What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

P-Mag "B" Curve Advance Map

The Electroair is certified/STC'd for 4 cyl lycs so it must have passed some kind of "certification" process?

Walt, you would think so. The one thing I have learned lately is that the STC process can be a very big deal.

One other realisation is that if the applicant works with the FAA personnel and they are lacking knowledge and understanding of the issues, the test plan could be easily flawed.

So just because a piece of equipment has a TSO or STC does not mean it is brilliant either.

There is a Turbo system for Barons with an STC and mysteriously there have been some very interesting failures, resulting in crashes and fatalities. Dual failures in a twin is not really meant to happen.

OK, Thread Drift over. :eek:
 
So, to obtain an STC you either have to dazzled them with your brilliance, or baffled them with your BS.

:cool:
 
So, to obtain an STC you either have to dazzled them with your brilliance, or baffled them with your BS.

:cool:

Maybe??? Not sure you would get away with everything all the time. But......

Look at the ASPEN PFD's that were downright deadly long after release and were certified and being fitted into certified machines. C208 comes to mind in Melbourne, Rv10 owner and friend of mine had that happen to him in cloud on descent. It did not fail, as in go blank, it toppled.....as in like a vac one might while in a steep descending turn :eek: Took some resolution of the mind.

This was happening in places like Alaska too.

I am sure there are plenty of cases.

A TSO or STC is not a guarantee of quality, accuracy or performance as many think it is. It pays to remember this when thinking about it.
 
I would really like to learn more about engine performance and timing theory. Is there a book or something I can purchase...

Forgot to look at CAFE for this stuff... Excellent articles concerning aircraft ignitions found here. Just scroll down the page and find Ignition Dynamics (three parts). Not only is there a great deal of info on basic theory, but plenty of real world testing on many of the topics we are throwing around in this thread.

Good reading!
 
Last edited:
I would really like to learn more about engine performance and timing theory. Is there a book or something I can purchase.

I guess if I had to pick one as the classic reference, it would be Charles Fayette Taylor's The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice. It's two-volume set. Not a recent work, but very serious, and the fundamentals have not changed. The extensive bibliography can be useful.

Taylor was one of the godfathers of American engine design.

http://web.mit.edu/hmtl/www/taylor.pdf

I'm always on the hunt for interesting research papers on the web. Here's one I stumbled across just last night while looking for more Lycoming cylinder pressure data. It's a good read:

http://www.vehicular.isy.liu.se/Publications/PhD/99_PhD_580_LE.pdf
 
Last edited:
I'm always on the hunt for interesting research papers on the web. Here's one I stumbled across just last night while looking for more Lycoming cylinder pressure data. It's a good read:

http://www.vehicular.isy.liu.se/Publications/PhD/99_PhD_580_LE.pdf

I read this paper a few years back, mainly to do some research for ion sensing ignitions. Basically a high voltage is run on the secondary side and one can use that voltage to find peak current which would be when the greatest amount of ionization occurs at the peak pressure point. Combustion produces an ion-charged cloud which is conductive. Some late-model Harleys use this system and I understand they troublesome. Not sure if they're still using it.
 
Dan,

Thank you very much for posting that.

That last link was very good reading indeed. Notably that it was only 13 years ago and in the modern era so to speak.

I was delighted to see much of what we teach is lock-step with that paper and it is well laid out, so most folk on VAF should be able to follow it I am sure.

Oddly enough some of the graphs confirm a lot of the content of this thread.

Thanks again. :)
 
You're quite welcome David. For the record, let's note your friends in Ada could easily provide us with a very accurate RPM-vs-manifold pressure advance map.

Here's the Electroair map, with the values rounded to the nearest whole number, and colorized to make patterns obvious:

(SUSPECT MAP REMOVED)

This sort of map would be little more than a byproduct of both the Prism and 100LL replacement tests. And pieces of it will be public in due course anyway, as part of fuel certification.

For example, this is 100LL data published for comparison to Swift fuel...you know, the other 100LL replacement:

2mmuuer.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if the Electoair chart is correct. I had an advance meter in my -6 and distinctly recall the ignition not advancing until the manifold pressure dropped below 20". For most of my cruise flying it stayed at 25-26 degrees.

Recently I installed an older Electroair in the RV-6 I fly but don't have an advance meter in it yet. Thats on my short term to-do list. But it will be a few weeks before I can fly again as we got 17" of snow in the last few days. :eek: I plan on documenting the advance curves.

