly how = is your EC2/3 getting its manifold pressure signal ? What comes to = mind is that if there is a problem getting a good consistent manifold = pressure reading at WOT - could that possibly result in your injectors = injecting less than you would expect. In other words, if manifold pressure was low relative to what you would = expect at WOT (near ambient) then turning up the manual mixture control = would only provide adjustment against the smaller target pulse duration = for that lower Manifold pressure rather than WOT manifold pressure. Ed Edward L. Anderson Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC 305 Reefton Road Weddington, NC 28104 http://www.andersonee.com http://www.eicommander.com From: stevei@carey.asn.au=20 Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:24 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers Hi Mark=20 Are you in a position to confirm your fuel rail pressure? Fuel injected =3D Pulse width AND injector size AND fuel pressure. Cheers Steve Izett On 02/11/2010, at 4:42 AM, Mark Steitle wrote: Tracy,=20 As I recall the low end numbers are around -50ish. So there is still = room for adjustment. When running WOT, turning the mixture knob full CW = doesn't get the mixture bar to show up on the EM-2 screen. I find this = odd as I'm running 60# injectors. I guess that's why the low end = numbers are in the -50 range. =20 I'll post a question on the Lancair list regarding the most efficient = cruise speed for the Lancair ES airframe. Mark =20 On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Tracy = wrote: "So, if it is going LOP in those addresses, which it is, it would = explain why power drops off as I open the throttle to WOT." That's new data to me. Yes, that would certainly cause a loss of = power. Are you able to compensate by turning up the mixture control? = Are the MAP table values at the low end above minimum value? The right = thing to do depends on these answers. If answer is yes to the 2nd one, = then you should bump up the value in Mode 3. The most efficient point on most airframes is the point where the = induced drag curve crosses the parasitic drag curve. On RV's that = happens at around an indicated airspeed of 135 mph. It will probably be = higher than that on a Lancair but I've never seen the curves on that = airplane.=20 Tracy On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mark Steitle = wrote: Tracy wrote: Having said that, I think there is still a good possibility that = your drop in power above 6000 is not due to runner length.=20 Tracy, I suspect it could be tuning as I've hit the max adjustment (+127) = on the EC-2 MCT for the addresses in the upper 20" range, so it looks = like I need to adjust the injector pulse width and then start over on = the tuning. So, if it is going LOP in those addresses, which it is, it = would explain why power drops off as I open the throttle to WOT. I'll = do more tuning when I get my updated EC-2 back. (will go out in today's = mail) =20 Where does one find the "most efficient operationg point" for a = particular airframe? Is this the same as LDmax? Mark On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Tracy = wrote: "The lowest fuel burn per HP generated always occurs at the = torque peak as that is where the engine takes in the most amount of air = for each revolution of the engine. The VE is optimum. In other words = it is the most efficient operating point for the engine." =20 Mark, That is the point of minimum pumping losses in the engine, NOT = the most overall efficient point of operation. It ignores the many = other factors that affect BSFC. If you look at Mazda's data on BSFC, = the best point is usually around 5000 rpm. =20 It also ignores the most efficient operating point of your = airframe. If you tune the engine for a higher rpm torque peak you WILL = make more HP, you will fly faster but you will burn a lot more fuel. Having said that, I think there is still a good possibility that = your drop in power above 6000 is not due to runner length. Tracy On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Mark Steitle = wrote: Al,=20 Isn't the formula HP=3D (torque x rpm)/5252. =20 I'm more focused on peak Volumetric Efficiency (VE). = According to Fundamentals of Intake System Design, (ACRE) "The lowest = fuel burn per HP generated always occurs at the torque peak as that is = where the engine takes in the most amount of air for each revolution of = the engine. The VE is optimum. In other words it is the most efficient = operating point for the engine." =20 So, I will be good tuning for peak torque. Do you have a dyno = chart on your 20B that you will share? I find it interesting that your = intake runners are only 13". =20 Mark On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Al Gietzen = wrote: Keep in mind that the graph is peak torque (T)); not peak = HP. The peak HP (which is what you=92re after would be at higher rpm. = HP =3D T x RPM Al -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of stevei@carey.asn.au Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:09 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers Hi Mark=20 I have attached the Leman intake dimensions from Paul L. Hope this is helpful. Can't remember whether this = measurement was to the rotor face or manifold face. Steve Izett Perth Western Australia=20 On 01/11/2010, at 8:40 AM, Mark Steitle wrote: Bill,=20 I understand the sausage illustration. But if what you = propose were true, then why did Mazda make such a major