Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:08 AM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Dan Branstrom)
2. 07:06 AM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Cy Galley)
3. 07:27 AM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (James E. Clark)
4. 07:29 AM - Re: Magneto Replacements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 07:37 AM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (James E. Clark)
6. 07:40 AM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Werner Schneider)
7. 07:42 AM - Re: Magneto Replacements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
8. 07:47 AM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Eric Ruttan)
9. 07:47 AM - Re: Battery/Alt switch differences (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 07:49 AM - Re: Battery/Alt switch differences (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 07:56 AM - Re: Magneto Replacements (George Braly)
12. 08:12 AM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Jim Sower)
13. 09:10 AM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Dan Branstrom)
14. 09:15 AM - Re: Magneto Relpacements ()
15. 09:18 AM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Scott Bilinski)
16. 09:19 AM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Jim Oke)
17. 09:39 AM - Re: Speaking of "lots work still to be done" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 10:37 AM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Eric Ruttan)
19. 10:48 AM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Scott Bilinski)
20. 11:02 AM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Dj Merrill)
21. 11:29 AM - Re: Cozy wiring questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 12:28 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) (Eric M. Jones)
23. 12:32 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements (George Braly)
24. 12:33 PM - Re: Loadmeter (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 01:10 PM - Re: Re: Speaking of "lots work still to be done" (BTomm)
26. 01:41 PM - Re: Re: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) (BobsV35B@aol.com)
27. 01:55 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Scott, Ian)
28. 02:12 PM - Re: DIY sexy flap switch . . . (Mitch Faatz)
29. 02:48 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) (Eric M. Jones)
30. 03:20 PM - Re: Re: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) (Cy Galley)
31. 03:21 PM - Re: Re: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) (Cy Galley)
32. 03:36 PM - Re: DIY sexy flap switch . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
33. 03:58 PM - LED reading/map/cabin light sources (Joa Harrison)
34. 04:08 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Neville Kilford)
35. 04:26 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Dan Branstrom)
36. 04:26 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Dan Branstrom)
37. 04:27 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Dan Branstrom)
38. 04:28 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Dan Branstrom)
39. 05:02 PM - Re: DIY sexy flap switch . . . (Dave Morris)
40. 05:06 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Dan Branstrom)
41. 05:35 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Charlie & Tupper England)
42. 05:35 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Charlie & Tupper England)
43. 05:49 PM - Re: "lots work still to be done" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
44. 06:29 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Jon Finley)
45. 07:51 PM - Strong opinions (Dave Morris)
46. 07:55 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Dj Merrill)
47. 08:00 PM - Re: Re: Speaking of "lots work still to be done" (James E. Clark)
48. 08:04 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements ()
49. 08:09 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
50. 08:39 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Jim Sower)
51. 08:54 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Jim Sower)
52. 08:55 PM - Re: Smaller ELT antenna question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
53. 09:01 PM - Re: RemovingDsubPins (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
54. 09:03 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (kempthornes)
55. 10:16 PM - Re: Magneto Relpacements (Dan Branstrom)
56. 10:18 PM - Removing Molex KK Pins (James Redmon)
57. 11:07 PM - Last Minute...? (Matt Dralle)
58. 11:22 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Werner Schneider)
59. 11:31 PM - Re: Magneto Replacements (Dj Merrill)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom@verizon.net>
I don't know what the BSFC's are on the new Mazda RX-8, but I think it is
about 10% better than the RX-7. This was accomplished by moving the exhaust
ports. It'll probably still be a trade-off of lower weight of the engine
and lower frontal area on airplanes for more fuel required.
While the Mazda is much smoother, I remember that a lot of development work
was done on the aviation version of the Mazda because cranks were snapped by
torsional harmonic vibration at high power. There was even some speculation
that the crank breakage was caused by some harmonic vibrations being
introduced by the dynanometer.
If you want no ignition wiring, the DeltaHawk diesel is interesting because
its BSFC is much lower than gasoline powered engines. The torque curve peak
is at a much lower RPM than a gasoline engine. Since it's a two stroke,
there are twice as many power pulses per rotation, and the power pulses are
much less violent than those of a four stroke. At this point in its
development, the weight is the same as an IO-360. It is being flown in a
Velocity and tested against an identical IO-360 powered Velocity. At lower
altitudes, because of the torque curve, it's out-performing the IO-360, and
at altitudes above 6,000, because of its turbo-normalization it leaves the
gas-powered plane far behind. Of course, they're not selling it yet because
they are not releasing it until it's ready. Every year that they've come
back, they've shown progress. I wish them luck.
While the Zoche diesel engine was at OSH for years, its progress towards
certification seems to be a mirage.
Do not archive.
Dan Branstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
> 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
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com.Gecko/20030624.Netscape/7.1
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski
> <krasinski@direcway.com>
>
>
> George Braly wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com>
> >
> >
> >....................................................................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.
>
>
> ---
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
BSFC is not the only engine selection criterion.
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
> 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
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com.Gecko/20030624.Netscape/7.1
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski
> <krasinski@direcway.com>
>
>
> George Braly wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com>
> >
> >
> >....................................................................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.
>
>
> ---
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Jim,
If this was all so easy to do and there was such a market for it, and all
the other economics were right, someone would have done it by now. (Make
such superior engines).
By the way Continental and one of the Japanese firms (HONDA) were
demonstrating a beautiful looking engine at OSH. They are ***STILL***
working on it! They do NOT have a "ready by" or "ship by" date. There is
LOTS of work STILL to be done.
I spoke with the guys from Japan. They will not release this thing (IF THEY
EVER DO) until it is right. It has not been a slam dunk exercise and they
have a very senior (top notch) engineering program manager on it.
So if you know someone that can do better, please get them going as oppossed
to slamming Lycoming et al.
Also, there is a "modern" offering so to speak from Eggenfellner. The Subaru
FWF package. The current 4 cylinder (without supercharging) is about
equivalent to an O-320 (160 HP).
What is amazing to me is the fact that Lycoming built this "old stuff" so
well back in the 30's, 40's, 50's (pick your favorite decade) and here 50
years later NOBODY has come up with anything that totally displaces them.
The closest thing I have seen that is reality is the "Eggy Subie" :-).
I know we should have a little bit of cynicism but ...
James
>
> 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 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 11/25/03 9:08:53 AM Central Standard Time,
cgalley@qcbc.org writes:
BSFC is not the only engine selection criterion
Very true Cy,
Small helicopters use Turbine engines because the weight per horsepower is so
low. They can land for fuel every hour or so with little concern.
The large German Zeppelins used relatively heavy Malbach (sp?) diesels
because range was so important.
As always, It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Do Not Archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Great to see that this testing is happening Dave.
Also, for those of you who are "RVator" subscribers, there is an article on
performance of various props in the latest issue. It is done by Van and has
some results. Haven't had time to read the article but those of you who have
read Van's performance testing stuff know that he tries to keep everything
on the "straight and narrow".
James
>
> Dave
> RV-6
> Prop performance testing
> Standard Hartzell
> MT 3 Blade
> MT new 2 Blade
> Hartzell "Blended Airfoil"
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider@compuserve.com>
Maybach =(;o)
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 11/25/03 9:08:53 AM Central Standard Time,
> cgalley@qcbc.org writes:
> BSFC is not the only engine selection criterion
> Very true Cy,
>
> Small helicopters use Turbine engines because the weight per horsepower is
so
> low. They can land for fuel every hour or so with little concern.
>
> The large German Zeppelins used relatively heavy Malbach (sp?) diesels
> because range was so important.
>
> As always, It All Depends!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 11/25/03 9:41:14 AM Central Standard Time,
wernerschneider@compuserve.com writes:
Maybach =(;o)
Thank you!
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
> 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.
No one should be deluded into thinking that an aviation engine is air
cooled. It is a liquid cooled engine, with fins.
Air cooled Gasoline engines require anywhere from 1-3 GHP more fuel than an
equivalent liquid cooled engine.That's 6-18 pounds per hour of waste. That
puts the weight premium for liquid cooled engines in an appropriate context.
Diesels, of course, don't have this waste fuel problem.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery/Alt switch differences |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:36 AM 11/25/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>--> 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
>
>
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery/Alt switch differences |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:36 AM 11/25/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>--> 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.
This question came over the list a few weeks ago. Here's the
response:
--------------------------
>On Z-11 the master switch is a two position switch (Off-Bat-Alt) and on
>Z-12 and others it is a single position switch throwing both alt and
>bat. This makes sense to me if you have redandant alternators.
It's not critical for any architecture. The 2-3 switch is less
expensive and if you have crowbar ov protection, the associated
circuit breaker can be pulled for rare instances of needing to
run the battery during ground maintenance with the alternator
disabled and even rarer instances of needing to disable the
alternator in flight.
If you want to get fancy and don't mind the extra cost of the
ON-ON-ON switch, then you can do the OFF, BATT-ONLY, BAT-ALT
functionality shown on Z-11 and most of the other drawings.
> However,
>on Z-11 the breaker for the alt field is on the right of the switch (with a
>fuseable link on the left) and on Z-12 the breaker is on the left. I have
>not been able to find an explanation of the difference in the book.
