Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:21 AM - Re: Uncovered circuit boards? (Kevin Horton)
2. 04:27 AM - E-mag/P-mag (Charles Heathco)
3. 05:06 AM - Re: Re: PMags and RPM (Alex Peterson)
4. 05:09 AM - Re: The ULTIMATE ground loop . . . (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
5. 05:15 AM - Ducati regulator terminals ()
6. 05:59 AM - Re: Ducati regulator terminals (Gilles Thesee)
7. 06:08 AM - CBA II (Gilles Thesee)
8. 06:15 AM - Re: Race Car Load Dump? (Eric M. Jones)
9. 06:18 AM - Re: Uncovered circuit boards? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 06:35 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (LarryRobertHelming)
11. 06:58 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Wayne Sweet)
12. 07:30 AM - Re: CBA II (Christopher Stone)
13. 07:37 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 07:57 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (dsvs@comcast.net)
15. 08:06 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
16. 08:50 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 43 Msgs - 04/05/05 (Speedy11@aol.com)
17. 09:18 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Pat Hatch)
18. 09:42 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Pat Hatch)
19. 09:54 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
20. 11:05 AM - Re: Ducati regulator terminals (D Wysong)
21. 11:26 AM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Pat Hatch)
22. 11:44 AM - Two Fuel pumps (owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com)
23. 12:08 PM - Electronic Ignition (John D. Heath)
24. 12:29 PM - Re: Two Fuel pumps (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
25. 12:33 PM - Re: Ducati regulator (Gilles Thesee)
26. 12:46 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
27. 01:01 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (BobsV35B@aol.com)
28. 01:04 PM - VOR antenna splitter? (Matt Jurotich)
29. 01:06 PM - Re: Two Fuel pumps (CozyGirrrl@aol.com)
30. 01:35 PM - Re: Two Fuel pumps (Gilles Thesee)
31. 01:39 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (John D. Heath)
32. 01:45 PM - Re: Two Fuel pumps (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
33. 01:46 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (BobsV35B@aol.com)
34. 01:54 PM - Re: Two Fuel pumps (CozyGirrrl@aol.com)
35. 01:58 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
36. 02:02 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (John D. Heath)
37. 02:38 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
38. 02:59 PM - Re: Emag/mag timing question ()
39. 03:24 PM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
40. 03:49 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (John D. Heath)
41. 04:13 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Steve Thomas)
42. 04:23 PM - Re: Re: Race Car Load Dump? (Robert McCallum)
43. 04:28 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
44. 04:44 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (John D. Heath)
45. 05:29 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (John D. Heath)
46. 05:44 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
47. 05:46 PM - Re: Ducati regulator terminals (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
48. 05:51 PM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
49. 05:53 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
50. 05:56 PM - Re: VOR antenna splitter? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
51. 06:00 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
52. 06:10 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
53. 06:10 PM - Re: Race Car Load Dump? (Eric M. Jones)
54. 06:12 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Richard E. Tasker)
55. 06:24 PM - Re: Re: Race Car Load Dump? (Robert McCallum)
56. 06:25 PM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Richard Sipp)
57. 06:30 PM - Re: Re: Race Car Load Dump? (Richard Riley)
58. 06:37 PM - Re: VOR antenna splitter? (Robert McCallum)
59. 07:01 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (AI Nut)
60. 07:07 PM - Re: VOR antenna splitter? (AI Nut)
61. 07:07 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Gilles St-Pierre)
62. 07:38 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (John D. Heath)
63. 07:43 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (John D. Heath)
64. 08:13 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
65. 08:43 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (John D. Heath)
66. 09:15 PM - Evil gremlins (Chris Horsten)
67. 09:54 PM - Re: Emag/mag timing question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
68. 11:15 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (Werner Schneider)
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: Uncovered circuit boards? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>> <snip>
>>
>>I think both these are etched boards, so I could just coat them with
>>urethane. The only question is the jumper wires I need. I'll plan
>>to use insulated jumpers, and coat the exposed portions.
>
> I think what you've proposed will live happily behind the panel
> un-housed if you give it some decent moisture/dust protection.
One final (I hope) question: do you recommend urethane from a spray
bomb, or urethane applied with a brush?
Thanks,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
Due to long wait time to get these, I had my mags OH'd and am considering getting
in line to buy E/P mags but wanted to see how they were working for the ones
who have rec and installed them. Last I saw, several had them on order. Pls
reply via my e-mail if you can. cheathco@comcast.net Charlie Heathco
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: | Re: PMags and RPM |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
Stan, the point is a different one. In an RV, the airspeed needed to slow a
windmilling prop to 800 rpm, at least in a C/S, is near the stall airspeed.
The whole thing was brought up by someone wondering if it mattered that the
Pmag didn't self generate below 800 rpm. The only way in flight to get the
rpm below 800 is to slow the airspeed to at or below around 60 knots.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 608 hours
Maple Grove, MN
> Negative. Stalling the wing has nothing to do with the
> engine RPM - or with
> having an engine at all.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
> In a message dated 4/2/2005 3:57:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> I don't know about fixed pitch props, but with a c/s, if your
> rpm was down to 800, you would probably have already stalled
> due to low airspeed. Flight idle at approach speeds is well
> above 800.
>
> Alex Peterson
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: | The ULTIMATE ground loop . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Bob thanks so much for always taking the time to educate us on item like
this.
I read hundreds of 'letric' messages to get little gems like this.
Keep up the great work. I am a EE that never got to put into practice
anything that I ever learned in college until building my airplane. This
list is the best followup course I ever took.
Again thanks
Mike
6A flying
Super 8, Augustish
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: The ULTIMATE ground loop . . .
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
We slew the dragon today . . .
A bizjet with a nose-mounted air conditioning compressor brings
power and ground through a pair of twisted trios of 2AWG wire
all the way from the tail.
This same airplane has a rather sophisticated (read complex)
ground fault detection system that features really twitchy
detectors . . . they are prone to trip when uninteresting things
happen in the airplane.
This airplane has been down for months. Customer techs worked on
it for about 6 weeks. A/C soft start module (a variable duty
cycle ramp-up controller used on golf cart motors) goes into
fits of apoplexy when you try to turn it on. Just turning on
the battery master switch causes lots of things in the airplane
to react in unusual ways . . . including the ground fault detectors
which will trip the system off almost immediately. Now, just plug
in a ground power cart and the problem goes away for bringing the
battery on line . . . the cart doesn't have to be turned on, just
plugged in. Attaching a battery right across the (+) and (-) terminal
at the A/C will let it start up and run too. Opening various
bus feeder breakers will make things get "better" but not
serviceable.
I put a 'scope on the (+) and (-) feeders to the A/C and
measured astounding 60 volt pk-pk, 30 Khz noises on both wires
. . . noise that far exceed DO160/M704 suggestions.
Finally ferried the airplane to Wichita. Several experiments
to bypass various fat-wires in the system produced positive
results. Running a separate (+) wire to the A/C made things
much better, running a separate (-) wire made ALL problems
go away.
Okay, start ripping up the floorboards.
Just damn . . . found a too-long screw holding down a floor
board panel that was cutting into the insulation on the A/C
power (-) line. No sparks, no fire, just an artificially
induced GROUND LOOP that put huge circulating currents into
the airframe when the (1) battery was switched on or (2) when
we tried to power up the A/C. I measured artifacts of the soft start
module's switching signature on just about every wire in the
airplane. Seems this ground wire with two grounds runs parallel
and tightly coupled magnetically to some major power feeders.
Really sad part about this is that we were not the first
to discover it. There was a silicone rubber tape repair to the
damaged wire covering an earlier case of mounting screw intrusion
on the OTHER side. The most astounding thing was that the
offending screw was STILL TOO LONG and therefore primed and
enabled to attack the OTHER side of the repaired-once wire.
This is an extreme example but nicely illustrates the degree
of risk one assumes when ground systems are not carefully
considered or understood. In this case, the ground loop
and problems it generated were induced by installation
errors. The interference was so great that it was noticed
by a lot of ship's systems. We've seen other ground loop problems
get DESIGNED into a system by an inattentive engineer.
It also illustrates how a simple lack of craftsmanship in
installation of a 10 cent screw can cost tens of thousands
of dollars to find and fix. In this case, funding for
the extraordinary experiment in trouble shooting science
came from taxpayer pockets . . . what the heck, they've got
lots of money. They'll never miss what it cost to fix this one.
Got to help ferret out a poor mounting technique on an AHRS
system last week. Another case of a $100 error growing into
a hundred thousand dollar safari into the physics jungle. This
one was a DESIGN error and the customer was a first time
turbo-prop buyer who may never buy another RAC product . . .
and will be sure to advice his friends to do likewise. We
have a recall-retrofit to do on a bunch of airplanes.
Bagged two dragons in two weeks; two GREAT days.
Too bad they were so expensive. Incidentally, both were
STONE-SIMPLE conditions as they always tend to be.
There's no substitute for craftsmanship and understanding.
We've been regulated to the eyeballs, ISO approved head
to toe and have long shelves of policy and procedure documents
but they haven't prevented really simple conditions from costing
folks tons of dollars and generating a lot of customer ill-will.
Be your own best supplier of quality goods and carefully
crafted services. Strive to seek the same quality from others.
Bob . . .
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: | Ducati regulator terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <max.johansson@nokia.com>
Hello list and Bob !
Here is a practical question, not related to any previous discussion,
regarding the Ducati rectifier/regulator used with the permanent
magnet generator found on Rotax 912 engines.
It has the following terminals:
G - for the ac from the eight generator coils
G - for the ac from the eight generator coils
R - ?
B - probably to be connected directly to the battery
L - probably for the no_charging warning light
C - ?
In various schematics I have seen the R and B connected together,
sometimes the B and C connected together, sometimes a 20A
fuse in the B line and sometimes a 22 mF capacitor connected to
main ground from either R or C. Often the C is connected to the fuse
box positive bus and live only after activating the main on/off switch.
Just now about to start wiring. To select between these
bevildering alternatives it would be nice to know what is
the real use and function of the R and the C terminals ?
Answers received with gratitude and without talk-back !
rgrds, Max
701_on_ floats builder in Helsinki
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: Ducati regulator terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>Ducati rectifier/regulator used with the permanent
>magnet generator found on Rotax 912 engines.
>
>It has the following terminals:
>
> G - for the ac from the eight generator coils
> G - for the ac from the eight generator coils
> R - ?
> B - probably to be connected directly to the battery
> L - probably for the no_charging warning light
> C - ?
>
>In various schematics I have seen the R and B connected together,
>sometimes the B and C connected together, sometimes a 20A
>fuse in the B line and sometimes a 22 mF capacitor connected to
>main ground from either R or C. Often the C is connected to the fuse
>box positive bus and live only after activating the main on/off switch.
