X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:40:12 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qmta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.27.212] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1) with ESMTP id 5107418 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:28:07 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.27.212; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from omta16.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.72]) by qmta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id SJJo1h0031ZMdJ4AEJTTyC; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:27:27 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.3] ([67.171.49.26]) by omta16.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id SJT11h00N0ZuYyj8cJT1QQ; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:27:02 +0000 From: John Hafen Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--819682127 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LOP power settings X-Original-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:27:30 -0700 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: <40DEADB4-13AB-493E-8C9A-1BF02F264C70@comcast.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) --Apple-Mail-2--819682127 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Jeff: I never thought of using shrink tube to stiffen up my wick. Thanks a = lot. Might make it a little less "static." I'll let you know if it = works! John On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:07 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: Ralf, Re your static wick. Put a couple of layers of shrink tube on it to = stiffen it up. Jeff=20 Sent from my iPad On Aug 29, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Craig Berland. = wrote: > Ralf, >=20 > Your LOP numbers look pretty good=85.including speed. That is assuming = your IAS is correct. Line number 32 is a little too rich for my blood. = TCM max cruise is about as abusive as its gets. I would never run my = engine there. The problem I see is your take-off fuel rate is set too = low. It should be around 41 gph at your take off RPM and MAP. At 38 = inHg and 2700 rpm, it should be around 43 gph. I am pretty sure the low = =93full rich=94 fuel rate is what is causing your climb out CHT=92s to = climb above 380 degF. I had my electric fuel low boost switch fail and = my CHT=92s went up to 400 degF at 16000. I descended to 12000 and = finished the trip home without low boost. Increase your take off fuel = rate and you will be happy. =93I think=94. >=20 > Craig >=20 > =20 >=20 > Dear subscribers, >=20 > =20 >=20 > Thanks to everybody to help me understand the LOP operations. The = Pelican articles helped a lot and Craig spend a lot of time writing = everything down for me. >=20 > =20 >=20 > I determined my TIT (which was surprisingly low) and I took all the = discussed power settings and ran them at 10000 and 18000. I waited = several minutes on each setting to make sure that I have stable = conditions. >=20 > =20 >=20 > In my table you can find the climb and all the power settings we = discussed so far. May be you have some recommendations after looking at = my data. >=20 > =20 >=20 > IAS and TAS I took from my steam gage =96 any corrections are welcome = to correct my numbers. >=20 > =20 >=20 > In climb (full fuel =96 just me) I forgot to turn on the boost pump =96 = this makes my CHT temps go up starting at 7000 ft. When I turn the = boost pump on everything usually stays below 385F. Since I am burning so = much fuel in climb I would be happy if you could recommend power = settings for the climb. >=20 > =20 >=20 > At 10000 I tried the recommended TCM MAX Cruise power settings and it = made my head temps slowly creep up. I stopped at 400F. And I even went = richer than TCM recommended. The temp spread between TIT max and TIT at = TCM max cruise was only 40F. It seems my engine does not like it =96 = have you experienced anything similar? It seems I am on the down slope = of the TIT curve but still around the peak of the CHT. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Unfortunately my IAS at 10000 were significantly lower that Jeff = Liegner=92s at 8000 in a previous posting L. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Some of the power settings gave me not a perfect smooth running engine = =96 I probably should not call it rough. >=20 > =20 >=20 > I have the B version of the engine which is rated for 38 inHG. But it = just does not want to go up all the way. I tried to adjust the rpm at = the governor but it does not change much. The RPMs go up to 2700 on some = days most of the time they stay at 2670 or so. I never saw 38 inHG so = far =96 any comments? >=20 > =20 >=20 > Since the last max power test I put the gap seals on (4 tapes per = control surface from wings and wheels) and I coated the plane with Kiss = polymers. I think I see an improvement of 3 kts or so. How much the = plenum (with all the sealing recommendations from Fred Moreno) helped I = cannot tell because I don=92t have real before / after data. Between the = before / after rebuilt of the complete airplane the speed of the plane = increased by 20 to 25 kts (but I had huge holes and gaps in/around the = fuselage). >=20 > =20 >=20 > Static wicks: the outer one on the aileron vibrates a lot. The inner = one seems almost still. I lost already the two outer ones because they = unscrewed themselves. Do you use Loctide for yours or do I have an = extraordinary problem going on. The ones on the elevator I can=92t see = but they are still there so I assume they are fine. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Thanks for your help >=20 > =20 >=20 > Ralf >=20 --Apple-Mail-2--819682127 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
John


