X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 21:04:59 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.5) with ESMTP id 900987 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:30:03 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.157.37; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id q.1ec.48c3375b (4328) for ; Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:29:10 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <1ec.48c3375b.30e030e4@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:29:08 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Where has all the power gone? X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1135531748" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5300 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1135531748 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/25/2005 10:00:13 A.M. Central Standard Time, mjrav@comcast.net writes: Speed Demon, Is there a practical way to establish more exact timing? I have one Electroair and one LSE system on my IO360 with 9:1 compression. When using an inductive timing light, indications are very jumpy and seem unreliable. I've noted that others have had this problem also. Stop using mag accessory case gear driven Hall effect devices and use the LSE crankshaft sensor - Oh, wait.... doesn't the Rose system use a crank sensor? Is the problem worse with the LSE or Electroair since LSE uses the accessory case sensor? Have you done timing checks on each system alone? Or, are you driving both systems with the same sensor? Are the timing checks always done above 1800 RPM? Things always seem fine at steady power for me. However, I don't have much respect for the jumpy LSE display (all parameters, timing + or - 1 degree). Is it possible to determine a "best " setting based on other operating parameters? As an example, I'm thinking of the "lean test" as being used to analyze the relative performance of different cylinders. I know that overheating can be a symptom of too much advance. Is there any useful correlation? The GAMI Lean test is extremely useful in determining the power differences between cylinders by establishing the fuel flow to each at peak EGT. I use the same Airflow Performance injector nozzles for each cylinder and balanced air pressure to each, the max flow difference I see about .3 GPH max spread, instrumentation accuracy notwithstanding. CHT differences (you did mean cyl overheating, eh?) are often confusing because they can frequently be altered by cooling air management and cylinder baffling as well as power production. Note: To bring the EGT on one cylinder closer to the other three, I once switched from the .022 nozzle to a .023 nozzle in that cylinder and the EGT dropped more below the average than it was above the average before the swap. I changed back to the .022. Fun stuff... Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) Merry Christmas to all! -------------------------------1135531748 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 12/25/2005 10:00:13 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 mjrav@comcast.net writes:=20

Speed Demon,

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>

Is there a practical way to establish mor= e exact=20 timing?

I have one Electroair and one LSE sys= tem on my=20 IO360 with 9:1 compression.

When using an inductive timing light, ind= ications=20 are very jumpy and seem unreliable.

I've noted that others have had this prob= lem=20 also.

Stop using mag accessory case gear driven Hall effect devices and use t= he=20 LSE crankshaft sensor - Oh, wait.... doesn't the Rose system use a cran= k=20 sensor? Is the problem worse with the LSE or Electroair since LSE uses= the=20 accessory case sensor? Have you done timing checks on each system=20 alone? Or, are you driving both systems with the same=20 sensor? Are the timing checks always done above 1800 RPM? =20 Things always seem fine at steady power for me. However, I don't have=20= much=20 respect for the jumpy LSE display (all parameters, timing + or - 1=20 degree).

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>

Is it possible to determine a "best " set= ting=20 based on other operating parameters?

As an example, I'm thinking of the "lean=20= test" as=20 being used to analyze the relative performance of different=20 cylinders.

I know that overheating can be a symptom=20= of too=20 much advance. Is there any useful=20 correlation?

The GAMI Lean test is extremely useful in determining the power differe= nces=20 between cylinders by establishing the fuel flow to each at peak EGT. I= use=20 the same Airflow Performance injector nozzles for each cylinder and=20 balanced air pressure to each, the max flow difference I see about .3 GPH ma= x=20 spread, instrumentation accuracy notwithstanding. CHT differences (you= did=20 mean cyl overheating, eh?) are often confusing because they can=20 frequently be altered by cooling air management and cylinder baffling a= s=20 well as power production.

Note: To bring the EGT on one cylinder closer to the other=20 three, I once switched from the .022 nozzle to a .023 nozzle in that cylinde= r=20 and the EGT dropped more below the average than it was above the averag= e=20 before the swap. I changed back to the .022.

Fun stuff...

Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL (KARR)

Mer= ry=20 Christmas to all!

-------------------------------1135531748--