fY'All,
I've changed servers and it's taken two weeks to get back. In the interim I
have had a first experience in an off-airport emergency landing. More when
the authorities get finished.
Gene

In a previous article, > said:
>fY'All,
>I've changed servers and it's taken two weeks to get back. In the interim I
>have had a first experience in an off-airport emergency landing. More when
>the authorities get finished.

Yay, he's back!


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Today is a good day. Not because anything wonderful is happening, so
much, but because my definition of a 'bad day' has been revised.
-- Chris Klein

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:35:06 -0000, wrote:

> If YOU have not had an engine-out-emergency (EOE), then you are a
> test pilot. Gene has had one... I've had 15. We are no longer test
> pilots, as we KNOW how the flight will come out! :-)

15 engine outs???? Whoa, either you really fly some crappy equipment, have
serious bad luck or they were gliders?

I have only once declared an emergency in my short 536 hours, can't imagine
having 15 of them!

I have had mechanical situations crop up on me, loss of vacuum pump during
night flight, minor electrical fire during the night, loss of one brake on
landing, but nothing even close to 15 engine outs???

Allen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: A Lieberman ]
> Posted At: Friday, February 17, 2006 6:31 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Gene Whitt is back on line
> Subject: Re: Gene Whitt is back on line
>
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:35:06 -0000, wrote:
>
> > If YOU have not had an engine-out-emergency (EOE), then you are a
> > test pilot. Gene has had one... I've had 15. We are no longer test
> > pilots, as we KNOW how the flight will come out! :-)
>
> 15 engine outs???? Whoa, either you really fly some crappy equipment,
> have
> serious bad luck or they were gliders?
>
> I have only once declared an emergency in my short 536 hours, can't
> imagine
> having 15 of them!
>
> I have had mechanical situations crop up on me, loss of vacuum pump
during
> night flight, minor electrical fire during the night, loss of one
brake on
> landing, but nothing even close to 15 engine outs???
>
> Allen
[Jim Carter]
No kidding... I've only had one swallow a valve while enroute in over
1600 hours, so applying my same "luck ratio" would put Jer at over 24000
hours -- unless some of them were for fuel starvation, then there's no
telling what the ratio might be.

And no, I way too rarely fly new stuff.

wrote:
> Now, when you have that down, introduce a "runaway flap" situation..
> abeam the numbers, power to idle, full flaps. TURN for the runway
> and you will "just" make it. :-) Now you KNOW what you can
> accomplish safetly in your airplane with an engine out!

I agree completely with the general point of your post, but are you suggesting here that you need to
prepare for a simultaneous engine failure AND flap runaway? That seems like a real long-shot.

Mike

15 engine outs? That has to be a record!

The closest I came to an engine out was a fuel starvation situation
when I was a student pilot many moons ago. For my long solo X-country,
I planned the flight carefully so that I would have more than 60
minutes of fuel upon returning. However, after the plane was refueled
upon my final landing at my starting point, the owner of the plane (who
also ran the flight school) informed me that I was close to zero fuel.
He knew because he refueled the plane to near full capacity!

We determined that this happened because I had not leaned the engine,
but used performance figures from the POH that required proper leaning!
My instructor (I was his first student after he received his CFI
ticket) had not yet trained me on leaning procedures...

I would think that proper leaning should be part of the
first solo flight prep and certainly before any sol x-c.
With fuel costs at $40 an hours, saving fuel is a big
pay-back.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"rps" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| 15 engine outs? That has to be a record!
|
| The closest I came to an engine out was a fuel starvation
situation
| when I was a student pilot many moons ago. For my long
solo X-country,
| I planned the flight carefully so that I would have more
than 60
| minutes of fuel upon returning. However, after the plane
was refueled
| upon my final landing at my starting point, the owner of
the plane (who
| also ran the flight school) informed me that I was close
to zero fuel.
| He knew because he refueled the plane to near full
capacity!
|
| We determined that this happened because I had not leaned
the engine,
| but used performance figures from the POH that required
proper leaning!
| My instructor (I was his first student after he received
his CFI
| ticket) had not yet trained me on leaning procedures...
|

How many hours was the flight?

>The closest I came to an engine out was a fuel starvation situation
>when I was a student pilot many moons ago. For my long solo X-country,
>I planned the flight carefully so that I would have more than 60
>minutes of fuel upon returning. However, after the plane was refueled
>upon my final landing at my starting point, the owner of the plane (who
>also ran the flight school) informed me that I was close to zero fuel.
>He knew because he refueled the plane to near full capacity!
>
>We determined that this happened because I had not leaned the engine,
>but used performance figures from the POH that required proper leaning!
> My instructor (I was his first student after he received his CFI
>ticket) had not yet trained me on leaning procedures...