effort to design = and implement the variable intake on their LeMans 26B p-port motor? = That tells me that runner length does make a significant difference on = the p-port motor. Also, if tuned runners didn't matter for peripheral = ports, then why do they tune the exhaust runners on the 13B's? = Somewhere I have a chart showing the effect of runner length, but I'm = not sure that the data is from a p-port motor. Mark On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Bill Bradburry = wrote: Mark, I don=92t think that will work with the PP. You never = actually block the inlet. You just cut off the end of the flow of air = as the apex flies by and it starts to fill the next chamber. Think of = the flow as a long sausage that is going through a propeller made of a = strand of wire 2 or 3 MM thick and being cut into sections. It is never = blocked. I doubt that there are any reflections and if there are, they = would be very small and of little benefit to enhance. I think that is why the PP is so much stronger than the side = port. Bill B -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:01 PM=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers George,=20 Sorry for the delayed reply, but I had to go to the hangar = and measure the runner length to be sure. It is 24" bellmouth to rotor = face, 2" OD. Exhaust is 2" OD also, running the stock 20b exhaust = splitters. So, my power seems to peak around 6000 rpm. What length = intake runner length would it take to bring peak power up to around 6500 = rpm? =20 Mark =20 On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:53 PM, George Lendich = wrote: Mark,=20 That's interesting; can you tell me what is your PP = size, runner length and exhaust header ID size. George (down under)=20 From: Mark Steitle=20 Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 7:38 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers Bill, =20 With the current setup, it appears to be around 6000-6100, = but I'm still tuning on the upper addresses of the EC-2. My old engine = did best around 6500-6600 running the same prop. So, I feel there is = something that isn't quite right on the new P-Port motor... maybe intake = runners too short, intake or exhaust too restrictive, timing off a bit, = etc. It definitely makes more hp than the old motor did in the = 5000-6000 range, but I feel that it should be producing more hp than I'm = seeing in the 6000-7000 range. =20 So, things are still developing. Yesterday, I reinstalled = the old air-filter box which has a ram-air feature incorporated into the = design. I haven't flown it yet to see if there is any improvement, but = I hope to see at least a little improvement. On a side note, I have determined that there is a 250 rpm = discrepancy between the rpm readout of the EM-2 and that of the M/T prop = controller. I have an optical tach that I will be using to determine = which one is in error. =20 Stay tuned (no pun intended), Mark On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bill Bradburry = wrote: Mark, It would seem that if you flattened the pitch of the prop, = the engine rpms would increase, but at some point, you would begin to = lose airspeed and start to slow down because the prop was just not = taking a big enough bite. Conversely, it seems that if you increased = the prop pitch, the engine rpms would decrease, but the airspeed would = increase up to some point and then after that, an increase in pitch = would cause a decrease in airspeed because you are taking too big a bite = and the engine just can not pull it. Somewhere in there is a =93Sweet = Spot=94 of propeller rpm that gives the highest airspeed. Lets say that = this question assumes that you are at WOT and 8500 feet, which should = give you roughly a 75% power output. Do you know where that sweet spot = is with your propeller? Bill B -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:00 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] EM2 Numbers Rotarians, Things have been a bit quiet on the list lately, so I = thought I would post this picture of my EM-2 taken on a trip from = Galveston, TX (KGLS) to Lockhart, TX (50R) yesterday. I was level at = 8500msl when taking the picture. A/C is a Lancair ES (4-place), engine = is a n/a p-ported 20b. =20 Please disregard the oil temp as the reading on the EM-2 is = measured after the first cooler and before the second cooler. Oil temp = readings out of the second cooler (measured at the oil filter pad) track = water temps within a few degrees. Leaned to "Economy Cruise" and dial the prop down to 1800 = rpm and the speed drops down about 15 mph and fuel burn drops to 9.1 = gph. You pay dearly for that 15 mph but sometimes it is just too much = fun to slow down. Mark S. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:50 PM Subject:=20 To: msteitle@gmail.com Sent from my iPhone -------------------------------------------------------------------- The contents of this email are confidential and intended = only for the named recipients of this e-mail. If you have received this = e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction, = disclosure or distribution or the information contained in this e-mail = is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately and then = delete/destroy the e-mail and any printed copies. All liability for = viruses is excluded to the fullest extent of the law. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CB7A75.F8A2C410 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Mark,
 
