---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 11/24/03: 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:55 AM - [PLEASE READ!] "What's my Contribution used for?" (Matt Dralle) 2. 05:56 AM - Props and EI () 3. 06:16 AM - Re: Odyssey battery (Gary Liming) 4. 07:32 AM - Re: Props and EI (James E. Clark) 5. 07:59 AM - Re: Props and EI (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 6. 08:21 AM - Re: Props and EI (Dj Merrill) 7. 08:24 AM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Dj Merrill) 8. 09:11 AM - Re: Best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's (Bob Bittner) 9. 10:16 AM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Dan Branstrom) 10. 10:40 AM - Trim servo wiring (Steve Sampson) 11. 12:36 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Charlie & Tupper England) 12. 12:45 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (BobsV35B@aol.com) 13. 02:46 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Jim Sower) 14. 03:37 PM - Magneto Relpacements (David.vonLinsowe) 15. 04:06 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Jon Finley) 16. 05:52 PM - Re: Bob, need info on microair com/xpdr (Jerry Latimer) 17. 06:40 PM - Re: Trim servo wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 18. 08:20 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements (George Braly) 19. 09:12 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Dave Morris) 20. 09:28 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Jerzy Krasinski) 21. 09:37 PM - Battery/Alt switch differences (sdcmills@att.net) 22. 10:18 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements (George Braly) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:55:57 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: AeroElectric-List: [PLEASE READ!] "What's my Contribution used for?" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle Dear Listers, A few Listers have asked me recently, "What's my Contribution used for?", and that's a valid question. Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables... It provides for the expensive, business-class, high-speed Internet connection used on the List, insuring maximum performance and minimal contention when accessing List services. It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades enabling the highest performance possible for services such as the Archive Search Engine and List Browser. It pays for 15+ years worth of on line archive data available for instant random access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing, developing, and maintaining the custom applications that power this List Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, and Photoshare. But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation, censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses. How many places on the Internet can you make all those statements about these days? I will venture to say - next to none... It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many desirable aspects of this most valuable List service. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its the best investment you can make in your Sport - BAR NONE! Email List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Administrator Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft do not archive ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:56:02 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Props and EI --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gentlemen-- Thank you. I stand corrected. However, I was not aware that this problem even existed until this recent thread on the AEC. I have not seen this serious safety question reported in any of the major publications and therefor assumed the manufacturers had not disseminated test data and limitations to the press. Perhaps I missed it. Jim ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:16:12 AM PST US From: Gary Liming Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Liming At 11:46 PM 11/23/2003 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Milner" > >I`m using a dry cell Odyssey 680 battery as was recommended by an EAA T.C. >who`s been using one. It`s small and kicks the engine over well. >sunbattery.com is the supplier.They won`t freeze and last long time. Greg, what engine and length prop is this battery turning - just curious as I will be using one, too. Gary Liming ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:32:08 AM PST US From: "James E. Clark" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Props and EI --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" You are welcome Jim. A value of forums like this is the ability to have such a dialogue. And even though there is the potential for misinformation to be spread via forums, they really shine when a matter can be cleared up within a few hours and many more people informed of a particular matter. If I were the companies, I would not have wanted a mass communication per se (because it involves complexity that the mass media might skip over). Instead, a focussed effort with the engine Manufacturers and OEMs, along with the electronic ignition and FADEC providers would be the most impactful. Not that I would want to try to hide anything ... just get it out to the relevant people. And oh, if someone called wanting to buy one of my props, I would **SURELY** tell them about the limitations and then let them decide if they wanted to "stay" with me. James > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of > jimk36@comcast.net > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 8:55 