X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:45:20 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1032578@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <colyncase@earthlink.net>
Received: from HQEMGATE01.nvidia.com ([216.228.112.170] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.6)
  with ESMTP id 1032074 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:48:37 -0400
Received-SPF: neutral
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.228.112.170; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net
Received: from hqemfe03.nvidia.com (Not Verified[172.16.227.123]) by HQEMGATE01.nvidia.com
	id <B42cad5cb0000>; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:47:39 -0700
Received: from ccaselt ([172.16.228.84]) by hqemfe03.nvidia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:47:40 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID: <029f01c58192$0513f710$f610020a@nvidia.com>
From: "colyncase on earthlink" <colyncase@earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-1031947@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Turbo loss consequences?
X-Original-Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:47:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Original-Return-Path: colyncase@earthlink.net
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2005 18:47:40.0587 (UTC) FILETIME=[05687FB0:01C58192]

Robert, I don't have the answer. But I think you lose 50% of your input air 
volume
so that you are not much better than an NA installation at that point.

Colyn

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "N301ES" <lancair@ustek.com>
To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 10:03 AM
Subject: [LML] Turbo loss consequences?


> Perhaps the LML could enlighten me, as I have found the data nowhere 
> printed:
>
> If one of the twin turbos on a Cont TSIO550 were to crap out,
>
>
> 1.) what would be the new critical altitude for 75% power?
>
>
> 2.) what would be the new critical altitude for an 8,500 ft cabin 
> pressure?
>
>
>
> Robert M. Simon,  ES-P N301ES
>
>
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/