Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:20:34 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.103] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b8) with ESMTP id 1750281 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 00:50:26 -0400 Received: from Lehanover@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id q.72.22f74044 (4004) for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 00:49:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Lehanover@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <72.22f74044.2abff770@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 00:49:52 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Enlarging Trailing spark plug holes X-Original-To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 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.