Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:17 AM - Hey Guys... (Matt Dralle)
2. 05:56 AM - Re: electronics vs. mags metrics (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:31 AM - IPod Grinch (Eric M. Jones)
4. 06:44 AM - Re: Re: electronics vs. mags metrics (Alex Peterson)
5. 06:53 AM - Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
6. 07:03 AM - Re: Re: electronics vs. mags metrics (John Huft)
7. 07:24 AM - Re: IPod Grinch (Mark R. Supinski)
8. 07:26 AM - Re: Re: electronics vs. mags metrics (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
9. 07:27 AM - Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? (Wayne Sweet)
10. 07:57 AM - Re: IPod Grinch (Alan K. Adamson)
11. 08:00 AM - Re: IPod Grinch (SteinAir, Inc.)
12. 11:40 AM - Re: Bellanca starter debugging - Hot frame tubes (William Morgan)
13. 12:25 PM - Re: IPod Grinch (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
14. 06:05 PM - Re: Mag Which Bus? (Speedy11@aol.com)
15. 06:30 PM - Re: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? (Alex Peterson)
16. 06:47 PM - Re: Re: Mag Which Bus? (sportav8r@aol.com)
17. 07:51 PM - Engine cooling modifications was Re: electronics vs. mags (Charlie Kuss)
18. 07:52 PM - Re: Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your comments) (Dan Beadle)
19. 08:13 PM - Re: Engine cooling modifications was Re: electronics vs. mags metrics (Alex Peterson)
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Hey guys, wow, I can't believe all the really nice comments I've been getting about
how much you appreciate and enjoy the Lists. I really appreciate your positive
feedback and support. I've included below a bunch more of the awesome
feedback I've received in the last week or so. Please read over some of these
great comments. It is really quite amazing...
There are just a couple more days left during this year's Fund Raiser and your
chance to get one of the really great gifts. If you been putting off making a
Contribution, now's your chance to support these Lists *and* pinch an awesome
free gift too!
Thank you to everyone that has made a Contribution already. It is much appreciated!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
List Admininstrator
----------------------- Lister Comments -----------------------
The Archives Search Engine is usually the first place I turn
to when I run into a building question or problem I need
to resolve.
Christopher H.
I look forward so much to reading the list digest every night
that my wife thinks I'm getting obsessed.
Thomas S.
It's also the way I start my day. A cup of coffee and I'm at
my computer to read the Lists. I look forward to it. I've
learned so much.
James B.
It is the best way to stay in contact with other builders
and flyers.
Charles G.
Very good info and very interesting people.
Rodney B.
The List is a great resource for me while building.
Brice B.
Great stuff - keep it going.
Mark H.
This list is just amazing!
Reginald D.
Very grateful for he RV List.
John S.
I would have NEVER attempted to build a Piet if I had not found this List.
Rob B.
It is helpful as well as entertaining.
David P.
...invaluable to me in my decision to purchase a CJ-6.
Valerie W.
A great tool and service to the Aviation Community.
William C.
While I haven't learned enough to contribute to other very
often, I have learned enough to avoid some mistakes in
building my kit.
Cl M.
Enjoy this Zenith List. First thing upon waking.
Bob W.
These forums for builders/owners to exchange ideas
and experiences is one of the main bonds that keep
this hobby intact.
Bob R.
The Matronics list are very helpful and dependable.
John R.
Best of all, NO SPAM.
Lothar K.
Thanks for the GREAT things you do for RVs!
Reed U.
Your site's invaluable and very much appreciated.
Larry M.
Not building yet but when I do I want this site to still be
here.
Mike T.
Truly made me a better pilot and owner.
Paul P.
The list is an essential part of our lives.
Don P.
The service you provide is invaluable to me and all of the
many list members.
Brian A.
Matronics lists are the best on the Internet. Bar none!
George A.
Thanks for the work you do keeping this list clean and
productive.
Dee Y.
A great service.
Jim C.
Being close to completion of my 6A, I can credit the List
for helping me all along the way.
Jeff O.
Couldn't have done it without the LIST!
Thomas E.
Your list has been very helpful and informative during
[the building] process.
Gary S.
Keeps us informed and safer.
Cedric S.
Another outstanding year of service.
Terry W.
The List is great!
Brett H.
Great home building resources.
Charles K.