There is no difference functionally, if you use fuseblocks, a
leadwire from bus terminal to the panel where the master switch
is located along with the alt field crowbar breaker would like
some protection . . . fusible link works well here as it is
MUCH slower protection than the circuit breaker and will not
nuisance trip if the OV system crowbars the breaker. Current
in a series circuit is the same everywhere, it matters not
which comes first, master switch or field breaker.
> Is this just a way of showing there are different ways of wiring the same
>thing, or is there some other thinking behind the difference?
Just seeing if you're paying attention and willing to
formulate the question. You passed the test!
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| There is a great difference between knowing and |
| understanding: you can know a lot about something and |
| not really understand it. -C.F. Kettering- |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
>Thanks,
>
>Scott Mills
>N339A
>
>
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com>
>> and the power pulses are much less violent than those of a four stroke.
<<
Could you please enlighten me on exactly where the data to support
that claim comes from?
Typical diesel peak internal cylinder pressures are up around 1700
PSI.
Typical high power S.I. engines have peak internal cylinder
pressures up around 900 PSI, 1050, max.
Very hard to get "less violent" out of 1700 verses 900 - - when both
events happen in the same time frame.
I don't think this has anything to do with four stroke vs two
stroke. If it does, I would sure like an explanation of the physics of
that?
There is a monumental - - truly monumental - - amount of marketing
claims and B.S. information associated with internal combustion engines.
Regards, George
---
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
<... Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate continuously at 90%
of max rated horsepower for 1800 hours ...>
Not sure. There are several ways to respond to your question.
A) About the same number, with about the same frequency (reliability) as
aircraft engines - virtually none. I've never seen (or had what I fancy to be
a
reliable source who has seen) a Lyc-Cont run to TBO at 90% power. Some of them
make it to TBO at 70% power (90% throttle at 8000' msl). Many do not.
B) If the auto manufacturer de-rated his engine sufficiently (as is the case
with Lyc-Cont) it would be easy enough. Put another way, I'm certain neither of
us would have any problem at all finding any number of auto engines that would
operate reliably for 1500 hrs at 90% throttle and 3000 rpm.
C) There are a number of auto engines that will operate reliably for 1500-2000
hrs at 70% rated power (which is where most aircraft engines operate - 95%
throttle, 8000' msl): Subaru, Mazda, Chev 4.2 V6 and several others.
<... BSFC of < 0.385 lbs/hour/hp ...>
That sounds a little low. Is there a Lyc or Cont that will do that? Best I'd
heard was around .45-.47, and that at more like 65% - 70% power, but I'm
certainly not right on top of that. Is there reliable, repeatable data to
support that? My best information is that Subaru and V6s have better BSFC than
Lyc, and Mazda rotarys about the same.
<... How about the Japanese ...>
Yeah. They gave us the Subaru which is gaining a very significant following,
and Mazda rotary which could be the wave of the future (difficult to argue with
three moving parts and a rotating mass).
<... one Navy Admiral made the observation that water cooling an aircraft engine
made about as much sense as air cooling a submarine ...>
Sounds like one of the PARADE of admirals who observed that "... nobody would
dare attack Pearl Harbor ...>. I invite your attention to the P-51, Spitfire,
Hurricane and ME-109 - arguably the most successful fighters in WWII.
George Braly wrote:
> 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 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom@verizon.net>
> >> and the power pulses are much less violent than those of a four
stroke.
> <<
>
> Could you please enlighten me on exactly where the data to support
> that claim comes from?
You're right. I goofed on that one. Would a better way of putting it that
since the power is delivered from twice as many pulses, the net power output
from each stroke is less and overlaps?
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
> >> and the power pulses are much less violent than those of a four
stroke.
> <<
>
> Could you please enlighten me on exactly where the data to support
> that claim comes from?
>
> Typical diesel peak internal cylinder pressures are up around 1700
> PSI.
>
> Typical high power S.I. engines have peak internal cylinder
> pressures up around 900 PSI, 1050, max.
>
> Very hard to get "less violent" out of 1700 verses 900 - - when
both
> events happen in the same time frame.
>
> I don't think this has anything to do with four stroke vs two
> stroke. If it does, I would sure like an explanation of the physics of
> that?
>
> There is a monumental - - truly monumental - - amount of marketing
> claims and B.S. information associated with internal combustion engines.
>
> Regards, George
>
>
> ---
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <racker@rmci.net>
James,
Finally some "rational" speak, very refreshing <g>. Thanks.
I've been following the Soob conversions for a while now, several years
before I decided to go with a Lycosaur.
My Lycoming 0SMOH FWF cost was equal to the Eggy conversion at the time,
and yearly insurance costs were FAR less (on the order of $2K+/yr). This
made the Lycosaur much cheaper over a 5/10/20 year life cycle (even
factoring in a NEW replacement if it broke sometime past 10 years). Hence
the decision to go Lyc. Unless insurance has come down a lot (has it?) or
one decides to go uninsured, the Eggy conversions are more expensive in
the long run imho.
My own research of those flying normally aspirated Soobs on basically
equivalent RV airframes, few are getting Lyc 160hp performance out of them
(except for the factory ship, of course <g>). This concurs with the
findings of others on the Soob list, as well as my own Lyc f/p RV-6 where
I cruise 65% power = TAS 178mph = +/-7.1gph (still tweaking the fuel flow
meter, also hardly ever go to 75% as the added speed and vibration are not
worth the extra fuel burn imo).
There was recent posting that the Subaru was MODERN. From what I can find
on the FHI website, the Soob boxer is based on 1950's design (that's 50
years old...and not THAT much newer than Lycosaurs). However, seemingly
unlike Lycosaurs, the Subaru has been incrementally MODERNIZED as new
technologies evolved.
But its still a fossil-fuel burning reciprocating design in the end,
nothing new or "modern". I also believe it will supplant the Lycoming in
the experimental category as hours and knowledge are amassed, its a good
engine.
Rob Acker ('02 Lycosaur RV-6 flying, '03 Subaru driving)
do not archive
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark"
> <james@nextupventures.com>
> Also, there is a "modern" offering so to speak from Eggenfellner. The
> Subaru FWF package. The current 4 cylinder (without supercharging) is
> about equivalent to an O-320 (160 HP).
>
> What is amazing to me is the fact that Lycoming built this "old stuff"
> so well back in the 30's, 40's, 50's (pick your favorite decade) and
> here 50 years later NOBODY has come up with anything that totally
> displaces them. The closest thing I have seen that is reality is the
> "Eggy Subie" :-).
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Your over looking the ramp up to get those pressures. Gas very fast ramp up
= strong power pulse. Diesel slow pressure ramp up = a milder power pulse.
At 09:57 AM 11/25/03 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
> >> and the power pulses are much less violent than those of a four stroke.
><<
>
> Could you please enlighten me on exactly where the data to support
>that claim comes from?
>
> Typical diesel peak internal cylinder pressures are up around 1700
>PSI.
>
> Typical high power S.I. engines have peak internal cylinder
>pressures up around 900 PSI, 1050, max.
>
> Very hard to get "less violent" out of 1700 verses 900 - - when both
>events happen in the same time frame.
>
> I don't think this has anything to do with four stroke vs two
>stroke. If it does, I would sure like an explanation of the physics of
>that?
>
> There is a monumental - - truly monumental - - amount of marketing
>claims and B.S. information associated with internal combustion engines.
>
>Regards, George
>
>
>---
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Yes, it is amazing that the basic Lycoming "flat four"' design has proved so
endurable over the years and that it is proving so hard to replace with
those modern, hi-tech, engine designs that are supposedly so near at hand.
Let's tip our hats to the engineers back in the 1930s who did their jobs
well without modern aids such as computer-aided finite element analysis,
advanced metallurgy, etc.
If possible, have a look sometime inside a Merlin or one of the sleeve valve
engines from the 1940s and try and imagine designing the intricate gear
trains these engines rely on with paper and pencil and then working to get
the reliability up to an acceptable level. It is a useful reminder about the
human spirit and intelligence but then so too are the pyramids and other
works from the past.
Jim Oke
Wpg, MB
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark"
<james@nextupventures.com>
>
> Jim,
>
> If this was all so easy to do and there was such a market for it, and all
> the other economics were right, someone would have done it by now. (Make
> such superior engines).
>
> By the way Continental and one of the Japanese firms (HONDA) were
> demonstrating a beautiful looking engine at OSH. They are ***STILL***
> working on it! They do NOT have a "ready by" or "ship by" date. There is
> LOTS of work STILL to be done.
>
> I spoke with the guys from Japan. They will not release this thing (IF
THEY
> EVER DO) until it is right. It has not been a slam dunk exercise and they
> have a very senior (top notch) engineering program manager on it.
>
> So if you know someone that can do better, please get them going as
oppossed
> to slamming Lycoming et al.
>
> Also, there is a "modern" offering so to speak from Eggenfellner. The
Subaru
> FWF package. The current 4 cylinder (without supercharging) is about
> equivalent to an O-320 (160 HP).
>
> What is amazing to me is the fact that Lycoming built this "old stuff" so
> well back in the 30's, 40's, 50's (pick your favorite decade) and here 50
> years later NOBODY has come up with anything that totally displaces them.
> The closest thing I have seen that is reality is the "Eggy Subie" :-).
>
> I know we should have a little bit of cynicism but ...
