Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:20 AM - Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... (Matt Dralle)
1. 12:49 AM - Crossflow Subaru Engine (caldwell)
2. 03:50 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet))
3. 04:19 AM - Re: COM-ELT INTERFERENCE (h&jeuropa)
4. 04:33 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
5. 04:38 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (jay@horriblehyde.com)
6. 04:42 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (jay@horriblehyde.com)
7. 05:31 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet))
8. 05:55 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (jay@horriblehyde.com)
9. 06:12 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Kelly McMullen)
10. 06:13 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (n801bh@netzero.com)
11. 06:29 AM - APRS for aircraft? (Lincoln Keill)
12. 07:06 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 07:25 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (James Robinson)
14. 07:35 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (n801bh@netzero.com)
15. 07:43 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Jeffery J. Morgan)
16. 07:43 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (jon@finleyweb.net)
17. 07:55 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Ernest Christley)
18. 08:01 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Joe Dubner)
19. 08:03 AM - Alternative engines and vendors (Long) Was: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Ed Anderson)
20. 08:12 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
21. 08:16 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Vernon Little)
22. 08:32 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Brett Ferrell)
23. 08:41 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Ernest Christley)
24. 08:54 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 08:59 AM - Alternative engines and vendors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 09:01 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Ralph Finch)
27. 09:22 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Ernest Christley)
28. 10:12 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (jon@finleyweb.net)
29. 10:34 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Joe Dubner)
30. 11:38 AM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Ernest Christley)
31. 11:50 AM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Ernest Christley)
32. 12:16 PM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Kelly McMullen)
33. 12:43 PM - Re: Alternative engines and vendors (n801bh@netzero.com)
34. 02:32 PM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Dale Rogers)
35. 02:57 PM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (rampil)
36. 03:29 PM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Ed Holyoke)
37. 03:41 PM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Ernest Christley)
38. 03:49 PM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Ernest Christley)
39. 04:11 PM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (raymondj)
40. 06:03 PM - Re: APRS for aircraft? (Dj Merrill)
41. 06:26 PM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Richard Tasker)
42. 06:33 PM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Dj Merrill)
43. 08:12 PM - Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 0
| 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: | Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... |
Dear Listers,
Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution
today to support the continued operation and upgrade of
these great List services!! Pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying
Contribution too!
The Contribution Site is fast and easy:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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: | Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Jorge...
I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my Zenith
CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is connected. For
the last three weeks I have attempted to start the engine. It was apparent
the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I was assured by your Sales
Manager the engine had been run before it left your factory.
In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this time we
had done a complete continuity check on all of the circuits checking for
good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was confident all of the
connections were good and this proved to be the case. We checked all of the
voltages and they were acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU to look for
any evidence of damage. We found none, but we did discover the manufacturer
of the ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of the software.
We accessed their site and downloaded their software and manual. I have
been saying we and the we is myself and my son Michael. He is well versed
in software as am I. We have worked with Leading Edge ECUs and
Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the forum and found a person in Norway
who had had similar troubles as we did with an engine. DTA pointed out that
if there is not a clear Crank Position signal, the ECU will not fire the
injectors or the plugs.
We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick up
as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and in such
cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain. You had.
Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an Electrical Engineer
by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the drain. This causes
circulating currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you had
grounded both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine started.
DTA also states that one should not put the coils in parallel for wasted
spark applications as this can blow out the coil drivers. Their
installation instructions are to put the two coils in series.
To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design and
manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the proper
design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions from the
DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil driver to blow
at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not been run prior to
shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine any more
than I could.
I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues and
immediately issue corrective instructions.
Jay Caldwell
Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
San Diego, CA 92122
caldwell@mswin.net
Voice 858-453-4594
Facsimile 858-452-1560
Mobile 858-336-0394
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like
you use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwell
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge...
I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my Zenith
CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is connected.
For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the engine. It was
apparent the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I was assured by
your Sales Manager the engine had been run before it left your factory.
In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this time
we had done a complete continuity check on all of the circuits checking
for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was confident all of
the connections were good and this proved to be the case. We checked
all of the voltages and they were acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU
to look for any evidence of damage. We found none, but we did discover
the manufacturer of the ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver
3.0 of the software. We accessed their site and downloaded their
software and manual. I have been saying we and the we is myself and my
son Michael. He is well versed in software as am I. We have worked
with Leading Edge ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the
forum and found a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we
did with an engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank
Position signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs.
We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick
up as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and
in such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain.
You had. Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an
Electrical Engineer by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the
drain. This causes circulating currents and will induce no end of
noise. I found you had grounded both ends of the shield on the crank
sensor signal line. We clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and
behold the engine started. DTA also states that one should not put the
coils in parallel for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the
coil drivers. Their installation instructions are to put the two coils
in series.
To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design
and manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the
proper design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions
from the DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil
driver to blow at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not
been run prior to shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start
the engine any more than I could.
I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues and
immediately issue corrective instructions.
Jay Caldwell
Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
San Diego, CA 92122
caldwell@mswin.net
Voice 858-453-4594
Facsimile 858-452-1560
Mobile 858-336-0394
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: COM-ELT INTERFERENCE |
Bill,
We had a similar problem in our composite Europa. We solved it by shielding.
Changed the cable from the remote to the ELT to a shielded cable and grounded
the shield at the remote end to the common ground point for the aircraft. Also
wrapped the ELT in aluminum foil and mechanically connected the ground in the
shielded cable to the foil. Cured the problem!
Jim & Heather Butcher
N241BW Europa XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212006#212006
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: | Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Dear Eric, A Professional Systems Engineer can see the great advantage
of
efficiency and proven reliability designed into the newer automotive
engines, as opposed to the antiquated 1930's and 40's designs of the,
not so
modern, certified aviation engine.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Tiethoff (HCCNet)
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like
you
use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwell <mailto:caldwell@mswin.net>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge...
I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my Zenith
CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is connected.
For
the last three weeks I have attempted to start the engine. It was
apparent
the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I was assured by your
Sales
Manager the engine had been run before it left your factory.
In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this time
we
had done a complete continuity check on all of the circuits checking for
good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was confident all of the
connections were good and this proved to be the case. We checked all of
the
voltages and they were acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU to look
for
any evidence of damage. We found none, but we did discover the
manufacturer
of the ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of the
software.
We accessed their site and downloaded their software and manual. I have
been saying we and the we is myself and my son Michael. He is well
versed
in software as am I. We have worked with Leading Edge ECUs and
Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the forum and found a person in
Norway
who had had similar troubles as we did with an engine. DTA pointed out
that
if there is not a clear Crank Position signal, the ECU will not fire the
injectors or the plugs.
We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick
up
as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and in
such
cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain. You had.
Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an Electrical
Engineer
by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the drain. This causes
circulating currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you had
grounded both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine
started.
DTA also states that one should not put the coils in parallel for wasted
spark applications as this can blow out the coil drivers. Their
installation instructions are to put the two coils in series.
To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design
and
manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the proper
design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions from
the
DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil driver to
blow
at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not been run prior
to
shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine any
more
than I could.
I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues and
immediately issue corrective instructions.
Jay Caldwell
Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
San Diego, CA 92122
caldwell@mswin.net
Voice 858-453-4594
Facsimile 858-452-1560
Mobile 858-336-0394
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matroni
cs.
com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Dear other Jay ;-) I too am using the Subaru engine- there are some
problems with the application of these in aircrft, but there are also
good reasons to use well proven, fantastically engineered engines that
have been perfected in automotive applications, where these engines have
benfited from HUNDEREDS OF THOUSANDS of hours of testing and are used
globally in a very demanding and compeditive market. A small example,
automotive spark plugs are warranted for 100,000 miles of use, and cost
almost nothing (but are amongst the best engineered bits in the vehicle)
- where do you get that in an aircraft? The economies of scale simply
means that automotive engines are vastly more well researched and
produced than aero engines- and for a fraction of the cost because of
these economies of scale. We just have to figure out how the heck to best
apply all of those advantages to our applications. I have also been
having some problems with Crossflow, and I am being patient because these
guys simply do not have the market that allows them the luxury of large
R&D budgets. I hope that these engines are successful and that Crossflow
addresses these problems quickly... I am somewhat concerned about the
post here though...
Jay from South Africa...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:44:54 +0100
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like you
use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwellSent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AMTo: 'jorge alonso'Subj
ect:
AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge... I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in
my Zenith CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is
connected. For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the
engine. It was apparent the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I
was assured by your Sales Manager the engine had been run before it left
your factory. In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it.