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I would think that proper leaning should be part of the
> first solo flight prep and certainly before any sol x-c.
> With fuel costs at $40 an hours, saving fuel is a big
> pay-back.
>
>
Except if you operate out of a sea level airport you would not have much
call to lean when all you are doing are local flights to the practice
area and such. Several of the operations I know here actually ban
leaning below 5000 feet. It should be taught long before the cross
countries but it would not be ingrained in the habits of the students
since they would not be doing it often if at all.
John

seriously? banning leaning below 5000'? I guess they enjoy cleaning
lead fouled plugs then.

I can't fathom some blanket rule like that, they should be teaching
proper leaning techniques not banning the use of it.

Robert

John Theune wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> I would think that proper leaning should be part of the first solo
>> flight prep and certainly before any sol x-c. With fuel costs at $40
>> an hours, saving fuel is a big pay-back.
>>
>>
> Except if you operate out of a sea level airport you would not have much
> call to lean when all you are doing are local flights to the practice
> area and such. Several of the operations I know here actually ban
> leaning below 5000 feet. It should be taught long before the cross
> countries but it would not be ingrained in the habits of the students
> since they would not be doing it often if at all.
> John

"Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
om...
> seriously? banning leaning below 5000'? I guess they enjoy cleaning lead
> fouled plugs then.

You have to remember, though, that many pilots and even mechanics think lead
fouling is caused by leaning TOO MUCH, not too LITTLE.

>
> I can't fathom some blanket rule like that, they should be teaching proper
> leaning techniques not banning the use of it.

Standard procedures in many (most?) places says 50 or so ROP...about the
worst place you can run your engine.

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> Standard procedures in many (most?) places says 50 or so ROP...about the
> worst place you can run your engine.
>
>
That's where I was taught to lean to. I think the reason was that it is
a safe place, whereas lean of peak has some advantages, but can get you
into trouble with detonation if you are not really careful.

Any suggestions?

Brad

> Standard procedures in many (most?) places says 50 or so ROP...about the
> worst place you can run your engine.

If it really =is= the worst place, how did the engine makers come to
reccomend it?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

At low cruise settings, lean to get roughness (miss-firing
of the leanest cylinder) and then richen to smooth. You
have to do it very gently, just pressure on the mixture or
you'll over-shoot the settings. That is with a carb. If
you have fuel injection, it will run smooth until it quits,
follow the tables for fuel flow from the manual or use the
EGT.

For take-off above 3,000-5,000 feet density, you should lean
to get the proper mixture and max power.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"bsalai" > wrote in message
...
| Matt Barrow wrote:
|
| >
| > Standard procedures in many (most?) places says 50 or so
ROP...about the
| > worst place you can run your engine.
| >
| >
| That's where I was taught to lean to. I think the reason
was that it is
| a safe place, whereas lean of peak has some advantages,
but can get you
| into trouble with detonation if you are not really
careful.
|
| Any suggestions?
|
| Brad

50 RPM drop on the rich side is too rich at cruise... 50
degrees rich of peak on the EGT is about right with a carb.
With fuel injection, just a little below peak or even at
peak if the cruise power is set below 70%. At low power
settings you can run at peak since the actual temperatures
will be low. If you have a calibrated EGT (TIT) follow the
limits.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
|> Standard procedures in many (most?) places says 50 or so
ROP...about the
| > worst place you can run your engine.
|
| If it really =is= the worst place, how did the engine
makers come to
| reccomend it?
|
| Jose
| --
| Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

John,

> Several of the operations I know here actually ban
> leaning below 5000 feet.
>

Change operations! Run, don't walk!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jim,

> 50 RPM drop on the rich side is too rich at cruise... 50
> degrees rich of peak on the EGT is about right with a carb.
> With fuel injection, just a little below peak or even at
> peak if the cruise power is set below 70%. At low power
> settings you can run at peak since the actual temperatures
> will be low. If you have a calibrated EGT (TIT) follow the
> limits.
>

Ok, kids, now lets count all the misunderstandings and factually wrong
statements in that post. Hint: There are at least 5.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bsalai,

> Any suggestions?
>

Uhm, get educated! For starters, read John Deakin's columns on engine
management at www.avweb.com

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> 50 RPM drop on the rich side is too rich at cruise.

I've never heard of leaning to an RPM drop... just to an EGT drop.

> With fuel injection, just a little below peak or even at
> peak if the cruise power is set below 70%.

