X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:47:38 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.61] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTP id 1617248 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:32:49 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.61; envelope-from=liegner@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=ILEd6+QpvfJzfDbYMG4oDp77f7lJDGq0up3Cais1tPOrXTRlMz7BjpoW4Q4xgtk7; h=Received:Mime-Version:X-Sender:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:Date:To:From:Subject:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [70.44.60.244] (helo=[172.16.1.8]) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Gp8gl-0003Rw-0C for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:32:19 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: liegner@earthlink.net@pop.earthlink.net X-Original-Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:56:00 -0500 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" From: "Jeffrey Liegner, MD" Subject: Re: New (2006) TSIO550E Lean of Peak (LOP) Operation Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1047380133==_ma============" X-ELNK-Trace: edc6c9c2805b57e3d780f4a490ca69563f9fea00a6dd62bc7ebf49080c47963788355778b9574d2a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 70.44.60.244 --============_-1047380133==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Who amoung us has asked for a fix or refund from TCM based on the EGT/GPH spread >0.4 gph? Before I launch into that discussion with TCM, I'd like some substance and history on previous discussions of a similar nature. Likewise, I'd love to see others' EGT spread vs mixture (gph) data for the TSIO550, particularly from those that claim a tighter spread, so I can reference this info in my discussions with TCM. Specify if these are GAMI injectors or TCM injectors. Help me... Jeff L From: Walter Atkinson >I shoot for a .3 GAMI spread or better. Some engines can run >acceptably smooth with a .4 spread. > >Frankly, yours are not much better than many of the old standard TCM >injectors. I'd want TCM to fix that, or give me a refund. > >Walter >>> >>>From: "Jeffrey Liegner, MD" >>><liegner@earthlink.net> >>>Date: November 26, 2006 6:44:05 PM PST >>>To: lml@lancaironline.net >>>Subject: Re: New (2006) TSIO550E Lean of Peak (LOP) Operations >>> >>> >>>George is the most renowned advisor on tuned injectors and engine >>>management. >>> >>>What I thought was a fairly tight grouping of EGT peaks with the >>>new TCM engine appears to be less than optimum compared to GAMI >>>standards. >>> >>>Replotting the data with more carefully analysis at the peak temps: >>> PEAK Fuel Flow >>> Cylinder 1: 21.1 gph >>> Cylinder 2: 21.6 gph >>> Cylinder 3: 21.1 gph >>> Cylinder 4: 21.8 gph >>> Cylinder 5: 21.0 gph >>> Cylinder 6: 21.6 gph >>> >>>Spread: 0.8 gallons per hour >>> >>> (This stuff is fascinating) >>> >>>>Posted for "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>: >>>> >>>> Jeffrey, >>>> If that is a TCM copy of GAMI's fuel injector set up, they you need >>>> to ask for your money back. >>>> That is a fairly lousy set of fuel /air ratios. >>>> Your #4 consistently is the leanest cylinder and your # 1 & 5 are >>>> consistently rather much richer ( by 1 gph or so). >>>> This is not a trivial issue for one of the se engines. They tend to >>>> operate much better with the F/A ratios such that the spread in fuel >>>> flows is down around 0.3 gph. >>>> Regards, George >>>> --============_-1047380133==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: New (2006) TSIO550E Lean of Peak (LOP) Operation
Who amoung us has asked for a fix or refund from TCM based on the EGT/GPH spread >0.4 gph?  Before I launch into that discussion with TCM, I'd like some substance and history on previous discussions of a similar nature.

Likewise, I'd love to see others' EGT spread vs mixture (gph) data for the TSIO550, particularly from those that claim a tighter spread, so I can reference this info in my discussions with TCM.  Specify if these are GAMI injectors or TCM injectors.

Help me...

Jeff L




From: Walter Atkinson <walter@advancedpilot.com>
I shoot for a .3 GAMI spread or better.  Some engines can run acceptably smooth with a .4 spread.

Frankly, yours are not much better than many of the old standard TCM injectors.  I'd want TCM to fix that, or give me a refund.

Walter




From: "Jeffrey Liegner, MD" <liegner@earthlink.net>
Date: November 26, 2006 6:44:05 PM PST
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: New (2006) TSIO550E Lean of Peak (LOP) Operations


George is the most renowned advisor on tuned injectors and engine management.

What I thought was a fairly tight grouping of EGT peaks with the new TCM engine appears to be less than optimum compared to GAMI standards.

Replotting the data with more carefully analysis at the peak temps:
               PEAK        Fuel Flow
               Cylinder 1: 21.1 gph
               Cylinder 2: 21.6 gph
               Cylinder 3: 21.1 gph
               Cylinder 4: 21.8 gph
               Cylinder 5: 21.0 gph
               Cylinder 6: 21.6 gph

Spread: 0.8 gallons per hour

                       (This stuff is fascinating)

Posted for "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>:

 Jeffrey,
    If  that is a TCM copy of  GAMI's fuel injector set up,  they you need
 to ask for your money back.
    That is a fairly lousy set of  fuel /air ratios.
    Your #4 consistently is the leanest cylinder and your # 1 & 5 are
 consistently rather much richer ( by 1 gph or so).
    This is not a trivial issue for one of the se engines.   They tend to
 operate much better with the  F/A ratios such that the spread in fuel
 flows is down around 0.3 gph.
    Regards,  George
 

--============_-1047380133==_ma============--