Worth noting is the chart above is the combination of RPM (mechanical) advance + the vacuum (manifold pressure) advance. They are two distinct maps that are summed. One could easily map the two out individually by disabling the vacuum advance on the ignition by removing a terminal.
 
Hi Bob,

The curve may not be right - it comes from here:

I just manually summed the curves - cockpit data would be better.

I'm not sure if the Electoair chart is correct. I had an advance meter in my -6 and distinctly recall the ignition not advancing until the manifold pressure dropped below 20". For most of my cruise flying it stayed at 25-26 degrees.

Recently I installed an older Electroair in the RV-6 I fly but don't have an advance meter in it yet. Thats on my short term to-do list. But it will be a few weeks before I can fly again as we got 17" of snow in the last few days. :eek: I plan on documenting the advance curves.

Worth noting is the chart above is the combination of RPM (mechanical) advance + the vacuum (manifold pressure) advance. They are two distinct maps that are summed. One could easily map the two out individually by disabling the vacuum advance on the ignition by removing a terminal.
 
I've twice made reference to a peak pressure plot pulled from an FAA study (post 18) in which the subject 540-K has pretty much the same cylinder head as our 390's. Given 20 BTDC timing, high manifold pressure, and a near-stoich mixture the peak pressure is arriving earlier (about 7 ATDC) than the mid-teens optimum (the 14 or so you mentioned previously). By running the 26 degree A map, your peak pressure under the same conditions is even further from optimum, probably near TDC and very high...not a good thing.

Very interesting information. Some older 8.7/1 CR 200HP, Lycoming 4 cylinder angle valve engines use 25 degrees static timing. With the option of using 20 degrees. Not surprisingly, the change from 25 degrees to 20 degrees is associated with a small loss of HP and efficiency and the related climb and cruse speed losses. Some say it's 4-6HP, or 3%. Related to that, past experimentation I've done on our angle valve AEIO540 (experimental exhibition) Extra 300L, 26-27 degrees static advance gives the most overall performance with the stock 8.7/1 CR. When we switched to 10/1 CR, 20 degrees seemed to be optimum.

Just an FYI, on the AEI0540 the switch from 8.7/1 to 10/1 resulted in a change (all 20 degrees timing btw) from 285 dyno HP to 315. Not bad at all.

My conclusion, the testing data may be accurate under the prescribed (and somewhat unknown to me) conditions. However, many aircraft don't generally fly at full power sea level for long periods of time with the rapid burning stoic mixture conditions. Although that may be a requirement for certification. In my experience, I've been able to gain some HP and real world performance on our stock compression angle valve engines, using more than 20 degrees static timing. Especially at the aerobatic altitudes we fly. 2500-6500.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting information. Some older 8.7/1 CR 200HP, Lycoming 4 cylinder angle valve engines use 25 degrees static timing. With the option of using 20 degrees. Not surprisingly, the change from 25 degrees to 20 degrees is associated with a small loss of HP and efficiency and the related climb and cruse speed losses. Some say it's 4-6HP, or 3%.

I've posted hard data from the engine cell at the FAA test center. What can you bring us from the "some say" folks? Seriously, I'm not trying to whack you on the head. It's just that GA is awash in "they said", and they are so often wrong.

The FAA data suggests that peak pressure is a bit early, but what we would really like to see is MBT, maximum brake torque timing (think pressure acting on crank geometry)...from which I would back off a few degrees, as a curve of torque-vs-timing is very flat near MBT.

Come on gang. Has anyone found real engine run data?

However, many aircraft don't generally fly at full power sea level for long periods of time with the rapid burning stoic mixture conditions. Although that may be a requirement for certification. In my experience, I've been able to gain some HP and real world performance on our stock compression angle valve engines, using more than 20 degrees static timing. Especially at the aerobatic altitudes we fly. 2500-6500.

Keep in mind that you're discussing fixed timing, meaning a compromise between max power and reduced manifold pressure conditions. I absolutely believe 25 degrees made more power at altitude, i.e. at reduced charge density.

Here our interest is variable timing. There is no reason we cannot have optimum timing for 2700/30 inches/150 ROP, and optimum timing for cruise.
 
I've posted hard data from the engine cell at the FAA test center. What can you bring us from the "some say" folks? Seriously, I'm not trying to whack you on the head. It's just that GA is awash in "they said", and they are so often wrong.