Injectors are certainly large enough - six  = injectors=20 at 60 lb/hr would give you a max flow rate capacity of around 58 = gallons/hour -=20 far more than you are reporting fuel burn wise.
 
I guess what I am wondering is how your manifold = pressure=20 is registering at WOT.  The PP as I recall can have a problem = providing=20 reliable/consistent manifold pressure - no good source?  So exactly = how is=20 your EC2/3 getting its manifold pressure signal ?   What comes = to mind=20 is that if there is a problem getting a good consistent manifold = pressure=20 reading at WOT - could that possibly result in your injectors injecting = less=20 than you would expect.
 
In other words, if manifold pressure was low = relative to=20 what you would expect at WOT (near ambient) then turning up the manual = mixture=20 control would only provide adjustment against the smaller target pulse = duration=20 for that lower Manifold pressure rather than WOT manifold = pressure.
 
Ed
 
Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic = Enterprises=20 LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington, NC 28104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com
 
 
 
 

From: stevei@carey.asn.au
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:24 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

Hi Mark=20

Are you in a position to confirm your fuel rail pressure?
Fuel injected =3D Pulse width AND injector size AND fuel = pressure.
Cheers

Steve Izett


On 02/11/2010, at 4:42 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:
Tracy,
 
As I recall the low end numbers are around -50ish.  So there = is=20 still room for adjustment.  When running WOT, turning the = mixture=20 knob full CW doesn't get the mixture bar to show up on the EM-2 = screen. =20 I find this odd as I'm running 60# injectors.  I guess that's why = the low=20 end numbers are in the -50 range. 
 
I'll post a question on the Lancair list regarding the most=20 efficient cruise speed for the Lancair ES airframe.
 
Mark


 
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Tracy <tracy@rotaryaviation.com>= =20 wrote:
"So, if it is going LOP in those addresses, = which it=20 is, it would explain why power drops off as I open the throttle = to=20 WOT."

That's new data to me.  Yes, that would = certainly=20 cause a loss of power.    Are you able to compensate = by=20 turning up the mixture control?  Are the MAP table values at = the low=20 end above minimum value?  The right thing to do depends on = these=20 answers.   If answer is yes to the 2nd one, then you = should bump=20 up the value in Mode 3.

The most efficient point on most = airframes is=20 the point where the induced drag curve crosses the parasitic drag=20 curve.  On RV's that happens at around an indicated airspeed of = 135=20 mph.  It will probably be higher than that on a Lancair but = I've never=20 seen the curves on that airplane.

Tracy


On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mark = Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com> wrote:
Tracy wrote:
Having said that, I think there is still a good = possibility that=20 your drop in power above 6000 is not due to runner = length. 
 
Tracy,
I suspect it could be tuning as I've hit the max=20 adjustment (+127) on the EC-2 MCT for the addresses in the = upper 20"=20 range, so it looks like I need to adjust the injector pulse width = and then=20 start over on the tuning.  So, if it is going LOP in = those=20 addresses, which it is, it would explain why power drops off = as I=20 open the throttle to WOT.  I'll do more tuning when I get my = updated=20 EC-2 back.  (will go out in today's mail) 
 
Where does one find the "most efficient operationg point" for = a=20 particular airframe?  Is this the same as LDmax?
 
Mark

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Tracy = <tracy@rotaryaviation.com> wrote:
"The lowest fuel burn per HP generated always occurs at = the=20 torque peak as that is where the engine takes in the most amount = of air=20 for each revolution of the engine.  The VE is = optimum.  In=20 other words it is the most efficient operating point for the=20 engine." 

