Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: flyrotary
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:21:03 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1750390@logan.com>
From: Lehanover@aol.com
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Enlarging Trailing spark plug holes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 9/22/2002 1:54:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
marv@lancaironline.net writes:

> Now if there is some magical increase in power (doubtful in my mind - but, I
>  could be wrong) by undertaking to enlarge the trailing sparkplug combustion
>  chamber hole then it might be worthwhile.  Perhaps Lynn will undertake this
>  experiment and report the results - how about it Lynn??

    Well, while there is a very small power increase in power in some RPM 
ranges by splitting the timing, I wonder why you would want to split the 
timing if you want (nearly) the same amount of power from the leading or the 
trailing in the event of failure. I would experiment with the timing and 
adjust it so that the engine would sound different enough on one or the other 
that I could identify a failure by ear. At such a low RPM (6,000 to 6,500 is 
low) there is good burn from either leading or trailing running alone. The 
trailing is no more likely to fail than the leading. So in the worst case you 
get a tone change and a slight power reduction. You head for home and switch 
systems. In the best case you won't even know about the failure until the 
next time would do a (Mag) check. No big deal. In my mind, it is not a 
problem at all.