CaptnJ

You know I was thinking that right after I posted, I'm sure u have some step up heat loss, but maybe not that much. I'm trying to find the current draw on the 6444, the kg102 @14v is 3 amps, 1.5 @ 28, so if the 6444 is similar draw it may be easier to get a converter. The 6444 is not as common as the 102 so there is also that reason to swap it.

I did think of that, but to up the voltage to 28 your current draw doubles, I'm already pushing it with a single alternator and an almost completely electric plane

I bought a used Sandel 3308 system, it came w/ an S-tec 6444 remote gyro, which is a 28V. I can't use it so I would like to trade it for a KG102A gyro. Does anyone have any leads on a company that might be interested in doing this trade? Tried Century and Mid Continent, our normal go to guys. The 6444 was overhauled in May 2012, have the 8130, and was working when removed a couple months ago. I would also be willing to sell it outright if anyone is interested.

"The problem with it is that at the higher power output we still do not know what the effect has been on how far LOP the engine is running. It also calls into question whether it is strictly true that horsepower when operating LOP is dictated by fuel flow. It is indeed dictated by fuel flow, but there is variability in measuring how much of the fuel flow is actually used in combustion, and therefore not a direct relationship between the number from the fuel flow meter, and horsepower. But at least the fuel/air ratio would not be changing, there would simply be more fuel/air mixture at the same ratio involved in the combustion process." jlunseth I'm sure you have seen the analogy of combustion as a dance party, ROP mixture- all the air finds a partner, some fuel goes home alone, stoichiometric-everyone find a partner, LOP- fuel finds a partner, some air goes home alone. But in reality there is no way that LOP every single air molecule finds a partner, the mixture distribution is just not that good. What if by adding MP, you're really just putting more air on the dance floor, there by increasing the odds fuel finds a partner. More complete fuel use = more HP ~up to a point of too lean, adding too much MP would eventually result in power loss "Back to the moment in time when the exhaust and intake valves are open, it appears that there can be some loss of fresh fuel/air mixture out the exhaust port. The term I learned for this was the ejection fraction, but I understand that others use a different term for it. If MP is raised, that would cause the turbo to work harder to produce the increase MP, and that in turn would exert higher back pressure in the exhaust system. The higher backpressure would in turn reduce or eliminate any leakage of fresh fuel/air out the exhaust port, possibly increasing the power output of the engine. Since fuel flow is measured by a flow meter before the intake cycle, the flow meter would not register a higher fuel flow - it does not know whether some of the fuel is passing out of the exhaust port before combustion, or not." jlunseth also with a higher MP the % of fuel loss vs total mass of the intake air charge, would be less... meaning less fuel loss during valve overlap. did i say that right?

So maybe looking at the FF LOP is not as accurate a method as we hoped in determine HP. We could still determine our HP very accurately with true airspeed. It takes a known amount of power to make the aircraft go a specific speed. our performance charts would tell us, then using ROP settings we could find at 65% power we go a certain speed. Then just pull back to LOP and fly that speed. As long as you were below 65% power you're not supposed to hurt anything. My question are... Are the performance carts that accurate? How does the factory determine engine HP? Dyno or extrapolation? One of the things I always wondered about was the fact that LOP, you were going to be a few kts slower, well if that is true you are really not making the same HP, aerodynamically the aircraft has no idea if it is ROP or LOP. The other thing, if we can't really determine a true temp peak, then it does not matter if we are LOP or ROP, we don't know on either side. The only safe thing to do is fly at low power, but thats not really what i want to do. I still feel safer LOP, even if I'm not 100% sure of the exact amount LOP. It seems easier to control the CHT LOP. I can always lean a little, and decent power settings are easier, there just seems to be less messing with engine controls LOP, less to worry about when changing power settings, but thats just me, opinions may vary.

This kind of bothered me so I tryed posting a similar question on Beechtalk, I know Deakin hangs out there. He never really responded but another guy did, I thought it was a good point, he said maybe it's not making more power maybe we're opening the throttle plate more and there for we have lower pressure delta across the compressor, there by making the compressor easier to spin and reducing back pressure in the exhaust. Because we have a small compressor it's even more pronounced. We're not making more power, we're just wasting less.

I agree, you do go faster and it is very strange that there does not seem to be any real good answer for why. But that back to the future article does speak to the boost increasing your power, but does not definitively state if the FF goes up with the added MP. I Have a G3 analyzer and I'm adding a TAS air data computer to my aircraft this winter, it allows data tracking of TAS, ALT, ect. plus all the engine data, so I'm going to be able to graph all the data and see if it helps to find a conclusion. If not it should still be a neat chart, haha. Anyway thanks for you insight. Jeff

So, I have a 231, I've been running LOP, the way I do it because of all of the things talked about here, moving one knob changes a coresponding setting Start at an arbitrarily high MP, 34", BMP, feel the airspeed slow, then I can enrich the mixture, identifying the first cyl to peak, so closest to my intended power setting, then lean to ~30/40 LOP of that cyl. Every other cyl is leaner than that, and as long as the TIT is below 1620 or so I'm happy. If I note fuel flow and add MP as is suggested by the article on the GAMI site, "Back to the future" I should go faster right? I thought that was why owning a turbo is so beneficial for LOP OPS. The thing that I'm unclear on is should I hold the FF to my noted FF or should I allow it to rise. It seems holding it would be the safer option but on Beechtalk I've seen Deakin state that it will rise on every engine when adding MP, blowing my LOP setting.

