X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 07:33:25 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-4576306@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <jimenez.craig@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-ey0-f180.google.com ([209.85.215.180] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10)
  with ESMTP id 4575709 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:07:50 -0500
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.215.180; envelope-from=jimenez.craig@gmail.com
Received: by eyf18 with SMTP id 18so1042703eyf.25
        for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:07:15 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=cstEho84H3tjGt7RS7mWKq4/nGFRCTXcAsvG1U0m0ZONVlxWsPKD6kXD+3gpwdUGPj
         FDktavL6GSu3dnMQgBHFaQTHLms+/Yito+LMIHdjIIJsQMu4WZfiSBT/ia0PeiIsHKbz
         bGgLKDbAxtj+DQtR/n5fM0DDU84G5TEHzad+E=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.132.131 with SMTP id o3mr1276341wei.19.1289513235618; Thu,
 11 Nov 2010 14:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.7.196 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:07:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <list-4575608@logan.com>
References: <list-4575608@logan.com>
X-Original-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:07:15 -0600
X-Original-Message-ID: <AANLkTi=PparXhJzLKqODPLx+y+qxKx8v0HgUPYOJ3Q6p@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LNC2 Legacy Performance questions
From: Craig Jimenez <jimenez.craig@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6de0023579c9f0494ce3212

--0016e6de0023579c9f0494ce3212
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

What's the group's general opinion about 10:1 compression?   I like the idea
(higher efficiency).  I found that raising the compression on my old Grumman
AA5 from 7.x to 8.5 vastly improved the climb and high altitude
performance.  I'd be interested in your practical experiences of going to 9
or 10:1.

If I understood correctly, when running LOP, you can expect more power for
any fuel flow at higher compressions:
Comp  HP/gph
 7.5      12.7
 8.5      13.9
 9.0        ?
10.0       ?

>

--0016e6de0023579c9f0494ce3212
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>What&#39;s the group&#39;s general opinion about 10:1 compression?=A0=
=A0 I like the idea (higher efficiency).=A0 I found that raising the compre=
ssion on my old Grumman AA5 from 7.x to 8.5 vastly improved the climb and h=
igh altitude performance.=A0 I&#39;d be interested in your practical experi=
ences of going to 9 or 10:1.</div>

<div>=A0</div>
<div>If I understood correctly, when running LOP, you can expect more power=
 for any fuel flow at higher compressions:</div>
<div>Comp=A0 HP/gph</div>
<div>=A07.5=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 12.7</div>
<div>=A08.5=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 13.9</div>
<div>=A09.0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ?</div>
<div>10.0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ?<br></div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">=A0</blockquote></div>

--0016e6de0023579c9f0494ce3212--