>
>Just now about to start wiring. To select between these
>bevildering alternatives it would be nice to know what is
>the real use and function of the R and the C terminals ?
>
>
>
Hi Max,
Terminal C is the control or sense terminal. It senses the bus bar or
battery voltage.
Terminal B and R are internally connected.
Last year we conducted some tests on the Ducati and Schicke
rectifier/regulators. You'll find interesting posts in the archives.
When I have time I'll include some of our findings on my website. I'm
afraid you'll have to be patient...;-)
I would suggest you thoroughly study fig Z 16 in the Aeroelectric
Connection.
By the way, concerning the recent posts on "new age architecture", I'm
not aware of any RG battery failing open, but I'm directly aware of more
than 10 Ducati regulators giving up the ghost in the Europa/MCR/CT circles.
I actually was given two such failed regulators, and ripped one of them
to check the innards.
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
Rotax 914 MCR 4S with 17 flight hours
Electrical and streamlining finishing touches in progress
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Hi all,
This is to say I just received the CBA II Computerized Battery Analyser
from the English dealer Aurrora. Quick reaction and same day shipping,
but two weeks in the meanders of French customs and postal services.....
If memory serves me right, it was Paul Messinger who mentionned this
device in a recent post.
Maybe some listers will be interested in my first tests with this new
toy. Any tips or suggestions welcome.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
Electrically dependant Rotax 914
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: Race Car Load Dump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>I was looking at manual battery switches when I noticed the following.
Guess the racing guys want OV/Load Dump protection also.
>Part No. 4430 has three sets of contacts for cars with alternators. The
main contacts disconnect the battery while the auxiliary contacts disconnect
>the ignition coil and short the alternator output to ground through a 3 ohm
resistor that is furnished with the switch.
>It can be found at
http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/ProductDetails.asp?RecId=1464
>Stan Sutterfield
Hi Stan,
The boat and race car people have known for year that you can't disconnect
the alternator from the battery without handling the load dump. A 3-ohm
resistor would tame the beast. By the way, Pegasus's use of the abbreviation
DNF is "Did Not Finish". I had to look it up.
The proposed simple system handles the battery disconnect load dump with big
transorbs---a more reliable way to handle it.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes
less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.
For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's
not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute con-
tinuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
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: Uncovered circuit boards? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:13 AM 4/6/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> ><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> >
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>I think both these are etched boards, so I could just coat them with
> >>urethane. The only question is the jumper wires I need. I'll plan
> >>to use insulated jumpers, and coat the exposed portions.
> >
> > I think what you've proposed will live happily behind the panel
> > un-housed if you give it some decent moisture/dust protection.
>
>One final (I hope) question: do you recommend urethane from a spray
>bomb, or urethane applied with a brush?
I've brushed it on in a pinch but spray cans are best.
Do two or three thin coats with ample drying time between.
There are some gee-whizzy mil-spec products for this task
but they're just $high$ versions of polyurethane varnish from
a paint store.
Bob . . .
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: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Why not two electronic ignitions?
Because, then your plane is electrically dependent. With one side a mag,
you can limp home on the mag if your electronics crap out. Your engine
keeps running. You don't fall out of the sky. AND Your electrical system
is much simpler and less costly to install and maintain. You can tolerate a
battery going bad or an alternator dying our your EI side making its last
spark. Indiana Larry
Friends are like angels who lift us to our feet
when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly....unknown
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
> Why
> not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
> is pretty attractive.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
> electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
>
> Regards, George
>
> ---
>
>
>
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: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Hi, George,
I'll answer that since I have two LSE CDI's. The plugs cost $2.50 each vice
~$19.00 each for aircraft plugs.
I probably changed aircraft plugs too often, about every 100 hours. It would
take a long time to pay for the dual CDI's, but I'm a gadget freak (I have
GAMI's also), so the smoother running, and easier hot starts are worth it
for me.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
> Why
> not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
> is pretty attractive.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
> electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
>
> 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Christopher Stone <rv8iator@earthlink.net>
Gilles...
I for one will be very interested in what you find in using this device. I hope
you publish your finding here.
If it works as advertised and reviewed in the Model Aviation press it sounds like
it could be a very usefull tool to monitor actual battey condition (capicity)
over time thus adding to A/C electrical system reliability.
CS
Newberg, OR
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Hi all,
This is to say I just received the CBA II Computerized Battery Analyser
from the English dealer Aurrora. Quick reaction and same day shipping,
but two weeks in the meanders of French customs and postal services.....
If memory serves me right, it was Paul Messinger who mentionned this
device in a recent post.
Maybe some listers will be interested in my first tests with this new
toy. Any tips or suggestions welcome.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
Electrically dependant Rotax 914
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: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:02 PM 4/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill
><deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
>
>George Braly wrote:
>
> > Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
> electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
> >
> > Regards, George
>
>Hi George,
> The electronic systems generally use automotive spark
>plugs, which are significantly cheaper (an order of magnitude)
>than the aircraft spark plugs. You'd have to go through
>10 auto spark plugs to equal the cost of a single
>aircraft spark plug, so the savings is significant
>even if you replaced them 4-5 times more often than
>an aircraft spark plug (which I don't think is the case).
>
> At least, I think that is what he is referring to... :-)
Exactly. I'd really like to do a detailed, instrumented comparative
study of trade-offs offered by the various ignition systems. There's
a lot of marketing hype flying around out there but it would be
really interesting to get the numbers.
We KNOW that fuel efficiency is influenced by adequate ignition
and timing appropriate to manifold pressure. All the airplanes I
fly run smoothly so I have to believe that the spark is adequate
and that making it hotter, longer, greener or whatever is not going
to make a big difference in fuel consumption. If I look at my log,
90% of my flying is below 5,000 feet. The real fuel savings in
cruise happen when you're at full throttle and at altitudes . . .
of course, if you're turbocharged, then manifold pressure stays
high, fuel consumption is then related to power setting and not
to atmospheric limits.
I don't know because I've not been able to measure it . . .
but I'll bet that unless you commute twice a week with 2 hour +
cruise at over 8,000 feet, you'll have a difficult time
justifying ripping out perfectly good working mags to replace
them with ANY form of electronic ignition based on $savings$
in fuel.
The advantages of E-I and particularly the e-mag/p-mag
series products as I perceive them today are:
(1) It's a 2004 design, not a 1985 design, not a 1930 design.
(2) It holds a real promise for an ignition TBO equal to or
greater than the engine.
(3) reduced mechanical parts count . . . issues of wear and
lubrication go away.
(4) let's you run automotive plugs and probably run the plugs
MUCH longer. One set of automotives run under an electronic
ignition will outlast a set of aircraft plugs run with
a mag. Aircraft plugs with an electronic ignition can
probably run much longer as well.
(5) easier starting . . . important if you live in cold
country or fly behind a dibble-injection engine.
(6) takes yet another healthy marketplace whack at Lasar's
certified abortion and offers a quantum jump in elegance
to an OBAM aircraft system.
Bob . . .
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: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
Larry,
If you run P-Mags you will have the same advantages that you spoke of with the
added advantage of redundency on the self powered ignitions which you do not have
with any other e-ignition. Don
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> Why not two electronic ignitions?
>
> Because, then your plane is electrically dependent. With one side a mag,
> you can limp home on the mag if your electronics crap out. Your engine
> keeps running. You don't fall out of the sky. AND Your electrical system
> is much simpler and less costly to install and maintain. You can tolerate a
> battery going bad or an alternator dying our your EI side making its last
> spark. Indiana Larry
>
> Friends are like angels who lift us to our feet
> when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly....unknown
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
> >
> >
> > Why
> > not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
> > is pretty attractive.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> > Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
> > electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
> >
> > Regards, George
> >
> > ---
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Intersting,
I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
airplane spark plugs.
Am I dreaming?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:02 PM 4/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill
><deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
>
>George Braly wrote:
>
> > Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
> electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 43 Msgs - 04/05/05 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Matt,
Thanks for your response. Respectfully, I did get Alex' point. As a CFI, I
occasionally teach the nuances of CS props. I also have discovered that many
pilots relate stalling the aircraft to engine power. As you know, it is quite
possible to fly an aircraft at zero airspeed with a dead engine and not stall
the wing. My point was not to ridicule Alex (although I may have
inadvertently done so), but rather to emphasize to readers of the list (particularily
new
pilots) that stalling has nothing to do with the engine speed.
This internet list is an excellent tool for transferring ideas and
information. It is so much better than years past when a builder was on his own
except
for what few builders lived near him. But, as useful as the list is, I think
you'll agree that incorrect infomation is worse than no information at all.
Thanks again for responding to me.
Check Six,
Stan Sutterfield
http://www.rv-8a.net/
In a message dated 4/6/2005 3:02:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Respectfully, I don't think you got Alex's point.. With idle throttle
setting, but without changes in propellor pitch, engine RPM IS related to
airspeed. On an airplane with a constant speed prop, at idle throttle
setting, and the prop set at max, the governor will allow the blades to go
to a very flat pitch setting. The effect this has is to cause the RPM to
remain relatively high, even though the engine is essentially not putting
out any power. In order to get the engine RPM to fall to 800RPM on an
aircraft with c/s prop, the airspeed has to be VERY low. Probably below
the VS0...
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> Negative. Stalling the wing has nothing to do with the engine RPM - or
> with having an engine at all.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
> In a message dated 4/2/2005 3:57:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> I don't know about fixed pitch props, but with a c/s, if your rpm was
> down to 800, you would probably have already stalled due to low
> airspeed. Flight idle at approach speeds is well above 800.
>
> Alex Peterson
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Frank,
You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it fires
after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs will probably
foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this reason alone. If you
turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably note a decrease in CHT which
would indicate that you are losing a little power/efficiency. Finally, if
the E.I. should fail, having the mag ON will prevent power interruptions.
Hope this answers your question.
Pat Hatch
Intersting,
I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
airplane spark plugs.
Am I dreaming?
Frank
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Bob,
I would offer a seventh advantage:
7. It allows you to recover a small amount of power at the higher altitudes
and lower manifold pressures as the timing is advanced, thus enabling you to
get up high enough to catch the strong tailwinds returning from the west
coast.
As you said, it would be interesting to get the actual numbers for these
incremental power increases and fuel flow savings, and until we do, I put
this forward as a hypothesis only. My experience is anecdotal, but it does
seem to make a difference in my RV-6.