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Props and EI > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > Gentlemen-- > > Thank you. I stand corrected. However, I was not aware that this > problem even existed until this recent thread on the AEC. I have > not seen this serious safety question reported in any of the > major publications and therefor assumed the manufacturers had not > disseminated test data and limitations to the press. Perhaps I missed it. > > Jim > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:59:01 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Props and EI --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:54 AM 11/24/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > >Gentlemen-- > >Thank you. I stand corrected. However, I was not aware that this problem >even existed until this recent thread on the AEC. I have not seen this >serious safety question reported in any of the major publications and >therefor assumed the manufacturers had not disseminated test data and >limitations to the press. Perhaps I missed it. > >Jim I've missed it too. EI has been flying on a lot of airplanes for a long time. I'm not arguing with anyone who has observed and measured deleterious effects of switching to electronic ignition . . . but like all such information, it's useless until shared. Further, it would be stronger still if the repeatable experiment that measured the effect were described in some published work. I'm just a little mystified by what what appears to be a disconnect between the hysterical-theoretical and practical-demonstrable sides of the issue. Someplace in the middle lies the truth. I recommend respectful and curious skepticism until someone publishes the simple-ideas and measured data that will make it clear to all who care to read it. Of course, it would also be useful to offer mitigating alternatives. Reading the paper published on Vans site at: http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Hartzell_c2yk.pdf we see recommended operational limits that probably describe current normal operations for most OBAM aircraft. I don't cruise at redline and I don't use power settings below 2250 either. So maybe our practical-demonstrable experience simply stumbled into an acceptable operating regime for the few airplanes that use this particular engine/ propeller combination. If there are concerns for this combination, there are probably similar concerns for other combinations as well. I like to believe the LASAR and FADEC folks are investigating this . . . what a kick in the head to find that your 21st century upgrade won't safely upgrade some combinations of 20th century propeller and engine! Folks objected to my use the work "prohibition" . . . not mine but contained in numerous rumors that are running in the wild. George, here's an opportunity for an article in Sport Aviation that could stand head-and-shoulders above those that show us how to press our own grommet shields out of scrap stainless . . . Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:21:37 AM PST US From: Dj Merrill Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Props and EI --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 jimk36@comcast.net wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > Gentlemen-- > Thank you. I stand corrected. However, I was not aware that this problem even existed until this recent thread on the AEC. I have not seen this serious safety question reported in any of the major publications and therefor assumed the manufacturers had not disseminated test data and limitations to the press. Perhaps I missed it. > Jim The first I heard about it was on a Glasair mailing list. One of the builders was considering EI and a Hartzell prop, and was told about the possible vibration issues when they called Hartzell. -Dj -- Dj Merrill Thayer School of Engineering ThUG Sr. Unix Systems Administrator 8000 Cummings Hall deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu - N1JOV Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 "On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section, it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux." -Anonymous ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:24:24 AM PST US From: Dj Merrill Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Dan Branstrom wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" > > The solution? Wood props. ; > ) > Do not archive > Dan Branstrom Have wood props been shown to be immune from this problem? Or only certain wood props? I'm curious because I do have a wooden prop, and if I have to replace a mag I'd like to replace it with an EI. Thanks, -Dj -- Dj Merrill Thayer School of Engineering ThUG Sr. Unix Systems Administrator 8000 Cummings Hall deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu - N1JOV Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 "On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section, it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux." -Anonymous ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:11:13 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's From: Bob Bittner 11/24/2003 11:10:30 AM, Serialize complete at 11/24/2003 11:10:30 AM --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob Bittner I just placed an order from them directly via their website.. was able to get just what I wanted and the prices were less than Newark but a little more than Allied. http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/environment/ When you get to a catalog page for a given switch, click "Where to buy" Bob Bittner, RHCE ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:16:41 AM PST US From: "Dan Branstrom" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" It's my (limited) understanding that wood props are, to a great extent, self damping and have an infinite life as far as vibration cycles. They are still capable of resonance problems, but it is much more unlikely. There are a number of wood props on pusher canards that have lasted for over 20 years, (this is one of the worst environments for a prop), and much of the time they have been running on electronic ignitions. Pusher props, located behind the wing and exhaust are subject to increased torsional stresses over tractor props because the angle of attack of the air it sees changes many times in each rotation. Going past the left wing, it sees one angle of attack, and past the right wing, one from a completely different direction. It is for that reason that wood props were recommended by Burt Rutan and other designers of canards. Ironically, the further behind the wing that the prop is located, the more efficient and less stressed it is, but a prop extension introduces different stresses to the engine. It is my understanding that the internal histerisis (pardon my spelling) introduced by the flexing of the pusher props generates a significant amount of heat that has caused some all-composite props to delaminate on that type of plane. There are many composite covered props that have wood cores, and that seems to address this problem adequately. Dan Branstrom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dj Merrill" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill > > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Dan Branstrom wrote: > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" > > > > The solution? Wood props. ; > > ) > > Do not archive > > Dan Branstrom > > Have wood props been shown to be immune from this problem? > Or only certain wood props? I'm curious because I do have a wooden prop, > and if I have to replace a mag I'd like to replace it with an EI. > > Thanks, > > -Dj > > -- > Dj Merrill Thayer School of Engineering > ThUG Sr. Unix Systems Administrator 8000 Cummings Hall > deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu - N1JOV Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 > > "On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section, > it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux." -Anonymous > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:40:59 AM PST US From: "Steve Sampson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trim servo wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" Bob - I want to drive a Mac servo from either a Ray Allen stick grip or the Ray Allen (DPDT?) rocker switch in the panel where either pilot can get to it. The rocker normally holds both outgoing wires to the servo to earth unless the rocker is activated. I propose to put a S704-1 in both lines so that by pressing the stick button the line will switch, so that instead of passing any signal straight through, the line to the servo will go to +12. The stick button will activate by grounding the actuation signal. Two questions: 1) If the rocker and a stick button were pressed together, or two stick buttons both lines to the servo could go '+'. I see no problem however. 2) The S704 will be 'live' and the activation cct 'made' by grounding at the stick. Runaway if a fault develops? Any bad practice in here? Sorry for trivia. Thanks, Steve. PS Is it worth putting diodes in the circuit or are the motors just too small? --- ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 12:36:19 PM PST US From: Charlie & Tupper England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England George Braly wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly > > ><... from the data we see with strain gages mounted up on crank shafts >during >certification tests ... the concern about the electronic ignition ... is >legitimate ...> >I am amazed and chagrined. It is incredible to me that something that makes >the >engine run so much smoother could cause/aggravate damaging >vibration/harmonics. >I asked for credible evidence and I got it. >I stand corrected ... Jim S. > > >Think of the troops doing double time across the wooden bridge. > >If they all trot along in pure cadence - - ah... it sounds so smooth. > >Of course, if the cadence happens to be near the resonant frequency of the >bridge - - > > >Regards, George > >PS. Sometimes the enemy of good is a misguided attempt at better! > But here you aren't changing the pace, just stomping about 5% harder. Interesting how close to the edge a/c engines really are.... Charlie ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 12:45:21 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 11/24/03 2:37:40 PM Central Standard Time, cengland@netdoor.com writes: >Think of the troops doing double time across the wooden bridge. > >If they all trot along in pure cadence - - ah... it sounds so smooth. > >Of course, if the cadence happens to be near the resonant frequency of the >bridge - - > > >Regards, George > >PS. Sometimes the enemy of good is a misguided attempt at better! > But here you aren't changing the pace, just stomping about 5% harder. Interesting how close to the edge a/c engines really are.... Good Afternoon Charlie, Just a wandering thought. Do you suppose the thing that is causing the problem is the fact that all of the combustion events are coming right together instead of being distributed a little before, right on and a little after they would with magneto ignition? Maybe the act of making them so perfect is what is causing the bridge to vibrate harmonically with the soldiers foot steps. Same deal for us. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 02:46:21 PM PST US From: Jim Sower Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <... But here you aren't changing the pace, just stomping about 5% harder. Interesting how close to the edge a/c engines really are ...> In 1935 when all the technology in these engines "matured", EVERYTHING was close to the edge. An auto engine was good for maybe 50k mi. Cars have advanced. Lyc pretty much hasn't. <... the thing that is causing the problem is the fact that all of the combustion events are coming right together instead of being distributed a little before, right on and a little after they would with magneto ignition ...> Now there's a thought :o) Now the manufacturers have to make a decision. Are we to continue to pamper these antique engines by replicating antique ignition systems, or should we move the engine itself out of the 30s and 40s into the current century to where it will withstand uniform, consistent ignition? Let's see here -- Which way should we go ... :o) I know!! Let's emulate Ford and GM. Let's stonewall and say it can't be done until the Japanese do it and steal half our market and THEN start thinking about upgrades and product improvement. What a concept ... Jim S. ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 03:37:17 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements From: "David.vonLinsowe" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David.vonLinsowe" More thoughts on the engine/prop combination topic. Just because you haven't heard of the vibratory problems with other C/S props, other than Hartzell, doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have issues too, it may mean that they haven't tested as thoroughly as Hartzell... If you want less vibratory issues with the 4 cylinder Lycoming, use the counter weighted crank. One of the main drives behind Hartzell's new "Blended Airfoil" prop was to reduce vibratory concerns. Dave Anders holds the title of having the world's fastest RV. 260+ mph with a IO-360 powered RV-4 with dual E.I. and high compression pistons. The prop is Hartzell that has been clipped smaller than Hartzell's limits, 70.5" vs. 72 min. dia. The blades have been retwisted to improve the pitch distribution at high speed. He runs at 3000 rpm. This in no way recommends or endorses what Dave has done. Dave RV-6 Prop performance testing Standard Hartzell MT 3 Blade MT new 2 Blade Hartzell "Blended Airfoil" From: George Braly Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly <... from the data we see with strain gages mounted up on crank shafts during certification tests ... the concern about the electronic ignition ... is legitimate ...> I am amazed and chagrined. It is incredible to me that something that makes the engine run so much smoother could cause/aggravate damaging vibration/harmonics. I asked for credible evidence and I got it. I stand corrected ... Jim S. Think of the troops doing double time across the wooden bridge. If they all trot along in pure cadence - - ah... it sounds so smooth. Of course, if the cadence happens to be near the resonant frequency of the bridge - - Regards, George PS. Sometimes the enemy of good is a misguided attempt at better! **************************************************************************************** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. **************************************************************************************** ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 04:06:50 PM PST US From: "Jon Finley" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" Hey, your almost there Jim! Now, complete your journey to the dark side - put a MODERN Subaru in that plane of yours! :-) Jon Finley N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 461 Hrs. TT Apple Valley, Minnesota http://www.FinleyWeb.net/Q2Subaru ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Jim Sower >Now there's a thought :o) Now the manufacturers have to make a decision. Are we >to continue to pamper these antique engines by replicating antique ignition >systems, or should we move the engine itself out of the 30s and 40s into the >current century to where it will withstand uniform, consistent ignition? Let's >see here -- Which way should we go ... :o) I know!! Let's emulate Ford and GM. >Let's stonewall and say it can't be done until the Japanese do it and steal half >our market and THEN start thinking about upgrades and product improvement. > >What a concept ... Jim S. ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 05:52:47 PM PST US From: "Jerry Latimer" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Bob, need info on microair com/xpdr --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Latimer" It's available on the internet at the Microair homepage. Jerry Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Fogerson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Bob, need info on microair com/xpdr --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Fogerson" Do Not Archive I did not receive an operations manual with the MicroAir T2000 xpdr. Does anyone know if one is available on the internet or if a hard copy is available from someone. Thanks, Rick Fogerson RV3 wiring Boise, ID ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Bob, need info on microair com/xpdr > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > At 05:10 PM 11/17/2003 -0700, you wrote: > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Fogerson" > > > >Hi