By this time we had done a complete continuity check on all of the
circuits checking for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was
confident all of the connections were good and this proved to be the
case. We checked all of the voltages and they were acceptable. Finally
we opened the ECU to look for any evidence of damage. We found none, but
we did discover the manufacturer of the ECU to be DTA and the model was
the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of the software. We accessed their site and downloaded
their software and manual. I have been saying we and the we is myself
and my son Michael. He is well versed in software as am I. We have
worked with Leading Edge ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned
the forum and found a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we
did with an engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank
Position signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs. We
were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick up
as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and in
such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain. You
had. Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an Electrical
Engineer by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the drain. This
causes circulating currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you
had grounded both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine
started. DTA also states that one should not put the coils in parallel
for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the coil drivers.
Their installation instructions are to put the two coils in series. To
conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design and
manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the proper
design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions from
the DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil driver to
blow at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not been run
prior to shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine
any more than I could. I think you need to notify all of your customers
of these issues and immediately issue corrective instructions. Jay
CaldwellCaldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLCSan Diego, CA 92122caldwell@
mswin.netVoice
858-453-4594Facsimile 858-452-1560Mobile 858-336-0394
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Uh-oh; just realised that I should have addressed my response to Eric,
not 'the other Jay'
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:44:54 +0100
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like you
use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwellSent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AMTo: 'jorge alonso'Subj
ect:
AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge... I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in
my Zenith CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is
connected. For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the
engine. It was apparent the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I
was assured by your Sales Manager the engine had been run before it left
your factory. In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it.
By this time we had done a complete continuity check on all of the
circuits checking for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was
confident all of the connections were good and this proved to be the
case. We checked all of the voltages and they were acceptable. Finally
we opened the ECU to look for any evidence of damage. We found none, but
we did discover the manufacturer of the ECU to be DTA and the model was
the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of the software. We accessed their site and downloaded
their software and manual. I have been saying we and the we is myself
and my son Michael. He is well versed in software as am I. We have
worked with Leading Edge ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned
the forum and found a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we
did with an engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank
Position signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs. We
were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick up
as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and in
such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain. You
had. Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an Electrical
Engineer by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the drain. This
causes circulating currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you
had grounded both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine
started. DTA also states that one should not put the coils in parallel
for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the coil drivers.
Their installation instructions are to put the two coils in series. To
conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design and
manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the proper
design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions from
the DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil driver to
blow at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not been run
prior to shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine
any more than I could. I think you need to notify all of your customers
of these issues and immediately issue corrective instructions. Jay
CaldwellCaldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLCSan Diego, CA 92122caldwell@
mswin.netVoice
858-453-4594Facsimile 858-452-1560Mobile 858-336-0394
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Dear Jay, there are also modern aviation engines on the market. But they
are certainly not cheaper than automotive engines. They are designed for
aircraft operations. Sudden temp changes, density changes etc. With an
automotive engine you could probably taxi for 20.000 miles without any
problem. You can fill in the rest...
From: ROGER & JEAN CURTIS
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Dear Eric, A Professional Systems Engineer can see the great advantage
of efficiency and proven reliability designed into the newer automotive
engines, as opposed to the antiquated 1930's and 40's designs of the,
not so modern, certified aviation engine.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Tiethoff (HCCNet)
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like
you use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwell
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge...
I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my Zenith
CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is connected.
For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the engine. It was
apparent the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I was assured by
your Sales Manager the engine had been run before it left your factory.
In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this time
we had done a complete continuity check on all of the circuits checking
for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was confident all of
the connections were good and this proved to be the case. We checked
all of the voltages and they were acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU
to look for any evidence of damage. We found none, but we did discover
the manufacturer of the ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver
3.0 of the software. We accessed their site and downloaded their
software and manual. I have been saying we and the we is myself and my
son Michael. He is well versed in software as am I. We have worked
with Leading Edge ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the
forum and found a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we
did with an engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank
Position signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs.
We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick
up as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and
in such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain.
You had. Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an
Electrical Engineer by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the
drain. This causes circulating currents and will induce no end of
noise. I found you had grounded both ends of the shield on the crank
sensor signal line. We clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and
behold the engine started. DTA also states that one should not put the
coils in parallel for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the
coil drivers. Their installation instructions are to put the two coils
in series.
To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design
and manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the
proper design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions
from the DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil
driver to blow at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not
been run prior to shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start
the engine any more than I could.
I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues and
immediately issue corrective instructions.
Jay Caldwell
Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
San Diego, CA 92122
caldwell@mswin.net
Voice 858-453-4594
Facsimile 858-452-1560
Mobile 858-336-0394
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.
com">http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?A
eroElectric-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Ever thought about the huge thermal thermal cycles that an auto engine
has to go through? - you have to have a really well engineered product to
handle that...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:27:51 +0100
Dear Jay, there are also modern aviation engines on the market. But they
are certainly not cheaper than automotive engines. They are designed for
aircraft operations. Sudden temp changes, density changes etc. With an
automotive engine you could probably taxi for 20.000 miles without any
problem. You can fill in the rest...
From: ROGER & JEAN CURTISSent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:31 PMTo:
aeroelectric-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow
Subaru Engine
Dear Eric, A Professional Systems Engineer can see the great advantage
of efficiency and proven reliability designed into the newer automotive
engines, as opposed to the antiquated 1930=92s and 40=92s designs of the, n
ot
so modern, certified aviation engine.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Tiethoff (HCCNet)
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like you
use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwell
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge...
I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my Zenith
CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is connected.
For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the engine. It was
apparent the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I was assured by
your Sales Manager the engine had been run before it left your factory.
In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this time
we had done a complete continuity check on all of the circuits checking
for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was confident all of
the connections were good and this proved to be the case. We checked all
of the voltages and they were acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU to
look for any evidence of damage. We found none, but we did discover the
manufacturer of the ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of
the software. We accessed their site and downloaded their software and
manual. I have been saying we and the we is myself and my son Michael.
He is well versed in software as am I. We have worked with Leading Edge
ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the forum and found a
person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we did with an engine.
DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank Position signal, the
ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs.
We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick
up as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and in
such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain. You
had. Now one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an Electrical
Engineer by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the drain. This
causes circulating currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you
had grounded both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine
started. DTA also states that one should not put the coils in parallel
for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the coil drivers.
Their installation instructions are to put the two coils in series.
To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your design and
manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't understand the proper
design for signal lines and don't seem to follow the instructions from
the DTA ECU designers. It would severely disastrous for a coil driver to
blow at 12000 feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not been run
prior to shipment because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine
any more than I could.
I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues and
immediately issue corrective instructions.
Jay Caldwell
Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
San Diego, CA 92122
caldwell@mswin.net
Voice 858-453-4594
Facsimile 858-452-1560
Mobile 858-336-0394
-
-
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
-
-
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
And few automotive engines run at 75% power for more than a few seconds
at a time. The only efficiency advantage you might see in an auto engine
is in the ignition timing, which is easily corrected in aircraft engines
with electronic ignition. There is no efficiency difference between
aircraft injection systems and automotive beyond the closed loop oxygen
sensor feedback, which won't live with leaded fuel. So far, an
intelligent pilot can do a better job managing mixture than an
electronic system.
jay@horriblehyde.com wrote:
> Ever thought about the huge thermal thermal cycles that an auto engine
> has to go through? - you have to have a really well engineered product
> to handle that...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:27:51 +0100
>
> Dear Jay, there are also modern aviation engines on the market.
> But they are certainly not cheaper than automotive engines. They
> are designed for aircraft operations. Sudden temp changes, density
> changes etc. With an automotive engine you could probably taxi for
> 20.000 miles without any problem. You can fill in the rest...
>
> *From:* ROGER & JEAN CURTIS <mailto:mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2008 1:31 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
>
> */Dear Eric, A Professional Systems Engineer can see the great
> advantage of efficiency and proven reliability designed into the
> newer automotive engines, as opposed to the antiquated 1930s and
> 40s designs of the, not so modern, certified aviation engine./*
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)
> *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2008 6:45 AM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
>
> Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer
> like you use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
>
> *From:* caldwell <mailto:caldwell@mswin.net>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AM
>
> *To:* 'jorge alonso' <mailto:jorge@crossflow.com>
>
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
>
> Jorge...
>
> I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my
> Zenith CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is
> connected. For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the
> engine. It was apparent the injectors and the plugs were not
> firing. I was assured by your Sales Manager the engine had been
> run before it left your factory.
>
> In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this
> time we had done a complete continuity check on all of the
> circuits checking for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I
> was confident all of the connections were good and this proved to
> be the case. We checked all of the voltages and they were
> acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU to look for any evidence of
> damage. We found none, but we did discover the manufacturer of the
> ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of the software.
> We accessed their site and downloaded their software and manual. I
> have been saying we and the we is myself and my son Michael. He is
> well versed in software as am I. We have worked with Leading Edge
> ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the forum and found
> a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we did with an
> engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank
> Position signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs.
