Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:02 AM - Re: Electronic Ignition (jkreidler)
2. 06:56 AM - Re: Re: Electronic Ignition (Danny Riggs)
3. 07:55 AM - Re: Re: Electronic Ignition (Kelly McMullen)
4. 08:16 AM - Re: Re: Electronic Ignition (Danny Riggs)
5. 11:22 AM - Re: Re: Electronic Ignition (Carl Froehlich)
6. 12:09 PM - Re: Re: Electronic Ignition (Deems Davis)
7. 12:28 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition (jkreidler)
8. 01:15 PM - OAT probe location (Gordon Anderson)
9. 02:50 PM - Re: Re: Electronic Ignition (Carl Froehlich)
10. 03:09 PM - Re: OAT probe location (Jesse Saint)
11. 04:14 PM - Bad Starter Noise (Marcus Cooper)
12. 04:42 PM - Re: Bad Starter Noise (Kevin Belue)
13. 05:56 PM - Re: Bad Starter Noise (Kelly McMullen)
14. 06:15 PM - Re: Bad Starter Noise (Marcus Cooper)
15. 06:36 PM - Re: Re: Electronic Ignition (Neal George)
16. 07:27 PM - The Joys of Experimental Aircraft Ownership (Robin Marks)
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: Electronic Ignition |
We are approaching the 500 hour mark and are considering some form of electronic
ignition as well. I struggle with the current timing advance systems available
as I do not like the amount of data they make their advance decision on.
From what I have been able to find all of the systems doing advance monitor manifold
pressure and RPM then determine the amount of ignition advance based on
a stored table. In a perfect world this method is fine, my issue is that they
are not monitoring the output of the system to determine when the world is not
perfect. In the automotive world this is done by monitoring all of the inputs
and all of the outputs via sensors like knock, O2, mass air flow, injector
PWM, etc. Then all of this information is used by the computer to make adjustments
on the fly -er drive.
I am not debating the advantages of EI, or even the reliability. I just wonder
if we are taking a big enough picture of the entire system to make, and know
we are making the right decision when it comes to advancing the timing of the
ignition. At very least I would like to see knock sensors. - Jason
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400982#400982
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: Electronic Ignition |
They all use stored tables. The difference between the auto and aircraft E
IS systems is that the auto systems use greater system sampling (more senso
rs) than do the aircraft EIS before making the ignition decisions. That is
what makes the auto engines so efficient today. I understand that knock sen
sing is difficult in aircraft engines because they are so internally noisy.
If they could introduce a couple of more sensors to the equation (like you
stated) that would help. I've talked to Rhonda Barrett (Barrett Precision
Engines) about EIS. They have been slowly working on a system for their eng
ines but she says its a complicated subject. Her concerns were very similar
to the ones you stated.
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition
> From: jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> Date: Mon=2C 20 May 2013 05:02:03 -0700
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>
com>
>
> We are approaching the 500 hour mark and are considering some form of ele
ctronic ignition as well. I struggle with the current timing advance syste
ms available as I do not like the amount of data they make their advance de
cision on. From what I have been able to find all of the systems doing adv
ance monitor manifold pressure and RPM then determine the amount of ignitio
n advance based on a stored table. In a perfect world this method is fine
=2C my issue is that they are not monitoring the output of the system to de
termine when the world is not perfect. In the automotive world this is don
e by monitoring all of the inputs and all of the outputs via sensors like k
nock=2C O2=2C mass air flow=2C injector PWM=2C etc. Then all of this infor
mation is used by the computer to make adjustments on the fly -er drive.
>
> I am not debating the advantages of EI=2C or even the reliability. I jus
t wonder if we are taking a big enough picture of the entire system to make
=2C and know we are making the right decision when it comes to advancing th
e timing of the ignition. At very least I would like to see knock sensors.