I am glad you are there.
Michael L.
The List has been an invaluable assist in the building
process. I can't imagine not having it.
Arthur L.
Invaluable service!
Ford F.
I have enjoyed the many views and ideas (and wit) of the
contributions over the years...
Noel G.
I have found the list to contain many informative items
from real life experience.
Walt M.
A great service and resource for the experimental aircraft
community.
Christopher H.
A great list for a great little airplane!
Graham H.
I have learned a lot just by reading other's posts.
Thomas B.
Very helpful!
Ken L.
The list is great!
Kevin B.
I have learned a great deal from the postings to your Lists.
Bob S.
Good info and good people!!!
Jerry B.
A great resource.
Sal C.
I've "met" some great people here and have been helped a lot.
Tommy W.
These Lists are my main resource and means of communicating
with other builders.
Brian A.
I use the List everyday! I'd feel guilty all year if I
didn't contribute.
Brian U.
It has helped me be a better builder and put me in touch with
some real fine people.
Bruce B.
A great list!!!
Rupert T.
...invaluable help to many builders.
Jonathan R.
Great list, I'm still trying to decide, and the List
provides great information.
Maarten V.
Your web sites provide me with an important connection to
invaluable technical resources plus feedback and motivation
to continue the build process.
Douglas D.
A great resource and contribution to safety.
Donald K.
A great service.
Richard R.
It has been a source for a lot of useful information
over the many years I have been on the list.
Jerry S.
I really enjoy the positive spirit and exchange via your
List.
Richard R.
The List has been a great help on several occasions...
Harry C.
Great List!
Reginald D.
The knowledge and support that I have received from your members
was worth more that my contribution.
Valerie W.
It has also been a source of great entertainment at times.
Jerry S.
...always a source of amusement.
Harry C.
I'm still under construction and the list has helped me
avoid many problems.
Rupert T.
----------------------- Lister Comments -----------------------
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
do not archive
Message 2
| 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: electronics vs. mags metrics |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:47 PM 11/28/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
><alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
>SNIP
> > Electronic ignition systems will not pay for themselves by fuel
> > savings for all but a very few individuals who spend hundreds of
> > hours per year in high-altitude cruise. For the rest of us, COST
> > OF PLUGS is the big motivator with improved cranking performance
> > running a distant second.
> >
>SNIP
> > Bob . . .
>
>
>Bob, quite a few RV's around MN have one or two EI's installed, and our
>consensus is that they do indeed pay for themselves quite rapidly, even in
>sport flying. Having an advanced, higher intensity spark allows one to run
>leaner at low power settings (or, equivalently, at high altitude). When
>flying side by side with similar engine and airframes, it is not unusual at
>all to see the mag'd plane burning 8.5 to 9.0 gph, while the one running
>next to it with EI only 7.0 to 7.5. The savings is typically about $4/hour
>at $3/gallon. Obviously not all side by side comparisons will yield the
>same result, but we do these comparisons regularly. Many RVer's run at MP's
>of only 22 or 23 inHg, which also amplifies the differences. I cruise at
>155 to 165 ktas between 4 and 10k feet, burning around 7.1 to 7.4 gph. I
>have FI also, but tests have shown that most of the gain is with the
>ignition system. Non EI'd RV's typically are in the 9gph range for these
>speeds (the -4's are slightly faster).
The only DATA I've been working with came from an engine
guru at GM who was building a Longez and got permission to
run his O-235 in a test cell at GM. He installed one of
Lightspeed's ignition systems for comparison with mags and
he also did a lot of work comparing various carburetors.
This work was done about 15 years ago and he reported 5-7%
savings in fuel for the same horsepower output at altitude.
He reported no significant advantages at low altitudes
since the spark advance was minimal at high manifold
pressures and the increased spark energy didn't produce
measurable improvements over fresh plugs on a mag.
I've lost track of him. I'd really like to know if and
how any further tests turned out. Obviously, if one can achieve
practical operation of an engine with a savings of 1.5 gallons
out of 9, then my assertions based on earlier data are
wrong. It would be really cool if a group of you could
record some results for a controlled experiment and
publish your findings. I'd be pleased to post it on
aeroelectric.com.
Mr. Braly, are you listening in? Do you have any metrics
on the mags vs. electronics in a controlled experiment.