Pat Hatch
I don't know because I've not been able to measure it . . .
but I'll bet that unless you commute twice a week with 2 hour +
cruise at over 8,000 feet, you'll have a difficult time
justifying ripping out perfectly good working mags to replace
them with ANY form of electronic ignition based on $savings$
in fuel.
The advantages of E-I and particularly the e-mag/p-mag
series products as I perceive them today are:
(1) It's a 2004 design, not a 1985 design, not a 1930 design.
(2) It holds a real promise for an ignition TBO equal to or
greater than the engine.
(3) reduced mechanical parts count . . . issues of wear and
lubrication go away.
(4) let's you run automotive plugs and probably run the plugs
MUCH longer. One set of automotives run under an electronic
ignition will outlast a set of aircraft plugs run with
a mag. Aircraft plugs with an electronic ignition can
probably run much longer as well.
(5) easier starting . . . important if you live in cold
country or fly behind a dibble-injection engine.
(6) takes yet another healthy marketplace whack at Lasar's
certified abortion and offers a quantum jump in elegance
to an OBAM aircraft system.
Bob . . .
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for this
reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run mogas and
therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant on battery
storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the mag as a way
to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
Thanks
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat
Hatch
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Frank,
You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it
fires after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs will
probably foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this reason
alone. If you turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably note a
decrease in CHT which would indicate that you are losing a little
power/efficiency. Finally, if the E.I. should fail, having the mag ON
will prevent power interruptions.
Hope this answers your question.
Pat Hatch
Intersting,
I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
airplane spark plugs.
Am I dreaming?
Frank
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: Ducati regulator terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Hello Giles/all -
Were the Ducati regulators simply allowed to get too hot thus leading
to the failures, or is the reliability of the Ducati part in ANY
environment questionable?
I read your original posts and convinced myself that the failures were
thermally induced. I was looking for an alternative
regulator/rectifier from the motorcycle camp... but decided to locate
my Ducati regulator in a 'cool' place and stop worrying about it.
Wise decision, or did I just stick my head in the sand!?
Thanks in advance,
D Wysong
Rotax 914 + Colyear Martin3 S100
Cramming 15 lbs into a 5 lbs bag
-----------------------
On Apr 6, 2005 7:58 AM, Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> wrote:
<snip>
> Last year we conducted some tests on the Ducati and Schicke
> rectifier/regulators. You'll find interesting posts in the archives.
> When I have time I'll include some of our findings on my website. I'm
> afraid you'll have to be patient...;-)
> I would suggest you thoroughly study fig Z 16 in the Aeroelectric
> Connection.
>
> By the way, concerning the recent posts on "new age architecture", I'm
> not aware of any RG battery failing open, but I'm directly aware of more
> than 10 Ducati regulators giving up the ghost in the Europa/MCR/CT circles.
> I actually was given two such failed regulators, and ripped one of them
> to check the innards.
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Frank,
Well yes, I would recommend dual E.I. but not for the same reason. See
Bob's recent post on the 6 advantages to E.I. I think the primary reason is
probably going to be system reliability and ability to last to engine TBO.
The power and fuel efficiencies are secondary benefits, in my opinion. If
your concern is battery endurance, I would consider getting a p-mag as part
of your system (perhaps in addition to the Lightspeed or an e-mag), or even
2 p-mags.
Pat
Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for this
reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run mogas and
therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant on battery
storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the mag as a way
to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
Thanks
Frank
Frank,
You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it
fires after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs will
probably foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this reason
alone. If you turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably note a
decrease in CHT which would indicate that you are losing a little
power/efficiency. Finally, if the E.I. should fail, having the mag ON
will prevent power interruptions.
Hope this answers your question.
Pat Hatch
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
Frank,
Two fuel pumps at the wing roots, interesting. Could you possibly tell us
why you have done this? I would think that one pump in the cockpit, which is
already pretty close to the fuel tanks, would do.
I ask because at one point in time, I also was considering putting in two
fuel pumps.
Also, which pumps did you go for and are you running a carbureted or
injected engine?
Thanks,
Michele
RV8 - Wings
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde, Frank George
> (Corvallis)
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 6:54 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for this
> reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run mogas and
> therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant on battery
> storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the mag as a way
> to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat
> Hatch
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
>
> Frank,
>
> You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it
> fires after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs will
> probably foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this reason
> alone. If you turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably note a
> decrease in CHT which would indicate that you are losing a little
> power/efficiency. Finally, if the E.I. should fail, having the mag ON
> will prevent power interruptions.
>
> Hope this answers your question.
>
> Pat Hatch
>
>
> Intersting,
>
> I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
> timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
> simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
> airplane spark plugs.
>
> Am I dreaming?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Bob and Interested Listers,
I see all the interest in ignition systems and I would like inject some of
my thoughts into the mix. These are just food for thought and not ment to
show favor or disfavor for any system or its manufacturer.
Ignition Systems
1.. It would be a giant back step to return to single point (spark plug)
ignition system.
2.. Redundancy is not a consideration, so far as efficiency is concerned.
Certified systems are restricted in design because of the redundancy
requirement.
3.. Random and periodic miss-fire of any single spark plug would go
unnoticed by all but the most keenly tuned ear.
4.. Best power Fuel/Air mixture by weight is 12.5:1, and the only control
we have on it is what goes past the intake valve into the cylinder. After it
is in the cylinder there are areas of the mixture, lean and rich, which
would not support ignition.
5.. In a large bore combustion chamber that has no quince area and little
turbulence, the mixture does not move to the ignition point. The flame front
must move across the ever increasing volume of chamber.
6.. A miss fire of one plug in a combustion chamber like that would have
the same effect as retarded ignition. One flame front has twice as far to go
to complete combustion, but doesn't have the time to do it.
7.. Any ignition system that allows the use of greater plug gap with a
more intense ignition would reduce the single plug miss-fire due to
combustion chamber conditions would improve efficiency.
8.. Aviation type spark plugs do not lend themselves to wide gapes.
9.. Automotive spark plugs do lend themselves to wider gapes, and some
come pre-gaped to as much as .080". They also provide a larger choice of
heat range and Tip design that allows better presentation of the gap to the
mixture in the combustion chamber.
10.. The distributor cap and rotor are a week point in that they present a
high maintenance requirement and are in most cases difficult to access. They
must be adequately ventilated to prevent ozone build up and pressurized for
use at altitude. Residue buildup from the center contact at the rotor leads
to unavoidable malfunction and even failure if not properly maintained.
11. Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the state
of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition connection
count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
wire per plug has also been eliminated.
12. Some systems even sort out the position of the engine in the
firing order and prime and fire the appropriate cylinder to start the
engine. How'd you like to throw your starter and all the crap it takes to
drive it, away? Then again if you had a warehouse full of starters you
wanted to sell would you put a system like that into mass production?
13. A lot of things drive "State of the Art".
Is redundancy when you incorporate a system that is not apt to fail or
having a secondary system ready when the primary system inevitably dose?
John D. Heath
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: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Sure Michele,
1) my existing carburetted A/C is set up this way (Subaru conversion
with no mechanical pump) and I like a familiar set up. The RV7 will be
FI however. Currently I use a check valve at the discharge of each pump
and have no selector valve. I simply switch pumps to switch
tanks....elegant solution. I run both pumps on takeoff...I have 2 EI's
and run one set up from each battery and a single alternator...Diode set
between the batteries.
2) I like to run Mogas and with fuel prices going up I am highly
motivated to do so in my new Lyc clone...Mogas means higher vapour
pressure so the cooler the pumps and nearer the source (tanks) the
better.
3) I think the pumps inside the cabin will work ok (nervous about the
pump warming the fuel and returning to its own inlet so I much each pump
having a pressure relief back to its own tank)....Just easier to put it
all into the wing roots.
4) The single mechanical pump will not vapour lock UNLESS you lose the
electric boost pump....I.e hot pump high on the firewall (engine)...So
you could be at take off, loose the boost pump and the mechanical pump
could instantly vapour lock...I.e the Mechanical pump is not an adequate
backup to the boost pump when running mogas.
5) The pumps I got from the Rotary folks (RWS) but they are a NAPA brand
aftermarket pumps. I am told by the rotary folks they are very reliable.
6) Pressure relief valves are from Airflow performance (26 pound spring
and bleed hole to vent any vapours).
7) Final check valves from Van's
8) I will install two filters (redundancy) from Summit Racing part #
SUM-G1516 ($29 ea) with -6AN fittings and 60 micron filter
9) Think I will install Van's gascolator but no selector valve.
Just do not uncover a tank vent doing a big slip to landing on a nearly
empty upwing tank...:)
Hope this helps
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Two Fuel pumps
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
Frank,
Two fuel pumps at the wing roots, interesting. Could you possibly tell
us why you have done this? I would think that one pump in the cockpit,
which is already pretty close to the fuel tanks, would do.
I ask because at one point in time, I also was considering putting in
two fuel pumps.
Also, which pumps did you go for and are you running a carbureted or
injected engine?
Thanks,
Michele
RV8 - Wings
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde, Frank
> George
> (Corvallis)
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 6:54 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for
> this reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run
> mogas and therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant
> on battery storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the
> mag as a way to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat
> Hatch
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch"
> --> <pat_hatch@msn.com>
>
> Frank,
>
> You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it
> fires after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs
> will probably foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this
> reason alone. If you turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably
> note a decrease in CHT which would indicate that you are losing a
> little power/efficiency. Finally, if the E.I. should fail, having the
> mag ON will prevent power interruptions.
>
> Hope this answers your question.
>
> Pat Hatch
>
>
> Intersting,
>
> I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
> timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
> simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
> airplane spark plugs.
>
> Am I dreaming?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
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: Ducati regulator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
D Wysong a crit :
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
>
>Hello Giles/all -
>
>Were the Ducati regulators simply allowed to get too hot thus leading
>to the failures, or is the reliability of the Ducati part in ANY
>environment questionable?
>I read your original posts and convinced myself that the failures were
>thermally induced.
>
Probably. I believe those regulators are not capable of supplying the
advertised power in ordinary conditions. A reasonable value of around 12
amps continuous seems the most one can expect.
Nevertheless the study showed that with the addition of a computer fan,
things improved greatly. But don't expect to get more than 15-18 amps.
> I was looking for an alternative
>regulator/rectifier from the motorcycle camp... but decided to locate
>my Ducati regulator in a 'cool' place and stop worrying about it.
>Wise decision, or did I just stick my head in the sand!?
>
>
>
IF your power needs are reasonable, you may be right. A cool environment
may include a blast tube, a fan or some active means of cooling.