>
> James
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Speaking of "lots work still to be done" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark"
><james@nextupventures.com>
>
>By the way Continental and one of the Japanese firms (HONDA) were
>demonstrating a beautiful looking engine at OSH. They are ***STILL***
>working on it! They do NOT have a "ready by" or "ship by" date. There is
>LOTS of work STILL to be done.
>
>I spoke with the guys from Japan. They will not release this thing (IF THEY
>EVER DO) until it is right. It has not been a slam dunk exercise and they
>have a very senior (top notch) engineering program manager on it.
On a different topic, my "spies" in the industry tell me that
Honda has been ordering system specific hardware items (some
requiring custom designs) for use on experimental aircraft.
When asked about certification issues, hopeful suppliers are
essentially told, "Don't mess with that stuff now. Give us hardware
that works. We'll decided paperwork issues AFTER the system
is made to work."
This is in sharp contrast to statements of work common in
the industry today. Certification issues are folded into
the design consideration from square-one. By the time the
design makes it to 95% done, it's "ready to certify".
After certification, making the most rudimentary changes
to clean up the last 5% is often so expensive that it never
happens.
Bill, Clyde and Walter would be devastated to see what we've
done to their airplane companies. It's refreshing to see
old ideas of make-it-work-first have not died out completely.
The sad part is that some of the best examples may not be
happening in the US . . . but then, there are some upstart
young companies out there that may well demonstrate to
Bombardier, TCM and RAC how their companies came to be
so attractive in the first place . . . and what has happened
to dim that rosy glow of days gone by.
Bob . . .
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
>>> and the power pulses are much less violent than those of a four stroke.
> Could you please enlighten me on exactly where the data to support
> that claim comes from?
> Typical diesel peak internal cylinder pressures are up around 1700
> PSI.
> Typical high power S.I. engines have peak internal cylinder
> pressures up around 900 PSI, 1050, max.
> Very hard to get "less violent" out of 1700 verses 900 - - when
both
> events happen in the same time frame.
> I don't think this has anything to do with four stroke vs two
> stroke. If it does, I would sure like an explanation of the physics of
> that?
> Regards, George
A 8 cylinder will be smoother and "less violent" than a 4 cylinder, even
though the same pressure peaks are reached in both. Pressure peaks have
little to do with "Violence"
Remember that "violent" is a function of the rate of change, not the max
pressure. Old school diesels "clacked" due the the great rapidity of diesel
burn(Low Octane, or High Cetane), compared to the slow burn of Gasoline
(High Octane).
The current revolution in diesels deals with exactly this point. Current
direct injection diesels with multi stage injectors have a smoother pressure
build up to a higher pressure point. No "clack"
> There is a monumental - - truly monumental - - amount of marketing
> claims and B.S. information associated with internal combustion engines.
Most all of it I would say. But we seem to be just a guilty as any
marketing campaign.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
I will throw in a few cents here. My opinion on the perfect aircraft engine
will be a flat air cooled engine with up to date metallurgy (which includes
rings, bearings etc), a modern combustion chamber design, and a updated cam
profile. Also flow testing for "free power", along with some type of
perfected FADEC system that defaults to manual control. Oh, and the latest
in engine design theory. If no FADEC then a hot ignition system of some
sort. If all this is done I dont think liquid cooling will help that much
if we just up date what we have.
Then there is Cool Jugs, water cooled cylinders that bolt onto the existing
O-360. I am very tempted, but already have a new engine.
http://www.liquidcooledairpower.com/cj-pricing.shtml
At 11:14 AM 11/25/03 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
>
>Yes, it is amazing that the basic Lycoming "flat four"' design has proved so
>endurable over the years and that it is proving so hard to replace with
>those modern, hi-tech, engine designs that are supposedly so near at hand.
>Let's tip our hats to the engineers back in the 1930s who did their jobs
>well without modern aids such as computer-aided finite element analysis,
>advanced metallurgy, etc.
>
>If possible, have a look sometime inside a Merlin or one of the sleeve valve
>engines from the 1940s and try and imagine designing the intricate gear
>trains these engines rely on with paper and pencil and then working to get
>the reliability up to an acceptable level. It is a useful reminder about the
>human spirit and intelligence but then so too are the pyramids and other
>works from the past.
>
>Jim Oke
>Wpg, MB
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark"
><james@nextupventures.com>
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> If this was all so easy to do and there was such a market for it, and all
>> the other economics were right, someone would have done it by now. (Make
>> such superior engines).
>>
>> By the way Continental and one of the Japanese firms (HONDA) were
>> demonstrating a beautiful looking engine at OSH. They are ***STILL***
>> working on it! They do NOT have a "ready by" or "ship by" date. There is
>> LOTS of work STILL to be done.
>>
>> I spoke with the guys from Japan. They will not release this thing (IF
>THEY
>> EVER DO) until it is right. It has not been a slam dunk exercise and they
>> have a very senior (top notch) engineering program manager on it.
>>
>> So if you know someone that can do better, please get them going as
>oppossed
>> to slamming Lycoming et al.
>>
>> Also, there is a "modern" offering so to speak from Eggenfellner. The
>Subaru
>> FWF package. The current 4 cylinder (without supercharging) is about
>> equivalent to an O-320 (160 HP).
>>
>> What is amazing to me is the fact that Lycoming built this "old stuff" so
>> well back in the 30's, 40's, 50's (pick your favorite decade) and here 50
>> years later NOBODY has come up with anything that totally displaces them.
>> The closest thing I have seen that is reality is the "Eggy Subie" :-).
>>
>> I know we should have a little bit of cynicism but ...
>>
>> James
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
>
> I got Electroair in summer of '99. Jeff Rose is great to work with. I put it
on my O-235
Anyone have a web site address for Electroair?
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 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cozy wiring questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:41 AM 11/24/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Below is the result of your inquiry. It was submitted by
>Neil Clayton (harvey4@earthlink.net) on Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 17:41:23
>
>Sunday, November 23, 2003
>
>Neil Clayton
>
>,
>Email: harvey4@earthlink.net
>Comments/Questions: Hello Bob....I'm about to start my Cozy MkIV
>electrical system. I've read the "Connection" cover to cover, but I've
>still got a few basic questions (forgive the primitive nature of the
>questions - I'm a Mech Eng!)
>
>1)I need a firewall ground on both sides of firewall plus a panel ground,
>right?
You may not need anything on the firewall. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z15ak.pdf
Depending on how many things need grounds at the
firewall, your rear grounds may be handled by a single
brass bolt through the firewall that will ground the firewall
sheet and provide a terminal to transition from 2AWG ground
wire to a copper-braid bond-strap from firewall to crankcase.
>Shall I connect the two with a nice beefy length of (braided?) cable
>running down the side of the fuselage, or is a thin cable running up to
>the panel sufficient (on the grounds that it won't have to take starting
>currents)?
Is your battery in the back? If so, it grounds to the
brass bolt at the firewall and you take a reasonable feeder
ground up front for instrumentation. 6AWG or so is suggested.
>2) I'm using an automotive alternator that's internally regulated (darned
>if I know what pin on the alternator does what). Anyway, from my reading
>it sounds like externally reg'd alternators lend themselves to using
>alternator controlers (like the B&C LR-3). Then I get all sorts of goodies
>like OV, LV and batt temp sensing built in. Is it possible to strip my
>alternator of it's internal regulation thus converting it to an external
>regulator, or should I leave well alone.
Unless you've done these conversions and have some experience
it's probably better to run the alternator as is. Consider wiring
per figure Z-24 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
>3) What does the diode on the starter solenoid do? The solenoid I bought
>(from Wicks, I think) came without one. What's the spec for the diode?
>What pins to install it between?
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
ANY rectifier diode 1A or larger, 50V or larger is fine.
Check out 276-1141 rectifiers from Radio Shack. Two
to a package for about $1.25.
If the starter contactor looks like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702-1l.jpg
then see this for wiring info:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702wire.jpg
Diode would go from "S" to base on the contactor.
Banded end of diode to "S"
>4) The Cozy design calls for the comm antenna coax and the Whelen wingtip
>strobe cables to run in the same 1" diameter tunnel down the wing.
>Inevitably, somewhere in the tunnel the cable jackets are going to touch.
>Am I ensuring strobe noise on my comm or is the cable shielding enough to
>prevent crosstalk?
They can happily coexist in same conduit.
>Should I go to additional lengths to separate the two cables? BTW - is the
>strobe wire pulsed or constant voltage? In other words, which end of the
>strobe feed wire is the strobe capacitor - power supply end or flashing end?
It's in the power supply. But the wire from power-supply
to strobe is shielded, twisted triple and with very
low noise coupling characteristics.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
A further benefit can be realized with membership on
the list. There are lots of technically capable folks
on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can
join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Bob . . .
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
BSFC (Bart Simpson Fan Club) also stands for Brake Specific Fuel
Consumption. It's a measure of the weight of fuel (not of the engine)
consumed per hour per work-unit done by the engine. That's why they use
Diesels in German Zeppelins (not all Zeppelins were diesel powered, and the
Daimler diesel, not the Maybach, was the engine of choice). For a Zeppelin,
the thing that counts is the many tons of fuel hauled around the sky. This
is of some interest, but of more interest to the airplane builder is pounds
per horsepower if the BSFC is reasonable.The weight of the diesel engine (in
1932), was typically 2 pounds per HP, and was not so big a deal. Even now
gasoline engines tend towards 1.6 pound per HP for RELIABLE engines.