Hmmmm . . . wonder if the CAFE folks have studied this.
They're the most likely to have instrumented systems in
ways that could provide data. I'll poke around on their
website . . .
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Just a reminder-- Google "Ipod altitude".
The Ipod uses a little teeny hard-drive that depends on a cushion of air to ride
above the disk. At altitudes above 10,000 feet the head and disk...well you
get the idea.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Hey, it ain'tt rocket surgery!"
--anonymous
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: electronics vs. mags metrics |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> It would be really cool if a group of you could
> record some results for a controlled experiment and
> publish your findings. I'd be pleased to post it on
> aeroelectric.com.
>
Bob, I have done some very basic work posted here:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/fuelflow.htm
I really need to update it, as it is somewhat understating the benefit of
EI, partly because I ignored the fact that the engine ran rough with the
magnetos whenever lean of peak, while the engine runs smooth down to
significant power loss on the lean side with the EI on. So, for the roughly
.5gph savings that the above site presents, one would have to run the mag'd
engine right at peak egt to be at that savings. In an RV, this will run the
engine in my plane at cht's of around 400 in the summer, someplace I don't
want to regularly run. I now have better egt and cht instrumentation than I
did when that data was collected, so I need to repeat the tests. However,
this time I will run the data further to the rich side of things.
All that being said, in the real world when a gaggle of us is flying
somewhere side by side, the typical difference is around 1.0 to 1.5 gph.
This is well established. However, the question might be whether or not the
higher burn rates are the result of incorrect mixture management.
The best articles that I know of about engine management are by John Deakin,
and can be found by digging through Avweb.com. They focus on FI engines,
but are of value to carb'd engines as well.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 694 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: | P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Alex,
Re you comparing the same mixture regime for both the mag and EI
equipped airplane?
I.e, if the Mag airplanes are running rich of peak (ROP) and the EI's
are running lean of Peak (LOP) then that would explain the substantial
difference.
Now if you are saying having a mag makes it hard to run LOP then that
would justify your position but the gains you talk of seem "impressive"
if it is purely due to the ignition system.
Can you shed more light here?
Thanks
Frank
Rv7a Emag/Pmag, working on cowl.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex
Peterson
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
--> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
SNIP
> Electronic ignition systems will not pay for themselves by fuel
> savings for all but a very few individuals who spend hundreds of
> hours per year in high-altitude cruise. For the rest of us, COST
> OF PLUGS is the big motivator with improved cranking performance
> running a distant second.
>
SNIP
> Bob . . .
Bob, quite a few RV's around MN have one or two EI's installed, and our
consensus is that they do indeed pay for themselves quite rapidly, even
in sport flying. Having an advanced, higher intensity spark allows one
to run leaner at low power settings (or, equivalently, at high
altitude). When flying side by side with similar engine and airframes,
it is not unusual at all to see the mag'd plane burning 8.5 to 9.0 gph,
while the one running next to it with EI only 7.0 to 7.5. The savings
is typically about $4/hour at $3/gallon. Obviously not all side by side
comparisons will yield the same result, but we do these comparisons
regularly. Many RVer's run at MP's of only 22 or 23 inHg, which also
amplifies the differences. I cruise at
155 to 165 ktas between 4 and 10k feet, burning around 7.1 to 7.4 gph.
I have FI also, but tests have shown that most of the gain is with the
ignition system. Non EI'd RV's typically are in the 9gph range for
these speeds (the -4's are slightly faster).
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 694 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: RE: electronics vs. mags metrics |
version=3.0.3
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Huft <aflyer@lazy8.net>
Go to
http://www.cafefoundation.org/research.htm
and look at Ignition Dynamics I, II, and III
John
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 06:47 PM 11/28/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
>><alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>>
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>> Electronic ignition systems will not pay for themselves by fuel
>>> savings for all but a very few individuals who spend hundreds of
>>> hours per year in high-altitude cruise. For the rest of us, COST
>>> OF PLUGS is the big motivator with improved cranking performance
>>> running a distant second.
