Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:36 AM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules (Andrew Butler)
2. 05:07 AM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules (Mike)
3. 06:20 AM - Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules (Mike)
4. 06:37 AM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules (Ernest Christley)
5. 09:39 AM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules ()
6. 11:43 AM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 04:46 PM - LED Position Lights (Dennis Johnson)
8. 06:38 PM - Fw: Re: Ignition Switch (Henry Trzeciakowski)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Hi Mike,
Thanks for this. All two are welcome, as they help build a big picture of all sides
of those coins.
I am aware of the issues with the P-Mags (magnets and the like) and this is why
I have decided to wire up for dual P-mags, but only install one. This will still
give me most of the benefits of the e-ignition, while allowing me to rest
easy with regards any gremlins that might exist. I'll let the Slick MAG do its
thing and see how things are in a couple of years with regards replacing it............
Cheers, Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, 18 December, 2008 5:57:58 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
Andrew,
My two cents! I have personally seen more EMAG/PMAG failures then total
electrical failure in single bus electrical systems (Z-11). Add a
secondary battery (Z-19) and the statistics improve for a plasma system
vs. EMAG/PMAG. Remember during a major electrical failure (for what
ever reason) the Plasma systems only need, is a good battery for more
flying time then the airplane will hold fuel. The EMAG/PMAG product has
had more then it's fair share of field testing failures by the customer.
A customer that didn't realize they were test subjects. Just my opinion
viewed with actual 1st party data not 3rd!
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Andrew Butler
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
Hi Jeff,
I also plan on dual electronic ignition and my original design was
practically identical to yours. This was when I was looking at Dual
Plasma III Ignitions. Then I switched to dual P-MAGS. Reason? Simplicity
and internal power. At this point I couldn't reason that the added
complexity of the dual battery split bus was justified, and ended up
removing the second battery from the design.
Both the designs are attached, the dual alt, dual batt dating from
April. The current design is more or less finished.
Any takers of critiquing it for me?
The originals are in Visio. If anyone wants a copy, let me know.
Cheers, Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Page" <jpx@Qenesis.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 3:44:53 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain,
Ireland, Portugal
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
I plan dual electronic ignitions for my aircraft. I started with
Z13/8. As much as I expect the designers have done significant things
to ensure the ignitions work, in spite of nasty power events, I
finally decided I wanted completely isolated electrical systems, so
any problem, no matter how unlikely or unpredictable, could not
prevent continued flight. So I added a few features from Z14. I
didn't go all the way. My aux battery is very small, and driven by an
SD-8 alternator. I did not join the batteries together for extra jolt
when starting. I do have a small cross-feed relay that will allow the
SD-8 to power the essential bus if the main alternator fails.
The biggest thing I wrestled with, was how was my wife to know what
switches to throw in the event of an alternator failure ? Together we
came up with coloured lines joining the warning light and switches
that are numbered. This low voltage light goes on, then flip these
switches in this order.
You can view my power diagram and the switch layout here:
http://www.curtispriest.com/tundra/Electrical
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
> Speaking of Hall Effect stuff, I just purchased two LightSpeed III
hall
> effect ignition modules. The mfg says to connect the + side of the
> controller through a pull-able breaker then directly to the battery
> terminal. Ok, that covers their insurance folks if I crash. On the
other
> hand I am using Z-13 and was thinking of using the same scenario but
> connecting them to the main battery bus using an ATC fuse and skipping
> the breaker. I was never a proponent of having extra wires hanging off
> the + side of the battery terminal. AS in Z-13 I will have a switch to
> turn them on/off as necessary.
>
> Has anyone wired up two of these and which method did you use.
>
> Glenn
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-
MS -
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
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: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
How do those feared risks occur?
How do you get a shorted battery bus failure? How does
connection directly to the battery protect against
an overvoltage condition? What matter of "runaway
device" can you imagine that brings the entire system
to its knees? As long as we're in the free-ranging
imagination mode, how about bursting batteries,
open batteries, etc. etc.