Mark,
 That is the = point of=20 minimum pumping losses in the engine, NOT the most overall = efficient=20 point of operation.    It ignores the many other = factors=20 that affect BSFC.   If you look at Mazda's data on = BSFC, the=20 best point is usually around 5000 rpm. 

It also = ignores the=20 most efficient operating point of your airframe.  If you = tune the=20 engine for a higher rpm torque peak you WILL make more HP,  = you=20 will fly faster but you will burn a lot more fuel.

Having = said=20 that, I think there is still a good possibility that your drop = in power=20 above 6000 is not due to runner = length.

Tracy



On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Mark = Steitle=20 <msteitle@gmail.com> wrote:
Al,
 
Isn't the formula HP=3D (torque x rpm)/5252. 
 
I'm more focused on peak Volumetric Efficiency = (VE). =20 According to Fundamentals of Intake System Design,=20 (ACRE) "The lowest fuel burn per HP generated always = occurs at=20 the torque peak as that is where the engine takes in the most = amount=20 of air for each revolution of the engine.  The VE is=20 optimum.  In other words it is the most efficient = operating point=20 for the engine." 
 
So, I will be good tuning for peak = torque.  Do you=20 have a dyno chart on your 20B that you will share?  I = find it=20 interesting that your intake runners are only 13".  =
 
Mark

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Al = Gietzen=20 <ALVentures@cox.net> wrote:

Keep in=20 mind that the graph is peak torque (T)); not peak HP. =  The peak=20 HP (which is what you=92re after would be at higher = rpm.  HP =3D T=20 x RPM

 

Al

 

-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of stevei@carey.asn.au
Sent: Monday, = November 01, 2010=20 1:09 AM
To: Rotary=20 motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] = Re: EM2=20 Numbers

 

Hi = Mark=20

 

I = have attached=20 the Leman intake dimensions from Paul = L.

Hope this is=20 helpful. Can't remember whether this measurement was to the = rotor=20 face or manifold face.

 

Steve=20 Izett

Perth Western=20 Australia 

<image001.gif>

On = 01/11/2010,=20 at 8:40 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:



Bill,=20

 

I = understand=20 the sausage illustration.  But if what you=20 propose were true, then why did Mazda make such a = major=20 effort to design and implement the variable intake on = their=20 LeMans 26B p-port motor?  That tells me = that runner=20 length does make a significant difference on the p-port = motor.  Also, if tuned runners didn't matter for = peripheral=20 ports, then why do they tune the exhaust runners on the = 13B's? =20 Somewhere I have a chart showing the effect of runner = length, but=20 I'm not sure that the data is from a p-port=20 motor.

 
Mark

On = Sun, Oct 31,=20 2010 at 7:27 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>=20 wrote:

Mark,

I = don=92t=20 think that will work with the PP.  You never actually = block the=20 inlet.  You just cut off the end of the flow of air as = the apex=20 flies by and it starts to fill the next chamber.  Think = of the=20 flow as a long sausage that is going through a propeller = made of a=20 strand of wire 2 or 3 MM thick and being cut into = sections.  It=20 is never blocked.  I doubt that there are any = reflections and=20 if there are, they would be very small and of little benefit = to=20 enhance.

 

I = think=20 that is why the PP is so much stronger than the side=20 port.

 

Bill=20 B

 

From: Rotary = motors in=20 aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark=20 Steitle
Sent:=20 Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:01 PM


To: Rotary motors in=20 aircraft
Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

 
 
 

George,=20

 

Sorry for the=20 delayed reply, but I had to go to the hangar and measure the = runner=20 length to be sure.  It is 24" bellmouth to rotor face, = 2"=20 OD.  Exhaust is 2" OD also, running the stock 20b = exhaust=20 splitters.

 

So, = my power=20 seems to peak around 6000 rpm.  What length intake = runner=20 length would it take to bring peak power up to = around 6500=20 rpm? 

