Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:15:56 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [198.36.178.141] (HELO stoel.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 779458 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:03:51 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.141; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com Received: from PDX-SMTP.stoel.com ([172.16.103.137]) by gateway1.stoel.com with ESMTP id <334084>; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:13:08 -0800 Received: from PDX-MX6.stoel.com ([172.16.103.64]) by PDX-SMTP.stoel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:03:01 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Slick Mag Failures X-Original-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:03:01 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: <17E9FE5945A57A41B4D8C07737DB6072198108@PDX-MX6.stoel.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: lml Digest #1148 Thread-Index: AcUmKZyReRArHWsGQv2M0HR8Z2rKewAHaHag From: "Halle, John" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Return-Path: JJHALLE@stoel.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2005 15:03:01.0622 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B66A960:01C5264B] Here is another Slick mag horror story. About three months ago, I = started getting an occasional miss in my engine (once or twice a = flight.) Over time, it got slightly more frequent but it was never more = than one every few minutes. With some experimentation, we discovered = that pulling the LASAR circuit breaker solved the problem. Also = discovered that, while pulling the CB during ground run-up made a 300 = rpm difference, doing so in flight made no difference to any engine = parameter, regardless of the altitude at which it was done. Hooking the = controller box up to a laptop resulted in a perfect test score so the = box and the mags went back to Unison (where nothing happened to them for = 10 days but that's another story.) Found out yesterday that the box = tests perfect but BOTH mags are shot! I have 320 hrs. tach time on = them. I learned the mag mantra early on (probably on my first preflight in = 1967): mags are the world's most inefficient ignition system but we use = them because they are SIMPLE, RELIABLE and SAFE. And I believed it as a = religious doctrine. When I built my airplane, I selected the LASAR = system precisely because it had not one but two of these safe, reliable = things that would work no matter what if the new-fangled electronics = failed. Now I discover that for the last God knows how long, I have = been flying around over mountain ranges and in hard IFR with TWO mags = that went in the dumpster as soon as the Rockford people saw them. As a = final irony, they are pretty close to the only "Certified" parts on my = engine (IO-540 exp). I am getting a discount on two replacement mags which I intend to use = while I figure out what electronic system to go to. I intend to check = them frequently, and I don't mean the run-up check that I have done = before every take-off and that has always been perfect. Check out = whatever Deakin article claims that runup checks are a complete waste of = time, which I now put more stock in than I used to. I have no idea if = the controller box is contributing anything but I intend to test that = too when I get it reinstalled. And I still don't know why the engine = missed only with the LASAR system on. Without it, I would presumably = still be fat, dumb and happy (instead of being only two of the = foregoing) flying around with two "shot" mags tbat do just fine on = runup.