X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:11:34 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm16-vm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.91.146] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.2) with SMTP id 5214480 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 21:44:31 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.138.91.146; envelope-from=randylsnarr@yahoo.com Received: from [98.138.90.56] by nm16.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Nov 2011 02:43:55 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.165] by tm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Nov 2011 02:43:55 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1021.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Nov 2011 02:43:55 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 765245.22562.bm@omp1021.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 46772 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2011 02:43:55 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=DKIM-Signature:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Subject:References:From:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Date:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version; b=jdPGugJA4eyjo5pRmSJHpzIjq8tfCBkwxV7b1PGwAEFxA+f6UIc9OWc0mWzyB0GBw7H2dWuT08PWrLXKIEKnCAmeo79lmzMOOkKQUlKsJIMcUAeBqmYOgggHYPuhfStQ22qQ0S0upqlmtTDRCIf9Ni5VCeyquX9M+x/6g0zjxSo= ; X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: rtpYDSkVM1nWOEIjseN3YlY5dQcBXQJfhe8dCU1Ywg4g8tJ loi39S2UaxaIPThAXsQJF3uai_bS_h6vb5TOd2kh_OqPAddz4KhHDfKV91uD p3CCn0HwwbKebWZKqtIdBVjZWsdbb1QC86WNUepQa9wPu4wWdENQoFYzGJmX 3odZL4j8awjUNrJBEr.mvH6HOkbt5IBXZJ3sDAuTc8PxaIfWi9slE9yw_fUV 1.yv.A3zkhpf2OF1pS7nigJd4qMJjtWzDobkV8jk1NjLBHkdqufV9pfnsHaP 1RCTsNl_AJiCzFJ8hs44.0dThW7vClQJU7754hAiqFFatHEoJlmiI4HODyaD d9qqpy2HPJ_fWaI7PZDC06ztA46H3DF057k4b8kEdHUXYpN2Cuj9snzqsV8G NzyeDynoiRN4tmtSNfMRUbeEr.RakTwkpQFFGbJT2TO8FTtf4cvgH2oxT1gr Cdqmzt7M- X-Yahoo-SMTP: tg4YEXeswBAq79ZTs5A79J5zDY9lAVNV Received: from [192.168.1.106] (randylsnarr@76.8.220.20 with xymcookie) by smtp106-mob.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2011 18:43:53 -0800 PST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: E-Mag/P-Mag References: From: Randy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1DD54FBE-B6A8-49C3-A730-7FB5FD624A0C X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9A334) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: X-Original-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 19:43:51 -0700 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-1DD54FBE-B6A8-49C3-A730-7FB5FD624A0C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Chris, I have been told by several people that you will get approximately 10= more hp with electronic ignition. Another benefit is a lower fuel burn. I r= outinely see 175 knots tas on 6 gallons at 14 ish thousand feet with my io32= 0. It is my understanding you will also get 1 or 2 gallons better fuel burn.= I don't really understand the science behind all this but my real world exp= erience flying with friends with a more traditional set up leads me to belie= ve there is something to it. I also run the airflow performance fuel injection and love it as well. Randy Snarr N694RS 235/320 Sent from my iPad On Nov 23, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Chris Zavatson wrote= : > Gary, > Could you elaborate on the performance benefits to be expected from advanc= ed spark at altitude. Efficiency, power, etc. > -just curious as I spend a lot of time between 13 and 18k with my Slick ma= gs and carb. and haven't really studied the topic. > thanks, > =20 > Chris Zavatson > N91CZ > 360std > www.N91CZ.net >=20 > From: Gary Casey > To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 8:44 AM > Subject: [LML] Re: E-Mag/P-Mag >=20 > It all depends on the spark advance schedule built into the units, and I d= on't know much about the p-mag. I'm told that at high altitude cruise (low m= anifold pressures) the Lightspeed will advance the spark by at least 7 degre= es over the base timing. That should (will) give a substantial performance b= enefit at altitude. Low-elevation takeoffs won't be any different because t= here is no spark advance change over a standard mag. All I can tell is that= my non-turbocharged ES will degrade significantly less than a normal plane a= s the altitude goes up. It is very happy above 12,000 feet and still has go= od performance at 17,000. Some say 10 to 20 percent, but I'm not sure I buy= that. "Up to 10 percent", as the ads say, is certainly believable. If you= fly a lot above 12,000 feet having a system that advances the timing is wel= l worth it, in my opinion. If you routinely fly at 3,000 feet throttled bac= k to less than 20 inches manifold pressure you probably wouldn't be subscrib= ed to the Lancair list :-) >=20 > On the other hand, I wouldn't go to the trouble for a turbocharged engine,= as the engine will never - or rarely - operate at low manifold pressure for= any length of time. The only operational problem with a mag is potential c= ross-firing at high altitude, high boost conditions. So for that reason you= might want a distributorless system(Lightspeed, e-mag, p-mag or whatever), I= don't know. >=20 > Again, the important thing is not so much about how the spark is formed, b= ut WHEN it fires. Regarding the question from Scott about efficiency or per= formance - the engine always inhales the same amount of air and fuel, so the= spark advance just increases the power derived - which is the same as effic= iency. More power on the same fuel. The difference is greater as the engin= e is run leaner of peak as well as at high altitude. Both slow the burn rat= e, so more advance is welcome. >=20 > These comments apply to any open-loop system. Adaptive systems, such as t= he PRISM, are a different story. > Gary Casey >=20 >=20 > For those using the p-mag. Is there any significant increase in fuel eff= iciency or > increase in performance noticed? > =20 > Thanks > Scott Keighan >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-1DD54FBE-B6A8-49C3-A730-7FB5FD624A0C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Chris, I have been told by= several people that you will get approximately 10 more hp with electronic i= gnition. Another benefit is a lower fuel burn. I routinely see 175 knots tas= on 6 gallons at 14 ish thousand feet with my io320. It is my understanding y= ou will also get 1 or 2 gallons better fuel burn. I don't really understand t= he science behind all this but my real world experience flying with friends w= ith a more traditional set up leads me to believe there is something to it.<= /div>
I also run the airflow performance fuel injection and love it as w= ell.
Randy Snarr
N694RS
235/320