>>Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate continuously at 90%
>>of max rated horsepower for 1800 hours and do so at a BSFC of < 0.385
lbs/hour/hp? [George]
No, But I can name you a couple 350 cubic inch V8 auto engines that can
generate 5000 HP for 4 seconds. The point is that "90% of max HP for 1800
hours" is not the auto-makers test. Maybe a "250 HP" engine that fails at
90% HP in ten hours, fails only because it is really a 210 HP engine as far
as that test is concerned.
Engine makers are not liars particularly, but engines are rated in different
ways. I was seriously set to buy an Eggenfellner Subaru. But since I am
several years from finishing. I'll wait and see what happens. The best
engine for my airplane will be available when I need it.
But they say the sound of a Packard 9-cylinder radial diesel could make a
grown man weep.
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com>
<... BSFC of < 0.385 lbs/hour/hp ...>
That sounds a little low. Is there a Lyc or Cont that will do that? Best
I'd
heard was around .45-.47, and that at more like 65% - 70% power, but I'm
certainly not right on top of that. Is there reliable, repeatable data to
support that? My best information is that Subaru and V6s have better BSFC
than
Lyc, and Mazda rotarys about the same.<
I can FORCE any TCM or Lycoming to have really BAD BSFCs by inappropriate
use of the mixture control.
But operated properly, they are very good.
The existing book spec high power BSFC(min) for the 1982 TCM-IO-550 is
0.385.
I have verified it myself.
The existing book spec for the Lycoming (low compression) TIO-540 J2BD is
about 0.435. I routinely run that engine on the test stand with the PRISM
system at 0.385 to 0.39.
I have 1300 hours on my turbo normalized IO-550 - - with virtually all of
that time at > 260 Hp (out of 300) which is around 86+%. And all of that
time has been accumulated at a BSFC of about 0.385. The last oil sample
from Blackstone said "This is one of best wearing Bonanza engines we have
ever seen."
>> I invite your attention to the P-51, Spitfire,
Hurricane and ME-109 - arguably the most successful fighters in WWII.
By contrast, you might take a look at the F8F Bearcat which can eat all of
their lunches every day in combat performance.
Right now, the typical Merlin engine operates about 300-400 hours
MTBFAILURE. And that is when they are babying the engines.
And take a look at the very highly successful (not) LTSIO550 engines built
by TCM. (L is for liquid).
Regards, George
---
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:07 AM 11/22/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rmickey@ix.netcom.com
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Did you get my loadmeter?
>
>Ross Mickey
Yes. It's on the way back. There was a broken part
on the board. The ammeter side of the loadmeter was
open. You got the last of my warranty spares.
Bob . . .
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Speaking of "lots work still to be done" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BTomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
It would seem to me that "not worrying about the paperwork" during the
design phase means they never intend to certify and possible never
manufacture either. Why? To prove/perfect new technologies in order to
patent and shelve them. Why? This could be a cheaper less risky method of
protecting ones market share, although temporarily. Then again sometimes
engineers just want to have fun like the rest of us.
my rambling thoughts on sale. $.01
Bevan
RV7A fuse
On Tuesday, November 25, 2003 9:39 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
[SMTP:bob.nuckolls@cox.net] wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark"
> ><james@nextupventures.com>
> >
> >By the way Continental and one of the Japanese firms (HONDA) were
> >demonstrating a beautiful looking engine at OSH. They are ***STILL***
> >working on it! They do NOT have a "ready by" or "ship by" date. There is
> >LOTS of work STILL to be done.
> >
> >I spoke with the guys from Japan. They will not release this thing (IF
THEY
> >EVER DO) until it is right. It has not been a slam dunk exercise and
they
> >have a very senior (top notch) engineering program manager on it.
>
>
> On a different topic, my "spies" in the industry tell me that
> Honda has been ordering system specific hardware items (some
> requiring custom designs) for use on experimental aircraft.
> When asked about certification issues, hopeful suppliers are
> essentially told, "Don't mess with that stuff now. Give us hardware
> that works. We'll decided paperwork issues AFTER the system
> is made to work."
>
> This is in sharp contrast to statements of work common in
> the industry today. Certification issues are folded into
> the design consideration from square-one. By the time the
> design makes it to 95% done, it's "ready to certify".
> After certification, making the most rudimentary changes
> to clean up the last 5% is often so expensive that it never
> happens.
>
> Bill, Clyde and Walter would be devastated to see what we've
> done to their airplane companies. It's refreshing to see
> old ideas of make-it-work-first have not died out completely.
> The sad part is that some of the best examples may not be
> happening in the US . . . but then, there are some upstart
> young companies out there that may well demonstrate to
> Bombardier, TCM and RAC how their companies came to be
> so attractive in the first place . . . and what has happened
> to dim that rosy glow of days gone by.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> _->
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 11/25/03 2:29:37 PM Central Standard Time,
emjones@charter.net writes:
But they say the sound of a Packard 9-cylinder radial diesel could make a
grown man weep.
Wasn't that Packard Diesel an eight cylinder engine?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
Ian
----------------------------------------------------
RSL COM has an extensive and competitive range of
local and long distance call packages. We also
offer converged multimedia and data services through
our own state-of-the-art integrated voice & data network.
Visit http://www.rslcom.com.au to find out more.
This message is for the named person's use only.
Privileged/confidential information may be contained in
this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in
this message (or responsible for delivery of the message
to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
this message, and notify us immediately.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the message states
otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to
be the views of any such entity.
----------------------------------------------------
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: DIY sexy flap switch . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitch Faatz" <mitchf@skybound.com>
What family of Microswitch toggles would you recommend for this? NT? TS?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: DIY sexy flap switch . . .
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
> >
> >Comments/Questions: Bob,
> >This is an oddball request, but maybe you can help. I'm building an RV-6A
> >with electric flaps, and I'd like to put on my panel a flap switch that
> >uses a bat handle shaped like a flap. I can't find any info about this
> >from Matronics or Google searches. I have also e-mailed RAC via the
> >website but have not yet received an answer.
> >
> >Do you know who makes either the whole switch or just the bat handle
> >adapter for this?
> >
> >Thanks for your time and help.
>
> You don't even WANT to know what this switch costs for a Bonanza.
>
> How about building one?
>
> You start with a toggle switch that operates on a pinned shaft
> as opposed to ball-n-socket pivot. Microswitch products are one
> example of this kind of switch. Next, carve a flap shape out of
> a piece of aluminum. If I were going to make a lot, I'd have the
> things NC machined. If I needed one, less than 30 minutes or
> so with a band-saw, belt sander and little chunk of 5/8" alum
> sheet would get the job done too. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/FlapSwitch/FlapSw1.jpg
>
> Sand a flat on the last 1/2" or so of the bat-handle on a
> toggle. Drill handle for snug fit on toggle of switch. .240"
> is typical. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/FlapSwitch/FlapSw2.jpg
>
> Drill and tap handle for 6-32 set screws, one each side
> and attach to switch after it's mounted in panel. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/FlapSwitch/FlapSw3.jpg
>
> From the time I read your note to the time I began to take
> these pictures was about 20 minutes. Yeah, I cheated and
> used Delrin . . . didn't have a suitable piece of aluminum
> stock. So it might take 30 minutes with aluminum. Keep bowl
> of water and ice cubes handy to dip workpiece for cooling
> during sculpting phase on the belt sander.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> --------------------------------------------
> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> ( and still understand nothing. )
> ( C.F. Kettering )
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
I thought Packard had made an inline 8-cylinder Diesel, but apparently not.
See- www.enginehistory.org/Packard/StatsAllPackardAero.pdf
Eric
(Do Not Archive)
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
From the New York Herald Tribune Wednesday, may 15, 1929 but of course they didn't
a;ways get it right even back then.
Secrecy which Packard officials have thrown about their motor is said to have
been motivated purely by economic reasons. "There is no patent obtainable on
a Diesel motor which will serve in airplanes. In order to capitalize their solution
of the problem, the Packard officials had to make plans for standard production
many months ago. A modern factory, with approximately 300,000 square
feet of floor area, is now completion in Detroit. Their plant, it is said, will
be used exclusively for the Packard aircraft Diesel engine. The date for the
start of production work has not been set.
Rivals Are Barred
Captain Woolson was without authority to show the motor when he arrived here last
night. It was pursuant of strict orders received from his home office that
the literally locked up the engine with chain and padlocks when he landed. Because
of the secret which, it has been known, he has been carrying for the last
year, the presence of Captain Woolson caused much interest. Correspondents besieged
him for some report of his work. Late in the afternoon he received telegraphic
permission to show the motor to the correspondents. None of the rivals
of Packard in the aircraft field was to be permitted at the showing.
With no small amount of ceremony, padlocks were loosened and the tarpaulin
taken off. The motor resembles the ordinary air-cooled gasoline motor in general
appearance. The frontal area of resistance is somewhat less than the gasoline
type. It is a nine-cylinder single-valve type.
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines)
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 11/25/03 2:29:37 PM Central Standard Time,
> emjones@charter.net writes:
> But they say the sound of a Packard 9-cylinder radial diesel could make a
> grown man weep.
