|
|
From: "Mark Ravinski" <mjrav@comcast.net>
" I keep going back and forth because there is simply nothing safer than flying behind 2 magnetos. "
Lorn,
I beg to differ.
In my experience with mags, the failure rate has been 4 in 2000 hours.
Once installation difficulties are under control, electronic systems are much better than that. Look at the reliability improvements in automotive engines.
Mark Ravinski, N360KB
From: Sky2high@aol.com
.
.
La..da..da....da..da
Mark,
I have lost 1 alternator and 1 magneto in 3,000 hrs of flying. When I lost the alternator I didn't have to worry about my engine running. I lost the magneto on the ground. I also didn't have to plumb 2 sets of batteries into the plane, just to make sure that I had ignition.
Scott,
If we believed everything that we read about electronic ignitions, we would have 700 horsepower engines that turned mach .5 on 6 gallons per hour.
I do like that http://www.emagair.com/ that you pointed to.
As far as economy goes, when traveling from Detroit to Redmond, I flew legs over 1,000 NM with 30 KT headwinds on standard 43 gallon tanks.
But lets face the facts. In the 2004 Sun 'N Fun race, although I flew 5 miles off course, I still came in 2nd. In the 2004 Redmond race, I came in 1st. This is a standard 160 horsepower plane with iridium plugs and mags. The prop, however, may help. It is an AeroComposites carbon fiber 2 bladed prop.
Lets put our money where our mouths are. Is there anyone out there with an electronic ignition and a straight 160 horsepower engine that thinks they can beat me? If so, see you at Sun 'N Fun if not sooner.
Lorn
Flame suit on.
--
Lorn H. 'Feathers' Olsen, MAA, DynaComm, Corp.
248-345-0500, mailto:lorn@dynacomm.ws
LNC2, O-320-D1F, 1,000 hrs, N31161, Y47, SE Michigan
|
|