X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:30:48 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.66] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3544737 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:54:11 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.66; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=AO/3dxQaaki2IFM4nfzI6I1Co8Zjl87pR/Hs2xcn0lmj3oNW8lp1IItxs6mZ4vu6; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [216.57.118.63] (helo=ccaselt3) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Lhb38-00064E-Sv for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:53:35 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <01e801c9a2bd$b80a2100$6501a8c0@nvidia.com> From: "Colyn Case at earthlink" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LOP vs ROP Climb: Time and Fuel Burn (LIVP) X-Original-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:53:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01E5_01C9A29C.30946800" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da94060fabea0ee15217414a1169c97fd9329350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.63 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01E5_01C9A29C.30946800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] LOP vs ROP Climb: Time and Fuel Burn (LIVP)Jeff, that's interesting. I wonder why you get those high temps. I wonder what is different in our engine setups. my CHT's are steady @380 in the max/max condition @140knots. It's been tested to 20,000 in that config. CHT's get better than that with less power or more speed. I have exhaust tunnel extensions which seem to make a huge difference = for cooling. also have ceramic coated exhaust. I don't know how much of a factor = that is. Some will say that 2700rpm is a bad idea because of higher friction = losses. On the other hand the flame front always moves at the same speed so if = the crank is turning faster your theta pp (angle after top dead center where = peak pressure occurs) is bigger and the peak pressure is less. ....which seems good for everything. = the pulse on the crank is not as concentrated, the CHT's are lower. assuming everything else = is setup right. Colyn ------=_NextPart_000_01E5_01C9A29C.30946800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] LOP vs ROP Climb: Time and Fuel Burn = (LIVP)
Jeff,
that's interesting.  I wonder why = you get=20 those high temps.
I wonder what is different in our = engine=20 setups.
my CHT's are steady @380 in the max/max = condition=20 @140knots.
It's been tested to 20,000 in that=20 config.
CHT's get better than that  with = less power or=20 more speed.
I have exhaust tunnel extensions which = seem to make=20 a huge difference for cooling.
also have ceramic coated exhaust.  = I don't=20 know how much of a factor that is.
 
Some will say that 2700rpm is a bad = idea because of=20 higher friction losses.
On the other hand the flame front = always moves at=20 the same speed so if the
crank is turning faster your theta pp = (angle after=20 top dead center where peak pressure occurs) is bigger
and the peak pressure is less.  = ....which=20 seems good for everything.  the pulse on the crank
is not as concentrated, the CHT's are = lower. =20 assuming everything else is setup right.
 
Colyn
------=_NextPart_000_01E5_01C9A29C.30946800--