X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:46:54 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta21.charter.net ([216.33.127.81] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 3019965 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:04:02 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.81; envelope-from=LHenney@charter.net Received: from aarprv06.charter.net ([10.20.200.76]) by mta21.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.08.03.00 201-2186-126-20070710) with ESMTP id <20080710180317.QVEH26743.mta21.charter.net@aarprv06.charter.net> for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:03:17 -0400 Received: from LHenneyLaptop ([97.93.200.118]) by aarprv06.charter.net with ESMTP id <20080710180317.RWPE3194.aarprv06.charter.net@LHenneyLaptop> for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:03:17 -0400 From: "LHenney" X-Original-To: "Lancair List" Subject: Mags V Electronic ignition -LNC2 X-Original-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:03:19 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <014f01c8e2b7$3c29bd00$650fa8c0@LHenneyLaptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acjisp8/5nUvbDPUSaWykBzdy3GZiQAAsM/w X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Chzlrs: 0 Gerard, This is a bit hard to get your arms around because you can have either; better fuel economy or better TAS; or a little of both. Read Klaus' web page http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/ He shoots very straight. In my case it took two items which allowed very lean of peak operations. Both the electronic ignition coupled with ram air pressurized injector shrouds allow smooth operation deep on the lean side of peak. This of course costs a couple kts too. A third item; a new prop (Catto-carbon) I think this further improved L.O.P. smoothness (compared to my Hartzell CS) allowing me comfortable cruise operation. As far as greater TAS; yes electronic ignition does improve performance. This performance is touted to be due to improved spark energy while the mag tends to loose power as we ascend. Additionally, of course they advance the timing as MP and RPM decrease. I can't give good data as I've never run a mag on my plane. Rough idea of fuel savings: 1-2 gph. Go with the Lightspeed: I've got 800 hours on a dual set up. So I guess I've saved 800-1600 gallons of fuel, :) I then burned that fuel in races all over the country :) Fast or slow, electronic ignitions are very cool. Larry -----Original Message----- From: gerardoconnell@optusnet.com.au [mailto:gerardoconnell@optusnet.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 9:20 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Mags V Electronic ignition -LNC2 Can anyone provide a rough idea of the performance improvement (TAS and MPG or fuel flow) expected on the 0-320 after converting from 2 mags to one mag + electronic ignition? With the price of fuel heading North I am wondering if its worth the investment Gerard