- Jason
>
> --------
> Jason Kreidler
> 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls=2C WI
> Tony Kolar=2C Kyle Hokel=2C Wayne Elser=2C Jason Kreidler
> N44YH - Flying - #40617
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400982#400982
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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: Electronic Ignition |
There is one factor not mentioned. Combustion from EI spark produces a
different vibration signature from combustion generated by mag spark. No, I
don't know the technical reasons, just know it is an issue that affects
propeller harmonics, and on certified planes Hartzell and others want a
vibration scan before setting approved rpm ranges for the
prop.Unfortunately, such vibration scans are expensive, so prop
manufacturers only do them if they see marketing opportunity or someone
else pays.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Danny Riggs <jdriggs49@msn.com> wrote:
> They all use stored tables. The difference between the auto and aircraft
> EIS systems is that the auto systems use greater system sampling (more
> sensors) than do the aircraft EIS before making the ignition decisions.
> That is what makes the auto engines so efficient today. I understand that
> knock sensing is difficult in aircraft engines because they are so
> internally noisy. If they could introduce a couple of more sensors to the
> equation (like you stated) that would help. I've talked to Rhonda Barrett
> (Barrett Precision Engines) about EIS. They have been slowly working on a
> system for their engines but she says its a complicated subject. Her
> concerns were very similar to the ones you stated.
>
> > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition
> > From: jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> > Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 05:02:03 -0700
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >
> jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
> >
> > We are approaching the 500 hour mark and are considering some form of
> electronic ignition as well. I struggle with the current timing advance
> systems available as I do not like the amount of data they make their
> advance decision on. From what I have been able to find all of the systems
> doing advance monitor manifold pressure and RPM then determine the amount
> of ignition advance based on a stored table. In a perfect world this method
> is fine, my issue is that they are not monitoring the output of the system
> to determine when the world is not perfect. In the automotive world this is
> done by monitoring all of the inputs and all of the outputs via sensors
> like knock, O2, mass air flow, injector PWM, etc. Then all of this
> information is used by the computer to make adjustments on the fly -er
> drive.
> >
> > I am not debating the advantages of EI, or even the reliability. I just
> wonder if we are taking a big enough picture of the entire system to make,
> and know we are making the right decision when it comes to advancing the
> timing of the ignition. At very least I would like to see knock sensors. -
> Jason
> >
> > --------
> > Jason Kreidler
> > 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
> > Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
> > N44YH - Flying - #40617
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400982#400982
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
- sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
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: Electronic Ignition |
To my (admitted limited) knowledge Electroair is the only one out there tha
t has certified EIS for the type of airplanes we commonly drive. They use i
nductive type of spark which gives a longer dwell time than the CDI which i
s much shorter and very intense. Mag spark is good over 5 degrees of crank
and Electroair's is good over about 20 degrees of crank and CDI has to spar
k multiple times to get any kind of dwell time=2C or so I understand.
I really like the fuel efficiency and easy starting characteristics of the
EFI systems. I "think" that with the EFIS systems monitoring multiple engin
e parameters that we can keep ahead of most potential problems if or as th
ey arise. I was programming my GRT HX EFIS yesterday. I'm still amazed at w
hat it can do for such a relatively small amount of money.
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: apilot2@gmail.com
There is one factor not mentioned. Combustion from EI spark produces a diff
erent vibration signature from combustion generated by mag spark. No=2C I d
on't know the technical reasons=2C just know it is an issue that affects pr
opeller harmonics=2C and on certified planes Hartzell and others want a vib
ration scan before setting approved rpm ranges for the prop.Unfortunately
=2C such vibration scans are expensive=2C so prop manufacturers only do the
m if they see marketing opportunity or someone else pays.
=0A
On Mon=2C May 20=2C 2013 at 8:55 AM=2C Danny Riggs <jdriggs49@msn.com> wrot
e:
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
They all use stored tables. The difference between the auto and aircraft E
IS systems is that the auto systems use greater system sampling (more senso
rs) than do the aircraft EIS before making the ignition decisions. That is
what makes the auto engines so efficient today. I understand that knock sen
sing is difficult in aircraft engines because they are so internally noisy.
If they could introduce a couple of more sensors to the equation (like you
stated) that would help. I've talked to Rhonda Barrett (Barrett Precision
Engines) about EIS. They have been slowly working on a system for their eng
ines but she says its a complicated subject. Her concerns were very similar
to the ones you stated.
