Electroair EIS-41000: How To Lean

Jon Wilder

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
228
Location
Greenville, SC
Display Name

Display name:
Jwylde
I'm asking here because the AFMS doesn't mention anything about leaning procedures. But...this system is a variable advance system, which changes everything.

A lean mixture burns slower, yet the fixed timing of a traditional two magneto system lights the mixture at exactly the same point of rotation on the compression stroke (for sake of this conversation, we'll use 25°). Regardless of mixture setting, the mag always lights the mixture at 25° before TDC. Thus, as you lean, the point of rotation after TDC at which peak cylinder pressure occurs on the power stroke changes due to the slower burning of the leaner mixture. As you approach stoichiometric, some of this mixture is still being consumed as the exhaust valve opens, causing the EGTs to increase.

Traditionally, you would lean until peak EGT occurs, then turn it back rich of peak by 50-100°F.

However, this electronic direct fire high energy ignition system has variable timing that adds 2° of advance for every 1 in hg of manifold pressure drop. According to Mike Kobylik of Electroair, the peak EGT point, in regards to where it happens on the mixture control travel, actually shifts, and this exhibits itself as a greater pull of the mixture control to get to peak EGT.

Pilot reports from those who have flown our Electroair equipped 172M have noted that moving the mixture control doesn't seem to have an effect on EGT, however.

Perhaps they're not inputting enough of a lean input?

If I'm understanding what is happening, as the mixture is leaned out, manifold pressure decreases, causing the timing to advance and the mixture to light earlier. As the advance matches the burn rate, peak cylinder pressure is still occuring at the optimum point, and the mixture has already been completely burned by the time the exhaust valve opens, thus there would be no increase in EGT. CHT, however, would increase as the engine is now doing a better job of burning the mixture in the combustion chamber instead of in the exhaust manifold.

But...at some point in the leaning, and perhaps further back than it would be with a fixed timing magneto, you start to lose that ideal mixture. Manifold pressure would start to increase again, causing the timing to retard. The mixture is now burning even slower, and is being lit at a later point in the cycle. The mixture, at this point, would still be burning as the exhaust valve opens, cuasing a rise in EGT. From here you should be able to find peak EGT, if you haven't yet run into lean misfire.

For those who are flying the EIS-41000 ignition system, what say you? What has been your experience leaning the mixture with this system? Electroair says there are no different leaning procedures, but that peak EGT will require a greater pull of the mixture control than with a fixed timing magneto. It just seems to me that the advance cancels out the mixture control input, thus EGT never rises. Are we just not going lean enough because of the advance?

Any input on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
 
CHT, however, would increase as the engine is now doing a better job of burning the mixture in the combustion chamber instead of in the exhaust manifold.
Do you have an engine monitor with multi-point CHT? If that gets too hot, you might have to enrich because of it.
Are we just not going lean enough because of the advance?
Maybe. One of the main advantages of EIS is better fuel economy. Do you have a fuel totalizer? Have you tried the "lean until stumble, enrich to restore smooth operation" method?
 
Do you have an engine monitor with multi-point CHT? If that gets too hot, you might have to enrich because of it.

Yes. We have a two display Garmin G3X Touch system with Garmin GEA 24 engine analyzer. This also has a fuel totalizer.

One of the main advantages of EIS is better fuel economy. Do you have a fuel totalizer? Have you tried the "lean until stumble, enrich to restore smooth operation" method?

Yes we have a fuel totalizer. Have not yet tried the "lean until stumble".
 
You need to try running a GAMI spread check. This will tell you how lean you can run and if you can run Lean of Peak.

BTW, leaning to peak that enriching by 50 - 100 degrees puts you right in the heart of the red box/red fin, where cylinder pressures are highest. Do not do that at high power settings.

Lycoming says under 75% power you can do anything with the mixture and not hurt the engine. Continental says 65% power.
 