Lets see, a tool across the bus, or direct short from a chafed wire, the
loss of the ground bus on a composite airplane just to name a few.
I have a story from a dark and stormy night where the air conditioner
started to break down and started to draw over 150 amps and caused both
Gen's to go off line and pull the volts down to about seven volts. The
CB didn't trip, everything just went almost completely dark before we
got the air conditioner off. Then we were able to restore power. The
problem, if we couldn't shut the Air conditioner off or couldn't figure
out the problem in time (if this airplane had a battery powered ignition
system) the engine would have failed, where simply turning the bus off
would have restored the engine or maybe even had enough voltage at the
battery to keep the engine running. Oh, the airplane referenced was a
certified airplane.
It's easy to hypothesize about all manner of failure
but the acid test is the repeatable experiment. Get
any combination of implements you choose and MAKE
one of those events happen. If it can happen accidently,
then you can make it happen. If it's exceedingly
difficult or impossible to MAKE it happen, then concerns
for accidental events go away. The physics of events do
not change for random versus purposeful failures.
Bob, I sometime wonder if you fly or are around flying. This isn't a
hypothesis; it's based on real people in real airplanes. The fact is
that electrical systems fail with regularity, some worse then others.
An engine failure on top of that in many cases is a near death
experience. Loosing the engine is not the same as loosing the
transponder. Why do we use vacuum or backup batteries to power
important instrument systems? Don't you think the ignition system
deserves the same respect?
Suppose your engine is also dependent upon electrically
delivered fuel? The path to Nirvana is more than hooking
certain accessories directly to the battery with some
notion of fending off nargles. Failure Mode Effects
Analysis is a science and exercise in logic that has
served aviation (and others) very well for 100+
years.
It's not! In aviation failures that occur in the field are often not
reported. Airplanes with electrical systems have been around for less
the 100 years and electronic ignitions in aviation much less. We are
all inventing new system designs that are not able to accept total
failure of the total system.
Making sure the electrically dependent engine is not
left in dark has been discussed here on the list for
over ten years. These discussions have included consideration
of auxiliary batteries both manually and automatically
controlled.
Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the
products and concepts haven't been either.
Mike
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
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: | Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
I have had direct interaction with four EMAG/PMAG airplanes where the
airplane was unflyable (loss of power in flight, or would not run on the
ground). I have seen many more mag failures but I have not seen both
fail at the same time making the airplane unflyable. I have also seen
one failure on the Lightspeed system but never a dual failure. Some of
the EMAG failures may have been isolatable in flight causing a single
failure on a dual system vs. the dual failures that caused landing out
or not running at all.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
H Nelson
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:23 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
<rv9jim@juno.com>
Mike,
How many failures do you know about with the E-Mag, P-Mag
ignitions? How many failures of magneto ignitions have occured in the
same time? Other ignitions of various configurations. Fact vs: opinion
is very important. Nothing is perfect. The main reason we all use dual
ignitions is for safety. It also gives us better fuel burn.
Jim
____________________________________________________________
Live the good life! Click now for great retirement planning assistance!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1hgimeim0pl7I4CFc1o21X
u2lJFNyMywOmmFBAAdKspEJHz/
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Mike wrote:
> Making sure the electrically dependent engine is not
> left in dark has been discussed here on the list for
> over ten years. These discussions have included consideration
> of auxiliary batteries both manually and automatically
> controlled.
>
> Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the
> products and concepts haven't been either.
>
>
That statement shows a lot of insight, Mike. As the technology we use
evolves, some things that were critical become secondary, and some
things that were minor become critical.
With respect to electrically dependent (ED) engines, I think we can boil
all the concerns down to three things that the engine must have to keep
running: air, fuel, and spark. A bulletproof system will have full
redundancy across all three.
Redundant air is generally provided by some sort of flapper valve or
some such thingy to get around a clogged air filter, but the biggest
problem with air is carb icing. This is one area where electronic
injection shines. A significant portions of accidents occur when a carb
ices up where the fuel is evaporated into the air. EI moves the
evaporation location closer to the combustion location, where there is
more heat to keep the ice from forming. Icing is still possible, just
less so. Either way, methods for avoiding cutting off the air supply
look the same for all types of engines.
