X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:44:21 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from sfa.gami.com ([68.89.254.162] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTP id 2080564 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:14:26 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.89.254.162; envelope-from=gwbraly@gami.com Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sfa.gami.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2B129C06E for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2007 12:13:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sdf1.mail.taturbo.com (unknown [10.10.10.173]) by sfa.gami.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C7729C05E for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2007 12:13:48 -0500 (CDT) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7A539.62267ACF" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Subject: RE: [LML] Re: TSIO 550 LOP X-Original-Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 12:13:48 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: TSIO 550 LOP Thread-Index: AcelM5v37XGxTY5vRgGpRX4kdZ8fXAABkE0g References: From: "George Braly" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.3.2 (20050629) (Debian) at gami.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7A539.62267ACF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well... then instead of your INDICATED usage of 18.9, you have an actual usage of about 17.9 - - which is going in the right direction. =20 Still - - at 17.9 and 2500 and 29.5 - - - that still sounds a bit high for 100 F LOP at 29.5" MP. =20 =20 _____ =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Farnsworth Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 11:32 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: TSIO 550 LOP =20 George, =20 I put in less gas than the fuel used says has been used. It is about 1 gallon per hour (at cruise) less usage than the fuel flow says. =20 Lynn =20 _____ =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of marv@lancair.net Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:00 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: TSIO 550 LOP =20 Posted for "George Braly" : Lynn, Something "doesn't fit". IF you were 103d LOP - - - at 18.9 gph, the MP would have had to be up around 36" . It wasn't.=20 I suspect that your fuel flow gage is in error. But it could be some other issues. Have you calibrated your fuel flow against the gas pump re-fill volumes ? George Farnsworth wrote """ When I was being checked in the plane out by Orin Ridell he did a "GAMI" check. I believe the # 5 EGT peaked at 1528 F. That is what I've used as the reference EGT for adjusting to lean of peak. Based on that, this flight was 103 F lean of peak. Why am I getting the feeling that I may have been operating using incorrect procedures/data? Lynn """ -- =20 For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7A539.62267ACF Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well… then instead = of your INDICATED usage of 18.9, you have an actual usage of about 17.9 - = - which is going in the right direction.

Still - - at 17.9 and 2500 and = 29.5 - - - that still sounds a bit high for 100 F LOP at = 29.5” MP.

From: = Lancair Mailing List = [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Farnsworth
Sent: Saturday, June 02, = 2007 11:32 AM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: TSIO = 550 LOP

George,

=

I put in less gas than the fuel = used says has been used. It is about 1 gallon per hour (at cruise) less usage than = the fuel flow says.

Lynn

From: = Lancair Mailing List = [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of marv@lancair.net
Sent: Saturday, June 02, = 2007 9:00 AM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: TSIO = 550 LOP

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

Lynn,

Something "doesn't fit".

IF you were 103d LOP - - - at 18.9 gph, the MP would have had to be
up around 36" . It wasn't.

I suspect that your fuel flow gage is in error. But it could be some
other issues.

Have you calibrated your fuel flow against the gas pump re-fill = volumes
?

George

Farnsworth wrote
"""
When I was being checked in the plane out by Orin Ridell he did a "GAMI"
check. I believe the # 5 EGT peaked at 1528 F. That is what I've used = as
the reference EGT for adjusting to lean of peak. Based on that, this
flight was 103 F lean of peak.

Why am I getting the feeling that I may have been operating using
incorrect procedures/data?

Lynn
"""

--

For =
archives and unsub =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

------_=_NextPart_001_01C7A539.62267ACF--