X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:25:39 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.12.143.101] (HELO imo-m13.mail.aol.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3747948 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:01:27 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.143.101; envelope-from=PTACKABURY@aol.com Received: from imo-da01.mx.aol.com (imo-da01.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.199]) by imo-m13.mail.aol.com (v107.10) with ESMTP id RELAYIN1-24a537118ed; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:00:24 -0400 Received: from PTACKABURY@aol.com by imo-da01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v40_r1.5.) id q.c04.63639b3b (48600) for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:00:43 -0400 (EDT) From: PTACKABURY@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:04:20 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Engine settings - TSIO-550 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1246982660" X-Mailer: AOL 9.1 sub 5006 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-IP: 205.188.169.199 -------------------------------1246982660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob/John: I have 2 LSE ignitions and have set my engine up as Bob describes. Interesting I went thru a mid course adjustment too as the max power TO fuel flow dropped a bit after about 100 hrs. The only thing I do differently is climb LOP. After takeoff it is 34"/2500rpm and 18gph at 170kias. This yields about 900fpm climb and CHTs peaking at 360. At level off I reduce power to 32" for cruse and with out changing anything else I get 17gph, 200kias and CHTs peaking at 330. paul, N94PT In a message dated 7/7/2009 5:04:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rpastusek@htii.com writes: John Barrett wrote: The TCM guidelines are clear and that is probably fine to go with (?) but is there any reason to modify this with a Performance Engines engine with one Lightspeed ignition and one mag? John, I originally set up my Performance Engines TSIO-550 (2 mags) to flow 43 GPH at 2700 RPM and 38.5" MP on takeoff. My technique is to advance the throttle all the way over about 3-5 seconds to minimize rudder/braking and prop damage at the start of the roll, and I get to those numbers at about 10 seconds after reaching full throttle on TO. I climb at full rich, 2500 RPM, approx 32" MP and 160 kts after the airplane is cleaned up. This requires periodic throttle adjustment to maintain 32" MP as I climb, and results in a fuel flow of about 30 GPH and very cool running engine. Over the winter, I noticed that the fuel flow was slowly decreasing during both TO and climb...to about 38 GPH and 27 GPH respectively. Also, as the weather got warmer this spring, I saw cylinder temps (#3) reach 380 degrees for the first time ever (at about 200 hours TT engine & airframe). During the condition inspection in May (250 hrs TT), I boosted the fuel flow back to 43 GPH on TO with the above MP and RPM settings. This returned my cylinder temps to below 380 until today, when I hit 380 passing 15,000' in the climb on #3. This was over New Mexico, with surface temps above 100 and the ISA deviation at 15,000 at +40 degrees. I leveled at cruise altitude of 16,000 and the cylinder temp quickly dropped back to its normal 340 or so. This was an unusually hot day and the cylinders never got near the 420 recommended as max continuous, so I'm thinking the fuel flow and technique are still OK. The new Continental specs call for a fuel flow of 38 GPH at the above (TO) settings. The old spec was 44 GPH. I don't know why they changed...perhaps because the engine will quit if fed too much fuel and they wanted to introduce a safety margin? My engine quits at about 48 GPH on TO roll on an approximately standard day (ask me how I know). 38 GPH is not enough fuel flow to keep my cylinders cool during less than full-power climb (32" MP @ 2500 RPM). It might be OK at full throttle/2700, but I have never run the engine that hard for the extended time it takes to climb to altitude, and don't intend to. So for me, 43-44 GPH seems to be a good TO fuel flow setting for my engine. BTW, as noted in a recent post, turning the boost pump on high on TO will run the fuel flow to about 48-50 GPH and stall the engine... It will also stall the engine if turned on high at idle. Some run the fuel pump on low continuously from engine start. I set my engine up to the above figures with the boost pump off. My rationale is that the engine runs fine without it; if the engine pump fails, the boost pump will keep it going, at least at partial power. If the engine is set up to run optimally with both engine-driven and electric boost pumps on, a failure of either pump will cause a problem. At the minimum, the engine won't develop full power, will over heat, and may stall. This is all from reading several sources that disagree slightly, and my own testing/experience. I'd welcome the views of others, and any better sources/rationale! Bob -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html **************Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on tour at TourTracker.com. (http://www.tourtracker.com/?ncid=emlcntusmusi00000006) -------------------------------1246982660 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bob/John:  I have 2 LSE ignitions and have set my engine up as= Bob describes.  Interesting I went thru a mid course adjustment too as th= e max power TO fuel flow dropped a bit after about 100 hrs.  The only thing= I do differently is climb LOP.  After takeoff it is 34"/2500rpm and 18gph= at 170kias.  This yields about 900fpm climb and CHTs peaking at 360.&nbs= p; At level off I reduce power to 32" for cruse and with out changing anything= else I get 17gph, 200kias and CHTs peaking at 330.
paul, N94PT
 