Sent fr= om my iPad

On Nov 23, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Chris Zavatson <chris_zavatson@yahoo.com> wro= te:

<= span style=3D"RIGHT: auto" id=3D"yiv436715057yui_3_2_0_16_132184289601059">G= ary,
Could you elaborate on the performance benefits t= o be expected from advanced= spark at altitude.  Efficiency, power, etc.
= -just curious as I spend a lot of time between 13 and 18k with my Slick mag= s and carb. and haven't really= studied the topic.
thanks,
 
Chris Zavatson
N91CZ
360std

From: Gary Casey <cas= ey.gary@yahoo.com>
To:= lml@lancaironline.net
= Sent: Thursday, November 17,= 2011 8:44 AM
Subject: [L= ML] Re: E-Mag/P-Mag

It all depends on the spark advance schedule built into the units, and I= don't know much about the p-mag.  I'm told that at high altitude cruis= e (low manifold pressures) the Lights= peed will advance the spark by at least 7 degrees over the base timin= g.  That should (will) give a substantial performance benefit at altitu= de.  Low-elevation takeoffs won't be any different because there is no s= park advance change over a standard mag.  All I can tell is that my non= -turbocharged ES will degrade significantly less than a normal plane as the a= ltitude goes up.  It is very happy above 12,000 feet and still has good= performance at 17,000.  Some say 10 to 20 percent, but I'm not sure I b= uy that.  "Up to 10 percent", as the ads say, is certainly believable. &= nbsp;If you fly a lot above 12,000 feet having a system that advances the ti= ming is well worth it, in my opinion.  If you routinely fly at 3,000 feet throttled back to less than 20 inches manifold p= ressure you probably wouldn't be subscribed to the Lancair list :-)

On the other hand, I wouldn't go to the trouble for a turbocharged engi= ne, as the engine will never - or rarely - operate at low manifold pressure f= or any length of time.  The only operational problem with a mag is pote= ntial cross-firing at high altitude, high boost conditions.  So for tha= t reason you might want a distributor= less system(Lightspeed,= e-mag, p-mag or whatever), I don't know.

Again, the important thing is not so much about how the spark is formed= , but WHEN it fires.  Regarding the question from Scott about efficienc= y or performance - the engine always inhales the same amount of air and fuel= , so the spark advance just increases the power derived - which is the same a= s efficiency.  More power on the same fuel.  The difference is gre= ater as the engine is run leaner of peak as well as at high altitude.  = Both slow the burn rate, so more advance is welcome.

These comments apply to any open-loop system.  Adaptive systems, s= uch as the PRISM, are a different story.
Gary Casey


 For those using the p-mag.  Is there any sig= nificant increase in fuel efficiency or
increase in performance noticed?<= br> 
Thanks
Scott Keighan<= /span>


= --Apple-Mail-1DD54FBE-B6A8-49C3-A730-7FB5FD624A0C--