>
> We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance
> pick up as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage
> signal and in such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted
> pair with a drain. You had. Now one other thing that is sound
> engineering (I am an Electrical Engineer by trade) is that you
> don't ground by ends of the drain. This causes circulating
> currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you had grounded
> both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
> clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine
> started. DTA also states that one should not put the coils in
> parallel for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the
> coil drivers. Their installation instructions are to put the two
> coils in series.
>
> To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your
> design and manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't
> understand the proper design for signal lines and don't seem to
> follow the instructions from the DTA ECU designers. It would
> severely disastrous for a coil driver to blow at 12000 feet!. It
> is also apparent the engine had not been run prior to shipment
> because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine any more
> than I could.
>
> I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues
> and immediately issue corrective instructions.
>
> Jay Caldwell
>
> Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
>
> San Diego, CA 92122
>
> caldwell@mswin.net <mailto:caldwell@mswin.net>
>
> Voice 858-453-4594
>
> Facsimile 858-452-1560
>
> Mobile 858-336-0394
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> *href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *< -- Month This Lists Your Support Please >*
>
> *< FREE AWESOME Some Get (And >*
>
> **
>
> *< the is Click Raiser. Fund List Annual November>*
>
> *< more out find to below Contribution>*
>
> *< Incentive Free Terrific>*
>
> **
>
> *< Web>*
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> *< generous for you Thank>*
>
> **
>
> *< Dralle, -Matt >*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *< - Forum Email AeroElectric-List The >*
>
> *< List Navigator Features Matronics>*
>
> *< Un>*
>
> *< Chat, Browse, 7-Day Download, & Search>*
>
> *< much and Photoshare,>*
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *< - FORUMS WEB MATRONICS >*
>
> *<>*
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
> *
>
> .matronics.com/contribution
> ist">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ics.com
> *
>
>
> *
>
> *
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Because we CAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)" <j.e.tiethoff@hccnet.nl> wrote:
Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer like yo
u use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
From: caldwell Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AMTo: 'jorge alonso'
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
Jorge... I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in
my Zenith CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is c
onnected. For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the engine
. It was apparent the injectors and the plugs were not firing. I was a
ssured by your Sales Manager the engine had been run before it left your
factory. In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By
this time we had done a complete continuity check on all of the circuit
s checking for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I was confide
nt all of the connections were good and this proved to be the case. We
checked all of the voltages and they were acceptable. Finally we opened
the ECU to look for any evidence of damage. We found none, but we did
discover the manufacturer of the ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8
w/Ver 3.0 of the software. We accessed their site and downloaded their
software and manual. I have been saying we and the we is myself and my
son Michael. He is well versed in software as am I. We have worked wi
th Leading Edge ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the forum
and found a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we did wit
h an engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank Positio
n signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs. We were susp
icious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance pick up as you we
ll know. This is a high impedance, low voltage signal and in such cases
it is prudent to use shielded twisted pair with a drain. You had. Now
one other thing that is sound engineering (I am an Electrical Engineer
by trade) is that you don't ground by ends of the drain. This causes ci
rculating currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you had gro
unded both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We clipp
ed the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine started. DT
A also states that one should not put the coils in parallel for wasted s
park applications as this can blow out the coil drivers. Their installa
tion instructions are to put the two coils in series. To conclude, I am
significantly disappointed and upset at your design and manufacturing of
this engine. You obviously don't understand the proper design for sign
al lines and don't seem to follow the instructions from the DTA ECU desi
gners. It would severely disastrous for a coil driver to blow at 12000
feet!. It is also apparent the engine had not been run prior to shipmen
t because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine any more than
I could. I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issue
s and immediately issue corrective instructions. Jay CaldwellCaldwell Sy
stems Engineering (CSE), LLCSan Diego, CA 92122caldwell@mswin.netVoice 8
58-453-4594Facsimile 858-452-1560Mobile 858-336-0394 href="http://www.
matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www
.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Nav
igator?AeroElectric-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://foru
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
====================
_____________________________________________________________
Find precision scales that can weigh anything. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4tKsNIqRgINGDy4DeYm
Gh6WG08c7SSvpD93Ao9dBf9urBobn/?count=1234567890
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: | APRS for aircraft? |
Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an Automatic
Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I understand correctly,
the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which is picked up
by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so anyone can continuously
monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes down, it's a simple
matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing where the path
ends.
This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search for the ELT that
may not have survived the crash" system that I'm wondering what the downside is
and why aren't more people utilizing it? It doesn't seem to draw much power
(the author hooked it up to the power lead for his wingtip mounted LED position
lights) and I'd guess that installing a wingtip antenna that can transmit on
144.39 MHz shouldn't be too difficult. I've got an Archer nav antenna in one
wingtip and I'll certainly consider installing another antenna in the other
wingtip if I thought I could get a similar APRS system to work in my airplane.
Comments? Potential problems?
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: APRS for aircraft? |
Good Morning airlincoln,
Doesn't that sound a lot like the commercial venture called SPOT?
They sold like hot cakes at Oshkosh this year.
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 11/3/2008 8:30:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
airlincoln@sbcglobal.net writes:
Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an
Automatic Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I
understand correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which
is
picked up by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so anyone
can
continuously monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes down,
it's a simple matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing where
the path ends.
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
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: APRS for aircraft? |
This sounds a lot like SPOT
JimRobinson
Glll- N79R
--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Lincoln Keill <airlincoln@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: Lincoln Keill <airlincoln@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: APRS for aircraft?
<airlincoln@sbcglobal.net>
Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an
Automatic Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I underst
and
correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which is picke
d up
by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so anyone can
continuously monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes down,
it's a simple matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing
where the path ends.
This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search for the ELT
that may not have survived the crash" system that I'm wondering what
the downside is and why aren't more people utilizing it? It doesn't
seem to draw much power (the author hooked it up to the power lead for his
wingtip mounted LED position lights) and I'd guess that installing a wingti
p
antenna that can transmit on 144.39 MHz shouldn't be too difficult.
I've got an Archer nav antenna in one wingtip and I'll certainly
consider installing another antenna in the other wingtip if I thought I cou
ld
get a similar APRS system to work in my airplane. Comments? Potential
problems?
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Hi Kelly. I should remind you that ALOT of automotive engines spend thie
r entire life at very high power settings. Take for instance any rental
truck, Ryder, Uhaul, etc... These box trucks are underpowered and run w
ide open up and down roads and interstates day in and out, Most of us ha
ve rented one at a time in our life and we all know first hand the scene
rio. Get the truck, fill it over its weight limit, don't check the oil
or water and hit the road. Warm up ?? whats that ? Hold it wide open for
300 miles, stop, fill with fuel and repeat. Do that all day and then t
urn it in to a local dealer, they might sweep out the box and the next d
ay off it goes on another reaming, day after day, week after week. year
after year... See my point ? Don't even get me started on auto engine
s used in marine applications,,, They get the severe treatment...
Cheers and tailwinds Ben
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
.com>
And few automotive engines run at 75% power for more than a few seconds
at a time. The only efficiency advantage you might see in an auto engine
is in the ignition timing, which is easily corrected in aircraft engines
with electronic ignition. There is no efficiency difference between
aircraft injection systems and automotive beyond the closed loop oxygen
sensor feedback, which won't live with leaded fuel. So far, an
intelligent pilot can do a better job managing mixture than an
electronic system.
jay@horriblehyde.com wrote:
> Ever thought about the huge thermal thermal cycles that an auto engine
> has to go through? - you have to have a really well engineered product
> to handle that...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:27:51 +0100
>
> Dear Jay, there are also modern aviation engines on the market.
> But they are certainly not cheaper than automotive engines. They
> are designed for aircraft operations. Sudden temp changes, density
> changes etc. With an automotive engine you could probably taxi for
> 20.000 miles without any problem. You can fill in the rest...
>
> *From:* ROGER & JEAN CURTIS <mailto:mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2008 1:31 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
>
> */Dear Eric, A Professional Systems Engineer can see the great
> advantage of efficiency and proven reliability designed into the
> newer automotive engines, as opposed to the antiquated 1930=92s an
d
> 40=92s designs of the, not so modern, certified aviation engine./*
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)
> *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2008 6:45 AM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
>
> Dear Jay, why in the world should a professional System Engineer
> like you use a automotive engine in a airplane ?
>
> *From:* caldwell <mailto:caldwell@mswin.net>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2008 9:44 AM
>
> *To:* 'jorge alonso' <mailto:jorge@crossflow.com>
>
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
>
> Jorge...
>
> I finally reached the point where I have the engine mounted in my
> Zenith CH-801. The Instrument Panel with Engine instrumentation is
> connected. For the last three weeks I have attempted to start the
> engine. It was apparent the injectors and the plugs were not
> firing. I was assured by your Sales Manager the engine had been
> run before it left your factory.
>
> In frustration, we finally removed the ECU to examine it. By this
> time we had done a complete continuity check on all of the
> circuits checking for good connections and no shorts or grounds. I
> was confident all of the connections were good and this proved to
> be the case. We checked all of the voltages and they were
> acceptable. Finally we opened the ECU to look for any evidence of
> damage. We found none, but we did discover the manufacturer of the
> ECU to be DTA and the model was the PR8 w/Ver 3.0 of the software.
