X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:50:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d22.mx.aol.com ([205.188.144.208] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c4) with ESMTP id 2638584 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:05:04 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.144.208; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id q.d1a.1943cdb3 (39331) for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:04:20 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:04:20 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: One mag, One electronic ignition X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1199934260" X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1199934260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/9/2008 8:11:07 P.M. Central Standard Time, walter@advancedpilot.com writes: I cannot honestly give more details for two reasons, 1) I don't know them all, and 2) This was an R&D run on a NA TCM engine set up like TCM wants it set up with only the one difference of advancing the timing 2 degrees. The resultant ICPs were 1130-1140psi and it was not at max power or at max ICP mixture! It could easily have been made worse--and it wasn't even TC'd. My point, Scott, is that we see folks diddling with timing changes who have no hard ICP data--only what they *think* will be the result or some *calculation* and we now know, from hard data, that that decision tree in this instance could be flawed--with nasty results. Some of the guys who who have seen this data and were common choice builders of engines for the exp. market will no longer build/warrant an engine on which the owner plans to use EI. I find that telling. My current position on EIs is that the jury is still out on what's being done by some folks who are doing so without hard ICP data--and as far as I can tell, that's most of them. Walter, Fine. A good example of your point is LASAR. Whatever method they used to arrive at their secret timing curve for a carbureted Lyc 360 in a C172 sure didn't work very well when installed and used on an injected 320 with a higher CR. Another example might be the EMAG/PMAG group. When I first considered their equipment they had very limited experience with any variety of engines. 24 software changes indicates they may be getting much needed experience. Perhaps that is why they allow the user to alter the timing. The dual Light Speed Engineering Plasma III (sustained spark) has worked quite effectively for me. I do not know about any other engine. While I could "adjust" the timing, I have no interest in doing so because I don't think I could improve anymore on the engine operation and I sure could easily harm it or just make it worse... Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) Pilot not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%. **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 -------------------------------1199934260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 1/9/2008 8:11:07 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 walter@advancedpilot.com writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>

I cannot honestly give more details for two reasons, 1) I don't know=20= them=20 all, and 2) This was an R&D run on a NA TCM engine set up like TCM wan= ts=20 it set up with only the one difference of advancing the timing 2 degrees.=20 The resultant ICPs were 1130-1140psi and it was not at max power or=20= at=20 max ICP mixture! It could easily have been made worse--and it wasn't= =20 even TC'd.

My point, Scott, is that we see folks diddling with timing changes wh= o=20 have no hard ICP data--only what they *think* will be the result or some=20 *calculation* and we now know, from hard data, that that decision tree in=20= this=20 instance could be flawed--with nasty results. Some of the guys who w= ho=20 have seen this data and were common choice builders of engines for the exp= .=20 market will no longer build/warrant an engine on which the owner plans to=20= use=20 EI. I find that telling.

My current position on EIs is that the jury is still out on what's be= ing=20 done by some folks who are doing so without hard ICP data--and as far as I= can=20 tell, that's most of them.

Walter,

Fine.

A good example of your point is LASAR. Whatever method they=20= used=20 to arrive at their secret timing curve for a carbureted Lyc 360 in a C1= 72=20 sure didn't work very well when installed and used on an injected 320 with a= =20 higher CR.

Another example might be the EMAG/PMAG group. When I first consid= ered=20 their equipment they had very limited experience with any variety of=20 engines. 24 software changes indicates they may be getting much needed= =20 experience. Perhaps that is why they allow the user to alter the=20 timing.

The dual Light Speed Engineering Plasma III (sustained spark) has=20 worked quite effectively for me. I do not know about any other=20 engine. While I could "adjust" the timing, I have no interest in doing= so=20 because I don't think I could improve anymore on the engine operation and I=20= sure=20 could easily harm it or just make it worse...

Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL (KARR)

Pil= ot=20 not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%.

Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

-------------------------------1199934260--