Why is fuel injection different? More even mixtures across the cylinders?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Yes, engine roughness is caused by one cylinder misfiring.
Fuel injection is properly calibrated is the same on all
cylinders so the engine runs smooth and balanced.


"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
|> 50 RPM drop on the rich side is too rich at cruise.
|
| I've never heard of leaning to an RPM drop... just to an
EGT drop.
|
| > With fuel injection, just a little below peak or even at
| > peak if the cruise power is set below 70%.
|
| Why is fuel injection different? More even mixtures
across the cylinders?
|
| Jose
| --
| Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

You tell us.

If I'm wrong I'd like to know.


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message ...
| Jim,
|
| > 50 RPM drop on the rich side is too rich at cruise... 50
| > degrees rich of peak on the EGT is about right with a
carb.
| > With fuel injection, just a little below peak or even at
| > peak if the cruise power is set below 70%. At low power
| > settings you can run at peak since the actual
temperatures
| > will be low. If you have a calibrated EGT (TIT) follow
the
| > limits.
| >
|
| Ok, kids, now lets count all the misunderstandings and
factually wrong
| statements in that post. Hint: There are at least 5.
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

Jim,

> 50 RPM drop on the rich side is too rich at cruise...

RPM doesn't matter.

> 50
> degrees rich of peak on the EGT is about right with a carb.

Why? How? 50 ROP is the point of maximum internal combustion pressure.
A point at which you don't really want to be.

> With fuel injection, just a little below peak or even at
> peak if the cruise power is set below 70%.

below peak on the rich or the lean side? A limit of 70 is artificial.
65 and 75 is mentioned by the engine manufacturers, respectively. Many
say those limits don't mean that much. CHTs do. Many people run their
engines lean of peak (well lean of peak) at 80 percent and more. CHTs
stay well below 380.
There is no difference in leaning technique between carb'd and injected
engines.

> At low power
> settings you can run at peak since the actual temperatures
> will be low.

What temperatures? EGT? CHT? Actual EGTs don't matter anyway. Actual
CHTs are higher ROP than they are at peak EGT. They shouldn't be above
380.

> If you have a calibrated EGT (TIT) follow the
> limits.

Absolute EGTs don't matter. TIT is a different story, since the engine
is turbo'd.

I really recommend reading Deakin's columns at Avweb - it makes you see
several lights real quick.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jim,

> Yes, engine roughness is caused by one cylinder misfiring.

Not at all. Or rather: very rarely. Engine roughness which we normally
encounter during leaning is caused by the cylinders developing
different amounts of power.

> Fuel injection is properly calibrated is the same on all
> cylinders so the engine runs smooth and balanced.

TCM and Lycoming specs don't at all require that. Which is why
GAMIjectors are such a success. And no, GAMIjectors DON'T calibrate
fuel flow to be the same for each cylinder, since you don't want or
need that. What you need is the same fuel-air ratio in each cylinder.
So those cylinders that get less air need less fuel, too.

Read Deakin, it's all in there.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I think we are saying the same thing, basically and to a
degree. A dead mag does not cause a rough engine, a dead
cylinder does. A poorly balanced engine will be rough
because the different weights of the parts moving.
Different power per cylinder will be rough, but as long as
the output is close, most pilots won't notice minor
variations. I used the word misfiring to indicate what was
happening that would be detected.
Certainly, with instrumentation or skill, the pilot will be
able to detect many variations in engine operation with
different throttle positions, mixture settings and rpm.
Volumetric efficiency will vary with RPM, MAP and vary from
engine to engine. A high time engine will be different than
a new engine, carb, single point injection (pressure carb)
or port fuel injection will be different and high quality
parts are better than 50 year old OEM designs.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message ...
| Jim,
|
| > Yes, engine roughness is caused by one cylinder
misfiring.
|
| Not at all. Or rather: very rarely. Engine roughness which
we normally
| encounter during leaning is caused by the cylinders
developing
| different amounts of power.
|
| > Fuel injection is properly calibrated is the same on all
| > cylinders so the engine runs smooth and balanced.
|
| TCM and Lycoming specs don't at all require that. Which is
why
| GAMIjectors are such a success. And no, GAMIjectors DON'T
calibrate
| fuel flow to be the same for each cylinder, since you
don't want or
| need that. What you need is the same fuel-air ratio in
each cylinder.
| So those cylinders that get less air need less fuel, too.
|
| Read Deakin, it's all in there.
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

If you set cruise RPM to 2400 and lean the engine, RPM will
increase as combustion is improved and power increases
(fixed pitch prop). Peak power is max RPM, some books
recommend running richer, enough to drop the RPM 50. Ground
idle mixture is set so that RPM increases 20-50 RPM as the
engine goes from rich idle to cutoff and the mixture leans
out.