>Thanks in advance,
>
>D Wysong
>Rotax 914 + Colyear Martin3 S100
>Cramming 15 lbs into a 5 lbs bag
>
>
>
Remember that your 914 is dependant on electric supply.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
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: | Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
It is interesting that Lihtspeed claim some significant advantages to
using one system (10 t0 15%) but a much less benefit with the second
Lightspeed (can't remember what it is exactly). In reading this I wonder
if the "total cost of ownership" is greater with a mag?...Right now I
have ordered an engine with a mag and a Lightspeed but I could change
it.
I have also requested the Lightspeed max advance be limited to 25deg to
simulate a mag. Reason being is that the comapany will not warrant large
ignition advances with the use of Mogas so I want to limit it during the
warranty period and extend it later once more is known about running
Lycs on Mogas.
Without a doubt though, if I was to lose the alternator and already
having two fuel pumps to run, not having to worry about the ignition is
attractive to me.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
D. Heath
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
--> <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Bob and Interested Listers,
I see all the interest in ignition systems and I would like inject some
of my thoughts into the mix. These are just food for thought and not
ment to show favor or disfavor for any system or its manufacturer.
Ignition Systems
1.. It would be a giant back step to return to single point (spark
plug) ignition system.
2.. Redundancy is not a consideration, so far as efficiency is
concerned.
Certified systems are restricted in design because of the redundancy
requirement.
3.. Random and periodic miss-fire of any single spark plug would go
unnoticed by all but the most keenly tuned ear.
4.. Best power Fuel/Air mixture by weight is 12.5:1, and the only
control we have on it is what goes past the intake valve into the
cylinder. After it is in the cylinder there are areas of the mixture,
lean and rich, which would not support ignition.
5.. In a large bore combustion chamber that has no quince area and
little turbulence, the mixture does not move to the ignition point. The
flame front must move across the ever increasing volume of chamber.
6.. A miss fire of one plug in a combustion chamber like that would
have the same effect as retarded ignition. One flame front has twice as
far to go to complete combustion, but doesn't have the time to do it.
7.. Any ignition system that allows the use of greater plug gap with a
more intense ignition would reduce the single plug miss-fire due to
combustion chamber conditions would improve efficiency.
8.. Aviation type spark plugs do not lend themselves to wide gapes.
9.. Automotive spark plugs do lend themselves to wider gapes, and some
come pre-gaped to as much as .080". They also provide a larger choice of
heat range and Tip design that allows better presentation of the gap to
the mixture in the combustion chamber.
10.. The distributor cap and rotor are a week point in that they
present a high maintenance requirement and are in most cases difficult
to access. They must be adequately ventilated to prevent ozone build up
and pressurized for use at altitude. Residue buildup from the center
contact at the rotor leads to unavoidable malfunction and even failure
if not properly maintained.
11. Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the
state
of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition
connection count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard
of spark plug wire per plug has also been eliminated.
12. Some systems even sort out the position of the engine in the
firing order and prime and fire the appropriate cylinder to start the
engine. How'd you like to throw your starter and all the crap it takes
to drive it, away? Then again if you had a warehouse full of starters
you wanted to sell would you put a system like that into mass
production?
13. A lot of things drive "State of the Art".
Is redundancy when you incorporate a system that is not apt to fail or
having a secondary system ready when the primary system inevitably dose?
John D. Heath
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: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/6/2005 2:10:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Alto_Q@direcway.com writes:
Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the state
of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition connection
count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
wire per plug has also been eliminated.
Good Afternoon John,
I have no argument with the premise you present, but I would like to make a
comment on the newness of one point you make. I do not know when the first use
was made of one coil per spark plug, but Curtiss Wright used that set up on
the Turbo Compound R3350 that was heavily used in the post WW II period.
There is very little new under the sun.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: | VOR antenna splitter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
I am thinking of adding a Garmin AT SL 30 NavCom to the CNX 80
Both have internal splitters for the localizer and the glide slope. It OK
to use ONE VOR antenna for both boxes? I recognize I would be introducing
a single point failure but it seems sufficiently remote. I am concerned
that both would have adequate signal levels.
An archives search on antenna splitter gave no guidance.
Matthew M. Jurotich
e-mail mail to: <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
phone : 301-286-5919
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: Two Fuel pumps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CozyGirrrl@aol.com
Dear Frank,
I believe we are using the same fuel pumps from RWS, by the way you can get
AN fittings for them from EARL's... (as Weber carburator adapters)
If they are the same pump you can do without the check valves as the pumps
have them internally.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
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: Two Fuel pumps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Hi all,
>[SNIP]
>3) I think the pumps inside the cabin will work ok
>[SNIP]
>
>
In our Rotax turbocharged project we installed the two electric fuel
pumps on the cabin side of the firewall. The idea was to have a cooler
environment, and to gain some room in the engine compartment for the
intercooler and ducts.
The two pumps and their respective check valves are in parallel. No
mechanical pump.
The following may not be applicable to US homebuilts or kitplanes, but
in France kitplanes must comply with FAR 23 (eventually will be JAR 23).
And though we were supposed to comply with the FAR 23 amendment 7, our
Civil Aviation Authority chose to use the current FAR amendment, and
have us shield the pumps with drainable covers.
Here is the relevant paragraph, which appeared only in amendment 14 :
Subpart D--Design and Construction
Sec. 23.853
....
(e) Lines, tanks, or equipment containing fuel, oil, or other flammable
fluids may not be installed in such compartments unless adequately
shielded, isolated, or otherwise protected so that any breakage or
failure of such an item would not create a hazard.
...
FWIW,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Old Bob,
Some where in the back of my mine I new that, I just couldn't dig it out.
Do you remember how the primary ignition was arranged? If you say 18 sets
of points, I'm going to fall off this chair.
John D.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 4/6/2005 2:10:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> Alto_Q@direcway.com writes:
>
> Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the state
> of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
> coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition
> connection
> count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
> wire per plug has also been eliminated.
>
>
> Good Afternoon John,
>
> I have no argument with the premise you present, but I would like to make
> a
> comment on the newness of one point you make. I do not know when the first
> use
> was made of one coil per spark plug, but Curtiss Wright used that set up
> on
> the Turbo Compound R3350 that was heavily used in the post WW II period.
> There is very little new under the sun.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Interesting, I was wondering what the parrallel thread was on the exit
of the pump?...The pump inlets are fixed 5/16th barbed fittings on mine.
I did find out that AN fittings are the same as JIC fittings an are
available much cheaper in brass. Not that I want to litter my plane with
heavy brass fittings but it's the first place I have seen an AN-6
fitting with a 5/16th hose barb on the other end. Very useful for coming
from the AN-6 bulkhead tank fitting on the RV to the pump inlet.
Check this out the link if your interested...
Unfortunatly I cannot do without the check valve because the dicharge of
each pump has the relief back to the tank tee'd into it. So if I switch
one pump (and therefore tank) off, the opposite pump can pump fuel to
the opposite tank thru the relief valve unless there is an additional
check valve there.
I nearly built a Cozy, a very nice plane...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CozyGirrrl@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Two Fuel pumps
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CozyGirrrl@aol.com
Dear Frank,
I believe we are using the same fuel pumps from RWS, by the way you can
get AN fittings for them from EARL's... (as Weber carburator adapters)
If they are the same pump you can do without the check valves as the
pumps have them internally.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/) Cozy Mk-IV RG
13B-turbo Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
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: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/6/2005 3:40:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Alto_Q@direcway.com writes:
Old Bob,
Some where in the back of my mine I new that, I just couldn't dig it out.
Do you remember how the primary ignition was arranged? If you say 18 sets
of points, I'm going to fall off this chair.
John D.
Good Afternoon John,
Unfortunately, I don't. Never worked on them, just flew 'em. I'll see if I
can locate any documentation.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: Two Fuel pumps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CozyGirrrl@aol.com
Sorry for the non-electric diversion here:
Dear Frank,
Thanks, we are enjoying the build =)
We have an earlier model of the pump and hope we can find a spare, both ends
are threaded the same.
OK, understand why the check valves in your case, makes sense. In our case
we only take fuel and return fuel from the rail to the same tank, use a
transfer pump for the other tank.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
John, Bob and Interested Listers,
I know that electronic ignition is the rage these days. I first put
electronic ignition on my '57 Ford in 1962. I also put a breakerless CD ignition
system on my (circle track) race cars back in the '60s when everyone else was
running dual points. After becoming an electronic engineer, I designed
electronic ignition systems for GM for 15 years. Now, I hate authorities on any
subject as much as most of the listers do, but I don't know any way else to
qualify myself to say what I have to say. Experience is a good teacher.
I would caution anyone to not expect miracles from their ignition system,
and to not go too far with their claims. I kept very accurate fuel mileage on
my '74 Cutlass before and after switching from a single point ignition system
to a High Energy Ignition having 3 times the spark energy only to be
disappointed that my mileage didn't increase any measurable amount. You see it
only
takes about 25 micro-joules to ignite a fuel/air mixture. Going from 50 to
150 milli-joules didn't help! It was still nice to get rid of the points,
and the fact that the wear on the rubbing block continuously retarded the
timing until it was reset -- about once a year.
Magnetos are not high energy ignition systems. Aircraft engines are not
hard to ignite. They are run under conditions, beyond half throttle most of the
time, where ignition is not hard to achieve.
There is probably an advantage to be able to advance the timing that the
present magneto system does not lend itself to. This is strictly a mechanical
issue as far as the mags are concerned.
I don't know why one couldn't put automotive plugs in a system with a
magneto. Cost is the only advantage that I know of for using auto plugs. As
for
making the gaps big, there is an advantage -- better lean and part throttle
ignition. This is not much of an advantage on an aircraft engine. The
disadvantage is that the high voltage components -- cap, wires and coil are stressed
-- usually to failure with .080 gaps. GM had to back off to about .060 for
that reason. If you eliminate the wires you still have to make a coil that
will stand the stress. Its not worth it in an airplane.
The partial burns (we call it) are reduced by using auto fuel. This too, is
not that big a problem when operating the engine beyond half throttle.
There is a lot of fuel and air in the chamber, and turbulence is mainly something
that helps part throttle performance. Something you need in an automobile,
but not so much in an airplane, unless you fly at 10 to 20 percent power like
you drive your car.
Well, you get the point! So what ignition do I have in my RV7A? You
guessed it. 2 Slick magnetos. Maybe someday when I get ready, I'll design a
system for my bird. That would be an experiment for me. I appreciate those
who
do this kind of work, but I want to do my own experiment on my plane. There
is a place for it. Right now I'm just happy to be flying my new RV, and I
don't see the magneto ignition system(s) as that much of a disadvantage.
