X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:24:31 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web57509.mail.re1.yahoo.com ([66.196.100.76] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with SMTP id 4574964 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:41:27 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.196.100.76; envelope-from=casey.gary@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 84601 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Nov 2010 13:40:51 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=phWfp6MYDDtD0Fl52Q0PqNxgXIyFqG1C/rW53HmeMkJY+auRE4EBiBh2Hd+0peZbGwa/dB9lvRh2mtPbSuZgcCjzsLI81jljFPoZTIWjGPOi5Of0u6w5HxDyXhBY/dUIOtzcWVYY4Ql7plAOKwub0m/BmRlS2N3kHb2lNBC+Szg=; X-Original-Message-ID: <359619.75963.qm@web57509.mail.re1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: L22oLjEVM1lPwhRCrdF5akzpV2RnhHGyiJj3N0GwnE5mOzR NCSKOSyvUkxZPmgqCPEFoavN2SH2oaE2F3Q7gLLfaMcSkp0l5oD8Vvjjjc3d AQgy75zXVL5PGeYZQHtTvut0U7k6ueIETk42iY0waJfqJDRCtioUpj2JyZJa GQinu4I59Aj7f2e5MyfpGgq915XYl1knsgMu5CBk15KbPj45kura.P5jgC8u FuS_DIA3iAskIBqPVCYTzk4Sw.XMTQ.mMCTg.vY4ziulpp4zHpQ-- Received: from [97.122.152.1] by web57509.mail.re1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 05:40:50 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 X-Original-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 05:40:50 -0800 (PST) From: Gary Casey Subject: Re: Upgrade your ignition and help LOBO X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1722240323-1289482850=:75963" --0-1722240323-1289482850=:75963 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I haven't been following this thread in detail, but I have a few questions and a comment: I certainly agree that the ability to increase spark advance at low manifold pressures gives a substantial improvement in efficiency. But how much improvement does a single electronic ignition give compared to a dual system? The only answer I've been given is "about half." That makes sense, I suppose, but is there any data out there to support that? Most of my long flights are at about 12,000 feet, so I expect some improvement over dual mags. Second question: I have disconnected the MAP sensor from the intake manifold port, leaving it to read atmospheric pressure. I can't see any real difference in operation, since almost all cruising is done at full throttle with manifold pressure about the same as atmospheric. The advantage is noticed during the runup - the rpm drops are about the same, whereas with the MAP sensor connected the rpm drop when shutting off the mag was very small, making it a little less of an obvious test. Are other people running electronic ignitions with the MAP sensor disconnected? The only disadvantage I can see is if you fly a lot of the time at low altitudes and part throttle you will lose some of the advantage. Finally the comment (with a question buried in it): Several, including Bill (message below) mention the advantage as being fuel flow reduction. But at full throttle cruise I can't see how fuel flow could be reduced, only power increased. Do people fly at a fixed airspeed, throttling back or reducing rpm to save fuel? Another advantage is that LOP operation could be smoother on account of the extra spark advance, but I've never done a back-to-back comparison to verify that. I really like the E-mag concept and the new 6-cylinder version would be very nice. But they are handicapping themselves by trying to get the full dual system into a single package. I was told that they are trying to replace the "dual" Bendix mag and I agree with their reasoning, but it makes the development more complex. Another comment - they, in the same package, are implementing a different (non-inductive) method of creating the spark. At OSH they wouldn't talk about the technology. I suspect that is another reason for the delay. Gary Yes, it's frustrating. I've been waiting for my 6 cylinder E-Mags for well over a year. HOWEVER, every time I talk to them they are extremely clear that they have not set a date for release. Only when I really press them will they give me their "guess". They make sure to say that their guesses are usually wrong and that they are not promises or schedules. Actually, I find it a bit refreshing compared to some of the "it'll ship next week" promises that I've heard from other manufacturers. I've been using their 4 cylinder product on our 320 for a little over 500 hours. I have found it to be more dependable and far more efficient than a standard magneto. At the same true airspeed I save almost 1 gallon per hour (160 hp stock Lyc O-320) over a magneto. This fuel savings has easily paid for the ignition system. If this same efficiency and dependability carries over to the Continental 6 cylinder, I can't imagine any reason not to install it. I have no connection to E-Mag, financial or otherwise, and am passing on this information only as a report of the results that I have had with their product. Bill Harrelson --0-1722240323-1289482850=:75963 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
I haven't been following this thread in detail, but I have a few questions and a comment:
I certainly agree that the ability to increase spark advance at low manifold pressures gives a substantial improvement in efficiency.  But how much improvement does a single electronic ignition give compared to a dual system?  The only answer I've been given is "about half."  That makes sense, I suppose, but is there any data out there to support that?  Most of my long flights are at about 12,000 feet, so I expect some improvement over dual mags.

Second question:  I have disconnected the MAP sensor from the intake manifold port, leaving it to read atmospheric pressure.  I can't see any real difference in operation, since almost all cruising is done at full throttle with manifold pressure about the same as atmospheric.  The advantage is noticed during the runup - the rpm drops are about the same, whereas with the MAP sensor connected the rpm drop when shutting off the mag was very small, making it a little less of an obvious test.  Are other people running electronic ignitions with the MAP sensor disconnected?  The only disadvantage I can see is if you fly a lot of the time at low altitudes and part throttle you will lose some of the advantage.

Finally the comment (with a question buried in it):  Several, including Bill (message below) mention the advantage as being fuel flow reduction.  But at full throttle cruise I can't see how fuel flow could be reduced, only power increased.  Do people fly at a fixed airspeed, throttling back or reducing rpm to save fuel?  Another advantage is that LOP operation could be smoother on account of the extra spark advance, but I've never done a back-to-back comparison to verify that.

I really like the E-mag concept and the new 6-cylinder version would be very nice.  But they are handicapping themselves by trying to get the full dual system into a single package.  I was told that they are trying to replace the "dual" Bendix mag and I agree with their reasoning, but it makes the development more complex.  Another comment - they, in the same package, are implementing a different (non-inductive) method of creating the spark.  At OSH they wouldn't talk about the technology.  I suspect that is another reason for the delay.
Gary

Yes, it's frustrating. I've been waiting for my 6 cylinder E-Mags for well over a year. HOWEVER, every time I talk to them they are extremely clear that they have not set a date for release. Only when I really press them will they give me their "guess". They make sure to say that their guesses are usually wrong and that they are not promises or schedules. Actually, I find it a bit refreshing compared to some of the "it'll ship next week" promises that I've heard from other manufacturers.

I've been using their 4 cylinder product on our 320 for a little over 500 hours. I have found it to be more dependable and far more efficient than a standard magneto. At the same true airspeed I save almost 1 gallon per hour (160 hp stock Lyc O-320) over a magneto. This fuel savings has easily paid for the ignition system.  If this same efficiency and dependability carries over to the Continental 6 cylinder, I can't imagine any reason not to install it.

I have no connection to E-Mag, financial or otherwise, and am passing on this information only as a report of the results that I have had with their product.



Bill Harrelson


--0-1722240323-1289482850=:75963--