On = Aug 29, 2011, at 11:07 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote:

Ralf,

Re your static = wick. Put a couple of layers of shrink tube on it to stiffen it = up.

Jeff 

Sent from my = iPad

On Aug 29, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Craig Berland. <cberland@systems3.net> = wrote:

Ralf,

Your LOP numbers look pretty good=85.including = speed. That is assuming your IAS is correct. Line number 32 is a little = too rich for my blood.  TCM max cruise is about as abusive as its = gets.  I would never run my engine there.  The problem I see = is your take-off fuel rate is set too low.  It should be around 41 = gph at your take off RPM and MAP.  At 38 inHg and 2700 rpm, it = should be around 43 gph. I am pretty sure the low =93full rich=94 fuel = rate is what is causing your climb out CHT=92s to climb above 380 = degF.  I had my electric fuel low boost switch fail and my CHT=92s = went up to 400 degF at 16000.  I descended to 12000 and finished = the trip home without low boost.  Increase your take off fuel rate = and you will be happy.  =93I think=94.

Craig

 

Dear subscribers,

 

Thanks = to everybody to help me understand the LOP operations. The Pelican = articles helped a lot and Craig spend a lot of time writing everything = down for me.

 

I determined my TIT (which was surprisingly low) and = I took all the discussed power settings and ran them at 10000 and 18000. = I waited several minutes on each setting to make sure that I have stable = conditions.

 

In my table you can find the climb and all the power = settings we discussed so far.  May be you have some recommendations = after looking at my data.

 

IAS and = TAS I took from my steam gage =96 any corrections are welcome to correct = my numbers.

 

In climb (full fuel =96 just me) I forgot to turn on = the boost pump =96 this makes my CHT temps go up starting at 7000 ft. = When I  turn the boost pump on everything usually stays below 385F. = Since I am burning so much fuel in climb I would be happy if you could = recommend power settings for the climb.

 

At 10000 = I tried the recommended TCM MAX Cruise power settings and it made my = head temps slowly creep up. I stopped at 400F. And I even went = richer than TCM recommended. The temp spread between TIT max and TIT at = TCM max cruise was only 40F. It seems my engine does not like it =96 = have you experienced anything similar? It seems I am on the down slope = of the TIT curve but still around the peak of the CHT.

 

Unfortunately my IAS at 10000 were significantly = lower that Jeff Liegner=92s at 8000 in a previous posting L.

 

Some of = the power settings gave me not a perfect smooth running engine =96 I = probably should not call it rough.

 

I have = the B version of the engine which is rated for 38 inHG. But it just does = not want to go up all the way. I tried to adjust the rpm at the governor = but it does not change much. The RPMs go up to 2700 on some days most of = the time they stay at 2670 or so. I never saw 38 inHG so far =96 any = comments?

 

Since the last max power test I put the gap = seals on (4 tapes per control surface from wings and wheels) and I = coated the plane with Kiss polymers. I think I see an improvement of 3 = kts or so. How much the plenum (with all the sealing recommendations = from Fred Moreno) helped I cannot tell because I don=92t have real = before / after data. Between the before / after rebuilt of the complete = airplane the speed of the plane increased by 20 to 25 kts (but I had = huge holes and gaps in/around the fuselage).

 

Static = wicks: the outer one on the aileron vibrates a lot. The inner one seems = almost still. I lost already the two outer ones because they unscrewed = themselves. Do you use Loctide for yours or do I have an extraordinary = problem going on. The ones on the elevator I can=92t see but they are = still there so I assume they are fine.

 

Thanks = for your help

 

Ralf


= --Apple-Mail-2--819682127--