Redundant fuel is harder for ED engines. Fuel pumps are hard working
devices that are reliable, but do not have infinite lifespan, and it
depends on a lot of upstream stuff to work. A backup pump only backs up
the pump. For it to be a true alternate system, you have to backup
everything, up to and including the power generation source. Even with
a second pump, I chose to go low tech and provide a gravity fed drip
line to the air intake with a needle valve control. I would never be
able to get the engine started with this on the ground...and I'd never
want to. Control is slow and unresponsive, but it will get me to the
nearest airport. It is meant as a backup to keep the fan turning in an
emergency. This would work for any engine. Low wing aircraft would
need a header tank higher than the engine. The vast majority of
aircraft being built in garages today could stay straight and level for
an hour with 5gal of fuel, and travel nearly 100 miles. At a time when
everything is going that badly the only place you should be trying to
get to is 'nearest'. High wing aircraft would be able to run the tanks
dry with this method.
The spark is also more difficult for ED. Airplane engines are designed
with two independent, self contained spark producers. Each mag has a
generator, a distributor and coil all in one tidy package. You just
have to bolt them on and plug them in. Moving to ED generally means
that you're breaking the generator and spark producer apart. Most
designs have two spark producers, but combine the generators into one,
and depend on the battery for backup. Again, this isn't really
redundancy. My design calls for using two EDIS modules (self-contained
electronic ignition controller used by Ford), and converting the old
distributor to a generator. One EDIS module runs off ship's power. The
other is powered by the tiny generator (less than 5 amps) that was once
the distributor. If I lose ship's power, the secondary ignition will
keep right on going. The two are completely independent.
So Mike is correct. New products call for new thinking...but the
thinking really goes back to the same basic principles. The engine must
have air, spark and fuel. Backup systems must be able to deliver
without depending on the primary system. It is best to assume that the
primary system doesn't exist AT ALL when designing the backup. There's
a lot of new under the sun....just it's not, really.
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: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Mike and Bob,
Thank you both for your input. I have emailed with Jeff P. and I've
decided a second battery (even a small 4.5 ah job) would be a good idea
as an independent source for keeping at least one ignition going even if
I shut down the power completely and simply had to fly home with just
the engine.
Mike, as you indicated that is the reason Lightspeed likes it wired
directly to the battery. Depending on a bus which is behind a solenoid
is asking for trouble. Yes, I've replaced more than one solenoid on
aircraft in the field and fortunately with mags there was no dependency.
FYI, stealing a solenoid off the FBOs old pick-up truck works in
airplanes too. Parts do fail, but only when you're flying - funny that.
The Lightspeed draws little power and I only need 1-2 amps to find a
landing spot. It may be that I install it inside the cabin and keep it
charged just as a backup. A big part of the process is monitoring and
recognizing when the system is acting up and when (and how) to shut it
down - that's process. I have done enough flying in the dark to realize
the importance of a backup something.
Thanks to all for the diagrams and discussion.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:01 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
How do those feared risks occur?
How do you get a shorted battery bus failure? How does
connection directly to the battery protect against
an overvoltage condition? What matter of "runaway
device" can you imagine that brings the entire system
to its knees? As long as we're in the free-ranging
imagination mode, how about bursting batteries,
open batteries, etc. etc.
Lets see, a tool across the bus, or direct short from a chafed wire, the
loss of the ground bus on a composite airplane just to name a few.
I have a story from a dark and stormy night where the air conditioner
started to break down and started to draw over 150 amps and caused both
Gen's to go off line and pull the volts down to about seven volts. The
CB didn't trip, everything just went almost completely dark before we
got the air conditioner off. Then we were able to restore power. The
problem, if we couldn't shut the Air conditioner off or couldn't figure
out the problem in time (if this airplane had a battery powered ignition
system) the engine would have failed, where simply turning the bus off
would have restored the engine or maybe even had enough voltage at the
battery to keep the engine running. Oh, the airplane referenced was a
certified airplane.
