X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:47:23 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com ([213.199.154.142] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.6) with ESMTPS id 5644694 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:26:28 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=213.199.154.142; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com Received: from mail23-db3-R.bigfish.com (10.3.81.252) by DB3EHSOBE005.bigfish.com (10.3.84.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:23:33 +0000 Received: from mail23-db3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail23-db3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B063200EE for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:23:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.245.5;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:CH1PRD0710HT005.namprd07.prod.outlook.com;RD:none;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -2 X-BigFish: PS-2(zz1528I111aIzz1202hzzz31h2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah107ah) Received-SPF: softfail (mail23-db3: transitioning domain of htii.com does not designate 157.56.245.5 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.245.5; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com; helo=CH1PRD0710HT005.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ;.outlook.com ; Received: from mail23-db3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail23-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1341876210517614_11378; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:23:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB3EHSMHS004.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.81.235]) by mail23-db3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8A516003F for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:23:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1PRD0710HT005.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.245.5) by DB3EHSMHS004.bigfish.com (10.3.87.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:23:30 +0000 Received: from CH1PRD0710MB367.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.7.109]) by CH1PRD0710HT005.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.152.40]) with mapi id 14.16.0175.005; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:25:47 +0000 From: Robert R Pastusek X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: RE: [LML] F/F Transducer Thread-Topic: [LML] F/F Transducer Thread-Index: AQHNXdthyVyCBlLch0+J3QVwy4mW8Jchk2ig X-Original-Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:25:47 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <41361035E6613244A377D5AC3BF5EFDD17706C50@CH1PRD0710MB367.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [72.9.2.42] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Return-Path: rpastusek@htii.com X-OriginatorOrg: htii.com Bill, I missed the earlier part of this thread, but without knowing what you're l= ooking for, here's something you should consider. Fuel flow transducers ar= e designed to work within a flow range. One that will support a TSIO-550 at= WOT needs to efficiently pass and record at least 45 GPH...quite a stream = of fuel. The fuel flow on this engine from 1700 RPM on down is in the 4 GPH= or less... less than 10% of the rated flow capacity. You should not expect= it to measure reliable/accurate flow rates at this very low volume of fuel= . Kinda like trying to weigh a feather pillow with a truck scale... My two cents... Bob Pastusek -------------- My thanks to all who helped on this on and special thanks to Dico Reijers f= or sending a F/F transducer for comparison. I ran each transducer at RPM varying from 1700 down to idle and recorded fu= el flows. The comparison transducer ran roughly 2.4 % higher at all readings which le= ads me to believe that the K factor varied but the reading did compare. If anyone with a TSIO 550E can give me their fuel flows varying from 1700 on down, I would appreciate it Regards, Bill Hogarty P.S. to Dico.. I'll be sending your transducer back to you this week. I left connectors attached to the leads but you can cut them off if you prefer. Thanks again Bill H. -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html