>>>
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>Bob, quite a few RV's around MN have one or two EI's installed, and our
>>consensus is that they do indeed pay for themselves quite rapidly, even in
>>sport flying. Having an advanced, higher intensity spark allows one to run
>>leaner at low power settings (or, equivalently, at high altitude). When
>>flying side by side with similar engine and airframes, it is not unusual at
>>all to see the mag'd plane burning 8.5 to 9.0 gph, while the one running
>>next to it with EI only 7.0 to 7.5. The savings is typically about $4/hour
>>at $3/gallon. Obviously not all side by side comparisons will yield the
>>same result, but we do these comparisons regularly. Many RVer's run at MP's
>>of only 22 or 23 inHg, which also amplifies the differences. I cruise at
>>155 to 165 ktas between 4 and 10k feet, burning around 7.1 to 7.4 gph. I
>>have FI also, but tests have shown that most of the gain is with the
>>ignition system. Non EI'd RV's typically are in the 9gph range for these
>>speeds (the -4's are slightly faster).
>
>
> The only DATA I've been working with came from an engine
> guru at GM who was building a Longez and got permission to
> run his O-235 in a test cell at GM. He installed one of
> Lightspeed's ignition systems for comparison with mags and
> he also did a lot of work comparing various carburetors.
>
> This work was done about 15 years ago and he reported 5-7%
> savings in fuel for the same horsepower output at altitude.
> He reported no significant advantages at low altitudes
> since the spark advance was minimal at high manifold
> pressures and the increased spark energy didn't produce
> measurable improvements over fresh plugs on a mag.
>
> I've lost track of him. I'd really like to know if and
> how any further tests turned out. Obviously, if one can achieve
> practical operation of an engine with a savings of 1.5 gallons
> out of 9, then my assertions based on earlier data are
> wrong. It would be really cool if a group of you could
> record some results for a controlled experiment and
> publish your findings. I'd be pleased to post it on
> aeroelectric.com.
>
> Mr. Braly, are you listening in? Do you have any metrics
> on the mags vs. electronics in a controlled experiment.
> Hmmmm . . . wonder if the CAFE folks have studied this.
> They're the most likely to have instrumented systems in
> ways that could provide data. I'll poke around on their
> website . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski@gmail.com>
Note that this is correct, but only applies to hard-disk based IPods
(classic, photo, video). The solid-state IPods are of course not affected
by altitude (Mini, Nano, Shuffle).
Mark Supinski
On 11/29/05, Eric M. Jones <emjones@charter.net> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <
> emjones@charter.net>
>
> Just a reminder-- Google "Ipod altitude".
>
> The Ipod uses a little teeny hard-drive that depends on a cushion of air
> to ride above the disk. At altitudes above 10,000 feet the head and
> disk...well you get the idea.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
>
> "Hey, it ain'tt rocket surgery!"
> --anonymous
>
>
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: electronics vs. mags metrics |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Think you answered my question Alex..:)
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex
Peterson
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: electronics vs. mags metrics
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
--> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> It would be really cool if a group of you could
> record some results for a controlled experiment and
> publish your findings. I'd be pleased to post it on
> aeroelectric.com.
>
Bob, I have done some very basic work posted here:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/fuelflow.htm
I really need to update it, as it is somewhat understating the benefit
of EI, partly because I ignored the fact that the engine ran rough with
the magnetos whenever lean of peak, while the engine runs smooth down to
significant power loss on the lean side with the EI on. So, for the
roughly .5gph savings that the above site presents, one would have to
run the mag'd engine right at peak egt to be at that savings. In an RV,
this will run the engine in my plane at cht's of around 400 in the
summer, someplace I don't want to regularly run. I now have better egt
and cht instrumentation than I did when that data was collected, so I
need to repeat the tests. However, this time I will run the data
further to the rich side of things.
All that being said, in the real world when a gaggle of us is flying
somewhere side by side, the typical difference is around 1.0 to 1.5 gph.
This is well established. However, the question might be whether or not
the higher burn rates are the result of incorrect mixture management.
The best articles that I know of about engine management are by John
Deakin, and can be found by digging through Avweb.com. They focus on FI
engines, but are of value to carb'd engines as well.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 694 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
To compare side-by-side fuel burns, mixture settings would have to be
identical. For example, the ideal comparison would be to run two planes, one
with non-EI and the other with dual or single EI AND BOTH having
multi-cylinder EGT/CHT instrumentation. Then both planes are set at
identical ROP or if both have GAMI's, LOP settings. Both would of course
have to be FI, since carburetor engines are extremely difficult to run LOP.