Bob, > >I bought wiring harnesses from you some time back but just getting around > >to installing. I'm building an RV3 so no need for intercom or co-pilot > >stuff. No wiring diagram sent so I need to know what they connect to. > > Blue jacket shielded wire is reply beep out that can optionally be > routed to your audio distribution amplifier. I'm not sure as to the > exact function of this feature, manual should be more helpful. > > ================= > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 06:40:20 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trim servo wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 06:40 PM 11/24/2003 +0000, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" > > >Bob - I want to drive a Mac servo from either a Ray Allen stick grip or the >Ray Allen (DPDT?) rocker switch in the panel where either pilot can get to >it. > >The rocker normally holds both outgoing wires to the servo to earth unless >the rocker is activated. I propose to put a S704-1 in both lines so that by >pressing the stick button the line will switch, so that instead of passing >any signal straight through, the line to the servo will go to +12. The stick >button will activate by grounding the actuation signal. > >Two questions: >1) If the rocker and a stick button were pressed together, or two stick >buttons both lines to the servo could go '+'. I see no problem however. >2) The S704 will be 'live' and the activation cct 'made' by grounding at the >stick. Runaway if a fault develops? Yup, about every OBAM aircraft flying has the potential for trim runaway due to either stuck switches or faulted wires. If you've studied the mechanical limits to trim authority for your project and determined that trim-stuck-in-a-limit presents no special hazard, then what you propose is no worse than most airplanes flying. >Any bad practice in here? Sorry for trivia. Thanks, Steve. If studies of runaway trim situations present more excitement than you'd like to experience, then a two-switch trim system is in order. Most high performance aircraft have either a push-to-enable IN ADDITION to trim-up/down switches -OR- a wheel master disconnect button that disengages ALL electrically driven flight control surfaces wether driven by trim actuators or autopilot servos. I designed a two-pole, double-throw, (on)-off-(on) switch for the Piaggio GP-180 that was two, parallel paddles that mounted on the center console. Pressing both paddles together would produce the desired trim action . . . failure of one switch would not carry across to the other switch. A similar dual-actuator trim switch can be found on King Airs. I believe both of these airplanes also have a wheel master disconnect system. It all hinges on your evaluation of how bad a trim runaway can be and what lengths to which you'll go to prevent it. Bob . . . >PS Is it worth putting diodes in the circuit or are the motors just too >small? PM motors do not behave like relay and contactor coils. No diodes are necessary. They're useful on any relays, contactors and solenoids that are employed in your system. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 08:20:02 PM PST US From: George Braly Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly <... the thing that is causing the problem is the fact that all of the combustion events are coming right together instead of being distributed a little before, right on and a little after they would with magneto ignition ...> Now there's a thought :o) Now the manufacturers have to make a decision. Are we to continue to pamper these antique engines by replicating antique ignition systems, or should we move the engine itself out of the 30s and 40s into the current century to where it will withstand uniform, consistent ignition? Let's see here -- Which way should we go ... :o) I know!! Let's emulate Ford and GM. Let's stonewall and say it can't be done until the Japanese do it and steal half our market and THEN start thinking about upgrades and product improvement. What a concept ... Jim S.<< *********************************************** Jim, A little dose of reality, please? Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate continuously at 90% of max rated horsepower for 1800 hours ? Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate at 90% of rated max horsepower for 1800 hours and do so at a BSFC of < 0.385 lbs/hour/hp ??? How about the Japanese? Have you seen the "wonderful" "modern" little Honda-TCM engine? It weighs more NOW (by admission) than the engine it is supposed to replace. It is claimed to have 220 Hp instead of only 200 for the engine it is supposed to replace, but on a Hp/installed pound comparison - - it isn't any better - - even assuming it meets all of its currently claimed future goals. After 40 years (since the 200 Hp Lycoming IO-360 first arrived) you would think they could do a little better with all of the "modern" improvements. Regards, George PS. Oh! BTW, the word floating around among one or more former TCM employees with knowledge of the situation is that the Honda engine has already broken three crankshafts. PPS in about 1918 or so, one Navy Admiral made the observation that water cooling an aircraft engine made about as much sense as air cooling a submarine. --- ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 09:12:07 PM PST US From: Dave Morris Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris At 10:21 PM 11/24/2003 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly > > >PPS in about 1918 or so, one Navy Admiral made the observation that water >cooling an aircraft engine made about as much sense as air cooling a >submarine. 