The Mooneyspace group is about as close as you are going to get. Not many of us spend time on dyno's. Many of us simply observe the difference between changes. While less scientific, the data is still valid. Any drag racer knows this. (drag racing is the ultimate culmination of anecdotal evidence)

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/3877-io-360-a1a-what-mag-timing-20-or-25-deg-btdc/page-2

Jetdriven claims to see 5-7Kts improvement lean of peak, with 25 degrees timing. This closely mirrors my results. Before we throw out the anecdotal evidence, let's consider all the facts. One big fact is that engines in a test cell perform slightly differently than they do in a dynamic situation, such as flying. What's the exact F/A ratio on the engine during this above test cell run?

I make no claims to be the worlds leading expert on anything. In a past life I did quite a bit of dyno testing of small Ford engines to develop camshaft profiles. One thing I know, ideal dyno F/A ratio was different than what worked on the street on these particular engines. That gets me to wondering whether the aircraft engine is similar and behavioral differences might exist.
 
Another interesting note:

Lycoming issued Service Instruction SI-1325a for the IO360 A1B6 (angle valve 200HP) but not the A1B6D (with the single magneto with 2 internal mags in a different location on the accessory case) The dual magneto engine A1B6 experienced detonation when operated at or near stoic mixtures on cold days and high power settings. Especially on cylinder #2.

Many of us operating these A1B6 engines discovered that the change to 20 degrees of timing is associated with a observable loss of performance in every aspect of flight.

Dan, you can "whack me on the head" all you want. We do have enough information to determine some real world results.



It has to do with crankshaft torque windup transferring to the accessory gears, effectively advancing the timing of #2 cylinder (at least, the most), hence the necessity to retard the magneto timing (checked at static conditions) to avoid launching detonation on #2.

And, as I mentioned, the angle valve IO540 responds similarly to the timing adjustment. Note: We operated 2ea EA300L's. One in certified condition and one in Experimental. The single change of advancing the timing resulted in "ketchup" running away from "mustard" (the color of each bird)
 
Last edited:
I contacted Michael Kobylik at Electroair hoping to gain some insight into ignition timing curves, some history and how they went about certifying their electonic ignition system.

He's not a big forum guy so he gave me the ok to post his response. I'd like to thank him for taking the time both on the phone and providing his response in writing that I have copied below.

Walt-
Thank you for your email. Per our conversation from yesterday, I was finally able to work my way through the pages of posts on the link you shared with me. You had asked me to comment on the discussion, and in particular, whatever information I would be willing to share about our system, development, and how it compares or helps efficiency, etc. So here goes...
Some general comments about the thread on the Van's Air Force site:

1. I agree with "Rocket Bob's" comment on 12/29 about how timing should not be advanced at full power settings. Let's keep that comment in context of aircraft engines in general. Remember, from our perspective, we are supporting a very wide range of engines and flying parameters (more on this in a minute). That dictates to us that ignition timing adjustments should be conservative. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions (advancing timing at full power settings for instance) should be made with the kind of knowledge that is gained from data collection (like what you might learn with dyno testing) and with a good understanding of the flight envelope that you want to operate within.

2. Post #105: The advance curve data posted for an Electroair system appears to be from our first generation system, which utilized an RPM curve. That data is no longer accurate for our current generation systems. We no longer use an RPM curve because we found them to not be useful in typical aircraft applications. RPM curves are great tools when you are rapidly accelerating or decelerating engines (like in race applications). But they do not have a real useful application in typical aircraft applications. Load on an aircraft engine is really only varying because of intake manifold pressures.

On a related comment, there also seems to be a theme in this discussion about ignition manufacturer's keeping their advance curves proprietary and secret. Our curve has never been secret, at least as far as I am aware. It is published in our installation manual. I have to admit that I thought it was in a little more obvious place on our website, but it is not (we will correct that in the near future). Here is the link for our installation manual for our certified system: http://www.electroair.net/pdfs/EIS_41000_Installation_Manual.pdf (the experimental manual did not have this section included - I'll get that updated too). If you go to the beginning, pp 1.1 -1.2, you will find a discussion of electronic ignition systems and our advance curve charted out. Simply put, we advance spark timing two degrees for every inch of manifold pressure below 24" (more on that later too).

