This also shows that once you have a proper ignition system that gives you book HP output the cooling is all of a sudden inadequate (in spite of accepted dogma) and shows that with a legacy mag system a lot more fuel is thrown out the exhaust unburnt than previously thought.
Maybe, but the proof will be if this guy is getting the same TAS at a lower fuel flow. Has he found that?
Well other than “extra performance is noticeable” is he getting better or same TAS? Let’s check the B55 book figures:
6500 feet, 23 inches 2500 rpm in a B55 is 189 kts at 13.6 gph on standard ignition running ROP versus 191 kts at 12 gph running LOP. I for one can’t get same or better speed on 12% less fuel flow on the IO550…
10000 feet, 20 MP, 2450 rpm is 185 book on 11.7 gph ROP on standard ignition versus 182 kts at 11.3 gph running LOP with this setup.
Another data point:
“I have Electroair installed on my E55 Baron with IO520cbs, a 250 hour and a 25 hour RAM engines.
I am collecting data and expect to post significant data in a month or so.
So far I have flown for hours at 6000, 8000, 10000, 15000 and 17000. Cruise rpms at 2500, 2400 and 2300.
Re CHTs, they are higher, but not much higher. I have not had the need to open flaps in cruse to keep them below 400 — only one cylinder is at or near 400. The others are 350-370. On climb to 17k, I needed to keep airspeed a little higher than before, to manage cht’s. I might have been able to manage the cht’s with greater fuel burn but did not try that yet. EGTs are a little lower after EI, suggesting a more complete fuel burn in the cylinder. I have a JPI 760 gauge with all options.
The EI seems to “want” to fly LOP. I will have to figure out a better way of talking about this. Moving from ROP to LOP there is absolutely no cough, hesitation, lack of smoothness, etc., which were present in my former engines, at least, when operated LOP. I need more time for testing and analysis of my numbers, to say where I want to operate the engines.
At the moment, it seems safe and correct to say that they burn about 1.5 fewer gph for the same power/airspeed. It could be a little more than (2gph) but not less, at least at the power setting I have used. I have not been able to discern airspeed increases, at any fuel flow, including rop, but I cannot rule out that there is a 1-3 knot increase — there might be. There certainly is not a whopping increase in airspeed.
A “seat of the pants” observation, is that the ground run on takeoff at sea level (acceleration), seems much stronger — of course I have one brand new engine, which bears on that too, but the EI is very likely a factor."
NIL: There is a very simple way to measure performance with/sans electronic ignition: just shut down the EI in flight which forces it to back-up mode, ie. normal fixed advance .
IMHO: The performance gains are marginal at best, with exception to high altitude (very low MP) LOP ops .
Can’t you just undo the LASAR installation? I’d only install Electoair if there was a simple way for me to remove it and restore the original setup. I would probably also buy a spare right away.
I’m a big fan of aircraft modifications that can be undone 
The real test would be with two electronic ignitions installed to weed out tractor ignition technology influence.
Electroair can very easily be undone. Remove Electroair coil harness, install old-skool coil harness to magneto. Done.
achimha wrote:
Can’t you just undo the LASAR installation?
No, it’s not an “add-on” , so ALL 4 mags (it’s a twin) will need to be replaced with traditional mags. The only part that wold be “recycleable” are the harness if you install Slick.
1.5GPH less for the same speed is quite a big gain – even if he is quoting the combined fuel flow 
He just needs to make sure that the speed and RPM are exactly the same as before i.e. same thrust from the props.
Let’s check the B55 book figures:
Book figures are usually a bit off, however. The ones in my POH are way off.
I would not expect a huge gain in MPG with electronic ignition. After all, the timing in our engines has been optimised for cruise. What one might get is a second order benefit e.g. being able to run the engine LOP, with more MP to compensate, and at a lower RPM at which the mechanical losses are reduced. But that will work, above about 8000ft, only with turbo engines…
Lower RPM does work. This chart shows that you can get the same HP for less fuel, by lowering the RPM
The problem is that you run out of power required to reach the required altitude. I can fly at 2200 up to about FL130, maybe 140 just about. Anything above 170/180 needs the max of 2575.
