X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:32:44 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c4) with ESMTP id 2629868 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:08:37 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.65; envelope-from=douglasbrunner@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=rOXv1eWWp4Y7B5aoRdpLgykSfoqctTP4BzIVTWo6cjPT6cemh2awod5mmDDQwoOu; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [74.93.196.177] (helo=DFWK3391) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1JAYEJ-0004Va-7g for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:07:59 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <006101c84e55$1a10e280$1dd0a60a@DFWK3391> From: "Douglas Brunner" X-Original-To: "Mailing List Lancair" Subject: Electronic Ignition X-Original-Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:07:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005E_01C84E2B.3103EC00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-ELNK-Trace: ad85a799c4f5de37c2eb1477c196d22294f5150ab1c16ac01a238acc8405a5b08235fdd8bcd2356830119a56b9b04825350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 74.93.196.177 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C84E2B.3103EC00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have been thinking a little bit about this issue. I would like to add = my 2 cents and see what others (particularly Adkinson and Braly) have to say about = this issue. I just had an IO-550N built for my Legacy and I specifically requested = dual magnetos. My reasons for requesting dual magnetos were: a.. Safety Reasons - continued spark even with electrical failure b.. Maintenance Reasons - better parts availability, mechanics have = greater familiarity with magnetos c.. No good evidence of improved horsepower with electronic igntion d.. Possible decrease in TBO with electronic ignition due to unproven = spark advance curve Recently, I have been thinking about using the new E-Mag to replace one = or both of my magnetos. E-Mag expects to have their new 6 cylinder = model out shortly (I know - don't hold my breath). It has several = features that appeal to me: a.. An internal generator that will continue to spark even with a = complete electrical failure b.. The ability to be set to a fixed advanced curve like a Magneto c.. Immunity to high altitude misfire (like a pressurized magneto) Some questions with respect to the additional spark advance provided by = electronic igntion: 1.. Has an increase in horsepower due to additional spark advance = been well demonstrated? (Same engine operated on a dynamometer with and = without electronic ignition) 2.. Even if horsepower is increased, does it come at the expense of a = decreased TBO? (Advanced timing can increase intra-cylinder pressures) D. Brunner ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Steve Colwell" To: Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 1:18 PM Subject: [LML] One mag, One electronic ignition > I have not done any tests but I believe if One Mag and One Electronic > Ignition is used you are likely to fail the Mag Coil prematurely (that = would > reduce the aprox. 400 to 600 hour normal failure of a new Slick to a = really > unacceptable life). Why?? One of the principal advantages of EI is = the > variable timing advance that improves power and efficiency. When the = EI > fires a plug before the Mag, the pressure rise from earlier combustion = may > prevent the Mag plug from firing. Maybe (probably?) preventing the = Mag plug > from firing at least at higher altitudes where advance is the = greatest. I > base my theory on the old Champion Spark Plug Testers that used an air = hose > to increase pressure while firing a plug to check its ability to = continue to > fire. What do others say?=20 >=20 >=20 > Steve Colwell ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C84E2B.3103EC00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have been thinking a little bit about this issue.  I would = like to=20 add my 2 cents
and see what others (particularly Adkinson and Braly) have to = say=20 about this issue.
I just had an IO-550N built for my Legacy and I = specifically=20 requested dual magnetos.  My reasons for requesting dual magnetos=20 were:
  • Safety Reasons - continued spark even with electrical failure
  • Maintenance Reasons - better parts availability, mechanics have=20 greater familiarity with magnetos
  • No good evidence of improved horsepower with = electronic=20 igntion
  • Possible decrease in TBO with electronic = ignition due to=20 unproven spark advance curve
Recently, I have been thinking about using the new E-Mag to replace = one or=20 both of my magnetos.  E-Mag expects to have their new 6 cylinder = model out=20 shortly (I know - don't hold my breath).  It has = several features that=20 appeal to me:
  • An internal generator that will continue to spark even with a = complete=20 electrical failure
  • The ability to be set to a fixed advanced curve like a = Magneto
  • Immunity to high altitude misfire (like a pressurized=20 magneto)
Some questions with respect to the additional spark advance = provided by=20 electronic igntion:
  1.  Has an increase in horsepower due to additional spark=20 advance been well demonstrated?  (Same engine operated on a=20 dynamometer with and without electronic ignition)
  2. Even if horsepower is increased, does it come at the expense of a=20 decreased TBO?  (Advanced timing can increase intra-cylinder=20 pressures)
D. Brunner
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Steve Colwell" <mcmess1919@yahoo.com>
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
=
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 1:18 PM
Subject: [LML] One mag, One electronic ignition

> I have not done any tests but I believe if One Mag and One = Electronic
> Ignition is used you are likely to fail the Mag Coil=20 prematurely (that would
> reduce the aprox. 400 to 600 hour normal = failure=20 of a new Slick to a really
> unacceptable life).  Why??  = One of=20 the principal advantages of EI is the
> variable timing advance = that=20 improves power and efficiency.  When the EI
> fires a plug = before the=20 Mag, the pressure rise from earlier combustion may
> prevent the = Mag plug=20 from firing.  Maybe (probably?) preventing the Mag plug
> = from firing=20 at least at higher altitudes where advance is the greatest. I
> = base my=20 theory on the old Champion Spark Plug Testers that used an air = hose
> to=20 increase pressure while firing a plug to check its ability to continue=20 to
> fire.  What do others say?
>
>
> = Steve=20 Colwell
------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C84E2B.3103EC00--