 

Mark  =

On = Sat, Oct 30,=20 2010 at 3:53 PM, George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au> = wrote:

   = Mark,=20

   =20 That's interesting; can you tell me what is your PP size, = runner=20 length and exhaust header = ID size.

    George=20 (down under) 

 

From: Mark = Steitle=20

Sent: Saturday, = October 30,=20 2010 7:38 PM

To: Rotary=20 motors in aircraft

Subject: [FlyRotary] = Re: EM2=20 Numbers

 

Bill, =20

 

With the=20 current setup, it appears to be around 6000-6100, but I'm = still=20 tuning on the upper addresses of the EC-2.  My old = engine did=20 best around 6500-6600 running the same prop.  So, I = feel there=20 is something that isn't quite right on the new P-Port = motor... maybe=20 intake runners too short, intake or exhaust too restrictive, = timing=20 off a bit, etc.  It definitely makes more hp than the = old motor=20 did in the 5000-6000 range, but I feel that it should be = producing=20 more hp than I'm seeing in the 6000-7000 range.=20  

 

So, = things are=20 still developing.  Yesterday, I reinstalled the old = air-filter=20 box which has a ram-air feature incorporated into the = design.=20  I haven't flown it yet to see if there is any = improvement, but=20 I hope to see at least a little = improvement.

 

On = a side note,=20 I have determined that there is a 250 rpm discrepancy = between the=20 rpm readout of the EM-2 and that of the M/T prop controller. =  I=20 have an optical tach that I will be using to determine which = one is=20 in error.   

 

Stay tuned (no=20 pun intended),

Mark

 
 

On = Fri, Oct 29,=20 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>=20 wrote:

Mark,

It would=20 seem that if you flattened the pitch of the prop, the engine = rpms=20 would increase, but at some point, you would begin to lose = airspeed=20 and start to slow down because the prop was just not taking = a big=20 enough bite.  Conversely, it seems that if you = increased the=20 prop pitch, the engine rpms would decrease, but the airspeed = would=20 increase up to some point and then after that, an increase = in pitch=20 would cause a decrease in airspeed because you are taking = too big a=20 bite and the engine just can not pull it.  Somewhere in = there=20 is a =93Sweet Spot=94 of propeller rpm that gives the = highest=20 airspeed.  Lets say that this question assumes that you = are at=20 WOT and 8500 feet, which should give you roughly a 75% power = output.  Do you know where that sweet spot is with your = propeller?

 

Bill=20 B

 

From: Rotary = motors in=20 aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark=20 Steitle


Sent: Thursday, = October 28,=20 2010 10:00 PM
To:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] = EM2=20 Numbers

 

Rotarians,

 

Things have=20 been a bit quiet on the list lately, so I thought I would = post this=20 picture of my EM-2 taken on a trip from Galveston, TX (KGLS) = to=20 Lockhart, TX (50R) yesterday.  I was level at 8500msl = when=20 taking the picture.  A/C is a Lancair ES (4-place), = engine is a=20 n/a p-ported 20b.  

 

Please=20 disregard the oil temp as the reading on the EM-2 is = measured after=20 the first cooler and before the second cooler.  Oil = temp=20 readings out of the second cooler (measured at the oil = filter pad)=20 track water temps within a few = degrees.

 

Leaned to=20 "Economy Cruise" and dial the prop down to 1800 rpm and the = speed=20 drops down about 15 mph and fuel burn drops to 9.1 gph. =  You=20 pay dearly for that 15 mph but sometimes it is just too much = fun to=20 slow down.

 

Mark S.

----------=20 Forwarded message ----------


From:=20 Mark <msteitle@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct = 28, 2010=20 at 8:50 PM
Subject:
To: msteitle@gmail.com







Sent=20 from my iPhone

 
 
 
 
 
 

The=20 contents of this email are confidential and intended only = for the=20 named recipients of this e-mail. If you have received this = e-mail in=20 error, you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,=20 disclosure or distribution or the information contained in = this=20 e-mail is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately = and then=20 delete/destroy the e-mail and any printed copies. All = liability for=20 viruses is excluded to the fullest extent of the=20 = law.





=


------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CB7A75.F8A2C410--