X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:45:50 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.59.228] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4576456 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:54:04 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.59.228; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net Received: from omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.72]) by qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id WBYF1f0051ZXKqc5FDtVUu; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:53:29 +0000 Received: from mjr ([24.2.137.82]) by omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id WDtU1f00U1mqhrL3hDtVKX; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:53:29 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <008801cb8271$831e0890$6401a8c0@mjr> From: "Mark Ravinski" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Upgrade your ignition and help LOBO X-Original-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:57:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0085_01CB8247.99FE9B80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.2001 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.2001 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01CB8247.99FE9B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Listers, One electronic ignition gives about 90% of the fuel savings of having = both. The savings (and power increase) happen because more of the fuel charge = is burned in the cylinder and less in the exhaust stream. (I can't = imagine it being a good idea to disconnect the MAP sensor hose.) Try doing a mag check at any cruise power setting and watch CHT and EGT. = When one system is off, the CHT drops and the EGT rises. This shows = that more fuel is being wasted and is burning in the exhaust pipe. When = you shut down the system that is doing the most work, you will see the = biggest changes. I have used ignitions from three makers and all have had some issues. So have the original mags of course. The Electroair system was sensitive to interference. Once I had the = engine falter when I used the mike button. I rerouted some wires. My early Lightspeed system is pretty good but it gets lazy at high = altitude cruise LOP. New plugs and expensive wires don't help completely. The coils check = good. Klaus last said to check the timing..... If anyone can help me with this I'd appreciate it. My P-Mag is working well now but early on there were some issues with = the sensor magnet coming unglued. Those folks have been good to work = with although they wouldn't put me on their payroll for helping out with = destructive testing. Mark Ravinski 360 1496 hrs ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gary Casey=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:24 PM Subject: [LML] Re: Upgrade your ignition and help LOBO 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. ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01CB8247.99FE9B80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Listers,
One electronic ignition gives about 90% = of the fuel=20 savings of having both.
The savings (and power increase) happen = because=20 more of the fuel charge is burned in the cylinder and less in the = exhaust=20 stream.  (I can't imagine it being a good idea to disconnect the = MAP sensor=20 hose.)
Try doing a mag check at any cruise = power setting=20 and watch CHT and EGT.  When one system is off, the CHT drops and = the EGT=20 rises.  This shows that more fuel is being wasted and is burning in = the=20 exhaust pipe.  When you shut down the system that is doing the most = work,=20 you will see the biggest changes.
I have used ignitions from three makers = and all=20 have had some issues.
So have the original mags of = course.
 
The Electroair system was sensitive to=20 interference.  Once I had the engine falter when I used the mike=20 button.  I rerouted some wires.
 
My early Lightspeed system is pretty = good but it=20 gets lazy at high altitude cruise LOP.
New plugs and expensive wires don't = help=20 completely.  The coils check good.  Klaus last said to check = the=20 timing.....
If anyone can help me with this I'd = appreciate=20 it.
 
My P-Mag is working well now but early = on there=20 were some issues with the sensor magnet coming unglued.  Those = folks have=20 been good to work with although they wouldn't put me on their payroll = for=20 helping out with destructive testing.
 
Mark Ravinski
360  1496 hrs
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Gary=20 Casey
Sent: Thursday, November 11, = 2010 1:24=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Upgrade your = ignition=20 and help LOBO

I = haven't=20 been following this thread in detail, but I have a few questions and a = comment:
I = certainly=20 agree that the ability to increase spark advance at low manifold = pressures=20 gives a substantial improvement in efficiency.  But how much = improvement=20 does a single electronic ignition give compared to a dual system? =  The=20 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=20 long flights are at about 12,000 feet, so I expect some improvement = over dual=20 mags.

Second=20 question:  I have disconnected the MAP sensor from the intake = manifold=20 port, leaving it to read atmospheric pressure.  I can't see any = real=20 difference in operation, since almost all cruising is done at full = throttle=20 with manifold pressure about the same as atmospheric.  The = advantage is=20 noticed during the runup - the rpm drops are about the same, whereas = with the=20 MAP sensor connected the rpm drop when shutting off the mag was very = small,=20 making it a little less of an obvious test.  Are other people = running=20 electronic ignitions with the MAP sensor disconnected?  The only=20 disadvantage I can see is if you fly a lot of the time at low = altitudes and=20 part throttle you will lose some of the=20 advantage.

Finally the=20 comment (with a question buried in it):  Several, including Bill = (message=20 below) mention the advantage as being fuel flow reduction.  But = at full=20 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=20 be smoother on account of the extra spark advance, but I've never done = a=20 back-to-back comparison to verify=20 = that.
------=_NextPart_000_0085_01CB8247.99FE9B80--