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message ...
| Jim,
|
| > 50 RPM drop on the rich side is too rich at cruise...
|
| RPM doesn't matter.
|
| > 50
| > degrees rich of peak on the EGT is about right with a
carb.
|
| Why? How? 50 ROP is the point of maximum internal
combustion pressure.
| A point at which you don't really want to be.
|
| > With fuel injection, just a little below peak or even at
| > peak if the cruise power is set below 70%.
|
| below peak on the rich or the lean side? A limit of 70 is
artificial.
| 65 and 75 is mentioned by the engine manufacturers,
respectively. Many
| say those limits don't mean that much. CHTs do. Many
people run their
| engines lean of peak (well lean of peak) at 80 percent and
more. CHTs
| stay well below 380.
| There is no difference in leaning technique between carb'd
and injected
| engines.
|
| > At low power
| > settings you can run at peak since the actual
temperatures
| > will be low.
|
| What temperatures? EGT? CHT? Actual EGTs don't matter
anyway. Actual
| CHTs are higher ROP than they are at peak EGT. They
shouldn't be above
| 380.
|
| > If you have a calibrated EGT (TIT) follow the
| > limits.
|
| Absolute EGTs don't matter. TIT is a different story,
since the engine
| is turbo'd.
|
| I really recommend reading Deakin's columns at Avweb - it
makes you see
| several lights real quick.
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

"bsalai" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>> Standard procedures in many (most?) places says 50 or so ROP...about the
>> worst place you can run your engine.
>>
>>
> That's where I was taught to lean to. I think the reason was that it is a
> safe place,

Hardest on the engine is not waht I call safe.

> whereas lean of peak has some advantages, but can get you into trouble
> with detonation if you are not really careful.

No, you can't really...only if you lag going from ROP to LOP.

>
> Any suggestions?
>

Here's a start.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182132-1.html
May 27, 2001
Detonation Myths

We've all been taught about detonation in piston aircraft engines. It's what
occurs when combustion pressure and temperature get so high that the
fuel/air mixture to explodes violently instead of burning smoothly, and it
can destroy an engine in a matter of seconds. Right? Well, not exactly.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:tslKf.100258$4l5.99449@dukeread05...
> Yes, engine roughness is caused by one cylinder misfiring.
> Fuel injection is properly calibrated is the same on all
> cylinders so the engine runs smooth and balanced.
>

I guess GAMI is selling us a bill of goods, huh? :~)

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:vslKf.100259$4l5.46897@dukeread05...
> You tell us.
>
> If I'm wrong I'd like to know.


Red Box = No Fly Zone
At and below about 60% power, there is no red box.
At about 65% power or so, 100ºF ROP to Peak.
At about 70%, 125ºF ROP to 25ºF LOP.
At about 75%, 180ºF ROP to 40ºF LOP.
At about 80%, 200ºF ROP to 60ºF LOP


Makes no difference, carb or fuel injection.

You might have been an A&P for the better part of 35 years, but you're just
parroting "Old Wives Tales"

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182155-1.html (Myths about fired valves)

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html (Detonation myths)

Oh, hell...read the whole series
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html

>
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
> message ...
> | Jim,
> |
> | > 50 RPM drop on the rich side is too rich at cruise... 50
> | > degrees rich of peak on the EGT is about right with a
> carb.
> | > With fuel injection, just a little below peak or even at
> | > peak if the cruise power is set below 70%. At low power
> | > settings you can run at peak since the actual
> temperatures
> | > will be low. If you have a calibrated EGT (TIT) follow
> the
> | > limits.
> | >
> |
> | Ok, kids, now lets count all the misunderstandings and
> factually wrong
> | statements in that post. Hint: There are at least 5.
> |
> | --
> | Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> |
>
>

"bsalai" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>> Standard procedures in many (most?) places says 50 or so ROP...about the
>> worst place you can run your engine.
>>
>>
> That's where I was taught to lean to. I think the reason was that it is a
> safe place, whereas lean of peak has some advantages, but can get you into
> trouble with detonation if you are not really careful.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html (Series on the right side of
the page), also:

http://www.engineteststand.com/

It all depends, Henry Ford built the "best" car he could
when he built the Model T, a 1962 Chrysler 426 Hemi would
have really seemed like magic to Ford and a modern double
overhead cam engine in a 2000 Acura would really would out
perform that 426 monster cube for cube.
GAMI is better than stock FI which is a very old, low tech
constant flow system on Continental and Lycoming engines.
Your car uses high pressure pumps a fuel rail and solenoid
control metering at the injector, but engine roughness is
caused by __________ which causes __________ vibration.