3. Post #128: This post caught my eye because it is part of the discussion of a one size fits all ignition system. This post highlights one of the biggest hurdles we have when thinking about ignition systems. In order to make a sensible business case for aircraft ignition systems (magnetos or EI), you have to try and design a system that will cover a very wide range of engine applications. If we didn't, the permutations of ignition systems would almost be endless. Ideally, you would have an ignition system that optimizes itself to a specific engine configuration. This is reasonably easy to do in the automotive world, because you have the numbers. Also easy to imagine that this can be done in the racing world because you are dealing with a vehicle that operates in a narrow envelope, so tuning can be done in the field. In the GA world this is not so easy because the numbers don't exist to make it practical and the operational envelopes are relatively big. So, what you end up with is a compromise. Our system, and timing curve, is not perfect, but it significantly enhances the performance of a wide range of typical aircraft engines. Hence, a system that is nearly a "one size fits all" ignition with big performance improvements.

4. Post #150: This post commented on our system in that we ignore MAP and only look at RPM. Our system only adjusts timing based on MAP. Our original system also had a RPM curve built in (for lower RPMs), but we no longer use a RPM curve. Again, the data that was posted appears to be from a Generation 1 system.

Walt - You had asked me in one of our conversations if I would be willing to share how we arrived at the RPM curve we did. The short answer is sure! We did through Flight Test. Early on, Jeff Rose, the original owner of Electroair, performed a series of flight tests and collected data. Jeff had a created a manual ignition advance control, and for a range of altitudes and flight conditions, determined what an optimal range of ignition timing should be by measuring power drop off. The aircraft was trimmed/leaned for best performance. Plotting out this data lead to a natural curve. Additionally, some factors of safety were added, including the start point for advancing the ignition timing was set to 24" of MAP.

The curve that Jeff developed is a conservative advance curve. Lots of debate could happen about whether or not the curve we choose is the best one, optimal and all of that. I am not going to enter into that debate. There are always engineering compromises when making a system that is not only effective in obtaining performance gains for a wide range of engines, but also safe to use and won't cause any undue stress on the engine. Our curve that Jeff originally developed has been used by Electroair throughout our history. I would point to our track record of the number of systems we have sold and our reliability as a measure that the choices we have made are the correct ones. On a side note, I found out a few years ago that the advance curve that we use is very nearly the same curve that was used by Unison in the '90s for the development of the LASAR system - the magneto system with electronically controlled timing.

It is worth noting that the developments Electroair has made, especially in the experimental world, led directly us to earning a Design Approval and STC from the FAA for our ignition systems. In fact, we just received an STC for our ignition system on 470 and 520 Continental engines. I noted within the Van's thread a comment that someone might be able to "dazzle" the FAA in order to get an STC. We don't have enough time here to dive into that one, but suffice it to say that comment falls short of understanding how the FAA approval process works and what is required to obtain a Design Approval. We have accumulated mountains of data showing and proving that our systems are not only effective, safe and reliable, but can address a big weakness in aircraft power-plants over a wide range of applications.

I hoped I answered at least some of your questions. I'm sure more questions will come up. Please feel free to fire them off to me. Also, feel free to distribute this email as you see appropriate. While our business is clearly changing with earning STCs and expanding into the certified marketplace, we remained committed to supporting our customers that build and operate experimental aircraft. Without those customers, we would have never been able to move our product into the certified world.

Best Regards,
Michael Kobylik
Electroair
517-552-9390
[email protected]
 
Some older 8.7/1 CR 200HP, Lycoming 4 cylinder angle valve engines use 25 degrees static timing. With the option of using 20 degrees. Not surprisingly, the change from 25 degrees to 20 degrees is associated with a small loss of HP and efficiency and the related climb and cruse speed losses. Some say it's 4-6HP, or 3%.

Found some data supporting the above.

Another thread pointed to the Sky Dynamics site, which turns out to have an "Information" page with a nice collection of dyno charts. Four of them are of particular interest in the context of this thread; HP and torque at four different timing settings.

http://www.skydynamics.com/frame.htm

Here's the short version, WOT, leaned to best power. Doesn't mention if the subject was modified, or angle vs parallel valve.

Deg HP-RPM Torq-RPM

20 217-3050 411-2424

25 228-3082 430-2456

30 232-3082 422-2461

33 223-3004 413-2434

Max HP at 30 degrees, but note the RPM (3082). Max torque was 25 degrees at 2456, a realistic measure for us common folk, and if you examine charts themselves, you'll find max HP to be identical for 25 and 30 degrees when taken at 2700 RPM. For this subject, 25 degrees was clearly superior.

