X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:47:52 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [204.127.198.39] (HELO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.5) with ESMTP id 901644 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:51:15 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.198.39; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net Received: from mark1 (c-65-96-140-242.hsd1.ma.comcast.net[65.96.140.242]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <20051226135027015004rhk6e>; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:50:27 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <000101c60a23$b17732f0$f28c6041@mark1> From: "Mark Ravinski" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Re: Where has all the power gone? X-Original-Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:46:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0054_01C609F0.876C4AA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01C609F0.876C4AA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Guys, (and ladies) Previously I wrote: "I know that overheating can be a symptom of too = much advance. Is there any useful correlation?" I meant over a broad term. Suppose you get used to your engine over = hundreds of hours and years of normal operations. Then, you start experimenting. A new cooling plenum, an electronic = ignition or two, higher compression pistons, iridium plugs and maybe = even Krugerize your fuel injectors with ram air shrouds. Each of these = changes affects performance and effective timing. Of course, you're = adjusting timing as well and there is a trend of higher CHT's with = increasing advance. (over the whole operating envelope but more = noticeably at higher power). So, now you have to wonder if anything you can do on the ground to set = timing is sufficient. =20 If the temps are generally comparable to what you had initially with the = stock setup (well below 400 for all operations) , are you conservative = enough? Mark Ravinski N360KB 1361 hrs (an engineer without a test stand) ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01C609F0.876C4AA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Guys, (and ladies)

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

I meant over a broad term. = Suppose you=20 get used to your engine over hundreds of hours and years of normal=20 operations.

Then, you start experimenting. A = new cooling=20 plenum, an electronic ignition or two, higher compression pistons, = iridium plugs=20 and maybe even Krugerize your fuel injectors with ram air shrouds. = Each of=20 these changes affects performance and effective timing. Of course, = you're=20 adjusting timing as well and there is a trend of higher CHT's with = increasing=20 advance. (over the whole operating envelope but more noticeably at = higher=20 power).

So, now you have to wonder if anything = you can do=20 on the ground to set timing is sufficient.

If the temps are generally comparable = to what you=20 had initially with the stock setup (well below 400 for all operations) , = are you=20 conservative enough?

Mark Ravinski

N360KB 1361 hrs

(an engineer without a test = stand)

------=_NextPart_000_0054_01C609F0.876C4AA0--