> We accessed their site and downloaded their software and manual. I
> have been saying we and the we is myself and my son Michael. He is
> well versed in software as am I. We have worked with Leading Edge
> ECUs and Electromotive TEK II. My son scanned the forum and found
> a person in Norway who had had similar troubles as we did with an
> engine. DTA pointed out that if there is not a clear Crank
> Position signal, the ECU will not fire the injectors or the plugs.
>
> We were suspicious. Now the Crank signal is a magnetic reluctance
> pick up as you well know. This is a high impedance, low voltage
> signal and in such cases it is prudent to use shielded twisted
> pair with a drain. You had. Now one other thing that is sound
> engineering (I am an Electrical Engineer by trade) is that you
> don't ground by ends of the drain. This causes circulating
> currents and will induce no end of noise. I found you had grounded
> both ends of the shield on the crank sensor signal line. We
> clipped the drain at the sensor end and lo and behold the engine
> started. DTA also states that one should not put the coils in
> parallel for wasted spark applications as this can blow out the
> coil drivers. Their installation instructions are to put the two
> coils in series.
>
> To conclude, I am significantly disappointed and upset at your
> design and manufacturing of this engine. You obviously don't
> understand the proper design for signal lines and don't seem to
> follow the instructions from the DTA ECU designers. It would
> severely disastrous for a coil driver to blow at 12000 feet!. It
> is also apparent the engine had not been run prior to shipment
> because you wouldn't have been able to start the engine any more
> than I could.
>
> I think you need to notify all of your customers of these issues
> and immediately issue corrective instructions.
>
> Jay Caldwell
>
> Caldwell Systems Engineering (CSE), LLC
>
> San Diego, CA 92122
>
> caldwell@mswin.net <mailto:caldwell@mswin.net>
>
> Voice 858-453-4594
>
> Facsimile 858-452-1560
>
> Mobile 858-336-0394
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matroni
cs.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">ht
tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> *href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *< -- Month This Lists Your Support Please >*
>
> *< FREE AWESOME Some Get (And >*
>
> **
>
> *< the is Click Raiser. Fund List Annual November>*
>
> *< more out find to below Contribution>*
>
> *< Incentive Free Terrific>*
>
> **
>
> *< Web>*
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> *< generous for you Thank>*
>
> **
>
> *< Dralle, -Matt >*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *< - Forum Email AeroElectric-List The >*
>
> *< List Navigator Features Matronics>*
>
> *< Un>*
>
> *< Chat, Browse, 7-Day Download, & Search>*
>
> *< much and Photoshare,>*
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *< - FORUMS WEB MATRONICS >*
>
> *<>*
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronic
s.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">htt
p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
> *
>
> .matronics.com/contribution
> ist">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ics.com
> *
>
>
> *
>
> *
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
_____________________________________________________________
Need cash? Click to get a loan.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4tF7FrLywqiy569YnCy
h6ieeE7YhL2MVZKTQQtoYpiX45ARD/?count=1234567890
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: | APRS for aircraft? |
The beauty is no recurring fees, unlike spot.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
Robinson
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: APRS for aircraft?
This sounds a lot like SPOT
JimRobinson
Glll N79R
--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Lincoln Keill <airlincoln@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: Lincoln Keill <airlincoln@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: APRS for aircraft?
<airlincoln@sbcglobal.net>
Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed
an
Automatic Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I
understand
correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which is
picked up
by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so anyone
can
continuously monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes
down,
it's a simple matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing
where the path ends.
This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search for the
ELT
that may not have survived the crash" system that I'm wondering what
the downside is and why aren't more people utilizing it? It doesn't
seem to draw much power (the author hooked it up to the power lead for
his
wingtip mounted LED position lights) and I'd guess that installing a
wingtip
antenna that can transmit on 144.39 MHz shouldn't be too difficult.
I've got an Archer nav antenna in one wingtip and I'll certainly
consider installing another antenna in the other wingtip if I thought I
could
get a similar APRS system to work in my airplane. Comments? Potential
problems?
DO NOT
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
=0ASure be nice if you guys would take it elsewhere.=0A=0A =0A=0AThose of U
S that have done our research and are flying, KNOW what the advantages are.
Those of you stuck in the 40's will always have a negative attitude towar
ds computers, any type of carriage other than horse-drawn, and believe that
the solar system revolves around the earth. Please do some actual researc
h before spewing old-wives tales and century old opinions....=0A=0A =0A=0AJ
on=0A=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@a
viating.com>=0ASent: Monday, November 3, 2008 9:08am=0ATo: aeroelectric-lis
t@matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
automotive engines run at 75% power for more than a few seconds =0Aat a ti
me. The only efficiency advantage you might see in an auto engine =0Ais in
the ignition timing, which is easily corrected in aircraft engines =0Awith
electronic ignition. There is no efficiency difference between =0Aaircraft
injection systems and automotive beyond the closed loop oxygen =0Asensor fe
edback, which won't live with leaded fuel. So far, an =0Aintelligent pilot
can do a better job managing mixture than an =0Aelectronic system.=0A=0Ajay
@horriblehyde.com wrote:=0A> Ever thought about the huge thermal thermal cy
cles that an auto engine =0A> has to go through? - you have to have a reall
y well engineered product =0A> to handle that...=0A>=0A> ----- Original Mes
sage -----=0A> From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"=0A> To: aeroelectric-list@mat
ronics.com=0A> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine=0A>
n aviation engines on the market.=0A> But they are certainly not cheaper th
an automotive engines. They=0A> are designed for aircraft operations. Sudde
n temp changes, density=0A> changes etc. With an automotive engine you coul
d probably taxi for=0A> 20.000 miles without any problem. You can fill in t
he rest...=0A>=0A> *From:* ROGER & JEAN CURTIS =0A> *Sent:* Monday, Novembe
r 03, 2008 1:31 PM=0A> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com=0A> =0A> *Subj
ect:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine=0A>=0A> */Dear Eric, A
Professional Systems Engineer can see the great=0A> advantage of efficienc
y and proven reliability designed into the=0A> newer automotive engines, as
opposed to the antiquated 1930=99s and=0A> 40=99s designs of t
he, not so modern, certified aviation engine./*=0A
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
Lincoln Keill wrote:
>
> Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an Automatic
Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I understand
correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which is picked up
by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so anyone can continuously
monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes down, it's a simple
matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing where the path
ends.
>
> This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search for the ELT that
may not have survived the crash" system that I'm wondering what the downside
is and why aren't more people utilizing it? It doesn't seem to draw much power
(the author hooked it up to the power lead for his wingtip mounted LED position
lights) and I'd guess that installing a wingtip antenna that can transmit
on 144.39 MHz shouldn't be too difficult. I've got an Archer nav antenna in
one wingtip and I'll certainly consider installing another antenna in the other
wingtip if I thought I could get a similar APRS system to work in my airplane.
Comments? Potential problems?
>
>
Lincoln, there are other neat aspects.
-The devices can be transceivers, retransmitting packets received from
other airplanes in the area.
-The devices can attach a small amount of text data to the packets. It
is trivial to attach an emergency call number to the packet. It would
be equally trivial to attach an emergency "We're going in!!" message to
a packet when a switch is thrown. An inertial switch is cheap (there's
one in every seat-belt on modern cars), and once the switch is thrown a
SAR plane can get an immediate GPS fix.
-The devices are cheap, low power, low bandwidth and use an existing an
infrastructure for communication.
The FAA leadership needs to be informed that their existing plans for
the next generation of see-and-be-seen is an expensive, heavyweight
boondoggle. We have a chance to grow a system from the ground up that
is effective and provides a benefit to everyone, instead of a burdensome
set of electronics that is overkill for most GA and would be the straw
that grounds many aircraft. Think about it. If I own an $18,000 Cessna
that I flew a few sunny days per month, would I be willing to pay
$10,000 for a set of electronics so I could have a highway in the sky?
Would $150 be to painful for an ELT replacement?
If someone wants all the gee-whiz, highway-in-the-sky features, a
satellite download, ala XM-Satellite Weather, is the proper solution.
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: APRS for aircraft? |
Your description of how APRS works is basically correct and some of us
have been doing it for years. Recently there has been a flurry of
interest in the RV community.
> Comments? Potential problems?
I have plenty of both :-) although I'll keep this brief.
Coverage is superb at moderate altitudes (say, 5000 AGL and up) but
varies from superb to non-existent when lower, depending on the
proximity of a ground station and the efficacy of your installation
(mainly the antenna). My Long-EZ with its full-sized vertical dipole
and 10W of power does well at 12,500 MSL across the wilderness of Idaho
(http://tinyurl.com/5u5klc) but some of the RVers have less success with
horizontally-polarized wingtip antennas and (especially) at lower altitudes.