I'll ask SD for more information about the subject, and thank them for posting the charts. More later.
 
That's under ideal lab conditions, at an RPM very very few of us could run. Fuel quality, humidity, altitude, etc. are other considerations. And no mention of CHTs under said conditions.

No doubt that advancing at full power can make a small gain in power but the risk of engine damage significantly increases without a feedback system.
 
P-mag timing for IO360 with 10:1 pistons

Engine and P-mag experts,

did any of you find out allready THE BEST P-mag timing for an angle valve IO360 A1B6 with 10:1 pistons or near optimum without EIC ?
Michael R., can you report NEWS about your new timing settings ?

What I have:
RV-8
IO360 A1B6 with 10:1 pistons
Dual P-mags 113-series
Jumper OUT (B-Curve) timed 4? Past TDC
No EIC (No Electronic Ignition Commander)
Hartzell BA


I?ve tried to follow the thread as good as possible but couldn?t find the answer :confused::confused::confused:
And sorry for no perfect english

Thanks
Michael
Germany
RV-8 Cloud Dancer
 
Michael, what did the engine manufacturer specify for standard mags? If it was 20, then you need to offset by 5 and I would think about trying another 2. If it was 22 then taking 4 out may be enough.

Read my last post in the other EI thread.
 
Michael, what did the engine manufacturer specify for standard mags? If it was 20, then you need to offset by 5 and I would think about trying another 2. If it was 22 then taking 4 out may be enough.

Read my last post in the other EI thread.

And he needs to put the jumper in so his offset starts at 26* not 30.

Better yet would be to connect to them with Emag's EICAD program (available on their website) and set them to the proper configuration for your engine.
 
David
Bill,

thanks, that´s what I´ve tried today !
Put JUMPER IN and clocked at 6° ATDC
Sure it would be better to optimize with EICAD or EIComannder but have no.
What I found out:
RPM drop was 60 RPM (and 10RPM difference between the mags) during run-up check.
What do you see here ?

Engine run smooth but couldn´t testfly it due to strong winds.

Very helpful thread - thanks guys

Michael
RV-8
SE-XXM (N169FS before import)
 
still not sure if BTDC for an angle valve IO360A1B6 should be set to 20°/22° or 25° - if you search you believe all of them is right ???
Flew her 100h with JUMPER IN and timed to 0 TDC - but was not pleased and will try different options.
(rough in higher altitudes and less power)
Michael Robinson runs the same engine with high compression pistons and Dual P-mags - any News from him?

Thanks
Michael
 
still not sure if BTDC for an angle valve IO360A1B6 should be set to 20°/22° or 25° - if you search you believe all of them is right ???
Flew her 100h with JUMPER IN and timed to 0 TDC - but was not pleased and will try different options.
(rough in higher altitudes and less power)
Michael Robinson runs the same engine with high compression pistons and Dual P-mags - any News from him?

Thanks
Michael

Hopefully Michael will jump in here, pun intended.

You will have to research what is best for you engine. I found this website which lists both 20* and 25* BTDC for your engine.

Remember, your P-mags advance as you reduce power and you could be running over 30* BTDC with the "A" curve and with the "B" curve, you start at that number and go up from there.

This is your engine, you need to do what makes you feel comfortable.

With engine timing, it is best to be conservative and then make adjustments in small increments.

While 25* may give you slightly better performance than 20*, it might be so small you don't notice anyplace but your CHT's.

Good luck and please let us know what you elect to do.
 
still not sure if BTDC for an angle valve IO360A1B6 should be set to 20°/22° or 25° - if you search you believe all of them is right ???
Flew her 100h with JUMPER IN and timed to 0 TDC - but was not pleased and will try different options.
(rough in higher altitudes and less power)
Michael Robinson runs the same engine with high compression pistons and Dual P-mags - any News from him?

Thanks
Michael

The type certificate data sheet for the IO-360 which includes the A1B6 indicates 25 degrees BTDC with 20 degrees optional (except A1B6D and A3B6D). My factory new IO-360-A1B6 data plate is labelled with 20 degrees BTDC as the static timing. My understanding is that Lycoming generally specifies 20 degrees for the angle valve engines except that the ones installed in Mooneys use 25 because Mooney wanted the extra timing to yield slight cruise performance gains for marketing reasons.