> Wasn't that Packard Diesel an eight cylinder engine?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
>
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative
Engines)
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 11/25/03 2:29:37 PM Central Standard Time,
> emjones@charter.net writes:
> But they say the sound of a Packard 9-cylinder radial diesel could make a
> grown man weep.
> Wasn't that Packard Diesel an eight cylinder engine?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: DIY sexy flap switch . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:12 PM 11/25/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitch Faatz" <mitchf@skybound.com>
>
>What family of Microswitch toggles would you recommend for this? NT? TS?
Hmmm . . . it's not so much any particular type of Microswitch product
as it is the fact that the switch toggle pivots on a SHAFT.
It's easy to see if your switch candidate meets the requirement,
you can see the shaft ends on each side of the mounting bushing.
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Toggle_Shaft.jpg
I don't know that ALL microswitch products use the shaft. I suspect
they do but I've not researched it. Other brands will use shaft
pivots. I have some TL and NT switches in-hand that DO have shafts. Also, I
have some products by Cutler-Hammer that are spec'ed to
MS24523 that have shafts . . . this may be a requirement under
that spec.
The switches B&C sells are ball/socket pivots and not suited
to this task.
Bob . . .
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | LED reading/map/cabin light sources |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joa Harrison <flyasuperseven@yahoo.com>
Could any of you recommend one or more sources for ready-to-use LED lights for
reading (swivel), map (swivel but smaller with more spot lighting), and an LED
cabin light? The only supplier I'm familiar with is Whelan and I'm looking for
others.
Thanks folks!!!!
Joa
---------------------------------
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neville Kilford" <nkilford@etravel.org>
Jim,
My father, an engineer who worked his apprenticeship at Westland, often tells
me about how things were done in the pre-computer days, describing how it was
to see an engineering office full of designers, each equipped with a slide
rule and a book of log tables, etc.
Nev
--
Jodel D-150 in progress
UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Oke" <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
>
> Yes, it is amazing that the basic Lycoming "flat four"' design has proved
so
> endurable over the years and that it is proving so hard to replace with
> those modern, hi-tech, engine designs that are supposedly so near at hand.
> Let's tip our hats to the engineers back in the 1930s who did their jobs
> well without modern aids such as computer-aided finite element analysis,
> advanced metallurgy, etc.
>
> If possible, have a look sometime inside a Merlin or one of the sleeve
valve
> engines from the 1940s and try and imagine designing the intricate gear
> trains these engines rely on with paper and pencil and then working to get
> the reliability up to an acceptable level. It is a useful reminder about
the
> human spirit and intelligence but then so too are the pyramids and other
> works from the past.
>
> Jim Oke
> Wpg, MB
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark"
> <james@nextupventures.com>
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > If this was all so easy to do and there was such a market for it, and all
> > the other economics were right, someone would have done it by now. (Make
> > such superior engines).
> >
> > By the way Continental and one of the Japanese firms (HONDA) were
> > demonstrating a beautiful looking engine at OSH. They are ***STILL***
> > working on it! They do NOT have a "ready by" or "ship by" date. There is
> > LOTS of work STILL to be done.
> >
> > I spoke with the guys from Japan. They will not release this thing (IF
> THEY
> > EVER DO) until it is right. It has not been a slam dunk exercise and they
> > have a very senior (top notch) engineering program manager on it.
> >
> > So if you know someone that can do better, please get them going as
> oppossed
> > to slamming Lycoming et al.
> >
> > Also, there is a "modern" offering so to speak from Eggenfellner. The
> Subaru
> > FWF package. The current 4 cylinder (without supercharging) is about
> > equivalent to an O-320 (160 HP).
> >
> > What is amazing to me is the fact that Lycoming built this "old stuff" so
> > well back in the 30's, 40's, 50's (pick your favorite decade) and here 50
> > years later NOBODY has come up with anything that totally displaces them.
> > The closest thing I have seen that is reality is the "Eggy Subie" :-).
> >
> > I know we should have a little bit of cynicism but ...
> >
> > James
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom@verizon.net>
>(snip) for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
I'm going to install a Jabiru 3300 in my Sonex. It is a modern engine, but
as with all of them, there are some compromises. The engine has had some
teething problems, which seem to be solved. The fixed ignition keeps the
parts count down and reliability up, but at altitude, there is power lost
because of it.
The engine has bearings between each piston, which reduces stresses on the
crank. It also is made without a PSRU, which simplifies everything. The
nicest thing about it is that the power to weight ratio is much better than
LyConsouruses. The disadvantage is that while Jabiru is cranking out
engines right and left, (that is in comparison to aircraft engines produced
in recent times), there is not a lot of history on them. That is changing,
of course.
Because it is not a certified engine (except as a part of a certified
aircraft), and it uses off the shelf items like pistons that are
remanufacured to Jabiru standards, the cost of overhaul is low. Also, the
engine uses CNC technology in manufacture, and this has reduced the need for
developing castings. (The only part cast is the oil pan.) Castings require
large production runs to amortize the cost. Jabiru doesn't have that.
I'm not a big fan of the Bing carbs on aircraft. While they are altitude
compensated, they are not temperature compensated. Out here in the desert,
that can make a real difference. I'll probably put an Ellison throttle body
or an AeroCarb on the engine. I like the control they would afford me.
Taking the fuel consumption figures that Tony Spicer supplied on his 3300
powered Sonex with an Ellison throttle body, his figures on the cross
country to and from Oshkosh were close to the ones that the Bing carburated
2200's give.
There is one Jabiru powered Pulsar owner locally who likes to fly high. He
is planning on replacing one of the ignitions with one of Klaus' Lightspeed
ignitions. I'll let him do it first, and it will be interesting to see what
his results are.
I'll also use a wood-core fixed pitch prop, which, with the self-damping
qualities and the light weight fit my needs. True, it is not as efficient
as an adjustable pitch, but the cost is right, and it is KISS.
Dan Branstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian"
<ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
>
>
> for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> RSL COM has an extensive and competitive range of
> local and long distance call packages. We also
> offer converged multimedia and data services through
> our own state-of-the-art integrated voice & data network.
> Visit http://www.rslcom.com.au to find out more.
>
> This message is for the named person's use only.
>
> Privileged/confidential information may be contained in
> this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in
> this message (or responsible for delivery of the message
> to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
> this message, and notify us immediately.
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the
> individual sender, except where the message states
> otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to
> be the views of any such entity.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom@verizon.net>
>(snip) for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
I'm going to install a Jabiru 3300 in my Sonex. It is a modern engine, but
as with all of them, there are some compromises. The engine has had some
teething problems, which seem to be solved. The fixed ignition keeps the
parts count down and reliability up, but at altitude, there is power lost
because of it.
The engine has bearings between each piston, which reduces stresses on the
crank. It also is made without a PSRU, which simplifies everything. The
nicest thing about it is that the power to weight ratio is much better than
LyConsouruses. The disadvantage is that while Jabiru is cranking out
engines right and left, (that is in comparison to aircraft engines produced
in recent times), there is not a lot of history on them. That is changing,
of course.
Because it is not a certified engine (except as a part of a certified
aircraft), and it uses off the shelf items like pistons that are
remanufacured to Jabiru standards, the cost of overhaul is low. Also, the
engine uses CNC technology in manufacture, and this has reduced the need for
developing castings. (The only part cast is the oil pan.) Castings require
large production runs to amortize the cost. Jabiru doesn't have that.
I'm not a big fan of the Bing carbs on aircraft. While they are altitude
compensated, they are not temperature compensated. Out here in the desert,
that can make a real difference. I'll probably put an Ellison throttle body
or an AeroCarb on the engine. I like the control they would afford me.
Taking the fuel consumption figures that Tony Spicer supplied on his 3300
powered Sonex with an Ellison throttle body, his figures on the cross
country to and from Oshkosh were close to the ones that the Bing carburated
2200's give.
There is one Jabiru powered Pulsar owner locally who likes to fly high. He
is planning on replacing one of the ignitions with one of Klaus' Lightspeed
ignitions. I'll let him do it first, and it will be interesting to see what
his results are.
I'll also use a wood-core fixed pitch prop, which, with the self-damping
qualities and the light weight fit my needs. True, it is not as efficient
as an adjustable pitch, but the cost is right, and it is KISS.
Dan Branstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian"
<ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
>
>
> for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> RSL COM has an extensive and competitive range of
> local and long distance call packages. We also
> offer converged multimedia and data services through
> our own state-of-the-art integrated voice & data network.
> Visit http://www.rslcom.com.au to find out more.
>
> This message is for the named person's use only.
>
> Privileged/confidential information may be contained in
> this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in
> this message (or responsible for delivery of the message
> to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
> this message, and notify us immediately.
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the
> individual sender, except where the message states
> otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to
> be the views of any such entity.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom@verizon.net>
>(snip) for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
I'm going to install a Jabiru 3300 in my Sonex. It is a modern engine, but
as with all of them, there are some compromises. The engine has had some
teething problems, which seem to be solved. The fixed ignition keeps the
parts count down and reliability up, but at altitude, there is power lost
because of it.
The engine has bearings between each piston, which reduces stresses on the
crank. It also is made without a PSRU, which simplifies everything. The
nicest thing about it is that the power to weight ratio is much better than
LyConsouruses. The disadvantage is that while Jabiru is cranking out
engines right and left, (that is in comparison to aircraft engines produced
in recent times), there is not a lot of history on them. That is changing,
of course.
