Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #54523
From: Wolfgang <Wolfgang@MiCom.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: FW: IO-550N MP/RPM vs % HP table
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:09:18 -0500
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
The reason I say that is exemplified here, http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184483-1.html
 
Wolfgang

From: "Wolfgang" <Wolfgang@MiCom.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: FW: IO-550N MP/RPM vs % HP table
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:30:31 -0500
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Curious thing about that chart for the Columbia 350, it shows the power level being a function of fuel consumption regardless of RPM.
 
Wolfgang

 
From: "Frederick Moreno" <frederickmoreno@bigpond.com>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: FW: IO-550N MP/RPM vs % HP tablež
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:59:31 -0500
To: lml@lancaironline.net

The attached chart should help with some of your work.  Power changes for a given manifold pressure with altitude because the backpressure on the engine is changing.  So a complete set of tables is necessary.  I have the  Columbia Pilots Operating Handbook as a PDF and can copy some of the tables if you wish.  Let me know what altitude you are interested in. I have put in one table for 8000 feet below. 

I have extracted some max power climb fuel flows vs. altitude from the Columbia manifold and fuel flows for 50F lean of  peak operation and put them together on an Excel file, also attached.  I printed this and stuck it on my panel below my engine monitor since my memory is a sieve nowadays. 

Fred Moreno

PS the 2000 RPM limitation is an airframe limitation, not an engine limitation (something somewhere must vibrate a lot). 

 

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster