X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.180.31] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.6) with ESMTPS id 6454685 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 21:02:16 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.32.180.31; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com Received: from mail205-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.229) by VA3EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (10.7.40.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 01:01:39 +0000 Received: from mail205-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail205-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7863F3000D6 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 01:01:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.245.5;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:CH1PRD0710HT001.namprd07.prod.outlook.com;RD:none;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -1 X-BigFish: PS-1(zz98dIc85dhzz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1d7338h1de098h17326ah18c673h1de097h186068h8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h839hd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h1155h) Received-SPF: pass (mail205-va3: domain of htii.com designates 157.56.245.5 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.245.5; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com; helo=CH1PRD0710HT001.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ;.outlook.com ; Received: from mail205-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail205-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1378342896504285_14479; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 01:01:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from VA3EHSMHS019.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.232]) by mail205-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E3E700051 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 01:01:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1PRD0710HT001.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.245.5) by VA3EHSMHS019.bigfish.com (10.7.99.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 01:01:36 +0000 Received: from CH1PRD0710MB367.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.116]) by CH1PRD0710HT001.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.152.36]) with mapi id 14.16.0353.003; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 01:01:35 +0000 From: Robert R Pastusek To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: RE: [LML] low boost on take off Thread-Topic: [LML] low boost on take off Thread-Index: AQHOqZ7iyiRYis0LrkKEF/UI9NrzNJm2S4EA Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 01:01:35 +0000 Message-ID: <41361035E6613244A377D5AC3BF5EFDD668A4605@CH1PRD0710MB367.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [96.241.131.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_41361035E6613244A377D5AC3BF5EFDD668A4605CH1PRD0710MB367_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: rpastusek@htii.com X-OriginatorOrg: htii.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% --_000_41361035E6613244A377D5AC3BF5EFDD668A4605CH1PRD0710MB367_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Shane Bangerter wrote: What is the best practice for use of low boost fuel pressure pump for the I= V-P TSIO 550 E? Activate on take off or wait to a certain altitude? I hav= e been flying into Colorado Springs elevation 6,187 with density altitudes = over 8,000 this summer and wonder if I should activate the low boost pump w= hile on the ground. Shane, I flew my TSIO-550E-equipped IV-P without the boost pump turned on below 14= ,000' for the first 3 years/500 hours or so. About two years ago, I had the= engine roll back (my wife's viewpoint: It quit!!) during climb out of Gran= d Cayman on a rather hot day. This happened a few more times after refuelin= g out of above ground storage tanks in the summer. My rationale for not using the boost pump was that I'd set up the engine fo= r WOT/Takeoff Power without the fuel pump, and low boost ran the fuel flow = a bit above the recommended 42-44 GPH. Then one particularly hot day, I not= ed the cylinder temps approaching 420 during WOT climb, so I turned on the = low boost. The small amount of extra fuel brought the temps down below 400 = almost immediately. So I started taking off and climbing with the low boos= t on...and I've not had a "roll back" for more than a year...saving my wife= from those awful-sounding proclamations to her friends. So I am now using low boost for takeoff, climb out and cruise above 14,000'= . If I'm cruising below 14,000, I usually turn it off after we're stabilize= d in cruise--and cooled down a bit if it's a particularly warm day. BTW, I takeoff and climb at WOT to cruise altitude if ATC allows, or when V= FR, then run LOP at about 65% power for cruise. At 1000+ hours, my engine a= nd plugs are always clean; absolutely no carbon buildup, and zero oil consu= mption. My thoughts are that when the engine fuel pump and system/seals were all ne= w, it could draw the needed fuel under all flight conditions, but as the co= mponents wore through normal use, small internal leaks allowed the fuel to = vaporize within the system, causing the roll backs. I have carefully checke= d the system for external leaks, both by pressurizing the system, and by dr= awing a vacuum on it. No external leaks in two separate tests. One other thing that might impact. After my kit was nearly complete, Lancai= r recommended enlarging the fuel tank-to-fuel selector valve lines from 3/8= " to =BD". As my system was already assembled and tested (and a number of L= ancairs had flown for years with the 3/8" lines) I did not make this change= . Bottom line: I'd (now) recommend running with low boost, with the possible = exception of low/medium altitude cruise. The (standard Lancair-provided) pu= mp is rated for several thousand hours of continuous use on low boost. Jeff= Edwards always told me it was a good "extra safety item." I've come to acc= ept this philosophy as I've gained time and experience in this magic carpet= . My two cents... Bob --_000_41361035E6613244A377D5AC3BF5EFDD668A4605CH1PRD0710MB367_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Shane Bangerter wrote:=

 

What is the best practice for use of low boost fuel = pressure pump for the IV-P TSIO 550 E?  Activate on take off or wait to a certain altitude? = I have been flying into Colorado Springs elevation 6,187 with density alti= tudes over 8,000 this summer and wonder if I should activate the low boost = pump while  on the ground.

 

Shane,

I flew my TSIO-550E-equipped IV-P without the boost pump turned= on below 14,000’ for the first 3 years/500 hours or so. About two years ago, I had the engine roll back (my wife’s vi= ewpoint: It quit!!) during climb out of Grand Cayman on a rather hot day. T= his happened a few more times after refueling out of above ground storage t= anks in the summer.


My rationale for not using the boost pump was that I’d set up the eng= ine for WOT/Takeoff Power without the fuel pump, and low boost ran the fuel= flow a bit above the recommended 42-44 GPH. Then one particularly hot day,= I noted the cylinder temps approaching 420 during WOT climb, so I turned on the low boost. The small amount of ex= tra fuel brought the temps down below 400 almost immediately.  So I started taking off and c= limbing with the low boost on…and I’ve not had a “roll ba= ck” for more than a year…saving my wife from those awful-soundi= ng proclamations to her friends.

 

So I am now using low boost for takeoff, climb out and cruise a= bove 14,000’. If I’m cruising below 14,000, I usually turn it off after we’re stabilized in cruise--and cooled dow= n a bit if it’s a particularly warm day.

 

BTW, I takeoff and climb at WOT to cruise altitude if ATC allow= s, or when VFR, then run LOP at about 65% power for cruise. At 1000+ hours, my engine and plugs are always clean; abso= lutely no carbon buildup, and zero oil consumption.

 

My thoughts are that when the engine fuel pump and system/seals= were all new, it could draw the needed fuel under all flight conditions, but as the components wore through normal use, smal= l internal leaks allowed the fuel to vaporize within the system, causing th= e roll backs. I have carefully checked the system for external leaks, both = by pressurizing the system, and by drawing a vacuum on it. No external leaks in two separate tests.

 

One other thing that might impact. After my kit was nearly comp= lete, Lancair recommended enlarging the fuel tank-to-fuel selector valve lines from 3/8” to =BD”. As my system was alrea= dy assembled and tested (and a number of Lancairs had flown for years with the 3/8R= 21; lines) I did not make this change.

 

Bottom line: I’d (now) recommend running with low boost, = with the possible exception of low/medium altitude cruise. The (standard Lancair-provided) pump is rated for several thousand hours o= f continuous use on low boost. Jeff Edwards always told me it was a good &#= 8220;extra safety item.” I’ve come to accept this philosophy as= I’ve gained time and experience in this magic carpet.

 

My two cents…


Bob

 

--_000_41361035E6613244A377D5AC3BF5EFDD668A4605CH1PRD0710MB367_--