I'm looking for a tray, back plate and connectors for a GX60 gps/comm. if anyone has one lying around I'll take them off your hands, thanks

Unfortunately both the GB and LB are the log and runner style, not the tuned style of the newer engine. I have read good things about GAMIs fixing the FA ratio even with the log style, mine are on the way

*edit

Your absolutely right, the Merlin is only magic in name, the pilot sets the MP, what I meant was it references the upper deck pressure and the manifold, to keep them the same, one reference before the intercooler and one after the throttle plate, I think. But because we have no way to know what that upper deck pressure is ( no UDP gage) I guess I can't very well set the waste gate to that pressure. "The Merlyn upper deck pressure control (aka automatic wastegate) is an automatic pneumatic device that operates based on the difference between the upper deck pressure and the manifold pressure. Functionally, it works by balancing the pressures." Here is the power setting for some different TAT installations, this stuff is what got my mind going in the first place, pretty impressive They vary from 81.9 % to 89.4% in their highest power configuration. 300 HP (FF x 14.9) "THEREFORE, we suggest that, in general, in cruise, that the engine be operated with the throttle in the WOT position, and the horsepower be controlled by appropriate use of the mixture and propeller governor controls as follows: Initially, set the propeller governor to produce 2500 RPM. Set the mixture to a fuel flow that produces a TIT of from 50 to 100°F lean of peak TIT. "Whirlwind System II" Typically, on a (TN) IO-550 at WOT, this will be from 15.5 to 17.0 GPH. Typically, on a (TN) IO-520 at WOT, this will be from 14.5 to 16.0 GPH. "Whilwind System II with Rammer II" Typically, on a (TN) IO-550 at WOT, this will be from 16.0 to 17.5 GPH. Typically, on a (TN) IO-520 at WOT, this will be from 15.0 to 16.5 GPH. "Whilwind System III with Rammer II and scoop" Typically, on a (TN) IO-550 at WOT, this will be from 16.5 to 18.0 GPH. Typically, on a (TN) IO-520 at WOT, this will be from 15.5 to 17.0 GPH. NOTE: Do not think that you are "helping" the engine by using less than WOT and then select the fuel flows from the list above. This will simply result in the engine operating at much richer mixture with much higher CHT's." Yes I agree that's why I was wondering if anyone is able to get to 100 deg LOP w/ a TSIO 360. This whole thread for me is to see what is theoretically possible with the TSIO 360. Pretty much everyone one this board has much more experience operating their AC than I do, I've only had it flying for a few months. There are also lots of different configurations of this aircraft too, GB LB, intercooler, Merlin. So lots of variables to play with, obviously I would love to have a LB, intercooled, Merlin, or better yet an SB if that were possible. I just always think about trying to get the most performance from what I have available to me, having a turbo is fun but is it faster?! The standard answer is yes but... only if you go higher. Can we optimize our operation of the engine to get both, faster high and low?

What I think is interesting is the difference between a conventional wastgate set up and a Merlin, because the Merlin is trying to balance the upper and lower deck pressures. It almost solves the pressure drop across the intercooler automatically. What it can't account for is the volumetric efficiency issue that Mr. Braly notes, the increase in exhaust back pressure because of waste gate positioning. I might be overthinking this, my main intrest is the increase in engine efficiency and possibility of being able to run the engine at higher power. Because TIT seems to be the limiting factor LOP on the TSIO engines, probably due to the lower compression ratio pistons (less cooling of the exhaust gases during the expansion phase compared to the TN engines), if you could run a high enough MP, and lean enough mixture ~100 LOP, would you be able to see higher power settings like the TN guys? Approaching 85% LOP. The best I have seen for FF is about 10.3 gph LOP 67%. CHT has never been a problem, all under 365, TIT is the show stopper, although I stay around 1600deg. This seems to be what I have read elsewhere about this engine. I don't have an intercooler on my aircraft and while I would like to install one they seem expensive and hard to come by. Now obviously running high MP results in high CDT temps exasperating the problem, so the intercooler is nessesary to run the engine this way, I don't currently try to operate this way. But the higher MP also means more cooling air in the combustion chamber, and a leaner mixture, theoretically. I am mostly trying to determine if this is even a realistic idea on the TSIO-360. I have read about a guy running WOT with a TSIO 520 no intercooler, I think that's 36" MP, he states he's done this for ~700 hrs. taken with a grain of salt, this is the internet after all, haha Does anyone with an intercooler see substantial reduction in EGT/TIT temps with an intercooler ie. does the 100 deg IAT drop result in a 100 deg TIT drop? I do think it is odd the Mr. Braly writes about detonation and valve life as the best thing about intercoolers, he also has shown in the past how monumentally difficult it is to create detonation in aircraft engines when CHT is under control. His company TAT seems to use intercoolers as a performance enhancement allowing higher power settings. He also commonly states valve issues are a build problem not a pilot problem, if CHT are under control. I'm not really arguing the point as I'm definitely not qualified to debate with him about engines, just seems odd coming from him. I would also love to know if the Acclaim guys can operate the TAT way, I think those are TN engines, right? Thanks for the responces P.S. I know it looks like I'm some sort of Beech lover, all this TAT stuff, and they are nice, but I love my Mooney, and it would be great to be able to smoke a 300 HP plane with 210. They just seem to have a much larger body of knowledge, maybe more turbo aircraft out in the wild, or maybe more just more "experts". "You can always tell a Beech pilot, you just can't tell them much" JK