While it's true that anyone can glean your last reported position,
"obviously superior to our current 'search for the ELT ...'" would
depend on who is "following" your flights. It's best to find family
members or close friends and train them specifically how to "flight
follow". Then notify them of proposed flights (Email or phone call
before takeoff). I've found that people have differing levels of
computer savvy. What if the web site goes down? What if they get an
error message? What if the track stops for no apparent reason? Younger
people seem to do the better (my daughter calls my cellphone and says "I
see you just landed in Boise" while others say "I forgot the URL for
your tracker" :-(
My biggest problem is self-induced: sometimes I bump a switch and
accidentally turn off my tracker. Or I manually turn it off to use the
radio for something else (ATIS, general purpose hamming, etc.). This
can cause a casual "flight follower" to "freak out". It would be best
to have a dedicated tracking unit with a guarded switch. I try to
mitigate this with an FAQ item (http://www.mail2600.com/faq.htm#Crash).
IMO an APRS tracker is a good supplement to the other SAR tools but not
a panacea. In addition, it's enjoyable from a hobby standpoint: I like
having a record of my flights to include ground speed and altitude.
There is no real downside: the power requirements, weight, and cost are
minimal. I encourage you to join in but want to be sure your
expectations are right.
--
Joe
Independence, OR
Aircraft Position: http://www.mail2600.com/position
Aircraft Last Track: http://www.mail2600.com/track
On 11/03/2008 06:25 Lincoln Keill wrote:
>
> Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an Automatic
Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I understand
correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which is picked up
by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so anyone can continuously
monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes down, it's a simple
matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing where the path
ends.
>
> This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search for the ELT that
may not have survived the crash" system that I'm wondering what the downside
is and why aren't more people utilizing it? It doesn't seem to draw much power
(the author hooked it up to the power lead for his wingtip mounted LED position
lights) and I'd guess that installing a wingtip antenna that can transmit
on 144.39 MHz shouldn't be too difficult. I've got an Archer nav antenna in
one wingtip and I'll certainly consider installing another antenna in the other
wingtip if I thought I could get a similar APRS system to work in my airplane.
Comments? Potential problems?
>
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: | Alternative engines and vendors (Long) Was: Crossflow |
Subaru Engine
An Alternative engine - your cup of tea???
An alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone - or even most,
whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. But, for those
who find it a challenge and are interested in something different - its
kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the risks and challenges
- not to mention the frustration of chasing a solution.
Vendors
One thing that is a fact of life for any alternative engine project is at
some point in the project you are probably going to have to purchase a
critical item from a vendor. The problem is that some vendors (not all and
not most), but some, do not fully understand how to design a subsystem, may
not even understand the engineering/physics/chemistry basics or limitations
behind it or may not understand some of the manufacturing limitations in
implementing a design. Heck, they may not know even what performance data to
collect or how to assess it. That's not to say a successful product can
not result when this situation exits - however, as you can imagine the
likelihood of a good robust design that can handle all conditions decreases
considerably.
We have all seen outrageous claims like 200 HP on 7 GPH, save 50% on fuel -
convert H20 to fuel, etc. - those are easy to disregard - it's the more
complex and subtle ones, like electronic designs of an ignition or fuel
injection CPU, etc. not readily or easily verified that can get you.
The problem, of course, is how to identify the vendors who have the right
product for your conversion. That is a problem and one I don't have a clear
answer for. However, I would not buy from a vendor who was not flying that
product in his own aircraft and had reasonable flight data to support its
performance. I don't care how well the design is though out, until it is
flight proven it doesn't belong in my aircraft and shouldn't in yours - if
it is a flight critical component.
But, how do you separate the reportedly "Proven" designs/products claims
from reality - it can be tough to do. About the only two things I would
rely on is 1. A long, proven history of quality engineed products from that
vendor (may be hard to find a long term vendor serving alternative engine
needs) and/or 2. The vendor can/will provide contact information on at
least 10 individuals who have purchased the product.
Then it's up to you to check with each and see if the claims are verifiable.
Also, check and see if the vendor will admit to any problems encountered -
rare that there are not some problems even in the best designs, but a good
vendor will admit to them and tell you why they occurred and how they fixed
them. A vendor who vemonly denies any problem always raises my suspicions a
bit.
If you have not gathered by now, yes, I am one of those "Alternative Engine"
crazies.
Last month was the 10th anniversary of the first flight of my rotary powered
RV-6A. Any engine that can function in the intended operating regime with
sufficient power and reliability has the potential to make an excellent
aircraft power plant. Problems are generally not with the alternative power
plant itself, but all the auxiliary systems (ignition, fuel, cooling, etc)
which are of necessity a once-off design process done by individuals (of
varying skills, experience and knowledge levels) rather than $$$ companies
with engineering staffs.
I personally chose the rotary because, as an engineer, I could see that it
was inherently more reliable than any piston engine primarily (but not
solely) due to its much lower parts count. There is no camshaft, no rocker
arms, no valves, no valve springs, no lifter rods, no connecting rods, no
cylinder heads, etc. Those items which are frequently the source of failure
in a reciprocating engine. Yes, like anything mechanical, the rotary engine
can fail - but, it tends to do so somewhat gracefully. We have found that
as long as fuel and spark is provided that the engine will generally
continue to run (perhaps at reduced power but generally enough to get you to
a safe landing) regardless of damage. The one thing it will succumb to is
the lost of oil to the bearings. The most common cause of failure (with
just about any engine) is failure of an auxiliary system - and not an
engine block failure.
Then you also have the fact that there is no necessity to translate linear
motion (of pistons and connecting rods) to circular motion (via a crankshaft
journal) as the rotors are of course design for rotation. This reduces the
inertia loads on parts considerably. The fact that the rotor is iron alloy
and its housing is aluminum means the rotary does not seize when overheated
- it does loose some compression as the aluminum housing expands faster/more
than the iron rotor. In two cases, where all coolant was lost, the rotary
got the aircraft back to a safe airport landing - true the engine was cooked
and required a rebuild - but it got the pilot back. A brand-new, Renesis
Rotary engine, Rx-8 crate engine from the manufacture or other sources can
be purchased for between $4000 -$6000 depending on model and long or short
bock. Of course, if you rebuild an older rotary on your own, you lower the
price further.
I have over 500 hours time on a flying rotary engine - and I am not the high
time rotary flier. One individual has over 1600 rotary flying hours in an
RV-4.
There are other auto engines that have proven suitable for aircraft use,
when used within reasonable operating limits and appropriate matched to the
airframe power requirements - the Subaru and Corvair engines are two that
come to mind, but there are obviously others as well. One of problems is
that no two installations are exactly alike and when they are not identical
and operated in identical regimes - then you have two different systems. I
have frequently seen Joe copy Bill's design and then discover his
installation does not work as well as Bills - only to find that Joe made a
few changes. If it's not identical, it's a different system and don't be
surprised if it reacts differently.
I am certainly not knocking the traditional aircraft engine - given the
economies of their production run sizes and the enormous investment required
to make a major redesign of the typical aircraft engine - has just made
major changes a unattractive capital investment. Things are beginning to
change for the better I believe - but we are still talking about basically
1930's engine designs. Yes, a lot of improvements have been made - but
there is a limit to how much incremental improvements can do for any basic
engine design.
I repeat - an alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone - or
even most, whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. But,
for those who find it a challenge and are interested in something different
- its kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the risks and
challenges - not to mention the frustration of chasing a solution and task
of assessing the vendor you purchase products from. Word of mouth from
customers is probably the best source - but, even there you need to separate
real problem from a customer perceptions. Some customers will bad-mouth a
vendor when the real problem is the customer's lack of understanding or
misunderstanding the true situation. But, if a major of a vendor's
customers are unhappy, there is likely a good reason for it.
Just my $0.02
Keep flying and keep it safe.
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
<http://www.andersonee.com/> http://www.andersonee.com
<http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm>
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
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: | APRS for aircraft? |
It is a lot like SPOT minus the fairly steep yearly user fee.
The downside that the repeaters do lose track of the signal in remote areas
..It is pretty reliable for the most part however.
The other issue is the pilot has to declare a mayday and the search folks n
eed to know how to go looking for the tracking website...I have occasionall
y hit the "track me" link on people's web pages but have never gotten it to
work..I.e I don't know how to see the data.
Oh you also need a Ham radio license.
Frank
RV7a IO360
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Robinson
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: APRS for aircraft?
This sounds a lot like SPOT
JimRobinson
Glll N79R
--- On Mon, 11/3/08, Lincoln Keill <airlincoln@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: Lincoln Keill <airlincoln@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: APRS for aircraft?
<airlincoln@sbcglobal.net>
Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an
Automatic Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I underst
and
correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which is picke
d up
by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so anyone
can
continuously monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes down,
it's a simple matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing
where the path ends.