It's easy to hypothesize about all manner of failure
but the acid test is the repeatable experiment. Get
any combination of implements you choose and MAKE
one of those events happen. If it can happen accidently,
then you can make it happen. If it's exceedingly
difficult or impossible to MAKE it happen, then concerns
for accidental events go away. The physics of events do
not change for random versus purposeful failures.
Bob, I sometime wonder if you fly or are around flying. This isn't a
hypothesis; it's based on real people in real airplanes. The fact is
that electrical systems fail with regularity, some worse then others.
An engine failure on top of that in many cases is a near death
experience. Loosing the engine is not the same as loosing the
transponder. Why do we use vacuum or backup batteries to power
important instrument systems? Don't you think the ignition system
deserves the same respect?
Suppose your engine is also dependent upon electrically
delivered fuel? The path to Nirvana is more than hooking
certain accessories directly to the battery with some
notion of fending off nargles. Failure Mode Effects
Analysis is a science and exercise in logic that has
served aviation (and others) very well for 100+
years.
It's not! In aviation failures that occur in the field are often not
reported. Airplanes with electrical systems have been around for less
the 100 years and electronic ignitions in aviation much less. We are
all inventing new system designs that are not able to accept total
failure of the total system.
Making sure the electrically dependent engine is not
left in dark has been discussed here on the list for
over ten years. These discussions have included consideration
of auxiliary batteries both manually and automatically
controlled.
Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the
products and concepts haven't been either.
Mike
10/27/2008 7:57 AM
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: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
At 07:01 AM 12/19/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> How do those feared risks occur?
>
> How do you get a shorted battery bus failure? How does
> connection directly to the battery protect against
> an overvoltage condition? What matter of "runaway
> device" can you imagine that brings the entire system
> to its knees? As long as we're in the free-ranging
> imagination mode, how about bursting batteries,
> open batteries, etc. etc.
>
>Lets see, a tool across the bus, or direct short from a chafed wire, the
>loss of the ground bus on a composite airplane just to name a few.
. . . and are these all not manifestations of poor
craftsmanship or maintenance? If we're going to add
band-aids to any system that go to offsetting sub-standard
behavior by someone who has touched the airplane . . . where
does it end?
>I have a story from a dark and stormy night where the air conditioner
>started to break down and started to draw over 150 amps and caused both
>Gen's to go off line and pull the volts down to about seven volts. The
>CB didn't trip, everything just went almost completely dark before we
>got the air conditioner off. Then we were able to restore power. The
>problem, if we couldn't shut the Air conditioner off or couldn't figure
>out the problem in time (if this airplane had a battery powered ignition
>system) the engine would have failed, where simply turning the bus off
>would have restored the engine or maybe even had enough voltage at the
>battery to keep the engine running. Oh, the airplane referenced was a
>certified airplane.
. . . and what did you learn from this or any other story
that would give you pause for evaluating your own project?
Are there things that could or should have been done in
the original design processes that would have prevented this
incident? Suppose your RV doesn't even HAVE a piece-of-@#$@#
air conditioner.What is the value of taking one incident where
the designers/fabricators/maintainers/operators stubbed there
collective toes and then levying new requirements on ALL
airplanes that work-around the SYMPTOMS of that one case?
>Bob, I sometime wonder if you fly or are around flying. This isn't a
>hypothesis; it's based on real people in real airplanes. The fact is
>that electrical systems fail with regularity, some worse then others.
>An engine failure on top of that in many cases is a near death
>experience. Loosing the engine is not the same as loosing the
>transponder. Why do we use vacuum or backup batteries to power
>important instrument systems? Don't you think the ignition system
>deserves the same respect?
My career in aviation began in 1955 when I helped
an uncle install an MANUAL direction finder loop in
his 170. He could put holes in the airplane but couldn't
read a diagram or solder. I was 12 years old.
I retired from Hawker-Beechcraft 18 months ago as the
subject matter expert leader in electronics/electrical
systems. I'm still contracting to that organization and
several others who specialize in aviation design and
production.