Because it is not a certified engine (except as a part of a certified
aircraft), and it uses off the shelf items like pistons that are
remanufacured to Jabiru standards, the cost of overhaul is low. Also, the
engine uses CNC technology in manufacture, and this has reduced the need for
developing castings. (The only part cast is the oil pan.) Castings require
large production runs to amortize the cost. Jabiru doesn't have that.
I'm not a big fan of the Bing carbs on aircraft. While they are altitude
compensated, they are not temperature compensated. Out here in the desert,
that can make a real difference. I'll probably put an Ellison throttle body
or an AeroCarb on the engine. I like the control they would afford me.
Taking the fuel consumption figures that Tony Spicer supplied on his 3300
powered Sonex with an Ellison throttle body, his figures on the cross
country to and from Oshkosh were close to the ones that the Bing carburated
2200's give.
There is one Jabiru powered Pulsar owner locally who likes to fly high. He
is planning on replacing one of the ignitions with one of Klaus' Lightspeed
ignitions. I'll let him do it first, and it will be interesting to see what
his results are.
I'll also use a wood-core fixed pitch prop, which, with the self-damping
qualities and the light weight fit my needs. True, it is not as efficient
as an adjustable pitch, but the cost is right, and it is KISS.
Dan Branstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian"
<ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
>
>
> for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> RSL COM has an extensive and competitive range of
> local and long distance call packages. We also
> offer converged multimedia and data services through
> our own state-of-the-art integrated voice & data network.
> Visit http://www.rslcom.com.au to find out more.
>
> This message is for the named person's use only.
>
> Privileged/confidential information may be contained in
> this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in
> this message (or responsible for delivery of the message
> to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
> this message, and notify us immediately.
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the
> individual sender, except where the message states
> otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to
> be the views of any such entity.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom@verizon.net>
>(snip) for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
I'm going to install a Jabiru 3300 in my Sonex. It is a modern engine, but as
with all of them, there are some compromises. The engine has had some teething
problems, which seem to be solved. The fixed ignition keeps the parts count
down and reliability up, but at altitude, there is power lost because of it.
The engine has bearings between each piston, which reduces stresses on the crank.
It also is made without a PSRU, which simplifies everything. The nicest thing
about it is that the power to weight ratio is much better than LyConsouruses.
The disadvantage is that while Jabiru is cranking out engines right and
left, (that is in comparison to aircraft engines produced in recent times), there
is not a lot of history on them. That is changing, of course.
Because it is not a certified engine (except as a part of a certified aircraft),
and it uses off the shelf items like pistons that are remanufacured to Jabiru
standards, the cost of overhaul is low. Also, the engine uses CNC technology
in manufacture, and this has reduced the need for developing castings. (The
only part cast is the oil pan.) Castings require large production runs to amortize
the cost. Jabiru doesn't have that.
I'm not a big fan of the Bing carbs on aircraft. While they are altitude compensated,
they are not temperature compensated. Out here in the desert, that can
make a real difference. I'll probably put an Ellison throttle body or an AeroCarb
on the engine. I like the control they would afford me.
Taking the fuel consumption figures that Tony Spicer supplied on his 3300 powered
Sonex with an Ellison throttle body, his figures on the cross country to and
from Oshkosh were close to the ones that the Bing carburated 2200's give.
There is one Jabiru powered Pulsar owner locally who likes to fly high. He is
planning on replacing one of the ignitions with one of Klaus' Lightspeed ignitions.
I'll let him do it first, and it will be interesting to see what his results
are.
I'll also use a wood-core fixed pitch prop, which, with the self-damping qualities
and the light weight fit my needs. True, it is not as efficient as an adjustable
pitch, but the cost is right, and it is KISS.
Dan Branstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott, Ian"
<ian_scott@rslcom.com.au>
>
>
> for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> RSL COM has an extensive and competitive range of
> local and long distance call packages. We also
> offer converged multimedia and data services through
> our own state-of-the-art integrated voice & data network.
> Visit http://www.rslcom.com.au to find out more.
>
> This message is for the named person's use only.
>
> Privileged/confidential information may be contained in
> this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in
> this message (or responsible for delivery of the message
> to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
> this message, and notify us immediately.
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the
> individual sender, except where the message states
> otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to
> be the views of any such entity.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: DIY sexy flap switch . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
Or put your flap switch on the joystick
(http://www.infinityaerospace.com/infgrip.htm) so you can operate the flaps
with the same hand that is flying the plane, and you can keep your other
hand on the throttle.
Dave Morris
At 02:12 PM 11/25/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitch Faatz" <mitchf@skybound.com>
>
>What family of Microswitch toggles would you recommend for this? NT? TS?
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>To: "Walt Klees" <waklees@comcast.net>; <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: DIY sexy flap switch . . .
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Comments/Questions: Bob,
> > >This is an oddball request, but maybe you can help. I'm building an
> RV-6A
> > >with electric flaps, and I'd like to put on my panel a flap switch that
> > >uses a bat handle shaped like a flap. I can't find any info about this
> > >from Matronics or Google searches. I have also e-mailed RAC via the
> > >website but have not yet received an answer.
> > >
> > >Do you know who makes either the whole switch or just the bat handle
> > >adapter for this?
> > >
> > >Thanks for your time and help.
> >
> > You don't even WANT to know what this switch costs for a Bonanza.
> >
> > How about building one?
> >
> > You start with a toggle switch that operates on a pinned shaft
> > as opposed to ball-n-socket pivot. Microswitch products are one
> > example of this kind of switch. Next, carve a flap shape out of
> > a piece of aluminum. If I were going to make a lot, I'd have the
> > things NC machined. If I needed one, less than 30 minutes or
> > so with a band-saw, belt sander and little chunk of 5/8" alum
> > sheet would get the job done too. See:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/FlapSwitch/FlapSw1.jpg
> >
> > Sand a flat on the last 1/2" or so of the bat-handle on a
> > toggle. Drill handle for snug fit on toggle of switch. .240"
> > is typical. See:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/FlapSwitch/FlapSw2.jpg
> >
> > Drill and tap handle for 6-32 set screws, one each side
> > and attach to switch after it's mounted in panel. See:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/FlapSwitch/FlapSw3.jpg
> >
> > From the time I read your note to the time I began to take
> > these pictures was about 20 minutes. Yeah, I cheated and
> > used Delrin . . . didn't have a suitable piece of aluminum
> > stock. So it might take 30 minutes with aluminum. Keep bowl
> > of water and ice cubes handy to dip workpiece for cooling
> > during sculpting phase on the belt sander.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> > ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> > ( and still understand nothing. )
> > ( C.F. Kettering )
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom@verizon.net>
Sorry about all the posts. Don't know what's happened.
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
George Braly wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
>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.
>
Chapter & verse, please? That was barely true in the early '70's, when
my father's RX-4 got around 12 mpg, or about the same as a Chevy 283 or
Ford 289 of that era. My mid-80's RX-7 (in very poor tune) got around 22
mpg, respectable for a sports car & about the same as my wife's '92 5L
Mustang.
Experience of those flying the rotary is that it's not quite as good as
a Lyc that's leaned properly, but it's close. Now, given that most
pilots have never leaned a Lyc properly due to fear of burning exhaust
valves, & the stage is set for the rotary to achieve better BSFC numbers
than a Lyc in actual flight operation.
Charlie
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Dan Branstrom wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom@verizon.net>
>
>I don't know what the BSFC's are on the new Mazda RX-8, but I think it is
>about 10% better than the RX-7. This was accomplished by moving the exhaust
>ports. It'll probably still be a trade-off of lower weight of the engine
>and lower frontal area on airplanes for more fuel required.
>
>While the Mazda is much smoother, I remember that a lot of development work
>was done on the aviation version of the Mazda because cranks were snapped by
>torsional harmonic vibration at high power. There was even some speculation
>that the crank breakage was caused by some harmonic vibrations being
>introduced by the dynanometer.
>
snipped
>Do not archive.
>
>Dan Branstrom
>
There was no crank breakage. The coupling shaft (part of the dyno, not
the rotary) was broken due to torsional resonance. Interesting that Lycs
break cranks & rotaries break the load....
;-)
Charlie
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | re: "lots work still to be done" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:10 PM 11/25/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BTomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
>It would seem to me that "not worrying about the paperwork" during the
>design phase means they never intend to certify and possible never
>manufacture either. Why? To prove/perfect new technologies in order to
>patent and shelve them. Why? This could be a cheaper less risky method of
>protecting ones market share, although temporarily. Then again sometimes
>engineers just want to have fun like the rest of us.
>
>my rambling thoughts on sale. $.01
That's certainly possible but I cut my first pieces of aluminum
in an experimental flight test hangar attached right to the
back of Cessna engineering building. We built, tested and proved
the service life of many new ideas with no concerns what-so-ever
about certification. AFTER we were sure the product did what we
wanted it to do, we'd tackle the certification issues. This
allowed a lot of not-so-good ideas to go into the scrap barrel
with a minimum of development time lost.
I've seen a lot of faith placed on Catia, computerized finite
element analysis, etc., etc. which has lulled many folks into
believing we can craft the elegant design without getting our
hands dirty or dumping ANY aluminum into the scrap barrel.