Since you are running 10:1 Pistons instead of the stock 8.7:1, I would be extremely hesitant to push the sea level manifold pressure timing values above 20 degrees BTDC. Any more timing will decrease your detonation margins.

On my own -8, I time the mags at 21-22 degrees BTDC because I have very low CHTs and I always cruise LOP where a little additional spark advance is most beneficial.

Skylor
RV-8
 
Last edited:
David
Bill,

thanks, that?s what I?ve tried today !
Put JUMPER IN and clocked at 6? ATDC
Sure it would be better to optimize with EICAD or EIComannder but have no.
What I found out:
RPM drop was 60 RPM (and 10RPM difference between the mags) during run-up check.
What do you see here ?

Engine run smooth but couldn?t testfly it due to strong winds.

Very helpful thread - thanks guys

Michael
RV-8
SE-XXM (N169FS before import)

Given the EI has more advance and all you did was retard 1 degree from what I would expect, you are running as much advance as I would expect to be acceptable.

Unless you can measure ICP and ThetaPP in real time, you are guessing, and I am guessing too, albeit with some experience. I would knock another degree out myself. but certainly no more than where you are now.

Good luck. :)
 
Skylor,

thank you very much for your experience which is exactly what Iám looking for !!!
20° as static timing and therefore I´ve to clock the mags 6° Past TDC w/o any additional electronic equipment - is that right understood from me ?

Flew 100h with wrong settings as the mags were clocked to TDC

Michael
sorry for no perfect english
 
David,

....means I can fly with that configuration at the moment ?

You mean with my configuration I have 1° more than 20° (21°) as standard timing ?
And yes - you´re right it´s just a guessing but as long as I have no EICAD or EIC I´ll try to find a comfortable, right and safe timing for this engine.
I decided to go with 20° static timing after research in handbooks.
(sent an e-mail to the Preowner and asked if the mags are wired to the cockpit already)

What kind of Plugs do you guys recommend for this engine - maybe I can make some small approvements here ?
Get the NGK9BRS installed

Anyway - learned a lot - or not - in this thread about EI !!!

Keep you informed
Michael
Germany
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8LknKy0H0g
so you have a face to the plane
 
Are you aware that EICAD is a free download?

In this post:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=840987&postcount=142

Don did a real world in the air test of his P-Mag on the "A" curve while watching the EIC and recording the numbers.

As you can see the P-Mag advance in the regions where it matters it starts with 28? at high power and goes all the way to 35-36? at lower power settings.
I had no idea that was out there. Good for him to post it.

The "B" curve is exactly the same, only shifted five degrees.
 
Aha - to Don´s chart I should go more conservativ than 6° !
I have to wire the P-mags to the cockpit and check with PC !!!

CHT´s have never been an issue and run in the mid 300F range
ordered new BR9ES

Thanks
Michael
RV-8 (Cloud Dancer)
 
Can't believe this hasn't been revived yet.

Did anyone happen to save the post that Apache 56 made in post #142 (page 15)??

I sure would like to see them pictures/graphs of Pmag timing maps! Reeaaaal punch in the gut to read 19 pages of information only for 3 pictures to be gone...
 
Can't believe this hasn't been revived yet.

Did anyone happen to save the post that Apache 56 made in post #142 (page 15)??

I sure would like to see them pictures/graphs of Pmag timing maps! Reeaaaal punch in the gut to read 19 pages of information only for 3 pictures to be gone...

Can't recall what engine you have but here's what I did on mine (io360/8.5:1/parallel valve/pmags/AFP FM200/Hartzell Aluminum) and it works perfectly. Lots of good advice here from Bill R. If you don't have an EIC or Enginebridge, I recommend one with the pmags. They are easy to install and use and will help you keep an eye on your pmags.

https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?p=1391756
 
Can't recall what engine you have but here's what I did on mine (io360/8.5:1/parallel valve/pmags/AFP FM200/Hartzell Aluminum) and it works perfectly. Lots of good advice here from Bill R. If you don't have an EIC or Enginebridge, I recommend one with the pmags. They are easy to install and use and will help you keep an eye on your pmags.

https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?p=1391756

Ya my pmag setup has been working great for the first 150 hours so far. Just always wanting to know more than I currently do about how it advances. :)
 
Back
Top