I'm an 1000 hour private pilot with about that many
additional hours as a test engineer on TC aircraft
and 50 times that time as a designer, qualifier and
troubleshooter of airborne systems. I'm now 66 years
old and still in the business.
>It's not! In aviation failures that occur in the field are often not
>reported. Airplanes with electrical systems have been around for less
>the 100 years and electronic ignitions in aviation much less. We are
>all inventing new system designs that are not able to accept total
>failure of the total system.
Agreed. But just as fuel flow under all anticipated
flight conditions was the big stumbling block for
many a designer 70 years ago, we have a new
challenge that isn't any different. Just as there's
no excuse for total failure of fuel flow, there is
NO EXCUSE for total failure of an electrical system.
Yeah, it has happened which means there's a REASON
but there is still no excuse.
>Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the
>products and concepts haven't been either.
Just because it is new doesn't mean that the
thought processes and fabrication techniques
for airworthiness are any different than what
has worked well for decades.
Suppose we consider an RV with a piece of @#$@
air conditioner with a failure mode that sucks down
the entire system? Of what value is it to tie
one or both systems directly to the (+) battery
post? Which is better, refine the A/C design or
add weight, complexity, cost-of-ownership to offset
the possibility that the A/C causes an unhappy day
in the cockpit?
On a related topic. Lots of folks are trying to figure
out ways to integrate lithium-ion batteries into
aircraft. It's no mean task. While the energy/weight
radio of l-ion is seductive, it's sorta like figuring
out a way to burn nitro-glycerine in your engine. Wow!
What energy potential! Now, how do you integrate
this potential into an existing, highly refined system
in a way that does not increase risk?
There are people who worry a lot about things
they don't understand. There are people who are
paid to worry a lot about things they presumably
understand and use force of law to modify our
behavior such that THEIR worries are mitigated
. . . all in the name of 'safety'.
http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/text/caffiene.htm
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Cowboy_after_OSHA.jpg
My point about your posting was that it tended to
reenforce the notion that there was a valid WORRY
to be address without adding understanding.
An understanding of design for failure-tolerance,
craftsmanship, maintenance and operation such that
worries go away.
There are few suppliers to aviation that have a
working knowledge of low-risk, light-weight, failure-
tolerant system design. If we attached every worry-wart's
product to the battery(+) post . . . it's easy
to see where that idea leads!
Bob . . .
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | LED Position Lights |
This isn't an exact answer to your question about LED wingtip position
lights, but it might be helpful.
I'm using these LED wingtip position lights on my airplane:
https://ssl.perfora.net/www.gs-air.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=15494c3e0b2a
590/shopdata/index.shopscript
In addition to the red/green forward position light and the white aft
position light, that both use LEDs, they also use a conventional strobe
light.
I talked with GS-Air the other day and they are close to finalizing a
new wingtip position light that also uses LEDs for the "strobe" light.
Best,
Dennis
Lancair Legacy, 225 hours
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: Ignition Switch |
----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Trzeciakowski
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ignition Switch
Bob:
I just purchased an ACS Ignition Switch (A-510-2) [
Off-Right-Left-Both-Start] and was looking at their wiring instructions.
I then downloaded your Z-26 diagram for Ignition Switch Options -
Magento. Both wiring diagrams are basically identical with a few
differences:
Both diagrams jumper GRD &R for impulse coupling to Right Mag - shielded
wire
Both depict L to Left Mag - shielded wire
Both depict B to Main Bus (7amp)
Both diagram S to Starter Seleniod
The differences are:
ACS has shielded wire grounded at the right & left mag only, and the GRD
terminal grounded at the grounding block or nearest structure.
whereas your Z-26 have these wires shielded at both ends with the shield
closest to the ignition switch wired to the GRD, but your GRD is NOT
grounded to a grounding block or nearest structure....
ACS also says to use all shielded wire....I personally think that is
overkill...
So, would you recommend grounding at both ends of the shielding wire,
but why not ground at the switch, or was this accidently omitted by you?
Comments, suggestions appreciated.
Henry
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! --
|