I think Honda is very interested in the certified aircraft
market. I'm betting that they'll have all their bugs out
by the time their finished with #2 prototype. If they choose
to put more than a toe into the water, I'll bet their first
offering will be the most trouble free airplane since the
C-140/C-170 series machines.
I think the Eclipse experiment has attracted a lot of
interest. If Honda gets into that mode of thinking, they'll
be set up to produce 10x to 100x the volume we're used to
seeing on "modern" production lines. The miseries we've
experienced on Premier are mitigated by the fact that
there were only 60 airplanes to fix . . . if that had
been 600 airplanes, RAC would be toast.
Honda has enough experience with high-volume markets to
understand this as well as anybody could. This is going
to be interesting to watch.
Bob . . .
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
Clearly anyone not running a Lyc-Con is an idiot.
Whew.. Now since that issue is all cleared up, where did those little
electro-thingamajigis go that we are supposed to be discussing on this
forum?? Must be lying around somewhere.....
Jon
DO NOT ARCHIVE and PLEASE do not respond to this message....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Charlie & Tupper England
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 7:35 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England
> --> <cengland@netdoor.com>
>
> George Braly wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly
> >--> <gwbraly@gami.com>
> >
> >
> >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.
> >
>
> Chapter & verse, please? That was barely true in the early
> '70's, when
> my father's RX-4 got around 12 mpg, or about the same as a
> Chevy 283 or
> Ford 289 of that era. My mid-80's RX-7 (in very poor tune)
> got around 22
> mpg, respectable for a sports car & about the same as my
> wife's '92 5L
> Mustang.
>
> Experience of those flying the rotary is that it's not quite
> as good as
> a Lyc that's leaned properly, but it's close. Now, given that most
> pilots have never leaned a Lyc properly due to fear of
> burning exhaust
> valves, & the stage is set for the rotary to achieve better
> BSFC numbers
> than a Lyc in actual flight operation.
>
> Charlie
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
Jon, I've learned that the more a subject has to do with life-and-death,
the more stubbornly people will support their opinion. For instance,
Religion, Politics, and Aviation.
Bought a Panasonic 17AH battery ($41.65) and charger today from
Mouser. Working on the layout of a nice, organized wiring harness for
everything.
:)
Dave Morris
At 08:26 PM 11/25/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
>
>Clearly anyone not running a Lyc-Con is an idiot.
>
>Whew.. Now since that issue is all cleared up, where did those little
>electro-thingamajigis go that we are supposed to be discussing on this
>forum?? Must be lying around somewhere.....
>
>Jon
>
>DO NOT ARCHIVE and PLEASE do not respond to this message....
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> > Behalf Of Charlie & Tupper England
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 7:35 PM
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
> >
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England
> > --> <cengland@netdoor.com>
> >
> > George Braly wrote:
> >
> > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly
> > >--> <gwbraly@gami.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >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.
> > >
> >
> > Chapter & verse, please? That was barely true in the early
> > '70's, when
> > my father's RX-4 got around 12 mpg, or about the same as a
> > Chevy 283 or
> > Ford 289 of that era. My mid-80's RX-7 (in very poor tune)
> > got around 22
> > mpg, respectable for a sports car & about the same as my
> > wife's '92 5L
> > Mustang.
> >
> > Experience of those flying the rotary is that it's not quite
> > as good as
> > a Lyc that's leaned properly, but it's close. Now, given that most
> > pilots have never leaned a Lyc properly due to fear of
> > burning exhaust
> > valves, & the stage is set for the rotary to achieve better
> > BSFC numbers
> > than a Lyc in actual flight operation.
> >
> > Charlie
>
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
>
> Clearly anyone not running a Lyc-Con is an idiot.
> Whew.. Now since that issue is all cleared up, where did those little
> electro-thingamajigis go that we are supposed to be discussing on this
> forum?? Must be lying around somewhere.....
> Jon
Hidden inside those electronic ignitions that started
this whole thread. Sorry, all, it really was an innocent
question when I asked about the prop vibration issues of EI... :-)
From what I can tell so far, if you want to use an EI,
the safest thing is to use a wooden prop, which does not appear to
be as badly affected by the vibration issues. Since that is
what I have on my O320, I'll replace my mag with an EI when the
time comes since the price is similar.
I appreciate all the feedback - this has certainly
been an interested thread to read!
-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 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Speaking of "lots work still to be done" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Bevan, see comments below ...
James
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BTomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
> It would seem to me that "not worrying about the paperwork" during the
> design phase means they never intend to certify and possible never
I would not go so far as to think that. They are making NO CLAIMS at this
point that they WILL even offer it to market, cerified or NOT. They are
doing a bit of engineering work and getting market feedback through their
testing. They **COULD** decide this is not worth the resources required and
simply write off the engineering. We kinda know about this one as they (and
Continental) gave a bit of a "sneak peek" at OSH (along with press releases
about them working together)and thus some writeups.There are **MANY**
projects of that nature in a large development organizations. I have started
and shut down several that the marketplace never even knew about.
*IF* the projects would have proved reasonably feasible then they may have
made it to the next step. This approach is FAR better (in my mind)than
making some brash claim that the xyz widget is going to be greatest thing
since sliced bread and be available next month for 1/2 the price, blah,
blah, when in fact you have no clue if you can make the thing.
> manufacture either. Why? To prove/perfect new technologies in order to
> patent and shelve them. Why? This could be a cheaper less risky
> method of
> protecting ones market share, although temporarily. Then again sometimes
Protecting what market share?? They have ZERO in this are at present. They
are experimenting and GOOD FOR THEM (and us). They have yet to make a
decision on marketing the thing as I understand. I applaud their approach.
> engineers just want to have fun like the rest of us.
Yes. And some companies are willing to let some of their best engineers
simply run with an idea, "go play", and if they sort it all out, take a
decision to spend the really big bucks to roll out a product to the
marketplace. Keep in mind, the big money (and thus the BIG decision) does
not become a BIG deal until after you decide to make a product of this
nature.
In my opinion, it will take a few years just to know if this is a *feasible*
venture (technology and business) and then another bit of time to build
plants/factories and ramp up for production. And oh, there is some amount of
testing of the "real" thing that gets figured in.
Finally, to connect this to "Aeroelectric-List" stuff .... Did you know they
plan to use FADEC and built in permanent magnet alternator (that is built
in, so to speak)?? They want to make sure there is a reasonable chance of
juice being available for the FADEC.
James
... probably up to a nickel's worth of comments (verbal inflation :-) )
>
> my rambling thoughts on sale. $.01
> Bevan
> RV7A fuse
>
>
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <racker@rmci.net>
> Now, given that most
> pilots have never leaned a Lyc properly due to fear of burning exhaust
> valves, & the stage is set for the rotary to achieve better BSFC numbers
> than a Lyc in actual flight operation.
I trust this statement was a "funny".
Every student pilot is hopefully, as I and all others I know of, taught
from day one to lean till it gets rough and then richen till smooth
operation (4-cyl normally aspirated carbed Lycs with no EGT instrumention
per Lycoming manual anyway).
Using this easily mastered technique, one can readily achieve 7.2-7.3gph
figures at 65% power on an O-320 (or 0.407 BSFC or
7.3gph/104hp*5.8lb/gal). Using my schmancy fancy full EGT lean-to-peak
function electronic engine instrumentation, I can achieve a whopping
improvement to 7.1gph (which is why I now only lean using the simple run
rough and richen technique, which keeps my eyes outside the cockpit and
not focused on a gauge for long instances, thereby increasing safety).
The rotary guys I have spoken to are 9-10gph for the same TAS in an
equivalent airframe in actual flight operation (but they purr instead of
boing <g>).
Rob Acker (RV-6 flying)
do not archive
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:07 PM 11/25/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom"
><danbranstrom@verizon.net>
>
>Sorry about all the posts. Don't know what's happened.
Lots of ideas got tossed onto the table . . . some simple, some
complex, some questionable. It's a good place to put the for
sorting.
Bob . . .
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
<... perfect aircraft engine will be a flat air cooled engine ...>
Flat opposed engines are the most difficult to fit into a cowl. Air cooled engines
cannot
be cooled evenly or uniformly so the cylinders are always "warped" and "egg shaped"
to some
degree. Air cooled heads have the same problem. That is one reason why automotive
manufacturing tolerances are an order of magnitude closer (like where Lyc requires
.001"
tolerance, Toyota insists on .0001") tolerances. Uniform cooling, possible only
with
liquid cooling, makes closer tolerances possible and CNC mills make it happen.
Neither of
these are available on Lycs. I could go on and on about the "reliability" of certified
engines.
You want reliability? I'd like to hear ANYONE make a cogent, engineering case
against
three moving parts and a rotating mass. Rotarys have dominated the racing circuit
for
years - mostly on account of power density, but partly because they always finish.
They
are basically bullet proof. They have noise and heat rejection issues, but are
untouchable
around reliability. If you want a perfect aircraft engine, and reliability RULES
on
aircraft engines (as well it should) then a rotary is the only sensible point of
departure. Parts count is the enemy of reliability. Every moving part is another
failure
mode.
Examine the whole package and rotarys are hard to beat ... Jim S.