=0A
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition
> From: jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> Date: Mon=2C 20 May 2013 05:02:03 -0700
=0A
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>
com>
=0A
>
> We are approaching the 500 hour mark and are considering some form of ele
ctronic ignition as well. I struggle with the current timing advance syste
ms available as I do not like the amount of data they make their advance de
cision on. From what I have been able to find all of the systems doing adv
ance monitor manifold pressure and RPM then determine the amount of ignitio
n advance based on a stored table. In a perfect world this method is fine
=2C my issue is that they are not monitoring the output of the system to de
termine when the world is not perfect. In the automotive world this is don
e by monitoring all of the inputs and all of the outputs via sensors like k
nock=2C O2=2C mass air flow=2C injector PWM=2C etc. Then all of this infor
mation is used by the computer to make adjustments on the fly -er drive.
=0A
>
> I am not debating the advantages of EI=2C or even the reliability. I jus
t wonder if we are taking a big enough picture of the entire system to make
=2C and know we are making the right decision when it comes to advancing th
e timing of the ignition. At very least I would like to see knock sensors.
- Jason
=0A
>
> --------
> Jason Kreidler
> 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls=2C WI
> Tony Kolar=2C Kyle Hokel=2C Wayne Elser=2C Jason Kreidler
> N44YH - Flying - #40617
>
>
=0A
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400982#400982
=0A
>
>
>
>
>
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List=0A
tp://forums.matronics.com=0A
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A
=0A
--
=0A
- sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
============0A
=0A
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: Electronic Ignition |
At high vacuum (low manifold pressure) the electronic ignition advances the
timing (pMag is 34-39 degrees). This is what you want under such cruise
conditions as the earlier spark provides more efficient combustion. This
does however change the engine resonance - and for some props yields
operation restrictions such as reducing RPM below 2600 other than takeoff.
I believe MT does not have such restrictions - but would need to verify.
Below is the Hartzell limitations for the 180hp Lycoming with electronic
ignition (and what I have placarded in the RV-8A). I haven't seen any such
testing by Hartzell for the IO-540 - and their website just says "not
endorsed". Perhaps Van's will get them to do the same vibration test for
the IO-540 like they did for the 180hp 360.
Carl (still flying with mags but pinging Brad at eMag to get the six
cylinder ignition out)
1.
<http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Hartzell_c2yk.pdf>
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Hartzell_c2yk.pdf
Hartzell HC-C2YK-1BF/F7666A-2 Propeller on 180 Hp Lycoming engines
equipped with Electronic Ignition or FADEC
The Hartzell Propeller Model HC-C2YK-1BF/F7666A-2 has been vibrationally
approved per
FAR23.907 on the standard production Lycoming Engine Model O-360-A1A, and
similar models,
rated at 180 HP at 2700 RPM with a restriction to avoid continuous operation
between 2000 and
2250 RPM. The propeller vibration characteristics and stress amplitudes on a
reciprocating
engine installation are primarily mechanically generated by the engine. Any
modification to the
standard engine configuration to include high compression pistons,
electronic ignition, FADEC,
tuned induction and exhaust, and turbocharging or turbonormalizing have the
potential to
adversely effect the propeller vibration characteristics and stress
amplitudes. Hartzell Propeller,
therefore, does not endorse any such engine modification unless the specific
engine and
propeller configurations have been tested and found to be acceptable
vibrationwise.
The Lightspeed electronic ignition is not certified for use on any aircraft
engines so its use is
limited to the experimental/amateur built market. Hartzell recently
conducted a test with the
propeller model HC-C2YK-1BF/F7666A-2 installed on a standard Lycoming
O-360-A1A engine,
except for a modification to equip it with the Lightspeed ignition in place
of one magneto. The
results of this test show an increase in the propeller vibratory stress
amplitudes within the 2000-
2250 RPM range currently covered by the operating restriction noted in the
first paragraph, and
additionally above 2600 RPM with high power settings. Based on this data,
continued safe use of
this propeller on O-360-A1A and similar engines equipped with Lightspeed
electronic ignition
would require the following:
The Hartzell Propeller Model HC-C2YR-1BF/F7666A-2 is satisfactory
vibrationwise mounted on
Lycoming model O-360-A1A and similar engines rated at 180 HP at 2700 RPM and
equipped
with Lightspeed Plasma II electronic ignition installed in Van's Aircraft
Model RV-8 and similar
single engine tractor aircraft with the following operating restrictions.