This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search for the ELT
that may not have survived the crash" system that I'm wondering what
the downside is and why aren't more people utilizing it? It doesn't
seem to draw much power (the author hooked it up to the power lead for his
wingtip mounted LED position lights) and I'd guess that installing a wingti
p
antenna that can transmit on 144.39 MHz shouldn't be too difficult.
I've got an Archer nav antenna in one wingtip and I'll certainly
consider installing another antenna in the other wingtip if I thought I cou
ld
get a similar APRS system to work in my airplane. Comments? Potential
problems?
DO NOT
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
.com/contribution">
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
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: | APRS for aircraft? |
APRS is an excellent way of tracking aircraft and other vehicles, however,
there are some limitations:
- You must have an amateur radio license to operate it
- You must be in line-of-sight of a repeater
- It does not work well in sparsely populated or mountainous areas due to
the line of sight limitations.
Despite these limitations, it has tremendous potential. Fully developed,
(with a separate aviation frequency, expanded ground coverage and
digipeaters in aircraft), this technology would totally outperform ELTs
(both 121.5 and 406) for locating missing aircraft. It is somewhat
comparable in function to SPOT, but is essentially free and easy to install.
I have no personal experience with SPOT, but the reports that I have heard
are good (but not perfect).
Another advantage is that it is not just for locating the last know position
of an aircraft. It can be used for many other purposes, such as flight
tracking or reviewing a flight afterwards.
For example, link to here (login as VA7VRL):
http://aprs.fi/?call=va7vrl&mt=m&z=11&timerange=43200
You can click on "Terrain' to get an overlay on a topological map. A bit
more sophisticated is to click on Google Earth KML [?] and get a 3D overlay
on Google Earth.
Vern Little
www.vx-aviation.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Lincoln Keill
> Sent: November 3, 2008 6:26 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: APRS for aircraft?
>
>
>
> --> <airlincoln@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built
> and installed an Automatic Packet (Position) Reporting System
> on his airplane. If I understand correctly, the unit
> transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz which is picked up
> by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so
> anyone can continuously monitor the airplane's position. If
> the airplane goes down, it's a simple matter of pulling up
> the flight's track history and seeing where the path ends.
>
> This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search
> for the ELT that may not have survived the crash" system that
> I'm wondering what the downside is and why aren't more people
> utilizing it? It doesn't seem to draw much power (the author
> hooked it up to the power lead for his wingtip mounted LED
> position lights) and I'd guess that installing a wingtip
> antenna that can transmit on 144.39 MHz shouldn't be too
> difficult. I've got an Archer nav antenna in one wingtip and
> I'll certainly consider installing another antenna in the
> other wingtip if I thought I could get a similar APRS system
> to work in my airplane. Comments? Potential problems?
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
A couple of points.
APRS is free (unlike SPOT), but requires a Ham license, and only works where
there are repeaters or igates available.
Many 401 ELT's can also do position reporting via gps.
Brett
Quoting BobsV35B@aol.com:
> Good Morning airlincoln,
>
> Doesn't that sound a lot like the commercial venture called SPOT?
>
> They sold like hot cakes at Oshkosh this year.
>
> Happy Skies
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> 628 West 86th Street
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>
>
> In a message dated 11/3/2008 8:30:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> airlincoln@sbcglobal.net writes:
>
> Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an
> Automatic Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I
> understand correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz
> which is
> picked up by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow) so
> anyone can
> continuously monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane goes down,
> it's a simple matter of pulling up the flight's track history and seeing
> where
> the path ends.
>
>
> **************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
> 5 Travel Deals!
>
--
A ship in harbor is safe -- but that is not what ships are built for.
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: | Re: APRS for aircraft? |
Joe Dubner wrote:
> I've found that people have differing levels of
> computer savvy. What if the web site goes down? What if they get an
> error message? What if the track stops for no apparent reason? Younger
> people seem to do the better (my daughter calls my cellphone and says "I
> see you just landed in Boise" while others say "I forgot the URL for
> your tracker" :-(
>
Heh, Joe, wouldn't this best be solved with a note that says "If I don't
show up when I said I would, call 1-800-IAM-DOWN and give them my call
sign, WL4ME."
Rescue person pulls up the tracking website, and sees that your last
reported position was over an airport or over a national forest, and
initiates the proper procedure. If you did go down, and the inertial
switch attached an emergency signal to your packet, an overflying
aircraft could have already picked up and relayed your signal.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
>Sure be nice if you guys would take it elsewhere.
>
>Those of US that have done our research and are flying, KNOW what the
>advantages are. Those of you stuck in the 40's will always have a
>negative attitude towards computers, any type of carriage other than
>horse-drawn, and believe that the solar system revolves around the
>earth. Please do some actual research before spewing old-wives tales and
>century old opinions....
I had occasion to visit the Air Force National
Aviation Museum in Dayton last summer. Of particular
interest was the evolution of power plants and
the pilots willing to fly them. When I tracked
the changes from Orville and Wilbur's first
efforts through history to modern engines, two
things stood out strongly:
(1) Change is constant and good. There's no reason
to lock our choice of engines to the best-we-knew-
how-to-do in 1980, or 1960, . . . . or 1935 simply
because the user is "comfortable" with the technology.
There are individuals who have done their best
to duplicate the engines used by the Wrights and
they are comfortable with their performance and
limitations.
(2) The most profound and useful changes tend to
come from "outlyers" . . . folks NOT currently
occupied with satisfaction of market demands.
The market seldom demands advancement
of anything. New technologies should first be
examined by folks who are not part of the
established market.
I'd like to think that the leading edge of development
and exploration is not limited to the shops at
Mojave or Edwards. It's going on everywhere and
the fleet of OBAM aircraft is the logical market
for proving the value of any product that a owner/
pilot is willing to fly.
A lot of words used here on the List go to
procurement, integration, testing and flying
the best-we-knew-how-to-do from decades of
development already gone by. Just because
a discussion focuses on the best-yet-to-be
does not change our mission.
One cannot spend too much time sifting
the simple-ideas that go into any installation
be it a 1940 or 2008 design. Irrespective of
the age of the technology, sifting out the
'clinkers' goes directly to risk reduction.
I'll suggest this subject is entirely appropriate
to a technical forum.
If one has data or logical anecdotes to share
that rebut an "ol wives tale" or advance an idea
it is sufficient to refine the thinking while
avoiding comments personal to the participants.
Bob . . .
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Alternative engines and vendors |
At 10:56 AM 11/3/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>An Alternative engine your cup of tea???
>
>
>An alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone or even most,
>whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. But, for those
>who find it a challenge and are interested in something different its
>kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the risks and
>challenges not to mention the frustration of chasing a solution.
>
<snip>
>I repeat - an alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone or
>even most, whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. But,
>for those who find it a challenge and are interested in something
>different its kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the
>risks and challenges not to mention the frustration of chasing a solution
>and task of assessing the vendor you purchase products from. Word of
>mouth from customers is probably the best source but, even there you need
>to separate real problem from a customer perceptions. Some customers
>will bad-mouth a vendor when the real problem is the customer s lack of
>understanding or misunderstanding the true situation. But, if a major of
>a vendor s customers are unhappy, there is likely a good reason for it.
>
>
>Just my $0.02
>
>
>Keep flying and keep it safe.
>
>
>Ed Anderson
Right on! Let's strive to stock the AeroElectric-List
archives with finely sifted ideas rich in recipes for
success and illumination of those ideas which should
be avoided. Thank you for this objective enhancement
to the conversation.
Bob . . .
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | APRS for aircraft? |
Already done. Head over to
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=104.
RF
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lincoln
Keill
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:26 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: APRS for aircraft?
--> <airlincoln@sbcglobal.net>
Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an
Automatic Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane. If I
understand correctly, the unit transmits his GPS position on 144.39 MHz
which is picked up by ham radio repeaters and sent to the internet (somehow)
so anyone can continuously monitor the airplane's position. If the airplane
goes down, it's a simple matter of pulling up the flight's track history and
seeing where the path ends.
This seems to be so obviously superior to our current "search for the ELT
that may not have survived the crash" system that I'm wondering what the
downside is and why aren't more people utilizing it? It doesn't seem to
draw much power (the author hooked it up to the power lead for his wingtip
mounted LED position lights) and I'd guess that installing a wingtip antenna
that can transmit on 144.39 MHz shouldn't be too difficult. I've got an
Archer nav antenna in one wingtip and I'll certainly consider installing
another antenna in the other wingtip if I thought I could get a similar APRS
system to work in my airplane. Comments? Potential problems?
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: APRS for aircraft? |
Brett Ferrell wrote:
>
> A couple of points.
>
> APRS is free (unlike SPOT), but requires a Ham license, and only works where
> there are repeaters or igates available.
>
>
The ham radio license is nearly a non-sequitor. The FCC has removed the
requirement to know Morse Code. The study book is now a small pamphlet
and doesn't require much study at all.
