X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:35:28 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: <210flyer@earthlink.net> Received: from smtpauth09.mail.atl.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.69] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.6) with ESMTP id 1050940 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 18:33:31 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.69; envelope-from=210flyer@earthlink.net Received: from [69.3.123.106] (helo=dune) by smtpauth09.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Dr1Oo-0008KP-Hx for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 18:32:46 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=test1; d=earthlink.net; h=From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:X-MimeOLE; b=hp/j/AxohEKhb9oMDwjV5ovxy/NzKkSackk8rfvUIIWZoePOyMCpzc2Kw4MkMO9K; From: "Mike Hutchins" <210flyer@earthlink.net> X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Turbo Loss Consequences X-Original-Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:32:44 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C583DA.ABAE8E60" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: AcWEDPWDxjxgdQ4PRlSJ99CpaAPylg== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-ELNK-Trace: 96606e18df264d301aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79ba19f637fab8467e29213befdf460a88350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 69.3.123.106 X-Original-Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C583DA.ABAE8E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi George, I copied your suggested protocol for turbo loss for inclusion into my checklists. I think it is a well reasoned approach to what could be a high risk-low probability event. I was wondering if enrichening the mixture to further decrease the EGTs would be a useful adjunct to the protocol? Or do you think it would be better to lean to peak power and then further reduce the power setting to the minimum required? I realize that the temps will already be significantly lower as a result of the decreased power setting. Since many of my flights take me across the Rockies, precautionary landing sites are occasionally rather distant and beyond the gliding range of my aircraft. In addition, I just replaced the main exhaust component that supports my (single) turbo due to unrepairable cracks, so this topic is near and dear to my heart. Best Regards, Mike ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C583DA.ABAE8E60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi George,

 

I copied your suggested protocol for turbo loss for inclusion into my checklists. I think it is a well reasoned approach to = what could be a high risk-low probability event.

 

I was wondering if enrichening the mixture to further = decrease the EGTs would be a useful adjunct to the protocol? Or do you think it = would be better to lean to peak power and then further reduce the power setting = to the minimum required? I realize that the temps will already be significantly = lower as a result of the decreased power setting. Since many of my flights = take me across the Rockies, precautionary = landing sites are occasionally rather distant and beyond the gliding range of my aircraft. In addition, I just replaced the main exhaust component that = supports my (single) turbo due to unrepairable cracks, so this topic is near and = dear to my heart.

 

Best Regards,

Mike

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C583DA.ABAE8E60--