1. Avoid continuous operation between 2000 and 2250 RPM.
2. Operation above 2600 RPM is limited to takeoff. As soon as practical
after takeoff the RPM
should be reduced to 2600 RPM or less.
3. The propeller blades are life limited and must be retired upon reaching
8700 hours.
The propeller diameter limits are 74 to 72 inches.
http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/images/misc/progress.gif
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition
There is one factor not mentioned. Combustion from EI spark produces a
different vibration signature from combustion generated by mag spark. No, I
don't know the technical reasons, just know it is an issue that affects
propeller harmonics, and on certified planes Hartzell and others want a
vibration scan before setting approved rpm ranges for the
prop.Unfortunately, such vibration scans are expensive, so prop
manufacturers only do them if they see marketing opportunity or someone else
pays.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Danny Riggs <jdriggs49@msn.com> wrote:
They all use stored tables. The difference between the auto and aircraft
EIS systems is that the auto systems use greater system sampling (more
sensors) than do the aircraft EIS before making the ignition decisions. That
is what makes the auto engines so efficient today. I understand that knock
sensing is difficult in aircraft engines because they are so internally
noisy. If they could introduce a couple of more sensors to the equation
(like you stated) that would help. I've talked to Rhonda Barrett (Barrett
Precision Engines) about EIS. They have been slowly working on a system for
their engines but she says its a complicated subject. Her concerns were very
similar to the ones you stated.
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition
> From: jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 05:02:03 -0700
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>
<jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
>
> We are approaching the 500 hour mark and are considering some form of
electronic ignition as well. I struggle with the current timing advance
systems available as I do not like the amount of data they make their
advance decision on. From what I have been able to find all of the systems
doing advance monitor manifold pressure and RPM then determine the amount of
ignition advance based on a stored table. In a perfect world this method is
fine, my issue is that they are not monitoring the output of the system to
determine when the world is not perfect. In the automotive world this is
done by monitoring all of the inputs and all of the outputs via sensors like
knock, O2, mass air flow, injector PWM, etc. Then all of this information is
used by the computer to make adjustments on the fly -er drive.
>
> I am not debating the advantages of EI, or even the reliability. I just
wonder if we are taking a big enough picture of the entire system to make,
and know we are making the right decision when it comes to advancing the
timing of the ignition. At very least I would like to see knock sensors. -
Jason
>
> --------
> Jason Kreidler
> 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
> Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
> N44YH - Flying - #40617
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400982#400982
>
>
>
>
>
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
- sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm
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: Electronic Ignition |
Jason,
This is precisely the issue with today's EI. Not only is each engine unique
(evidence the dyno runs), but the conditions that the engine operates in
are dynamic and vary considerably. We know that things like temperature,
humidity, altitude, etc. all combine to effect the effectiveness of the
engine. Several years ago, George Braly (GAMI) announced they were
investigating/developing a system that would address these specific issues.
I believe it was called PRISM, Talking to Alan Barrett, about it, he said
that his father (Monty) was very interested in following it's
development,because he believed it was the only way that he could see for
EI to be an acceptable aircraft engine technology. (Hope I got that right,
Alan, pleas chime in). I see that PRISM is listed on the GAMI web- site,
but don't know it's current state. As I understood it at the time, The were
going to use sensors to sense the operating factors and dynamically build
the power/spark curves in real time.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:02 AM, jkreidler
<jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>wrote:
> jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
>
> We are approaching the 500 hour mark and are considering some form of
> electronic ignition as well. I struggle with the current timing advance
> systems available as I do not like the amount of data they make their
> advance decision on. From what I have been able to find all of the systems
> doing advance monitor manifold pressure and RPM then determine the amount
> of ignition advance based on a stored table. In a perfect world this
> method is fine, my issue is that they are not monitoring the output of the
> system to determine when the world is not perfect. In the automotive world
> this is done by monitoring all of the inputs and all of the outputs via
> sensors like knock, O2, mass air flow, injector PWM, etc. Then all of this
> information is used by the computer to make adjustments on the fly -er
> drive.