Then if one sees better mileage on the EI plane (this is instantly
observable since JPI and other multicyclinder instrumentation has a mileage
readout), and this experiment is repeatable (VERY IMPORTANT) in other like
planes, it will be much more conclusive.
Just my $0.02.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp"
> <rsipp@earthlink.net>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus?
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
>> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>>
>>
>> SNIP
>>> Electronic ignition systems will not pay for themselves by fuel
>>> savings for all but a very few individuals who spend hundreds of
>>> hours per year in high-altitude cruise. For the rest of us, COST
>>> OF PLUGS is the big motivator with improved cranking performance
>>> running a distant second.
>>>
>> SNIP
>>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>> Bob, quite a few RV's around MN have one or two EI's installed, and our
>> consensus is that they do indeed pay for themselves quite rapidly, even
>> in
>> sport flying. Having an advanced, higher intensity spark allows one to
>> run
>> leaner at low power settings (or, equivalently, at high altitude). When
>> flying side by side with similar engine and airframes, it is not unusual
>> at
>> all to see the mag'd plane burning 8.5 to 9.0 gph, while the one running
>> next to it with EI only 7.0 to 7.5. The savings is typically about
>> $4/hour
>> at $3/gallon. Obviously not all side by side comparisons will yield the
>> same result, but we do these comparisons regularly. Many RVer's run at
>> MP's
>> of only 22 or 23 inHg, which also amplifies the differences. I cruise at
>> 155 to 165 ktas between 4 and 10k feet, burning around 7.1 to 7.4 gph. I
>> have FI also, but tests have shown that most of the gain is with the
>> ignition system. Non EI'd RV's typically are in the 9gph range for these
>> speeds (the -4's are slightly faster).
>>
>> Alex Peterson
>> RV6-A N66AP 694 hours
>> Maple Grove, MN
>>
>>Bob:
>
> I'll second Alex's data. My 4 has 9.0 to 1 compression/carb/CS prop and
> my
> cruise fuel numbers are slightly better than Alex reports at 6.8 to 7.2
> GPH
> at cruise above 7000. Flying in large formations of RVs I always buy less
> fuel than the others (granted several of them are heavier bigger models).
> I
> maintain the groups speed usually about 150-160 KTAS at approx 2250 RPM
> and
> 23-24 inches MP.
>
> Another important factor to me is the engine's smoothness, and reliable
> starting.
>
> Best regards
>
> Dick Sipp
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
One note, this is only true of the original 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 60G
Ipods and derivatives. The Nano, the Mini, the Shuffle, etc all use solid
state memory and shouldn't have this problem.
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IPod Grinch
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> <emjones@charter.net>
>
> Just a reminder-- Google "Ipod altitude".
>
> The Ipod uses a little teeny hard-drive that depends on a cushion of air
> to ride above the disk. At altitudes above 10,000 feet the head and
> disk...well you get the idea.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
>
> "Hey, it ain'tt rocket surgery!"
> --anonymous
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "SteinAir, Inc." <stein@steinair.com>
Correct...except that those of us "true IPOD" nuts have the flash memory
solid state (no hard drive) IPOD's such as the Nano or Shuffle which do
fine. The original and large IPOD's do however use the mini hard drives, so
just keep it in mind.
Cheers,
Stein.
do not archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Eric
> M. Jones
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 7:31 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IPod Grinch
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> <emjones@charter.net>
>
> Just a reminder-- Google "Ipod altitude".
>
> The Ipod uses a little teeny hard-drive that depends on a cushion
> of air to ride above the disk. At altitudes above 10,000 feet the
> head and disk...well you get the idea.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
>
> "Hey, it ain'tt rocket surgery!"
> --anonymous
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Bellanca starter debugging - Hot frame tubes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: William Morgan <wmorgan31@netzero.net>
Hello Russell,
I saw this same problem once on a motorcycle (Hot frame tube at
ground point, hard starting).
It turned out to be SEVERE internal corrosion of the frame tubes
discovered when the frame tube failed. The frame broke at the hot
spot and examination showed almost no metal and mostly all rust. It
turned out that the entire frame was rusting.
Scott
--
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
But they have a version that is 512 or 1 gb, that is solid state memory,
plugs into the USB post and is about the size of a pack of gum.