Thanks, if you read this,
Respectfully,
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A (Was flying -- now in the paint shop)
In a message dated 4/6/05 2:10:35 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
Alto_Q@direcway.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
<Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Bob and Interested Listers,
I see all the interest in ignition systems and I would like inject some of
my thoughts into the mix. These are just food for thought and not ment to
show favor or disfavor for any system or its manufacturer.
Ignition Systems
1.. It would be a giant back step to return to single point (spark plug)
ignition system.
2.. Redundancy is not a consideration, so far as efficiency is concerned.
Certified systems are restricted in design because of the redundancy
requirement.
3.. Random and periodic miss-fire of any single spark plug would go
unnoticed by all but the most keenly tuned ear.
4.. Best power Fuel/Air mixture by weight is 12.5:1, and the only control
we have on it is what goes past the intake valve into the cylinder. After it
is in the cylinder there are areas of the mixture, lean and rich, which
would not support ignition.
5.. In a large bore combustion chamber that has no quince area and little
turbulence, the mixture does not move to the ignition point. The flame front
must move across the ever increasing volume of chamber.
6.. A miss fire of one plug in a combustion chamber like that would have
the same effect as retarded ignition. One flame front has twice as far to go
to complete combustion, but doesn't have the time to do it.
7.. Any ignition system that allows the use of greater plug gap with a
more intense ignition would reduce the single plug miss-fire due to
combustion chamber conditions would improve efficiency.
8.. Aviation type spark plugs do not lend themselves to wide gapes.
9.. Automotive spark plugs do lend themselves to wider gapes, and some
come pre-gaped to as much as .080". They also provide a larger choice of
heat range and Tip design that allows better presentation of the gap to the
mixture in the combustion chamber.
10.. The distributor cap and rotor are a week point in that they present a
high maintenance requirement and are in most cases difficult to access. They
must be adequately ventilated to prevent ozone build up and pressurized for
use at altitude. Residue buildup from the center contact at the rotor leads
to unavoidable malfunction and even failure if not properly maintained.
11. Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the state
of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition connection
count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
wire per plug has also been eliminated.
12. Some systems even sort out the position of the engine in the
firing order and prime and fire the appropriate cylinder to start the
engine. How'd you like to throw your starter and all the crap it takes to
drive it, away? Then again if you had a warehouse full of starters you
wanted to sell would you put a system like that into mass production?
13. A lot of things drive "State of the Art".
Is redundancy when you incorporate a system that is not apt to fail or
having a secondary system ready when the primary system inevitably dose?
John D. Heath
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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Frank,
I got a little diffrent read on that. I understand a 10% improvement with
one Lightspeed system and up to 15% with two. Correct me if I'm Wrong.
As for that little built in back up alternator, count me in. At that if the
Mag pads are vacant, could not one of the small aux alternators that are
available be used as an engine support buss and include the fuel pumps?
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> It is interesting that Lihtspeed claim some significant advantages to
> using one system (10 t0 15%) but a much less benefit with the second
> Lightspeed (can't remember what it is exactly). In reading this I wonder
> if the "total cost of ownership" is greater with a mag?...Right now I
> have ordered an engine with a mag and a Lightspeed but I could change
> it.
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: | Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
You maybe right John on the Lightspeed I was going from faded memory.
Certainly the fuel economy is going to be based on the hugely advanced
timing, which I won't have until the warranty expires on the engine.
The auxilery pad alternator (nice to have) is about $700! I would run
one FI pump from each alternator in that case.
My system is a single $165 Toyota Camry alt (80A+...Mamma!) driving two
isolated batteries, with one pump from each batt, and each pump is
dedicated to each tank.
Can't imagine having less than half an hour left in either tank at any
time so with a low voltage warning (Using the Dynon audio warning
feature) I should always have plenty of everyhting to get me down in
something that resembles and airport...:)
. I just wanted the mag so I could shut off the Lightspeed and just
worry about keeping one fuel pump going and a radio if absolutly
necessary.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
D. Heath
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
--> <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Frank,
I got a little diffrent read on that. I understand a 10% improvement
with one Lightspeed system and up to 15% with two. Correct me if I'm
Wrong.
As for that little built in back up alternator, count me in. At that if
the Mag pads are vacant, could not one of the small aux alternators that
are available be used as an engine support buss and include the fuel
pumps?
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> It is interesting that Lihtspeed claim some significant advantages to
> using one system (10 t0 15%) but a much less benefit with the second
> Lightspeed (can't remember what it is exactly). In reading this I
wonder
> if the "total cost of ownership" is greater with a mag?...Right now I
> have ordered an engine with a mag and a Lightspeed but I could change
> it.
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Frank,
Since you are operating an electrically dependent aircraft, I would think that
finding ways of minimizing the total electrical costs to keep your plane in the
air would be paramount. I think you would be better served by either 2 P Mags
or a P Mag and a magneto to reduce your emergency electrical loads to the fuel
system draws (fuel pumps, injectors and computer)
Using Lightspeed or ElectroAire Ignitions simply adds an additional 3.5 to 6 amps
current draw to your battery.
Charlie Kuss
---- "Hinde wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for this
> reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run mogas and
> therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant on battery
> storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the mag as a way
> to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat
> Hatch
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
>
> Frank,
>
> You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it
> fires after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs will
> probably foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this reason
> alone. If you turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably note a
> decrease in CHT which would indicate that you are losing a little
> power/efficiency. Finally, if the E.I. should fail, having the mag ON
> will prevent power interruptions.
>
> Hope this answers your question.
>
> Pat Hatch
>
>
> Intersting,
>
> I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
> timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
> simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
> airplane spark plugs.
>
> Am I dreaming?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Yes that was my thought too.
Thanks
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
chaztuna@adelphia.net
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Frank,
Since you are operating an electrically dependent aircraft, I would
think that finding ways of minimizing the total electrical costs to keep
your plane in the air would be paramount. I think you would be better
served by either 2 P Mags or a P Mag and a magneto to reduce your
emergency electrical loads to the fuel system draws (fuel pumps,
injectors and computer) Using Lightspeed or ElectroAire Ignitions
simply adds an additional 3.5 to 6 amps current draw to your battery.
Charlie Kuss
---- "Hinde wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
> --> (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for
> this reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run
> mogas and therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant
> on battery storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the
> mag as a way to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat
> Hatch
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch"
> --> <pat_hatch@msn.com>
>
> Frank,
>
> You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it
> fires after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs
> will probably foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this
> reason alone. If you turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably
> note a decrease in CHT which would indicate that you are losing a
> little power/efficiency. Finally, if the E.I. should fail, having the
> mag ON will prevent power interruptions.
>
> Hope this answers your question.
>
> Pat Hatch
>
>
> Intersting,
>
> I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
> timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
> simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
> airplane spark plugs.
>
> Am I dreaming?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Dan,
I'm not an authority on the subject but I have to develop a knowledge base
upon which to base decisions about this airplane. I can just barley do this
once and there is just no way with time or money that I'm going to be able
to do it twice. So far as electricals go I have to rely on people like you
and Bob to point me in the right direction and proceed on blind faith.
While you were round de rounding Fords, I was squirt racing Chevies at the
local drag strip. Around about 1964 I woke up one morning and found myself
in a OH-13S hovering around on the tree tops looking for Sir Charles Cong.
Now that's some place you don't want to be when you find out about the
effects of loosing a Mag'. Hovering is about as much power as you could use
in one of those little helicopters, so if you did lose a Mag, you'd better
have a pretty good contingency plan. The Crew Chief/Gunners got so good at
feeling the Mag drop out, you didn't even have to tell them when to throw
out the hand grenade box. When all that was over, I acquired myself a couple
of degrees as time went on.
Some where along the line I learned that comparisons must start at a
common point. Well before '74, Olds was using about a 4.00" bore and a
pretty well developed wedge shaped combustion chamber with considerable
quince area and intake ports sized to insure sufficient turbulence for
complete combustion. Improved ignition might not have made much of an
increase in performance. On the other hand a good old Lycosaurus with its
more than 5.00" bore and a combustion chamber shaped like an old Simonize
can and "bigger is better" ports might just react a little differently. I
know I would sure like to have had Dual Lightspeed ignition systems when I
was making that tour of Siam. I would have been happy with half the
improvement that Lightspeed Claims.
Perhaps I just don't understand your point.
Respectively and I do mean Respectively
John D.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>
> John, Bob and Interested Listers,
>
> I know that electronic ignition is the rage these days. I first put
> electronic ignition on my '57 Ford in 1962. I also put a breakerless CD
> ignition
> system on my (circle track) race cars back in the '60s when everyone else
> was
> running dual points. After becoming an electronic engineer, I designed
> electronic ignition systems for GM for 15 years. Now, I hate authorities
> on any
> subject as much as most of the listers do, but I don't know any way else
> to
> qualify myself to say what I have to say. Experience is a good teacher.
>
> I would caution anyone to not expect miracles from their ignition system,
> and to not go too far with their claims. I kept very accurate fuel
> mileage on
> my '74 Cutlass before and after switching from a single point ignition
> system
> to a High Energy Ignition having 3 times the spark energy only to be
> disappointed that my mileage didn't increase any measurable amount. You
> see it only
> takes about 25 micro-joules to ignite a fuel/air mixture. Going from 50
> to
> 150 milli-joules didn't help! It was still nice to get rid of the
> points,
> and the fact that the wear on the rubbing block continuously retarded the
> timing until it was reset -- about once a year.
>
> Magnetos are not high energy ignition systems. Aircraft engines are not
> hard to ignite. They are run under conditions, beyond half throttle most
> of the
> time, where ignition is not hard to achieve.
>
> There is probably an advantage to be able to advance the timing that the
> present magneto system does not lend itself to. This is strictly a
> mechanical
> issue as far as the mags are concerned.
>
> I don't know why one couldn't put automotive plugs in a system with a
> magneto. Cost is the only advantage that I know of for using auto plugs.
> As for
> making the gaps big, there is an advantage -- better lean and part
> throttle
> ignition. This is not much of an advantage on an aircraft engine. The
> disadvantage is that the high voltage components -- cap, wires and coil
> are stressed
> -- usually to failure with .080 gaps. GM had to back off to about .060
> for
> that reason. If you eliminate the wires you still have to make a coil
> that
> will stand the stress. Its not worth it in an airplane.
>
> The partial burns (we call it) are reduced by using auto fuel. This too,
> is
> not that big a problem when operating the engine beyond half throttle.
> There is a lot of fuel and air in the chamber, and turbulence is mainly
> something
> that helps part throttle performance. Something you need in an
> automobile,
> but not so much in an airplane, unless you fly at 10 to 20 percent power
> like
> you drive your car.
