Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:48:07 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-2102305@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.61; envelope-from=rtitsworth@mindspring.com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com;
  b=H2qPaNg/VONFkeM5SxWy0cyhxZZF2Q+lga6jd4csEqNasjKH4MUxQjQf31PI2Gdc;
  h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To:Thread-Index:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
From: "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Boost switch
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <list-2101393@logan.com>
Thread-Index: AceuRKaiWkPyY1e1RO+gMzUCT1ROJQAMcH7A

-----Original Message-----
>  From: Lancair Mailing List On Behalf Of bob mackey

>  Hmmm... flipping on the boost pump causes fuel flow to increase by
>  4-5 gph? And *your* engine didn't quit *this time*?  Good thing it was
>lean enough to tolerate that extra gulp of gasoline...(snip)

"Lean" is a condition where the mixture is less than stochimetric (i.e.
LOP).  I doubt that was the case during Jeff's test given the particular
question at hand (Jeff pls confirm).

Calling a rich mixture "lean" when it is really just "less rich" than some
other "richer" mixture can be misleading and/or interpreted by some as even
technically incorrect.  I know many back yard mechanics will say "lean 'er
out", when they really just mean "make it less rich" - but that doesn't make
it correct and/or descriptively helpful.  Bob, I doubt your real intent here
is to add confusion.

I'm also a bit confused in your "*this time*" comment?  Are you implying
that you expect/suspect the results to change if the same test is repeated
again (and/or many times)?  Do you have any thoughts/assumptions as to the
source of the non-repeatability (short of an explicit component failure)?

Jeff's test seems to show that the TCM fuel system works well (if setup
correctly) and is even tolerant of potentially incorrectly applied high
boost, (at least within the range of his test conditions).  Jeff, can you
pls share your test conditions i.e. density altitude, power settings, etc
and re-confirm your normal fuel flow set points.

Bob, is your point that the TCM fuel system is poorly designed (or unsafe)
because it doesn't work well if it is set up incorrectly (i.e. outside
factory specs/range)?  That point might be valid in the context of
highlighting the importance of the correct setup/adjustment.  However, I
fail to see the connection with assuming/concluding it's a bad design.
Correct setup/assembly applies to many (most) items on these machines and
does not therefore pre-suppose a bad, nor unsafe design.  Same applies to
Lycosorus, etc.

Generally, it would be ideal to have a system that didn't require any
setup/adjustment/calibration ever (and also had few parts and fewer
potential failure modes).  However, those goals are often mutually
exclusive.  Lindburgh himself demonstrated the elegance/success of the
simplicity based design strategy.  I suppose modern jetliners demonstrate
the safety of a redundancy/complexity/automation oriented design strategy.
However, both strategies/designs have lead to occasional failures with fatal
outcomes.  Tradeoffs,tradeoffs.

You are of course free to fly behind whatever you like.  But, throwing out
innuendo without the associated facts, clarity, and/or remedies and/or
implying that others who don't share your "feelings/opinions" are unsafe
and/or uninformed actually confuses the point more than it helps.

Imho,
Rick