|
fuel burn
SkyKing
I guess I did not respond to your last comments.
Since you have numerous variables such as OAT and/or density altitude that affects performance, the lower the density altitude the better the performance of any aircraft.
If there is such a constant it is in the TCM manual and curves that indicate hp vrs fuel flow for this engine at a given rpm. As a comparison it would be peak egt (POH) with a given fuel flow.
It APPEARS that I am running higher HP based on fuel flow and 60 ROP settings. I can get book figures by backing off MP but fuel flow drops due to the fuel controller............Hmmmm. The fuel controller DOES NOT SEE the "intercooler" it sees OAT or density altitude as calibrated by the factory.
So.... I work backwards.
set mp and RPM, then find peak and go for 60 ROP if I am above 68% hp. Under 68 I will go LOP or peak as long as the temps are holding true. I never worry about climb as I go full RICH where the highest risk of burning a cylinder exists.
Bottom line / non technical/ my best guess/
fuel=hp using TCM book
high limits 60 ROP = high cruise
and Full throttle = for climb
and "who cares" below 65% hp = rop, lop, peak / whatever is comfortable and within the operating temperatures.
Intercoolers give you more efficiency (lower density alt) under CERTAIN CONDITIONS. They do not defy the laws of physics.
I would be far more conservative if it were not for the JPI, however, you could still be burning valves and not "see it". For this reason I believe in full rich and always make climbs at the
top of the green" while monitoring temps.
I have never obtained a straight answer to this question....
"Why not increase fuel flow on take-off (higher) to compensate for the intercoolers."
Consensus is that it does not apply to all conditions and you end up throwing fuel away.
So therein lies the dilema.
Bob
|