In a message dated 7/7/2009 5:04:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rpastusek@htii.com writes:
John Barrett wrote:

The TCM guidelines are clear and that is probably= fine to go with (?) but is
there any reason to modify this with a Performa= nce Engines engine with one
Lightspeed ignition and one mag?

John,=
I originally set up my Performance Engines TSIO-550 (2 mags) to flow 43 GPH
at 2700 RPM and 38.5" MP on takeoff. My technique is to advance= the throttle
all the way over about 3-5 seconds to minimize rudder/brakin= g and prop
damage at the start of the roll, and I get to those numbers at= about 10
seconds after reaching full throttle on TO.

I climb at full= rich, 2500 RPM, approx 32" MP and 160 kts after the airplane
is cleaned up.= This requires periodic throttle adjustment to maintain 32" MP
as I climb,= and results in a fuel flow of about 30 GPH and very cool running
engine.= Over the winter, I noticed that the fuel flow was slowly decreasing
during= both TO and climb...to about 38 GPH and 27 GPH respectively. Also, as
the= weather got warmer this spring, I saw cylinder temps (#3) reach 380
d= egrees for the first time ever (at about 200 hours TT engine & airframe).=

During the condition inspection in May (250 hrs TT), I boosted= the fuel flow
back to 43 GPH on TO with the above MP and RPM settings. Th= is returned my
cylinder temps to below 380 until today, when I hit 380= passing 15,000' in
the climb on #3. This was over New Mexico, with surface te= mps above 100 and
the ISA deviation at 15,000 at +40 degrees. I leveled= at cruise altitude of
16,000 and the cylinder temp quickly dropped back= to its normal 340 or so.
This was an unusually hot day and the cylinders nev= er got near the 420
recommended as max continuous, so I'm thinking the fuel= flow and technique
are still OK.

The new Continental specs call for= a fuel flow of 38 GPH at the above (TO)
settings. The old spec was 44= GPH. I don't know why they changed...perhaps
because the engine will quit if= fed too much fuel and they wanted to
introduce a safety margin? My engine= quits at about 48 GPH on TO roll on an
approximately standard day (ask me= how I know). 38 GPH is not enough fuel
flow to keep my cylinders cool durin= g less than full-power climb (32" MP @
2500 RPM). It might be OK at full throttle/2700, but I have never run the
engine that hard for the exte= nded time it takes to climb to altitude, and
don't intend to. So for me,= 43-44 GPH seems to be a good TO fuel flow
setting for my engine.

BTW= , as noted in a recent post, turning the boost pump on high on TO will
run= the fuel flow to about 48-50 GPH and stall the engine... It will also
sta= ll the engine if turned on high at idle. Some run the fuel pump on low
continuously from engine start. I set my engine up to the above= figures with
the boost pump off. My rationale is that the engine runs fine wi= thout it; if
the engine pump fails, the boost pump will keep it going, at= least at
partial power. If the engine is set up to run optimally with both
engine-driven and electric boost pumps on, a failure of either= pump will
cause a problem. At the minimum, the engine won't develop full= power, will
over heat, and may stall.

This is all from reading severa= l sources that disagree slightly, and my own
testing/experience. I'd we= lcome the views of others, and any better
sources/rationale!

Bob


--
For archives an= d unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
 -------------------------------1246982660--