Thought this might spark some debate, I found this in the middle of a long thread on Beechtalk about the pros and cons of the TSIO vs TN. George Braly of Tornado Alley Turbo & GAMI fame had this to say about intercoolers. I was wondering how the 231 guys with intercoolers have anything to add, maybe someone with before and after install experience. Anyway here's what he said... For a year, I spent a good portion of my time re-engineering an intercooler installation and obtaining FAA approval for the changes. Very careful instrumentation and measurement. I have more recently done more of that with a different engine on the engine test stand (see www.engineteststand.com). I learned a lot. I am a strong supporter of intercoolers, so some of what I am going to say may sound strange at first. So, here goes: Frankly most of the conventional wisdom on this subject - - like a lot of the now famous LOP/ROP discussions - - is simply not true. The practical application results in an outcome that is rather different than everybody anticipates. It is largely a myth that 30" of MP AFTER the intercooler gets you more HP than 30" of MP BEFORE adding the intercooler. In fact, a poorly executed intercooler installation can - - and often does -- result in LESS horsepower at sea level than the same engine without the intercooler. I don't know who started the whole theory of de-rating an engine after an intercooler, but it sure as the devil was not somebody who was measuring the actual engine torque - accurately - - rather, they were just following the theory as you outlined it and making the calculations, etc. (And, yes, I have heard a story about one after market intercooler outfit that claims to have put a torque meter on before issuing the reduced MP instructions based on that result... but until I see the data, I will have a very hard time with that notion.) The big problem is that in the euphoria over the large and very beneficial drop in Induction Air Temperatures (IAT) that one gets with an intercooler, the "engineers" forget all about something else: How much of the "good stuff" (ie, good, cold, high density air) you can get into the cylinder on each intake stroke - - also depends on how much of the BAD STUFF (ie, exhaust products) you got out of the cylinder on the previous exhaust stroke. The ratio of the new "good stuff" to the theoretical maximum "good stuff" is called the cylinder volumetric efficiency Ve. Normally aspirated engine values are up around 85 to 92% of the cylinder's displacement - - although with turbocharged engines, the number will substantially exceed 100%. When you add an intercooler to a turbocharged engine - - and leave the MP constant - -, you place a restriction in the intake plumbing. That means that the compressor discharge pressure is now two or three (or 4 or 5 or 6 in one case) inches of Hg higher than the wide open throttle MP!!! In order to generate that extra pressure, the compressor has to work harder. And that means that the turbo has to work harder. And that means that the wastegate is closed a bit more. And THAT means the exhaust back pressure increases and that reduces the cylinder volumetric efficiency. Result? The improved number of molecules you get into the cylinder due to the denser air is just about perfectly offset by the reduced Ve. Thus, no net increase in useful airflow through the cylinder. And the result of that is no net increase in horsepower at the same MP. Now... having said THAT - - in my view, it is almost criminal for anybody to operate a turbocharged engine without an intercooler. There are excellent old SAE research papers that show a HUGE improvement in the detonation tolerance of these engines by use of even a modestly efficient intercooler. These improvements are not trivial. They are substantial. Installing an intercooler means that you are very very much less likely to inadvertently cause detonation during a moment of inattention during a busy high power climb in an IFR environment - - when you accidentally fail to have the mixture rich enough. Lots of other benefits. For the same reasons, it lowers peak cylinder pressures substantially and that seriously promotes reduced exhaust valve temperatures and greater valve and cylinder longevity. Last, and this is something almost nobody appreciates, adding an intercooler results in much better fuel atomization by your fuel injectors during high power operation. Like I said, the "conventional" wisdom on this subject is seriously flawed. The benefits of intercoolers are sort of over promoted for the wrong reasons and vastly under promoted for the right reasons all at the same time. They are generally a good investment. Regards, George Braly - Tornado Alley Turbo & GAMI