Scott Bilinski wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> I will throw in a few cents here. My opinion on the perfect aircraft engine
> will be a flat air cooled engine with up to date metallurgy (which includes
> rings, bearings etc), a modern combustion chamber design, and a updated cam
> profile. Also flow testing for "free power", along with some type of
> perfected FADEC system that defaults to manual control. Oh, and the latest
> in engine design theory. If no FADEC then a hot ignition system of some
> sort. If all this is done I dont think liquid cooling will help that much
> if we just up date what we have.
>
> Then there is Cool Jugs, water cooled cylinders that bolt onto the existing
> O-360. I am very tempted, but already have a new engine.
>
> http://www.liquidcooledairpower.com/cj-pricing.shtml
>
> At 11:14 AM 11/25/03 -0600, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
> >
> >Yes, it is amazing that the basic Lycoming "flat four"' design has proved so
> >endurable over the years and that it is proving so hard to replace with
> >those modern, hi-tech, engine designs that are supposedly so near at hand.
> >Let's tip our hats to the engineers back in the 1930s who did their jobs
> >well without modern aids such as computer-aided finite element analysis,
> >advanced metallurgy, etc.
> >
> >If possible, have a look sometime inside a Merlin or one of the sleeve valve
> >engines from the 1940s and try and imagine designing the intricate gear
> >trains these engines rely on with paper and pencil and then working to get
> >the reliability up to an acceptable level. It is a useful reminder about the
> >human spirit and intelligence but then so too are the pyramids and other
> >works from the past.
> >
> >Jim Oke
> >Wpg, MB
> >
> >Do Not Archive
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
> >To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements
> >
> >
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark"
> ><james@nextupventures.com>
> >>
> >> Jim,
> >>
> >> If this was all so easy to do and there was such a market for it, and all
> >> the other economics were right, someone would have done it by now. (Make
> >> such superior engines).
> >>
> >> By the way Continental and one of the Japanese firms (HONDA) were
> >> demonstrating a beautiful looking engine at OSH. They are ***STILL***
> >> working on it! They do NOT have a "ready by" or "ship by" date. There is
> >> LOTS of work STILL to be done.
> >>
> >> I spoke with the guys from Japan. They will not release this thing (IF
> >THEY
> >> EVER DO) until it is right. It has not been a slam dunk exercise and they
> >> have a very senior (top notch) engineering program manager on it.
> >>
> >> So if you know someone that can do better, please get them going as
> >oppossed
> >> to slamming Lycoming et al.
> >>
> >> Also, there is a "modern" offering so to speak from Eggenfellner. The
> >Subaru
> >> FWF package. The current 4 cylinder (without supercharging) is about
> >> equivalent to an O-320 (160 HP).
> >>
> >> What is amazing to me is the fact that Lycoming built this "old stuff" so
> >> well back in the 30's, 40's, 50's (pick your favorite decade) and here 50
> >> years later NOBODY has come up with anything that totally displaces them.
> >> The closest thing I have seen that is reality is the "Eggy Subie" :-).
> >>
> >> I know we should have a little bit of cynicism but ...
> >>
> >> James
> >
> >
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
--
Jim Sower
Crossville, TN; Chapter 5
Long-EZ N83RT, Velocity N4095T
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
electroair@juno.com is a couple of years old.
Dj Merrill wrote:
> Anyone have a web site address for Electroair?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Smaller ELT antenna question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:56 PM 11/21/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Treff, Arthur"
><Arthur.Treff@Smartm.com>
>
>All,
>The antenna that came with my AmeriKing ELT is 18" long. ON a store
>bought airplane, I had a "Rubber Ducky" antenna approx 10" high on the
>tail. Does anyone know of a source to get one of those?
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/antenna_loading.gif
The typical monopole antenna is 1/4 electrical wavelength long at frequency
of interest. For comm frequencies, this is about 75/125=0.6 meters or
23.6 inches
long. You can physically shorten an antenna of this type by building some
"loading" inductance into the design. I had an antenna on my '41 Pontiac
that was physically 11' long but electrically 33' long by virtue of the
coil in the middle.
>I spoke to a technical person at ACS, who said to use an XPNDR spike
>antenna. But Transponders are a totally different freq, so I'm thinking
>that will not work.
You are correct.
>Why the gyrations? I want to hide the antenna under the empennage
>fiberglass fairing in my RV-8 in a horizontal position. The long straight
>antenna provided will not fit. Some RV guys have placed theirs in a bow
>around the aft cockpit bulkhead. This is not an option for me, as I've
>constructed a fastback turtledeck, and my metal canopy skirts will shield
>the antenna in that position, besides, I'm not fond of that look on the
>interior.
I built an ELT antenna to fit totally inside the window envelope
on the back seat of a Cubby . . . the window opening was only
9" high. Copper tape on the window was cut about 2/3 down from the top
and a coil inserted. The coil size was adjusted with an antenna analyzer
so that the 9" antenna "looked like" it was really 23" long.
Rubber duck antennas are often "all coil" such that they are
quite a bit shorter than the full sized 23" antenna.
>No comm antennae will be on the topside of the tailcone, so using a std
>comm thru a splitter is no go as well. Perhaps I should 'roll my own'
>into the fiberglass empennage fairing? Any ideas from the crowd would be
>greatly appreciated. Thanx.
You could purchase a rubber duck for a hand-held aircraft
transceiver and mount a bulkhead BNC fitting to a
bracket under the fairing. See
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?23X358218#s605bf
about half way down the page for a typical connector.
I could probably get you a replacement antenna for a
Japan Radio transceiver or if you can borrow an antenna
analyzer good for the 121 Mhz range, it's pretty easy
to trim a home built antenna to proper dimensions.
Bob . . .
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RemovingDsubPins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:07 PM 11/21/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
>Having inserted one of the machined Dsub pins into it's female connector,
>having never removed one of these pins, having searched the list, I'm
>wondering how to do it. Does the pin just push out without ruining the
>grip of the connector for a reinserted pin? The seat & release tool is
>mysterious to me as neither the red nor the white end fits into the
>connection side of the female connector to push with.
>
>Secondarily, I got in this position crimping onto 24 gauge wires with the
>eclipse 300-015 crimp tool, but one of the wires pulled loose.
that tool is marginal on 24AWG wire. you need to double back the strands
before crimping. The dies on that tool are optimized for 20/22 AWG wire
in the 20AWG pin.
> The garmin transponder installation kit contained the pin & the garmin
> installation manual says don't use smaller than 24 awg wire. So, I
> thought I'd be OK. It seems unlikely I could have just not crimped the
> pin so is there a problem to look out for here? This was pin 15 of my
> vast crimping experience of 16.
The white end of the extraction tool is pushed
down past the crimp barrel on the pin.
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/dse-1.jpg
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/dse-1a.jpg
There is a "tire treaded" groove in the tool's
handle. When the tool is seated, put the wire into
the groove and press with your finger so that you
put tension on tool and wire together. It's almost
always helpful to put a 90 degree twist on the
tool with light tension . . . and it should come
right out.
Bob . . .
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
At 10:48 AM 11/25/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>I will throw in a few cents here. My opinion on the perfect aircraft
>engine.............snip
Oh, no! Now 1500 other "engine designers" will have to give their opinion.
(Make note to self to add 'Relpacements' to the into the trash can filter.)
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK - Three trips to OSH now.
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom@verizon.net>
O.K., everyone who thinks they don't have enough power, fly with this
engine!
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
do not archive.
Dan Branstrom
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Removing Molex KK Pins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
Does anyone have a good (read: cheap) source for the extractor tool used to
remove Molex KK series pins? These are the pins used in King/Narco radio
connectors.
Mouser wants $50+ for a little sliver of metal with a handle on it - that's
nuts! I found one company that had them for $1.50 but they were out of
stock for months...wonder why?!?
Thanks,
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
www.berkut13.com
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
First, I would like to thank everyone that has so graciously already made a
Contribution to support the Email Lists this year!! Thank you!
That being said, I'm hoping that everyone else is just waiting until the
last minute to make their Contribution... The percentage of List members
making a Contribution is well below last year at this time. Was it
something I said...? :-)
There's only a few more days left in this year's Fund Raiser; please help
support the continued operation and upgrade of these Lists by making a
Contribution today.
You might look at it this way; surly the Lists are as entertaining as a
typical magazine subscription - maybe more so because you can actually make
your personal opinion known as well as ask questions of the "experts"! A
year's subscription to Kitplanes, for example, is $30 -- and you only get
it once a month! You can get nuggets of goodness from the List almost
every day as well as on-line search 14 year's of Archives! Your Lists
subscription is certainly worth a similar amount, isn't it?! :-)
Won't you please make your Contribution today!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for all 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 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider@compuserve.com>
> Every student pilot is hopefully, as I and all others I know of, taught
> from day one to lean till it gets rough and then richen till smooth
> operation (4-cyl normally aspirated carbed Lycs with no EGT instrumention
> per Lycoming manual anyway).
>
>
> Rob Acker (RV-6 flying)
> do not archive
Hi Rob,
the picture is quite different with an EI, the engine is not running rough
as with the magnetos, so your instrumentation will help to do proper
leaning.
Werner
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
>
> electroair@juno.com is a couple of years old.
I was hoping they might have a web site with details
about their EI product. I've found all sorts of information about
the Lightspeed product from their web site
(http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/), and was hoping to do the
same with Electroair. Is there a huge difference in the two?
-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
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|