Yes. We have a two display Garmin G3X Touch system with Garmin GEA 24 engine analyzer. This also has a fuel totalizer. ...Have not yet tried the "lean until stumble".
The CHT can help with keeping out of the danger zone. If you know your power settings very well then leaning by fuel flow is another possibility. Either way, you need to figure out how to adjust for the increased efficiency from the EIS.
 
Lycoming says under 75% power you can do anything with the mixture and not hurt the engine.

Can you point me towards where they say that? I don't see it in S.I. 1094D - is there another document from Lycoming on leaning?
 
So we took her up yesterday. Flew at 4,500'. Probably wasn't high enough to realize any fuel savings benefits at 66% power (2500 RPM). But leaning it 100° RoP got us to 8 gph. Probably could have gotten 7.4 gph if we'd leaned to peak RPM like the PoH says.

I think what it is...and without having a manifold pressure gauge this is just a guess...but they're just not flying at a high enough altitude for the advance to come in. Thus the primary function of the ignition isn't really in play and the mixture control doesn't appear to work any different than it would with a magneto. Some further testing at higher altitudes will be in order.
 
If I'm understanding what is happening, as the mixture is leaned out, manifold pressure decreases, causing the timing to advance and the mixture to light earlier.
Manifold pressure does not change based on mixture. It's a function of outside air pressure (plus turbocharger if so equipped), throttle position and RPM, but mixture has no impact.

Regards,
Martin
 
I JUST posted a PIREP about the ElectroAir and had not seen this thread until just now.

I'm not at all an expert on this stuff but from what I've seen so far and experienced with mine, first, don't expect much benefit or change below about 7,000 feet; below that, I think the plane performs basically as it does with two mags, so leaning would be unchanged (the MP is too high below that altitude for the EA to be providing much of a spark advance greater than the other mag).

Above that, and since you're below 75% HP at that altitude (since there's not enough air to make more than that HP), my understanding is it's safe to lean it as much as you want. I tend to lean to peak RPM and watch the CHTs to see if they go too high (for my comfort zone, above about 400). If they do, prior to the EA, I'd enrich it a bit. Now, I try pulling it back a bit and see how the CHTs respond. So far that has typically resulted in a drop rather than an increase. I'll keep leaning until the RPM drops or, if I'm trying to see how low I can get the fuel flow, till the plane runs rough (and then I enrich it until it smooths out; basically the procedure in my POH before the EA was added).

That's my unscientific method so far. I'm sure others will "school me" soon, which is fine.
 
I JUST posted a PIREP about the ElectroAir and had not seen this thread until just now.

I'm not at all an expert on this stuff but from what I've seen so far and experienced with mine, first, don't expect much benefit or change below about 7,000 feet; below that, I think the plane performs basically as it does with two mags, so leaning would be unchanged (the MP is too high below that altitude for the EA to be providing much of a spark advance greater than the other mag).

This has been my observation thus far.

Above that, and since you're below 75% HP at that altitude (since there's not enough air to make more than that HP), my understanding is it's safe to lean it as much as you want. I tend to lean to peak RPM and watch the CHTs to see if they go too high (for my comfort zone, above about 400). If they do, prior to the EA, I'd enrich it a bit. Now, I try pulling it back a bit and see how the CHTs respond. So far that has typically resulted in a drop rather than an increase. I'll keep leaning until the RPM drops or, if I'm trying to see how low I can get the fuel flow, till the plane runs rough (and then I enrich it until it smooths out; basically the procedure in my POH before the EA was added).

That's my unscientific method so far. I'm sure others will "school me" soon, which is fine.

I read a review from another EIS customer who stated that his CHTs went up to about the 400-415 range. He spoke with Mike Kobylik of Electroair about this, and Mike said that was completely normal, and is a function of the ignition advance increasing the efficiency of the engine by lighting the slower burning mixture earlier, thus lighting the mixture early enough for the engine to do a better job of burning it inside of the combustion chamber rather than it being wasted as heat out of the exhaust. Along with it, you should see a decrease in EGT from where they were prior to the EIS installation. But Mike told him to consider the 400-415 range his "new normal".