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
=0AOk, if REALLY interested in learning, a good place to start is with the
articles listed here:=0A=0A[http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/AutomotiveEn
gineConversions/tabid/213/Default.aspx] http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/
AutomotiveEngineConversions/tabid/213/Default.aspx (watch for line wrap).
=0A=0A =0A=0ABoth of these are from Ross Farnam of SDS EFI in Canada. Both
present lots of information and facts that the reader can research further
if interested. A good example is the "old wives tale" that auto engines a
re not designed for continuous high power settings. It actually takes very
little research to find that this is false. The problem is, most of the p
eople that believe this "wives tale" are unwilling to do enough research to
discover this for themselves. I'm not a psychologist but, as near as I ca
n tell, it because this is an emotional topic to them so they convince them
selves that they already know the truth. However; the AeroElectric group i
s a pretty savvy bunch so I am sure all the nay-sayers will take the time t
o read and do further research so that they are fully educated on the subje
ct prior to posting responses or spreading "old wives tales".=0A=0A =0A=0AJ
on=0A=0A =0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "Robert L. N
uckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>=0AI'll suggest this subject is entirel
y appropriate=0Ato a technical forum.=0A=0AIf one has data or logical anecd
otes to share=0Athat rebut an "ol wives tale" or advance an idea=0Ait is su
fficient to refine the thinking while=0Aavoiding comments personal to the p
articipants.=0A
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: APRS for aircraft? |
One would hope so, Ernest. The technology is certainly possible but,
alas, much of that infrastructure does not currently exist.
Actually, the first instruction I give out is to attempt to contact me
by cellphone (or failing that, by landline at the intended destination).
After loss of contact is deemed not to be a false alarm, the key
questions would be "what to do?" or "whom to call?".
There are plenty of possibilities and blue-skying them is fun but IMO
the current state of the art calls for lowered expectations on the part
of those looking for an ELT replacement.
--
Joe
On 11/03/2008 08:30 Ernest Christley wrote:
> Heh, Joe, wouldn't this best be solved with a note that says "If I don't
> show up when I said I would, call 1-800-IAM-DOWN and give them my call
> sign, WL4ME."
>
> Rescue person pulls up the tracking website, and sees that your last
> reported position was over an airport or over a national forest, and
> initiates the proper procedure. If you did go down, and the inertial
> switch attached an emergency signal to your packet, an overflying
> aircraft could have already picked up and relayed your signal.
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: APRS for aircraft? |
Joe Dubner wrote:
>
> One would hope so, Ernest. The technology is certainly possible but,
> alas, much of that infrastructure does not currently exist.
>
>
I agree with what you said, except for a slight modification to the
above point. The infrastructure is there, what is missing is
'awareness'. For nearly all intents and purposes, the two are the same
except that building infrastructure is hard, while building awareness is
easy. The FAA could fix the awareness issue with one of their
pamphlets, or a bulletin to their personnel. Aviation is a small
community, so word of mouth is highly effective. It would be easy to
make sure every CAP chapter has a handheld APRS reciever, and knows to
ask the question, "Did the pilot carry an APRS transmitter and what was
his call sign?" The EAA is doing a good job. AOPA probably is, too. A
simple note specifying a call sign in the remarks field of any flight
plan filed would assist SAR.
ELTs were a good idea that was hamstrung by legislation. The
technologist had to rush an implementation with existing technology
under orders from people without any expertise. APRS is a technology
that has grown through a consensus of technologist making the most of
the technology. I think it is a viral game changer. It is cheap and
effective enough that everybody will want at least one 8*)
> Actually, the first instruction I give out is to attempt to contact me
> by cellphone (or failing that, by landline at the intended destination).
>
> After loss of contact is deemed not to be a false alarm, the key
> questions would be "what to do?" or "whom to call?".
>
> There are plenty of possibilities and blue-skying them is fun but IMO
> the current state of the art calls for lowered expectations on the part
> of those looking for an ELT replacement.
>
> --
> Joe
>
>
> On 11/03/2008 08:30 Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>>
>
>
>> Heh, Joe, wouldn't this best be solved with a note that says "If I don't
>> show up when I said I would, call 1-800-IAM-DOWN and give them my call
>> sign, WL4ME."
>>
>> Rescue person pulls up the tracking website, and sees that your last
>> reported position was over an airport or over a national forest, and
>> initiates the proper procedure. If you did go down, and the inertial
>> switch attached an emergency signal to your packet, an overflying
>> aircraft could have already picked up and relayed your signal.
>>
>
>
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
jay@horriblehyde.com wrote:
> Ever thought about the huge thermal thermal cycles that an auto engine
> has to go through? - you have to have a really well engineered product
> to handle that...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:27:51 +0100
>
> Dear Jay, there are also modern aviation engines on the market.
> But they are certainly not cheaper than automotive engines. They
> are designed for aircraft operations. Sudden temp changes, density
> changes etc. With an automotive engine you could probably taxi for
> 20.000 miles without any problem. You can fill in the rest...
>
I don't get this temp change argument.
Most automotive engines are water cooled. The temp changes you will see
is somewhere along the lines of -20*F to 200*F. Below -20, your coolant
has frozen and you're not going to fly. Much above 200 and your coolant
has boiled off, and you're not going to fly much longer.
The air-cooled aviation engines have a temp range of 0*F to 400*F.
Below 0 and the thing won't start, since the aluminum head shrinks more
that the steel piston. Above 400 and the cylinder head starts melting.
Aviation engines have more blow-by, because they need to be built with
looser tolerances to account for the temperature changes. The
automotive engines see less severe temp changes, and the changes it does
see are less drastic due to the heat carrying capacity of the water
bath. The air-cooled engine can suffer from temperature gradients that
can lead to uneven wear and even warping (in extremely rare cases).
If the point is that air-cooled engines are specifically engineered to
handle sudden temp changes, I would counter that water-cooled systems
handle the problem as a matter of course. You don't require special
engineering for a non-existent problem.
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Some of us know that most current aircraft engines were actually
developed in the sixties, and have worked on both types of engine for
years, and know what the actual differences are, and what the limited
benefits the newer design auto engines have. For instance Porsche did
their damnest to design an engine to improve on the Lycoming IO-360. The
result was heavier, no more powerful and used more fuel, and failed on
the market. That design was done in the late 80's, so don't tell me
about the great new auto technology. Most of what you have now was
developed in the 60s and 70s.
KM
A&P/IA
certified emissions tech
jon@finleyweb.net wrote:
> Sure be nice if you guys would take it elsewhere.
>
> Those of US that have done our research and are flying, KNOW what the
> advantages are. Those of you stuck in the 40's will always have a
> negative attitude towards computers, any type of carriage other than
> horse-drawn, and believe that the solar system revolves around the
> earth. Please do some actual research before spewing old-wives tales
> and century old opinions....
>
> Jon
>
> *
> *
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: Alternative engines and vendors |
There are a bunch of us who are not happy with the current source of ele
ctronics, powerplants and for that matter aircraft design. We are the on
es who push the envelope and try new things. Progress transfers over, i
n cars it is "todays racecars are tomorrows streetcars". As for us in th
e OBAM arena this timeframe is 'FAA slow'. <GG> For those who are reall
y interested I have a 25 minute video on the web showing alot of my conv
ersion, the good and bad. !! Grab a cold soda pop or an adult beverage
and get a good chuckle at my first attempt at video work.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7272451917550730841&hl=en
Do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
olls.bob@cox.net>
At 10:56 AM 11/3/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>An Alternative engine your cup of tea???
>
>
>An alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone or even mos
t,
>whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. But, for tho
se
>who find it a challenge and are interested in something different its
>kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the risks and
>challenges not to mention the frustration of chasing a solution.
>
<snip>
>I repeat - an alternative engine project is certainly not for everyone
or
>even most, whose primary objective is to get an airplane in the air. B
ut,
>for those who find it a challenge and are interested in something
>different its kick- A_ _ fun. Just make certain you are aware of the
>risks and challenges not to mention the frustration of chasing a soluti
on
>and task of assessing the vendor you purchase products from. Word of
>mouth from customers is probably the best source but, even there you ne
ed
>to separate real problem from a customer perceptions. Some customer
s
>will bad-mouth a vendor when the real problem is the customer s lack of
>understanding or misunderstanding the true situation. But, if a major
of
>a vendor s customers are unhappy, there is likely a good reason for it.
>
>
>Just my $0.02
>
>
>Keep flying and keep it safe.
>
>
>Ed Anderson
Right on! Let's strive to stock the AeroElectric-List
archives with finely sifted ideas rich in recipes for
success and illumination of those ideas which should
be avoided. Thank you for this objective enhancement
to the conversation.
Bob . . .
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
_____________________________________________________________________
Get Freebies & Coupons -- Free of Hassle at FreeInternet.com!