Sounds great and uses very little power and can hold 120 songs, and 240
for the larger one
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
M. Jones
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IPod Grinch
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
Just a reminder-- Google "Ipod altitude".
The Ipod uses a little teeny hard-drive that depends on a cushion of air
to ride above the disk. At altitudes above 10,000 feet the head and
disk...well you get the idea.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Hey, it ain'tt rocket surgery!"
--anonymous
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: Mag Which Bus? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Yup. We all understand and agree.
For Stormy, the question again is, "On battery power only, you must keep your
RPM above 1000 for landing or the engine is dead?" 990 RPM sounds low to me.
I'd ask the manufacturer about it.
Stan Sutterfield
In a message dated 11/29/05 2:58:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>Interesting. I have dual Pmags, and neither one will self-power reliably
>below
>990 rpm.
>
>
>Stormy,
>So, if you lose electrical power except for battery, then you have to ensure
>your RPM doesn't drop below 1000 when landing?
If you're running e-mags, they MUST be powered by the
ship's electrical system at all times. I recommend powering
from the always-hot, battery bus. IF you believe in assertive
preventative maintenance of the ship's battery, likelihood
of loss of ignition system power is exceedingly small (meaning
won't happen in this century).
If you run p-mags, there are dual sources of power for each
ignition system. Ship's battery -AND- a built in PM alternator
that supports the ignition system at all RPM's above some
published value. This means that dual p-mags enjoy the same
levels of redundancy as the certified Laser ignition system.
There's been some discussion recently about "reliability"
which correctly cites the case where installing two identical
systems offers TWICE the probability of failure for ignition
systems on board . . . of course, what we're REALLY interested
in is probability of losing too many essential components of
the ignition system(s) during any single flight (one tank
of gas).
Obviously, ADDing redundancy increases cost of ownership
and probability of increased maintenance activity. On the
other hand, having say FIVE independent ignition systems
offers no practical increase in flight safety and unnecessarily
burdens both the design and maintenance persons.
Dual e-mags offers the same or better suite of features
as ANY of the popular electronic ignition systems on the
market. Dual p-mags offers the same or better suit
of features as the certified LASAR system. There are
lots of folks flying with varied combinations of mags/
electronic+mags/all-electronic variants and each owner
operator is willing to expound at length on the rationale
for his/her decision.
Bottom line is that when I walk up to a certified rental,
concerns for reliability of that machine's ignition
systems is the furthest thing from my mind. Do what makes
sense to your pocketbook and space/weight budget for
your project. The debate on suitability of one configuration
over another will go on for decades, you need to finish
your airplane SOONER.
Bob . . .
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: | P-Mag minimum speed was P-Mag Which Bus? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet"
> --> <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>
> To compare side-by-side fuel burns, mixture settings would
> have to be identical. For example, the ideal comparison would
> be to run two planes, one with non-EI and the other with dual
> or single EI AND BOTH having multi-cylinder EGT/CHT
> instrumentation. Then both planes are set at identical ROP or
> if both have GAMI's, LOP settings. Both would of course have
> to be FI, since carburetor engines are extremely difficult to run LOP.
> Then if one sees better mileage on the EI plane (this is
> instantly observable since JPI and other multicyclinder
> instrumentation has a mileage readout), and this experiment
> is repeatable (VERY IMPORTANT) in other like planes, it will
> be much more conclusive.
> Just my $0.02.
> Wayne
With the same airspeed, my airplane will burn .5 gph less than my same plane
with the EI (Lasar) turned off. (A Lasar equipped plane is the only one
which can run conventional mags and EI in the same flight.) So, if you
could run your particular mag'd engine at 50F lean of peak, the savings
going to EI would only be about .5gph. But, there is more to it as I've
already explained.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 694 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: Mag Which Bus? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
This would seem to be the case for me- if both P mags were to be taken off the
ship's battery bus, or said bus were to drop below about 8 volts or so, then the
engine must me kept turning above 990 rpm to avoid complete loss of spark.
In practice, this rpm is very easy to maintain in landing regime, so it's more
something to know about than to worry about.
I'm not sure if both mags have the same dropout rpm, because my GRT EIS rpm indication
goes nuts (double) when I switch the P-mag which is sending the tach signal
off of bus power. No such effect when I switch the other P-mag to internal
power, however. Mysterious. I'll try to post an update on the particulars.