>
> Well, you get the point! So what ignition do I have in my RV7A? You
> guessed it. 2 Slick magnetos. Maybe someday when I get ready, I'll
> design a
> system for my bird. That would be an experiment for me. I appreciate
> those who
> do this kind of work, but I want to do my own experiment on my plane.
> There
> is a place for it. Right now I'm just happy to be flying my new RV, and
> I
> don't see the magneto ignition system(s) as that much of a disadvantage.
>
> Thanks, if you read this,
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Dan Hopper
> Walton, IN
> RV-7A (Was flying -- now in the paint shop)
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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Hello John,
Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
JDH> quince area
What does "quince area" mean?
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
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: Race Car Load Dump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
While all of this may in fact be true, the primary reason why all of the
racing sanctioning bodies REQUIRE this type of master switch, on an
alternator equipped car, is so that when the car crashes and the
Marshals or rescue personel approach the car while the engine is still
screaming away at several thousand RPM they have the ability to turn off
all electric power to not only stop the engine but to prevent the
possibility of electrically induced fire. Without this type of switch it
is sometimes possible for the engine to continue running on the
alternator alone, without the benefit of an attached battery, with
potentially nasty consequences. It's a safety issue, not to protect any
of the equipment. Doesn't negate any side benefit provided however.
(DNF- did not finish---DNS- did not start-- DSQ- disqualified--- NRF-
not running at finish)
Bob McC
do not archive
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
>
>
>>I was looking at manual battery switches when I noticed the following.
>>
>>
>Guess the racing guys want OV/Load Dump protection also.
>
>
>>Part No. 4430 has three sets of contacts for cars with alternators. The
>>
>>
>main contacts disconnect the battery while the auxiliary contacts disconnect
>
>
>>the ignition coil and short the alternator output to ground through a 3 ohm
>>
>>
>resistor that is furnished with the switch.
>
>
>>It can be found at
>>
>>
>http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/ProductDetails.asp?RecId=1464
>
>
>>Stan Sutterfield
>>
>>
>
>Hi Stan,
>
>The boat and race car people have known for year that you can't disconnect
>the alternator from the battery without handling the load dump. A 3-ohm
>resistor would tame the beast. By the way, Pegasus's use of the abbreviation
>DNF is "Did Not Finish". I had to look it up.
>
>The proposed simple system handles the battery disconnect load dump with big
>transorbs---a more reliable way to handle it.
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>
>
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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
John,
The point is that claims about electronic ignitions improving engine
performance are often overstated. I also agreed that there was room for
improvement, but that the improvement came more from timing flexibility than from
hotter
spark.
I understand quench chambers, swirl, turbulence, etc., helping to spread the
flame in the combustion chamber. And I agree that the Lyc could probably
benefit some from that. However, the Indy engines have an open chamber (no
quench) with one centrally located plug. Much smaller bore, higher RPM.
Probably no comparison, I know. I doubt if 4 inch vs. 5 inch chambers change
things all that much. The Lycoming has two plugs which are each very far from
the
optimum location for a single plug, if you know what I mean. I agree with
Bob that two electronic ignitions firing simultaneously would be better than a
later firing mag. I don't think that increasing spark energy is going to
correct for a poor shaped combustion chamber. I know, that too is just an
opinion.
I don't expect anyone to change their mind based on my post. I guess as
much as anything I would like to encourage those people using magnetos, that
they are not that far off. I don't want to get into a heated debate. I am just
expressing an opinion. I have nothing to gain here.
Thanks for your reply,
Dan
In a message dated 4/6/05 5:51:01 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
Alto_Q@direcway.com writes:
On the other hand a good old Lycosaurus with its
more than 5.00" bore and a combustion chamber shaped like an old Simonize
can and "bigger is better" ports might just react a little differently. I
know I would sure like to have had Dual Lightspeed ignition systems when I
was making that tour of Siam. I would have been happy with half the
improvement that Lightspeed Claims.
Perhaps I just don't understand your point.
Respectively and I do mean Respectively
John D.
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: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Steve,
Quince area is an area in the combustion chamber where the piston comes so
close at TDC that any combustion charge in that position is, shall we say ,
squirted out causing turbulence in the chamber. That turbulence makes for
greatly improved completion of combustion. Most modern piston engine designs
incorporate that quince area in some way, Lycoming dose not.
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Thomas" <lists@stevet.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
>
> Hello John,
>
> Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
>
> JDH> quince area
>
>
> What does "quince area" mean?
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Dan,
You're singing base and I'm singing tenor but its the same song. I agree
that a spark energy increase on its own probably won't make any difference
but I think the fact that it supports the wider gap clearance dose.
I think an almost 40% increase in combustion chamber area dose make a
difference and that's what the 1" increase to that bore size represents. Run
one of those little Indy huffer puffers on gasoline and see what happens.
Alcohol Engines are a whole other world.
I didn't mean to come on so strong as to put you off. On the contrary, you
know things I don't, and I want to know them. I don't like some of the
arguments that take place on the list any more than you do and was reluctant
to take part in this thread.
Please accept my apologies for anything I might said that offended you.
Maybe we'll get to laugh about it over a cold beer or a hot cup of coffee
some day
Respectively
John D. Heath
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>
> John,
>
> The point is that claims about electronic ignitions improving engine
> performance are often overstated. I also agreed that there was room for
> improvement, but that the improvement came more from timing flexibility
> than from hotter
> spark.
>
> I understand quench chambers, swirl, turbulence, etc., helping to spread
> the
> flame in the combustion chamber. And I agree that the Lyc could probably
> benefit some from that. However, the Indy engines have an open chamber
> (no
> quench) with one centrally located plug. Much smaller bore, higher RPM.
> Probably no comparison, I know. I doubt if 4 inch vs. 5 inch chambers
> change
> things all that much. The Lycoming has two plugs which are each very far
> from the
> optimum location for a single plug, if you know what I mean. I agree
> with
> Bob that two electronic ignitions firing simultaneously would be better
> than a
> later firing mag. I don't think that increasing spark energy is going to
> correct for a poor shaped combustion chamber.
>
>
>
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: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:08 PM 4/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
>
> Bob and Interested Listers,
>
> I see all the interest in ignition systems and I would like inject some of
>my thoughts into the mix. These are just food for thought and not ment to
>show favor or disfavor for any system or its manufacturer.
>
>Ignition Systems
>
> 1.. It would be a giant back step to return to single point (spark plug)
>ignition system.
. . . yet folks running one mag and one EI are doing essentially that.
<snip>
>11. Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the state
>of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
>coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition connection
>count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
>wire per plug has also been eliminated.
That's been done on lots of engines and not so recently and there
have been a lot of coil per plug or coil per pair of plug systems
designed and flown . . . perhaps not the BEST we can do but certainly
a long way from airplanes we all learned to fly in.
>12. Some systems even sort out the position of the engine in the
>firing order and prime and fire the appropriate cylinder to start the
>engine. How'd you like to throw your starter and all the crap it takes to
>drive it, away? Then again if you had a warehouse full of starters you
>wanted to sell would you put a system like that into mass production?
Saw Klaus demonstrate that at OSH in 87 or 88 . . . more often than
not, an engine that had been primed and rotated by hand to distribute
some mixture in each cylinder would simply start up and run when the
ignition system was first turned on. Seems his system at the time
generated a single spark when the system was first energized. I've
read about this action being proposed as a feature of a design.
>13. A lot of things drive "State of the Art".
. . . and I'll suggest that the elegant solution is not necessarily
tied to state of the art nor state of the science. It's a mix of
simple-ideas of any level of maturity that provides the customer
with a high degree of perceived value that is also something that
he/she can afford to install in their airplane.
You can have all the multi-killobuck systems you like that incorporate
the very best that the art and science can offer but sales
will be severely limited by customer perceptions of return on
investment.
> Is redundancy when you incorporate a system that is not apt to fail or
>having a secondary system ready when the primary system inevitably does?
Reducing failure to the point of insignificance is reliability
and robustness . . . like prop bolts and flight controls. Redundancy
is having a plan-B that you hope you'll never have to use but
always grateful that it's there when you need it. Plan-B for
broken prop bolts is a BRS system fitted to your airplane or
a 'chute strapped to your fanny. Few folks fly that way but
if you read the BRS marketing pitch, there HAVE been a few
folks who's dark-n-stormy night stories ended happily by
pulling the rip cord.
Bob . . .
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: Ducati regulator terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:03 PM 4/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
>
>Hello Giles/all -
>
>Were the Ducati regulators simply allowed to get too hot thus leading
>to the failures, or is the reliability of the Ducati part in ANY
>environment questionable?
>
>I read your original posts and convinced myself that the failures were
>thermally induced. I was looking for an alternative
>regulator/rectifier from the motorcycle camp... but decided to locate
>my Ducati regulator in a 'cool' place and stop worrying about it.
>Wise decision, or did I just stick my head in the sand!?
I belive it was Giles who sent me some photos of a dissected
Ducati regulator . . . they didn't even bother to activly heat
sink the most thermally stressed components and depended on
the potting compound for heat transfer. There HAS to be somebody
who builds a better product that will replace the Ducati regulator.
What regulator are you flying Giles?
Bob . . .
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: | Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:53 AM 4/6/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for this
>reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run mogas and
>therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant on battery
>storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the mag as a way
>to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
What is the concern for "battery conservation"? If you take the trouble
to design your system for a certain level of performance and maintain
it to that level, then adding electronic ignition loads to your
suit of electrical requirements is no different that having the same
electrical system support as many radios, fuel pumps, etc as is useful
for comfortable completion of flight.
Making a decision to incorporate a magneto over an electronic ignition
for conservation of electrical system capacity doesn't seem like
a well considered choice.
Bob . . .
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: | Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>Without a doubt though, if I was to lose the alternator and already
>having two fuel pumps to run, not having to worry about the ignition is
>attractive to me.
Then why not p-mags?
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: VOR antenna splitter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:01 PM 4/6/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich
><mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
>
>I am thinking of adding a Garmin AT SL 30 NavCom to the CNX 80
>
>Both have internal splitters for the localizer and the glide slope. It OK
>to use ONE VOR antenna for both boxes? I recognize I would be introducing
>a single point failure but it seems sufficiently remote. I am concerned
>that both would have adequate signal levels.
>
>An archives search on antenna splitter gave no guidance.
See http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/com_couplers3.php
These work good and last a long time.
Bob . . .
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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:02 PM 4/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
>
>Frank,
>I got a little diffrent read on that. I understand a 10% improvement with
>one Lightspeed system and up to 15% with two. Correct me if I'm Wrong.