--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:tslKf.100258$4l5.99449@dukeread05...
| > Yes, engine roughness is caused by one cylinder
misfiring.
| > Fuel injection is properly calibrated is the same on all
| > cylinders so the engine runs smooth and balanced.
| >
|
| I guess GAMI is selling us a bill of goods, huh? :~)
|
|
|
|
|

> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:tslKf.100258$4l5.99449@dukeread05...
> | > Yes, engine roughness is caused by one cylinder
> misfiring.
> | > Fuel injection is properly calibrated is the same on all
> | > cylinders so the engine runs smooth and balanced.
> | >
> |
> | I guess GAMI is selling us a bill of goods, huh? :~)
> |
> |
> |


( Moved to the bottom where it belongs for those that read top-to-bottom)>


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:1brKf.101334$4l5.3648@dukeread05...
> It all depends, Henry Ford built the "best" car he could
> when he built the Model T, a 1962 Chrysler 426 Hemi would
> have really seemed like magic to Ford and a modern double
> overhead cam engine in a 2000 Acura would really would out
> perform that 426 monster cube for cube.

Huh?

> GAMI is better than stock FI which is a very old, low tech
> constant flow system on Continental and Lycoming engines.
> Your car uses high pressure pumps a fuel rail and solenoid
> control metering at the injector, but engine roughness is
> caused by __________ which causes __________ vibration.

Do you have any idea what GAMI injectors are?

answered at the top, Yes.

But most engines do not have them or the same procedures
that they allow.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in
message
| > ...
| > |
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | news:tslKf.100258$4l5.99449@dukeread05...
| > | > Yes, engine roughness is caused by one cylinder
| > misfiring.
| > | > Fuel injection is properly calibrated is the same on
all
| > | > cylinders so the engine runs smooth and balanced.
| > | >
| > |
| > | I guess GAMI is selling us a bill of goods, huh? :~)
| > |
| > |
| > |
|
|
| ( Moved to the bottom where it belongs for those that read
top-to-bottom)>
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:1brKf.101334$4l5.3648@dukeread05...
| > It all depends, Henry Ford built the "best" car he could
| > when he built the Model T, a 1962 Chrysler 426 Hemi
would
| > have really seemed like magic to Ford and a modern
double
| > overhead cam engine in a 2000 Acura would really would
out
| > perform that 426 monster cube for cube.
|
| Huh?
|
| > GAMI is better than stock FI which is a very old, low
tech
| > constant flow system on Continental and Lycoming
engines.
| > Your car uses high pressure pumps a fuel rail and
solenoid
| > control metering at the injector, but engine roughness
is
| > caused by __________ which causes __________ vibration.
|
| Do you have any idea what GAMI injectors are?
|
|
|
|

Jim,

> Peak power is max RPM, some books
> recommend running richer, enough to drop the RPM 50.
>

Do you have an example for a POH recommending that?

And do you think this procedure prepares your students for complex
aircraft adequately?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jim,

> I think we are saying the same thing, basically and to a
> degree.

Nope, not at all, I'm afraid.

> Different power per cylinder will be rough, but as long as
> the output is close, most pilots won't notice minor
> variations. I used the word misfiring to indicate what was
> happening that would be detected.

There is normally no misfiring at all in an engine running rough from
leaning.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> | > | > Yes, engine roughness is caused by one cylinder
> | > misfiring.
> | > | > Fuel injection is properly calibrated is the same on
> all
> | > | > cylinders so the engine runs smooth and balanced.
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > | I guess GAMI is selling us a bill of goods, huh? :~)
> |
> | ( Moved to the bottom where it belongs for those that read
> top-to-bottom)>
> |
| > caused by __________ which causes __________ vibration.
> |
> | Do you have any idea what GAMI injectors are?
> |


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:9wuKf.101359$4l5.5533@dukeread05...
> answered at the top, Yes.
>
> But most engines do not have them or the same procedures
> that they allow.

You are talking in circles or something, since damn near every response of
yours on this thread is virtually unrelated to the question asked, or the
fact posted.

First of all, very few FI engines are calibrated coming from the
manufacturer, especially TCM engines.

Second, GAMI's are nosels, not injectors per se.

Roughness is NOT caused by a misfiring cylinder, but by an improper fuel
distribution. All cylinders can be firing just fine, but if the air/fuel
mixure is out of balance, it'll be running rough.

Matt,

> You are talking in circles or something, since damn near every response of
> yours on this thread is virtually unrelated to the question asked, or the
> fact posted.
>

Thanks for noticing, too. Interesting discussion technique, albeit one
leading to little progress... ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)