X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:55:15 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from col0-omc3-s16.col0.hotmail.com ([65.55.34.154] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTP id 6625698 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:34:44 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.34.154; envelope-from=peterpawaviation@hotmail.com Received: from COL129-W26 ([65.55.34.137]) by col0-omc3-s16.col0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:34:10 -0800 X-TMN: [kfpeMTOaWr8TaxO7IRbrS0muKRHismf+] X-Originating-Email: [peterpawaviation@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: peterpawaviation@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_56592af9-1ace-4149-92c1-b6e240338705_" From: PETER WILLIAMS X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: RE: [LML] Re: A: LOW COMPRESSION ON ONE BANK X-Original-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:34:09 -0500 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2013 20:34:10.0017 (UTC) FILETIME=[2FA1A510:01CEF130] --_56592af9-1ace-4149-92c1-b6e240338705_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi there nothing stood out as substantially different=3B of course the meter i use i= s sequential=2C 1 to 6 as opposed to one bank and then the other but=2C the issue still is has anyone else had this odd situation where one = bank of cylinders has substantially lower compression than the other peter To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed=2C 4 Dec 2013 09:59:06 -0500 From: pjdmiller@gmail.com Subject: [LML] Re: A: LOW COMPRESSION ON ONE BANK I think you would see higher EGTs on those three jugs if that's true. Paul On 2013-12-03=2C at 16:22=2C PETER WILLIAMS = wrote: =0A= =0A= =0A= P If the reference was off it would cause an incomplete atomization of fuel a= nd cause a lean condition on that bank of cylinders peter To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri=2C 29 Nov 2013 18:52:39 -0500 From: pjdmiller@gmail.com Subject: [LML] Re: LOW COMPRESSION ON ONE BANK I don't see how a leaking upper deck line can cause a lean burn. Someone = has to explain that one me (please). Paul On Thu=2C Nov 28=2C 2013 at 1:28 PM=2C PETER WILLIAMS wrote: one suggestion was that the UPPER DECK TURBO REFERENCE TUBE was leaking and= causing that one bank of cylinders to run lean =0A= =0A= =0A= = --_56592af9-1ace-4149-92c1-b6e240338705_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
hi there

= nothing stood out as substantially diffe= rent=3B of course the meter i use is sequential=2C 1 to 6 as opposed to one= bank and then the other

but=2C the issue still is has anyone else had this odd situation wh= ere one bank of cylinders has substantially lower compression than the othe= r

peter

To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date:= Wed=2C 4 Dec 2013 09:59:06 -0500
From: pjdmiller@gmail.com
Subject: = [LML] Re: A: LOW COMPRESSION ON ONE BANK

I think you would see = higher EGTs on those three jugs if that's true.

Paul

O= n 2013-12-03=2C at 16:22=2C PETER WILLIAMS <=3Bpeterpawaviation@hotmail.com>=3B wrote:

=
=0A= =0A= =0A=
= P

If the reference was = off it would cause an incomplete atomization of fuel and cause a lean condi= tion on that bank of cylinders

peter

To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri=2C 29 = Nov 2013 18:52:39 -0500
From: pjd= miller@gmail.com
Subject: [LML] Re: LOW COMPRESSION ON ONE BANK
<= br>
I don't see how a leaking upper deck line can cause a lean burn. &n= bsp=3B Someone has to explain that one me (please).

Paul
<= br>
On Thu=2C Nov 28=2C 2013 at 1:28 PM=2C PETER WILLIAMS <=3B= peterpawaviation@hotmail.com>=3B wrote:

one suggestion was that t= he UPPER DECK TURBO REFERENCE TUBE wa= s leaking and causing that one bank of cylinders to run lean

=0A=

=0A=
=0A= = --_56592af9-1ace-4149-92c1-b6e240338705_--