Every P-mag operator should determine this critical self-powering rpm limit
for themselves.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Speedy11@aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mag Which Bus?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Yup. We all understand and agree.
For Stormy, the question again is, "On battery power only, you must keep your
RPM above 1000 for landing or the engine is dead?" 990 RPM sounds low to me.
I'd ask the manufacturer about it.
Stan Sutterfield
In a message dated 11/29/05 2:58:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>Interesting. I have dual Pmags, and neither one will self-power reliably
>below
>990 rpm.
>
>
>Stormy,
>So, if you lose electrical power except for battery, then you have to ensure
>your RPM doesn't drop below 1000 when landing?
If you're running e-mags, they MUST be powered by the
ship's electrical system at all times. I recommend powering
from the always-hot, battery bus. IF you believe in assertive
preventative maintenance of the ship's battery, likelihood
of loss of ignition system power is exceedingly small (meaning
won't happen in this century).
If you run p-mags, there are dual sources of power for each
ignition system. Ship's battery -AND- a built in PM alternator
that supports the ignition system at all RPM's above some
published value. This means that dual p-mags enjoy the same
levels of redundancy as the certified Laser ignition system.
There's been some discussion recently about "reliability"
which correctly cites the case where installing two identical
systems offers TWICE the probability of failure for ignition
systems on board . . . of course, what we're REALLY interested
in is probability of losing too many essential components of
the ignition system(s) during any single flight (one tank
of gas).
Obviously, ADDing redundancy increases cost of ownership
and probability of increased maintenance activity. On the
other hand, having say FIVE independent ignition systems
offers no practical increase in flight safety and unnecessarily
burdens both the design and maintenance persons.
Dual e-mags offers the same or better suite of features
as ANY of the popular electronic ignition systems on the
market. Dual p-mags offers the same or better suit
of features as the certified LASAR system. There are
lots of folks flying with varied combinations of mags/
electronic+mags/all-electronic variants and each owner
operator is willing to expound at length on the rationale
for his/her decision.
Bottom line is that when I walk up to a certified rental,
concerns for reliability of that machine's ignition
systems is the furthest thing from my mind. Do what makes
sense to your pocketbook and space/weight budget for
your project. The debate on suitability of one configuration
over another will go on for decades, you need to finish
your airplane SOONER.
Bob . . .
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: | Engine cooling modifications was RE: electronics vs. |
mags
metrics
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> metrics
>Alex,
Thanks for the fuel flow charts. I noticed while browsing your site, that
you have tried to fair in the lumps and bumps at the rear of your engine
compartment. I hope to do the same on my 8A project. Could you email me
higher resolution photos of the mods you've made? Have you noticed any
improvement in drag or engine cooling as a result?
Charlie Kuss
>Bob, I have done some very basic work posted here:
>
>http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/fuelflow.htm
>
>I really need to update it, as it is somewhat understating the benefit of
>EI, partly because I ignored the fact that the engine ran rough with the
snipped
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your |
comments)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
I like light. But I like safe. I think I will go with a starter
contactor with the big fuse down stream (a starter system failure cannot
take out the avionics). Then with a solid state relay for the remaining
systems. The SSR has very low hold current (will under a watt) and
still lets me isolate the battery in the event of a short in flight.
(Probably dual batteries, dual SSRs - one for critical bus, one for
other). At only a few ounces the SSR is as light as a mechanical switch
sized for the load. So my system gives more isolation and weighs in
within of a compromised system.
And yes, I plan to fly high, IFR and Night IFR in my plane. I will
revert to my C414 for serious weather flying and night over the
mountains flights. All of these mission parameters lead to a more robust
system. But for a day sport plane (like intensive aerobatics), I might
ignore some of these design features.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for
your comments)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Dan and Jerry:
Good points:
>From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.inclinesoftworks.com>
>Dan wrote: "It seems that during service, the starter lead is an
issue - drop a
wrench against it and ground and you probably fry something."