> As for that little built in back up alternator, count me in. At that if the
>Mag pads are vacant, could not one of the small aux alternators that are
>available be used as an engine support buss and include the fuel pumps?
Magneto pads run at 1/2 engine speed . . . very poor place to pull
out mechanical energy to run a real power producing alternator.
It's a credit to the p-mag design that they make it run well from
power derived at that RPM . . . but it's not MUCH power and suited
at present only for the single task of making sparks.
Bob . . .
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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Hi John,
No problem!
"Run one of those little Indy huffer puffers on gasoline and see what
happens.
Alcohol Engines are a whole other world."
Funny you should mention that. I was involved in some dyno work over in
England with the Chevy Indy engine. We ran one normally aspirated on both
methanol and "petrol." They were trying to get data in order to develop their
Formula I engine. It was a great experience. A lot different than my racing
enterprise back home! I won't go into details. Some things are different,
some are not.
I used alky one season in my race car. Alky is a great fuel, but the
corrosive effects were really hard to cope with. Also, it contaminates the engine
oil. Had to change oil about every show. Gave me a new appreciation of
gasoline as a motor fuel.
You're right we're singing the same song!
do not archive
Dan
In a message dated 4/6/05 7:31:15 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
Alto_Q@direcway.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
<Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Dan,
You're singing base and I'm singing tenor but its the same song. I agree
that a spark energy increase on its own probably won't make any difference
but I think the fact that it supports the wider gap clearance dose.
I think an almost 40% increase in combustion chamber area dose make a
difference and that's what the 1" increase to that bore size represents. Run
one of those little Indy huffer puffers on gasoline and see what happens.
Alcohol Engines are a whole other world.
I didn't mean to come on so strong as to put you off. On the contrary, you
know things I don't, and I want to know them. I don't like some of the
arguments that take place on the list any more than you do and was reluctant
to take part in this thread.
Please accept my apologies for anything I might said that offended you.
Maybe we'll get to laugh about it over a cold beer or a hot cup of coffee
some day
Respectively
John D. Heath
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: Race Car Load Dump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
<robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>While all of this may in fact be true, the primary reason why all of the
racing sanctioning bodies REQUIRE this type of master switch, on an
>alternator equipped car, is so that when the car crashes ......... It's a
safety issue, not to protect any of the equipment. Doesn't negate any side
benefit provided however
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>>I was looking at manual battery switches when I noticed the following.
>Guess the racing guys want OV/Load Dump protection also.
Thanks Bob,
The disconnect switch has a 3 ohm resistor in it. If the switch disconnects
the battery, the remaining resistor load is 15v / 3 ohms=4 amps at 4a x 4a
x 3 ohm=48 watts. This loads the alternator enough to suppress the load
dump....I suspect...since it certainly can't load the alternator enough to
do anything else. I also suspect that race car drivers offer some very
choice slang alternatives for "DNF".
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
Teamwork: " A lot of people doing exactly what I say."
(Marketing exec., Citrix Corp.)
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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
Well, yes the explanation is correct, but the term is "quench".
Dick Tasker
John D. Heath wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
>
>Steve,
>
> Quince area is an area in the combustion chamber where the piston comes so
>close at TDC that any combustion charge in that position is, shall we say ,
>squirted out causing turbulence in the chamber. That turbulence makes for
>greatly improved completion of combustion. Most modern piston engine designs
>incorporate that quince area in some way, Lycoming dose not.
>
> John D.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steve Thomas" <lists@stevet.net>
>To: "John D. Heath" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
>>
>>Hello John,
>>
>>Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>JDH> quince area
>>
>>
>>What does "quince area" mean?
>>
>>--
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
----
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
----
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: Race Car Load Dump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Eric M Jones wrote
>Thanks Bob,
>
> I also suspect that race car drivers offer some very
>choice slang alternatives for "DNF".
>
>
You have good perception there sir.
Bob McC
do no archive
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>
>
>
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: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
Bob,
To your list I would add: much smoother operation particularly at low RPM,
idles smooth as a babies butt at 700 RPM. This based on using a Laser
abortion for 650 hours now.
Dick Sipp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 11:02 PM 4/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill
>><deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
>>
>>George Braly wrote:
>>
>> > Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
>> electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
>> >
>> > Regards, George
>>
>>Hi George,
>> The electronic systems generally use automotive spark
>>plugs, which are significantly cheaper (an order of magnitude)
>>than the aircraft spark plugs. You'd have to go through
>>10 auto spark plugs to equal the cost of a single
>>aircraft spark plug, so the savings is significant
>>even if you replaced them 4-5 times more often than
>>an aircraft spark plug (which I don't think is the case).
>>
>> At least, I think that is what he is referring to... :-)
>
> Exactly. I'd really like to do a detailed, instrumented comparative
> study of trade-offs offered by the various ignition systems. There's
> a lot of marketing hype flying around out there but it would be
> really interesting to get the numbers.
>
> We KNOW that fuel efficiency is influenced by adequate ignition
> and timing appropriate to manifold pressure. All the airplanes I
> fly run smoothly so I have to believe that the spark is adequate
> and that making it hotter, longer, greener or whatever is not going
> to make a big difference in fuel consumption. If I look at my log,
> 90% of my flying is below 5,000 feet. The real fuel savings in
> cruise happen when you're at full throttle and at altitudes . . .
> of course, if you're turbocharged, then manifold pressure stays
> high, fuel consumption is then related to power setting and not
> to atmospheric limits.
>
> I don't know because I've not been able to measure it . . .
> but I'll bet that unless you commute twice a week with 2 hour +
> cruise at over 8,000 feet, you'll have a difficult time
> justifying ripping out perfectly good working mags to replace
> them with ANY form of electronic ignition based on $savings$
> in fuel.
>
> The advantages of E-I and particularly the e-mag/p-mag
> series products as I perceive them today are:
>
> (1) It's a 2004 design, not a 1985 design, not a 1930 design.
>
> (2) It holds a real promise for an ignition TBO equal to or
> greater than the engine.
>
> (3) reduced mechanical parts count . . . issues of wear and
> lubrication go away.
>
> (4) let's you run automotive plugs and probably run the plugs
> MUCH longer. One set of automotives run under an electronic
> ignition will outlast a set of aircraft plugs run with
> a mag. Aircraft plugs with an electronic ignition can
> probably run much longer as well.
>
> (5) easier starting . . . important if you live in cold
> country or fly behind a dibble-injection engine.
>
> (6) takes yet another healthy marketplace whack at Lasar's
> certified abortion and offers a quantum jump in elegance
> to an OBAM aircraft system.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Race Car Load Dump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <Richard@Riley.net>
At 04:21 PM 4/6/05, you wrote:
>(DNF- did not finish---DNS- did not start-- DSQ- disqualified--- NRF- not
>running at finish)
As my father once said after coasting into the winner's circle, in reply to
someone asking why he didn't take a victory lap -
"6 lap race, 6 lap engine."
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: VOR antenna splitter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> These work good and last a long time.
>
>
Probably work "well" too. :-) Sorry, couldn't resist. No offense
intended. :-) Bob, I can't believe how well you stand up to the
derision that flies from time to time and realize I shouldn't add to it,
but this jumped from the screen and hit me square between the eyes.
Thanks for all the patience and solid ideas.
Bob McC
definitely do not archive
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
That might be 'quench.'
John D. Heath wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
>
>Steve,
>
> Quince area is an area in the combustion chamber where the piston comes so
>close at TDC that any combustion charge in that position is, shall we say ,
>squirted out causing turbulence in the chamber. That turbulence makes for
>greatly improved completion of combustion. Most modern piston engine designs
>incorporate that quince area in some way, Lycoming dose not.
>
> John D.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steve Thomas" <lists@stevet.net>
>To: "John D. Heath" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
>>
>>Hello John,
>>
>>Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>JDH> quince area
>>
>>
>>What does "quince area" mean?
>>
>>--
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
Message 60
| 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: VOR antenna splitter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
Actually, the phrase is:
"Work fine, last long time."
Robert McCallum wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> These work good and last a long time.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Probably work "well" too. :-) Sorry, couldn't resist. No offense
>intended. :-) Bob, I can't believe how well you stand up to the
>derision that flies from time to time and realize I shouldn't add to it,
>but this jumped from the screen and hit me square between the eyes.
>Thanks for all the patience and solid ideas.
>
>
>Bob McC
>definitely do not archive
>
>
>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
Message 61
| 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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles St-Pierre" <ranchlaseigneurie@hotmail.com>
Quince or quench area
i believe the second term is right
gilles st pierre
>From: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:01:18 -0500
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
>
>That might be 'quench.'
>
>
>John D. Heath wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
><Alto_Q@direcway.com>
> >
> >Steve,
> >
> > Quince area is an area in the combustion chamber where the piston comes
>so
> >close at TDC that any combustion charge in that position is, shall we say
>,
> >squirted out causing turbulence in the chamber. That turbulence makes for
> >greatly improved completion of combustion. Most modern piston engine
>designs
> >incorporate that quince area in some way, Lycoming dose not.
> >
> > John D.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Steve Thomas" <lists@stevet.net>
> >To: "John D. Heath" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
> >>
> >>Hello John,
> >>
> >>Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
> >>
> >>JDH> quince area
> >>
> >>
> >>What does "quince area" mean?
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 62
| 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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Bob,
Small planitary gear sets are easy to make and at any ratio if you're
making you might as well make what you need.
There are some off the shelf sets that might fill the bill. I plan to do
something along that line when the time comes but haven't even started The
research yet. I spent a long time in automotive repair (Porsche, MB, BMW,
and such) and in over twenty years I only saw one ECU replaced that was not
below the water line on an excursion through flood and was realy the problem
in the first place.
Thanks
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 04:02 PM 4/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
>><Alto_Q@direcway.com>
>>
>>Frank,
>>I got a little diffrent read on that. I understand a 10% improvement with
>>one Lightspeed system and up to 15% with two. Correct me if I'm Wrong.
>> As for that little built in back up alternator, count me in. At that if
>> the
>>Mag pads are vacant, could not one of the small aux alternators that are
>>available be used as an engine support buss and include the fuel pumps?
>
> Magneto pads run at 1/2 engine speed . . . very poor place to pull
> out mechanical energy to run a real power producing alternator.
> It's a credit to the p-mag design that they make it run well from
> power derived at that RPM . . . but it's not MUCH power and suited
> at present only for the single task of making sparks.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 63
| 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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Richard,
You're right. Sorry about that. My spell checker went to bed.
Thanks
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker"
> <retasker@optonline.net>
>
> Well, yes the explanation is correct, but the term is "quench".