2 years later, the New York Times sarcastically dismissed Dr. Robert Goddard's notion that a rocket could function in a vacuum, too. Dave Morris ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 09:28:38 PM PST US From: Jerzy Krasinski Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski George Braly wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly > > >....................................................................Are we >to continue to pamper these antique engines by replicating antique ignition >systems, or should we move the engine itself out of the 30s and 40s into the >current century to where it will withstand uniform, consistent ignition? >.................... > > *********************************************** > >Jim, > >A little dose of reality, please? > >Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate continuously at 90% >of max rated horsepower for 1800 hours ? > >Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate at 90% of rated max >horsepower for 1800 hours and do so at a BSFC of < 0.385 lbs/hour/hp ??? > >How about the Japanese? Have you seen the "wonderful" "modern" little >Honda-TCM engine? It weighs more NOW (by admission) than the engine it is >supposed to replace. It is claimed to have 220 Hp instead of only 200 for >the engine it is supposed to replace, but on a Hp/installed pound comparison >- - it isn't any better - - even assuming it meets all of its currently >claimed future goals. > >After 40 years (since the 200 Hp Lycoming IO-360 first arrived) you would >think they could do a little better with all of the "modern" improvements. > >Regards, George > >PS. Oh! BTW, the word floating around among one or more former TCM >employees with knowledge of the situation is that the Honda engine has >already broken three crankshafts. > >PPS in about 1918 or so, one Navy Admiral made the observation that water >cooling an aircraft engine made about as much sense as air cooling a >submarine. > >--- > Paul Lamar might be right claiming that the rotary engine is the answer. Try to brake the crankshaft of a rotary. Doesn't the rotary engine look like a modern improvement? Jerzy > > > > ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 09:37:04 PM PST US From: sdcmills@att.net Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery/Alt switch differences --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sdcmills@att.net My question pertains to the Z-11 drawing and a difference between it and the drawings supplied with the article about the OVM. In the Z-11 drawing the battery/alt switch is a standard 2-10. In the drawing attached with the Crowbar article a standard two pole single throw switch is used. On this drawing there is a note, however, that states: Important Battery and Alternator should come on and off together. What is the reasoning for this note? Why the difference between the two drawings? I realize that Z-13 is using the B & C regulator and the other drawing is dealing with a generic regulator. However, I can see some usefulness in being able to shut the alternator field off and keeping the battery contactor energized. I would surely appreciate an explanation. Thanks, Scott Mills N339A ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 10:18:05 PM PST US From: George Braly Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly Rotary engine ... the BSFC's are worse than the worst that Japan incorporated can now builds - - and even their best is worse than we already have in 40 year old aircraft engines. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jerzy Krasinski Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski George Braly wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly > > >....................................................................Are we >to continue to pamper these antique engines by replicating antique ignition >systems, or should we move the engine itself out of the 30s and 40s into the >current century to where it will withstand uniform, consistent ignition? >.................... > > *********************************************** > >Jim, > >A little dose of reality, please? > >Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate continuously at 90% >of max rated horsepower for 1800 hours ? > >Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate at 90% of rated max >horsepower for 1800 hours and do so at a BSFC of < 0.385 lbs/hour/hp ??? > >How about the Japanese? Have you seen the "wonderful" "modern" little >Honda-TCM engine? It weighs more NOW (by admission) than the engine it is >supposed to replace. It is claimed to have 220 Hp instead of only 200 for >the engine it is supposed to replace, but on a Hp/installed pound comparison >- - it isn't any better - - even assuming it meets all of its currently >claimed future goals. > >After 40 years (since the 200 Hp Lycoming IO-360 first arrived) you would >think they could do a little better with all of the "modern" improvements. > >Regards, George > >PS. Oh! BTW, the word floating around among one or more former TCM >employees with knowledge of the situation is that the Honda engine has >already broken three crankshafts. > >PPS in about 1918 or so, one Navy Admiral made the observation that water >cooling an aircraft engine made about as much sense as air cooling a >submarine. > >--- > Paul Lamar might be right claiming that the rotary engine is the answer. Try to brake the crankshaft of a rotary. Doesn't the rotary engine look like a modern improvement? Jerzy > > > > --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. ---