Good point I am a big believer in protecting every thing from
inadvertent grounding. I don't like seeing big connections and battery
terminals exposed. With the traditional relay many builders leave the
studs wide open. I think this issue can be resolved by protecting
exposed connections. This is more an issue during maintenance than in
flight, but good point. As far as it taking the whole system down,
Looking at the ANL fuse it has a delay. You could use the faster acting
ANN fuse or reduce the amp rating for faster fusing. The standard SkyTec
is about 260-280 amps MAX peak. The wire wound starters are down around
200 amps. Any way you vote for the starter contactor added back. It
sounds like BIG -OLD master is something you might be willing to leave
off?
Jerry: From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Jerry wrote:
"How about one manual contactor to supply the starter feed. Once
the engine
is running turn off (open) the manual contactor. The hot side of
the manual
contactor can feed a circuit to a small relay for the battery
buss"
Actually based on Eric's suggestion I added an emergency shut off and
posted it. It is a manual switch which can cut off everything, like you
are talking about. The difference is it's only activated in an
emergency. I can see your idea. To start you engage the manual switch
(assume fire wall mounted and push/pull activated), start the engine and
than turn off power to the starter, than go fly. Interesting idea. I
guess if I was going to worry about the #2 wire, I would add the
electric master back into the wiring.
For me personally I am not worried about the starter wire grounding. I
think the fuse will provide an acceptable level of safety. If I was not
happy with a fused HOT #2 starter wire.
These are all great ideas. The philosophy is for a lighter, simpler
system that maintains a high level of safety and function. The standard
wiring scheme Bob's shows in aero connection, using firewall
master/starter contactors are very good, reliable and safe. However the
above idea should be as reliable or even more reliable, while having a
small weight, simplicity and efficiency advantage. The cons are......
** I think the BIG or KEY HANG UPS I am hearing are two fold:**
Worry about an after crash fire started by sparks from the long
starter wire.
Worry about an in-flight short of the #2 awg starter wire taking the
system.
The first issue, my rationalization is the only part of the system to
be HOT in a crash (provided the pilot turned the master off) is the
starter cable. So if it shorts, the fuse blows in 0.10 seconds to 1
second. What will catch on fire? Well fuel is the biggest worry to me.
As long as you turned the fuel off and aux pump the chance is small for
the spark to catch anything on fire, as long as the fuel tanks are not
compromised. Fire is not a ZERO probability with any plane or wiring.
The solution is the emergency cut off Eric suggest. This is like Jerry's
suggestion, but Eric's suggestion is to have a cut off only for
emergencies. A firewall electric shut off may be better than a standard
wiring scheme from potential spark making.
Second: Will an in-flight partial or full short take the whole
electrical system down. Clearly it will be like starting the engine with
the avionics on. The voltage will draw down to X value (8 volts?) for a
period of time until the fuse blows. A dead short with a #2 will get
your attention. My guess is it could be like turning everything off for
an instant. I guess the worst case is an intermittent short, less than
the rated fuse value, playing havoc with the radios. Worse is if you
have EFI or EI depended engine. That is why you would have to secure and
protect that big fat wire to assure that it can't happen (at least 10 to
the 99 power chance).
My thinking about "Electrics Light" has evolved. I think is makes
sense and is most suitable for day/night VFR, with engines not electric
dependent. If you are IFR with all electric flight instruments or have
an electrical dependendant engine, the greater electrical dependency
calls for more "ISOLATION" and redundancy clearly. However I think with
careful routing and securing of the #2 awg starter cable (conduit) away
from fuel (on a Lyc around front down the right side), the risk is
reduce, and post crash or in-flight failure risks are very very
unlikely. That is why we use the good wires, right.
Keep those comments coming. I am learning a lot. I see the trade offs
more clearly. It is also clear this is not a slam dunk either way.
Regards George
---------------------------------
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: | Engine cooling modifications was RE: electronics |
vs. mags metrics
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
> >Alex,
>
> Thanks for the fuel flow charts. I noticed while browsing
> your site, that you have tried to fair in the lumps and bumps
> at the rear of your engine compartment. I hope to do the same
> on my 8A project. Could you email me higher resolution photos
> of the mods you've made? Have you noticed any improvement in
> drag or engine cooling as a result?
> Charlie Kuss
Charlie, I do not believe there would be any measurable speed improvements,
and any cooling improvements are hard to pin on any one thing, since truly
comparing CHT's from one flight to another is almost impossible. I only
have the firewall to belly fairing ala RV8 remaining, as I was too lazy to
put the nosegear socket fairing back on after some maintenance.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 694 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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! --
|