>
> Dick Tasker
>
> John D. Heath wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
>><Alto_Q@direcway.com>
>>
>>Steve,
>>
>> Quince area is an area in the combustion chamber where the piston comes
>> so
>>close at TDC that any combustion charge in that position is, shall we say
>>,
>>squirted out causing turbulence in the chamber. That turbulence makes for
>>greatly improved completion of combustion. Most modern piston engine
>>designs
>>incorporate that quince area in some way, Lycoming dose not.
>>
>> John D.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Steve Thomas" <lists@stevet.net>
>>To: "John D. Heath" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
>>>
>>>Hello John,
>>>
>>>Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>>JDH> quince area
>>>
>>>
>>>What does "quince area" mean?
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ----
> Please Note:
> No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede,
> however,
> that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily
> inconvenienced.
> ----
>
>
>
Message 64
| 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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:37 PM 4/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
>
>Bob,
> Small planitary gear sets are easy to make and at any ratio if you're
>making you might as well make what you need.
Gear trains in a reciprocating engine application . . . ESPECIALLY
those designed to increase RPM are tricky. We looked at a number
of engine pad driven designs at Electro-Mech back in the 80's that
we elected not to pursue . . . pad output velocity is heavily modulated for
speed with each firing of a cylinder. Not suggesting that it cannot
be done but I've watched some real talented folks pause, ponder and
elect no to rope that tiger. Gear driven alternators are STILL my
least favorite energy source on engines.
A number of magneto pad alternators have come and gone at OSH. Don't
know the details of why but this problem seems waiting to be solved.
Bob . . .
Message 65
| 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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Thanks Bob,
I'm going to look at this and see what can be done. Stranger thing have
happened than I should come up with a solution.
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 09:37 PM 4/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
>><Alto_Q@direcway.com>
>>
>>Bob,
>> Small planitary gear sets are easy to make and at any ratio if you're
>>making you might as well make what you need.
>
> Gear trains in a reciprocating engine application . . . ESPECIALLY
> those designed to increase RPM are tricky. We looked at a number
> of engine pad driven designs at Electro-Mech back in the 80's that
> we elected not to pursue . . . pad output velocity is heavily modulated
> for
> speed with each firing of a cylinder. Not suggesting that it cannot
> be done but I've watched some real talented folks pause, ponder and
> elect no to rope that tiger. Gear driven alternators are STILL my
> least favorite energy source on engines.
>
> A number of magneto pad alternators have come and gone at OSH. Don't
> know the details of why but this problem seems waiting to be solved.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 66
| 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: "Chris Horsten" <airplanes@sympatico.ca>
Hi Folks,
First off thanks to the few guys who have suggested some possible sources
for our radio problem. As some may recall, we are ferrying an OBAM to Denver
and though they did arrive, they still have a problem. Here is a summary of
symptoms:
Aircraft is a CH-250 with an O-300 Continental. It has a generator.
Unbearable static in the radio when power is applied, less so at idle.
System is charging, starts no problem.
Aircraft seems to emit noise (as evidenced by a portable radio) even when
the engine is not running and the master is off. The portable is connected
to ships antenna though.
Transponder was re-aligned and tested a couple of weeks ago, but now seems
to need it again. Also it seems to be malfunctioning as a result of this
problem (perhaps it is the problem). We had switched out the encoder a
couple of weeks ago so could there be a bad ground?
Suggestions I have had:
Voltage regulator
Master relay
Sparkplugs
Noise filters, capacitor
Mag filters
Airframe static
Generator brushes
We have one day left to work on it before the ferry pilot must return home
with a substantially reduced cheque. We're all amateurs but good guys and we
don't want to leave the buyer with a bum steer. Any more suggestions would
be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Chris
Message 67
| 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: Emag/mag timing question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:24 PM 4/6/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>To your list I would add: much smoother operation particularly at low RPM,
>idles smooth as a babies butt at 700 RPM. This based on using a Laser
>abortion for 650 hours now.
Lest folks misunderstand, the Laser system works as
advertised when it works. The problem I have with
it is design philosophy that make it redundant to the
2nd degree by backing up what should have been more
reliable electronics with magneto technology,
adding all the new goodies in an external box and
driving up parts and wiring count.
With all the $ they spent on that program it should
and could have been a lot cleaner. I understand how
they got there . . . the same folks who had been doing
mags for years got the task and it just seemed easier
to ADD to existing stuff. We do it in the airplanes
too. I sometime fantasize about taking a stripped out
green Bonanza and starting from scratch with the wires
and plumbing.
I'll bet we could take a lot of $time$ out of the
manufacturing costs for that airplane.
The e-mag/p-mag guys are the ones to watch . . . and
who knows, maybe a few years from now we'll be rooting
for yet another new kid on the block intent upon
yanking those guys in Texas right out of the saddle.
It's all but a sure bet it wont be an individual who
has been delivering stuff to the certified side for
half a century.
Bob . . .
Message 68
| 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: Electronic Ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
Hello Dan,
the advantage I see with the electronic ignition is, that you can much
better lean the engine and that due to the variable timing my engine is
running smoother (less vibration) and the spark plugs just stay much cleaner
then with the magnetos, fuel savings? Maybe a tad when I'm flying above 8000
ft, but also easier starting as well as the other aspects did convince me
that I did the right move.
Kind regards
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>
> John, Bob and Interested Listers,
>
> I know that electronic ignition is the rage these days. I first put
> electronic ignition on my '57 Ford in 1962. I also put a breakerless CD
ignition
> system on my (circle track) race cars back in the '60s when everyone else
was
> running dual points. After becoming an electronic engineer, I designed
> electronic ignition systems for GM for 15 years. Now, I hate authorities
on any
> subject as much as most of the listers do, but I don't know any way else
to
> qualify myself to say what I have to say. Experience is a good teacher.
>
> I would caution anyone to not expect miracles from their ignition system,
> and to not go too far with their claims. I kept very accurate fuel
mileage on
> my '74 Cutlass before and after switching from a single point ignition
system
> to a High Energy Ignition having 3 times the spark energy only to be
> disappointed that my mileage didn't increase any measurable amount. You
see it only
> takes about 25 micro-joules to ignite a fuel/air mixture. Going from 50
to
> 150 milli-joules didn't help! It was still nice to get rid of the
points,
> and the fact that the wear on the rubbing block continuously retarded the
> timing until it was reset -- about once a year.
>
> Magnetos are not high energy ignition systems. Aircraft engines are not
> hard to ignite. They are run under conditions, beyond half throttle most
of the
> time, where ignition is not hard to achieve.
>
> There is probably an advantage to be able to advance the timing that the
> present magneto system does not lend itself to. This is strictly a
mechanical
> issue as far as the mags are concerned.
>
> I don't know why one couldn't put automotive plugs in a system with a
> magneto. Cost is the only advantage that I know of for using auto plugs.
As for
> making the gaps big, there is an advantage -- better lean and part
throttle
> ignition. This is not much of an advantage on an aircraft engine. The
> disadvantage is that the high voltage components -- cap, wires and coil
are stressed
> -- usually to failure with .080 gaps. GM had to back off to about .060
for
> that reason. If you eliminate the wires you still have to make a coil
that
> will stand the stress. Its not worth it in an airplane.
>
> The partial burns (we call it) are reduced by using auto fuel. This too,
is
> not that big a problem when operating the engine beyond half throttle.
> There is a lot of fuel and air in the chamber, and turbulence is mainly
something
> that helps part throttle performance. Something you need in an
automobile,
> but not so much in an airplane, unless you fly at 10 to 20 percent power
like
> you drive your car.
>
> Well, you get the point! So what ignition do I have in my RV7A? You
> guessed it. 2 Slick magnetos. Maybe someday when I get ready, I'll
design a
> system for my bird. That would be an experiment for me. I appreciate
those who
> do this kind of work, but I want to do my own experiment on my plane.
There
> is a place for it. Right now I'm just happy to be flying my new RV, and
I
> don't see the magneto ignition system(s) as that much of a disadvantage.
>
> Thanks, if you read this,
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Dan Hopper
> Walton, IN
> RV-7A (Was flying -- now in the paint shop)
>
>
> In a message dated 4/6/05 2:10:35 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
> Alto_Q@direcway.com writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
> <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
>
> Bob and Interested Listers,
>
> I see all the interest in ignition systems and I would like inject some
of
> my thoughts into the mix. These are just food for thought and not ment to
> show favor or disfavor for any system or its manufacturer.
>
> Ignition Systems
>
> 1.. It would be a giant back step to return to single point (spark plug)
> ignition system.
> 2.. Redundancy is not a consideration, so far as efficiency is concerned.
> Certified systems are restricted in design because of the redundancy
> requirement.
> 3.. Random and periodic miss-fire of any single spark plug would go
> unnoticed by all but the most keenly tuned ear.
> 4.. Best power Fuel/Air mixture by weight is 12.5:1, and the only control
> we have on it is what goes past the intake valve into the cylinder. After
it
> is in the cylinder there are areas of the mixture, lean and rich, which
> would not support ignition.
> 5.. In a large bore combustion chamber that has no quince area and little
> turbulence, the mixture does not move to the ignition point. The flame
front
> must move across the ever increasing volume of chamber.
> 6.. A miss fire of one plug in a combustion chamber like that would have
> the same effect as retarded ignition. One flame front has twice as far to
go
> to complete combustion, but doesn't have the time to do it.
> 7.. Any ignition system that allows the use of greater plug gap with a
> more intense ignition would reduce the single plug miss-fire due to
> combustion chamber conditions would improve efficiency.
> 8.. Aviation type spark plugs do not lend themselves to wide gapes.
> 9.. Automotive spark plugs do lend themselves to wider gapes, and some
> come pre-gaped to as much as .080". They also provide a larger choice of
> heat range and Tip design that allows better presentation of the gap to
the
> mixture in the combustion chamber.
> 10.. The distributor cap and rotor are a week point in that they present
a
> high maintenance requirement and are in most cases difficult to access.
They
> must be adequately ventilated to prevent ozone build up and pressurized
for
> use at altitude. Residue buildup from the center contact at the rotor
leads
> to unavoidable malfunction and even failure if not properly maintained.
> 11. Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the
state
> of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
> coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition
connection
> count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
> wire per plug has also been eliminated.
>
> 12. Some systems even sort out the position of the engine in the
> firing order and prime and fire the appropriate cylinder to start the
> engine. How'd you like to throw your starter and all the crap it takes to
> drive it, away? Then again if you had a warehouse full of starters you
> wanted to sell would you put a system like that into mass production?
>
> 13. A lot of things drive "State of the Art".
>
> Is redundancy when you incorporate a system that is not apt to fail or
> having a secondary system ready when the primary system inevitably dose?
>
>
> John D. Heath
>
>
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! --
|