I know Lycoming O-320 engines are rated for a max of 500°F CHT. It really makes sense to have an advanced engine analyzer with per cylinder CHT/EGT with one of these ignitions so that these things can be monitored.

Electroair also claims that the advance makes it safer to go lean of peak (what they have referred to as "leaner lean of peak"). A leaner mixture burns slower. With a fixed timing magneto that cannot account for the slower burn by lighting the mixture earlier, going too lean will have the mixture still burning when the exhaust valve opens, potentially exposing the valve and seat to an open flame, which will burn the exhaust valve/seat in very short order. With the electronic advance on the EIS, the mixture gets lit earlier, and thus has adequate time to completely burn before the exhaust valve opens, eliminating the chance of this. Valves and seats don't mind hot gasses. It's the exposure to open flames from slow burning mixtures that kill them.

In speaking with Mike Kobylik, and Darrell Pool from Smooth Power LLC, they've had a few reports of pilots trying to lean find the "rough running" point, only for it to never happen and before they know it, they're in lean cutoff with the engine almost dying.
 
My electronic ignition (Pmags) and fuel injection (API) has to be leaned by the EGT readings. There is no lean stumble with EI. If I choose to cruise rich of peak I use the Lycoming book numbers for fuel flow and it works perfectly. If I want to go lean of peak I use the G3X and dial the fuel flow down while monitoring the EGTs.
 
In speaking with Mike Kobylik, and Darrell Pool from Smooth Power LLC, they've had a few reports of pilots trying to lean find the "rough running" point, only for it to never happen and before they know it, they're in lean cutoff with the engine almost dying.
In my PIREP I talked about my flight to 16,500 but I didn’t mention a test flight a few days earlier, when I only got to 15,000 because, in hindsight, I had leaned too much. Right at 15,000, while the plane was still trucking along pretty well, it just stopped. As soon as I lost about 200 feet it started back up on its own. So, yeah, I can vouch for that!
 
With a fixed timing magneto that cannot account for the slower burn by lighting the mixture earlier
Actually, the electronic ignitions aren't accounting for slower burn lean of peak either, as they don't know if you're rich of peak or lean of peak. They're taking advantage of the presence of less oxygen at altitude to infer that the engine will tolerate more advance without destructive detonation... whether rich of peak or lean of peak. You'd have to measure theta PP, the degrees of crank rotation from TDC to peak pressure, to actually compensate for leaner or richer mixtures.

going too lean will have the mixture still burning when the exhaust valve opens, potentially exposing the valve and seat to an open flame, which will burn the exhaust valve/seat in very short order... Valves and seats don't mind hot gasses. It's the exposure to open flames from slow burning mixtures that kill them.
This is the same technical misunderstanding that led to yelling here a few years ago. Luminescence, the glowing of the combustion gases, is a phenomenon related to the TEMPERATURE of the gasses, not related to whether they're still oxidizing, or all done burning. Temperature *may* matter to valves and seats... but "flame" is just our way of recognizing gasses hot enough to glow, whether combustion is ongoing or all done. I think the metallurgy largely cares only about the temperature, not whether the gasses are oxidizing or not. What is true is that delayed combustion due to lean mixtures can shift theta PP to an uneconomic degree... in which case spark advance is desirable, Unfortunately, nothing in these systems is smart about where you've set the mixture... you're on your own to puzzle that out.

Paul
 
So one fix is, if you can, lower the RPM to allow more time from spark to exhaust valve opening.
 
That would require flying at a reduced power setting. With ignition advance, there's no need to do this.
What if you push in the throttle as you pull out the blue knob to maintain the power setting?
 
High MP/Low RPM is probably a setting you want to avoid for obvious reasons.
You aren't anti-oversquare by chance, are you? What do you consider high-MP/low-RPM?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top