Visit http://offers.netzero.net/TGL1221/?u=http://www.freeinternet.com
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Ernest Christley wrote:
> ...
> The air-cooled aviation engines have a temp range of 0*F to 400*F.
> Below 0 and the thing won't start, since the aluminum head shrinks
> more that the steel piston.
Pardon my ignorance, but does Lycoming and/or Continental ~really~ use
steel pistons? I would have thought they'd use forged aluminum. I
would think that the inertia of a steel piston would put horrendous
loads on the crank throws.
Dale R.
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: APRS for aircraft? |
Having been an advanced class "ham" in high school, I too think
this is a great idea but not ready for prime time.
Several people mentioned already that you need an amateur radio
license to transmit on 2 meters. The FCC wasn't too fond of one way
data streams either, last time I checked (long ago).
The signal is really just line of sight 95% of the time so in NYC, you
are covered at any altitude, but where there is low ham population
density and high terrain, you could only expect it to work above
typical VFR altitudes. The repeaters tend to be built on the highest
peaks where electricity is available (one way or another) and
enough hams on 2 m to foot the bill. BTW 432Mhz is also popular for
repeaters.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212155#212155
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Yeah, the piston is aluminum. I don't believe that they are even forged,
unless aftermarket. The OEM pistons are cast. The head is aluminum. The
barrel is steel.
Seizing problems are a lot more likely to be at the hot end than the
cold, but I've never heard of one seizing a piston. Melting a piston
from detonation, yes.
Cold starting issues have more to do with lack of lubrication with cold,
thick oil than with clearances. The old radials had provisions for
diluting the oil with fuel before shutdown if a cold start was
anticipated for the next morning. Once it warms up, the fuel evaporates
off and the oil regains its normal viscosity.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Dale Rogers wrote:
>
> Ernest Christley wrote:
>> ...
>> The air-cooled aviation engines have a temp range of 0*F to 400*F.
>> Below 0 and the thing won't start, since the aluminum head shrinks
>> more that the steel piston.
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but does Lycoming and/or Continental ~really~ use
> steel pistons? I would have thought they'd use forged aluminum. I
> would think that the inertia of a steel piston would put horrendous
> loads on the crank throws.
>
> Dale R.
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Dale Rogers wrote:
>
> Ernest Christley wrote:
>> ...
>> The air-cooled aviation engines have a temp range of 0*F to 400*F.
>> Below 0 and the thing won't start, since the aluminum head shrinks
>> more that the steel piston.
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but does Lycoming and/or Continental ~really~ use
> steel pistons? I would have thought they'd use forged aluminum. I
> would think that the inertia of a steel piston would put horrendous
> loads on the crank throws.
>
> Dale R.
It may very well be my ignorance, but it was my understanding that the
aluminum shrank more than the pistons with the cold. Air cooled engines
are force to have tighter tolerances for that reason. It is probably
just the rings that are steel.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Ed Holyoke wrote:
> <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
>
> Yeah, the piston is aluminum. I don't believe that they are even
> forged, unless aftermarket. The OEM pistons are cast. The head is
> aluminum. The barrel is steel.
>
> Seizing problems are a lot more likely to be at the hot end than the
> cold, but I've never heard of one seizing a piston. Melting a piston
> from detonation, yes.
>
> Cold starting issues have more to do with lack of lubrication with
> cold, thick oil than with clearances. The old radials had provisions
> for diluting the oil with fuel before shutdown if a cold start was
> anticipated for the next morning. Once it warms up, the fuel
> evaporates off and the oil regains its normal viscosity.
...hmmm....old wive's tale....busted.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
I, and several other people I know, have driven air cooled VW engines here
in Minnesota. I have never had an issue with temp preventing them from
starting. At -25F the trick is to apply LOTS of amperage to the cranking
and ignition systems. After a 5 min warm-up it's off to the freeway. These
engines were not preheated and were using factory recommended lubricants.
Just my experience.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst."
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> jay@horriblehyde.com wrote:
>> Ever thought about the huge thermal thermal cycles that an auto engine
>> has to go through? - you have to have a really well engineered product
>> to handle that...
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)"
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crossflow Subaru Engine
>> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:27:51 +0100
>>
>> Dear Jay, there are also modern aviation engines on the market.
>> But they are certainly not cheaper than automotive engines. They
>> are designed for aircraft operations. Sudden temp changes, density
>> changes etc. With an automotive engine you could probably taxi for
>> 20.000 miles without any problem. You can fill in the rest...
>>
> I don't get this temp change argument.
>
> Most automotive engines are water cooled. The temp changes you will see
> is somewhere along the lines of -20*F to 200*F. Below -20, your coolant
> has frozen and you're not going to fly. Much above 200 and your coolant
> has boiled off, and you're not going to fly much longer.
>
> The air-cooled aviation engines have a temp range of 0*F to 400*F.
> Below 0 and the thing won't start, since the aluminum head shrinks more
> that the steel piston. Above 400 and the cylinder head starts melting.
>
> Aviation engines have more blow-by, because they need to be built with
> looser tolerances to account for the temperature changes. The
> automotive engines see less severe temp changes, and the changes it does
> see are less drastic due to the heat carrying capacity of the water
> bath. The air-cooled engine can suffer from temperature gradients that
> can lead to uneven wear and even warping (in extremely rare cases).
>
> If the point is that air-cooled engines are specifically engineered to
> handle sudden temp changes, I would counter that water-cooled systems
> handle the problem as a matter of course. You don't require special
> engineering for a non-existent problem.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
7:56 PM
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: APRS for aircraft? |
Lincoln Keill wrote:
> Just got done reading an EAA article about a guy who built and installed an Automatic
Packet (Position) Reporting System on his airplane.
Here's a good thread on getting started with APRS:
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=27773>
Once they get the Smart Digipeater function implemented in this device
<http://www.byonics.com/tinytrak4/>, this will make a fairly cheap APRS
option. The digipeater function will relay packets from other aircraft,
thus extending the range of ground based APRS stations.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ KR-2 Builder N770DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/ http://deej.net/kr-2/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
Here is an example of a stock auto engine that was run for something a
little more than a few seconds - in fact they ran two of them and they
both finished in fine shape.
The original Legacy speed record was set between January 2nd and 21st,
1989, with a Japanese-spec RS sedan at the Arizona Test Center outside
of Phoenix, Arizona. It broke the 100,000 km FIA World Land Endurance
Record by maintaining an average speed of 138.780 mph (223.345 km/h) for
447 hours, 44 minutes and 9.887 seconds, or 18 1/2 days. Pit stops were
made every two hours with a driver change and refueling, while tire
changes were made at 96 hour intervals, or every 13,400 miles driven.
And, yes, I am using a Subaru engine, the 2.5L version.
Dick Tasker
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> And few automotive engines run at 75% power for more than a few
> seconds at a time. The only efficiency advantage you might see in an
> auto engine is in the ignition timing, which is easily corrected in
> aircraft engines with electronic ignition. There is no efficiency
> difference between aircraft injection systems and automotive beyond
> the closed loop oxygen sensor feedback, which won't live with leaded
> fuel. So far, an intelligent pilot can do a better job managing
> mixture than an electronic system.
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
<http://www.sdsefi.com/air51.htm>
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ KR-2 Builder N770DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/ http://deej.net/kr-2/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
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: Crossflow Subaru Engine |
At 01:12 PM 11/3/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Some of us know that most current aircraft engines were actually developed
>in the sixties, and have worked on both types of engine for years, and
>know what the actual differences are, and what the limited benefits the
>newer design auto engines have. For instance Porsche did their damnest to
>design an engine to improve on the Lycoming IO-360. The result was
>heavier, no more powerful and used more fuel, and failed on the market.
>That design was done in the late 80's, so don't tell me about the great
>new auto technology.
Are you suggesting that one failure of an automotive
derivative in the marketplace is a benchmark for all
such endeavors? For every success in the marketplace,
there are dozens of failures in the lab or engineering
test vehicles.
The first engines installed on the B-29 were the most
parts-intensive products of their time and failure rates
on the order of 1 every 10-40 hours. The first fielded
B-29's were pampered to the extreme to keep the airplane
marginally useful while development efforts worked out
the bugs. THOSE engines were produced by a company with
a great deal of experience in the design and manufacture
of aircraft engines.
Toyota built some air racing engines . . . but we're
not seeing those on TC aircraft either. But then, why
put $millions$ into developing an engine that will be sold
at perhaps 1000 pcs per year when the same $millions$ might
produce an engine that is sold into millions of cars?
As I suggested earlier, the breakthrough developments
will probably not come from the established suppliers
to the marketplace. This is demonstrated by the fact that
the most successful automotive derivatives flying are
not offered by the original manufacturer of the
engine. The fact that Toyota or Porsche stubbed
their toes was probably predictable but the lessons
learned were invaluable.
But it's disingenuous to paint all automotive
conversion efforts with a brush dipped into the
failures of a few.
Bob . . .
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! --
|