>
> I am not debating the advantages of EI, or even the reliability. I just
> wonder if we are taking a big enough picture of the entire system to make,
> and know we are making the right decision when it comes to advancing the
> timing of the ignition. At very least I would like to see knock sensors.
> - Jason
>
> --------
> Jason Kreidler
> 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
> Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
> N44YH - Flying - #40617
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400982#400982
>
>
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: Electronic Ignition |
Wow - talk about a simple subject that is about as complicated as can be. Now
that vibration is brought up it adds a whole new element to the equation. I wonder
what vibration is created when mags are not timed well and fire at different
times, or worse as the gears wear they fire only within a band.
One of the systems I have been giving serious consideration is the G3I. Simply
because it maintains both mags, so I have a redundant system. It times both
sides together so I know the plugs are firing at the same time. It leaves the
timing alone, but provides spark for another 20 degrees of rotation (not sure
how / if that effects vibraton). On the downside I still have to rebuild those
stupid dumb old school mags.
By the way, these decisions are a pile more complicated after the airplane is complete.
When it is time to decide this stuff during the build you have a thousand
other decisions to make, so if you want to finish and fly in a reasonable
amount of time you just need to decide and move on. After the airplane is flying
the time pressure is no longer there so you can contemplate, think, ask,
drink, contemplate some more, go flying, and forget about the decision for another
few months. That is until the mags go TU and you are sitting on the ramp
somewhere - then you walk in the local shop ask if they have a mag to get you
home and the decision is made for another 500 hours. ugh - I think I am reaching
the drink stage again! - Jason
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401004#401004
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: | OAT probe location |
Old subject revisited, but I'm curious about whether placing the OAT probe under
the right side horizontal stabilizer is much less accurate than in the "correct"
position eg. in the wing inspection panels.
I mainly want to avoid adding 4 spliced junctions to make the wires long enough
to reach the wings. (The sensor resistance is 15kOhm at RT so I understand that
the joints shouldn't affect the reading significantly, they just aren't "nice".)
Does anyone have any data to say what the difference in temperature readings between
these 2 locations would be on the RV-10?
Thanks!
Gordon Anderson
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: Electronic Ignition |
While the G3I maintaining both mags is an attraction to some, I see it as a
disadvantage. The weak sister mechanical aspect of a magneto is as much
reason for me to not have mags as the better spark and timing curve with the
electronic ignition.
I'm sure others see it different.
Carl
RV-8A (700hrs - 400hrs on pMags and $2 NGK sparkplugs)
RV-10 (with 85 hours on mags and for the first time ever on an airplane just
cleaned sparkplugs - I hope never to have to do this again)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jkreidler
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:28 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition
--> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
Wow - talk about a simple subject that is about as complicated as can be.
Now that vibration is brought up it adds a whole new element to the
equation. I wonder what vibration is created when mags are not timed well
and fire at different times, or worse as the gears wear they fire only
within a band.
One of the systems I have been giving serious consideration is the G3I.
Simply because it maintains both mags, so I have a redundant system. It
times both sides together so I know the plugs are firing at the same time.
It leaves the timing alone, but provides spark for another 20 degrees of
rotation (not sure how / if that effects vibraton). On the downside I still
have to rebuild those stupid dumb old school mags.
By the way, these decisions are a pile more complicated after the airplane
is complete. When it is time to decide this stuff during the build you have
a thousand other decisions to make, so if you want to finish and fly in a
reasonable amount of time you just need to decide and move on. After the
airplane is flying the time pressure is no longer there so you can
contemplate, think, ask, drink, contemplate some more, go flying, and forget
about the decision for another few months. That is until the mags go TU and
you are sitting on the ramp somewhere - then you walk in the local shop ask
if they have a mag to get you home and the decision is made for another 500
hours. ugh - I think I am reaching the drink stage again! - Jason
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401004#401004
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: OAT probe location |
I can't talk about actual differences in temperature, but I have used both locations
and have been happy with the results. I have used the naca inlet for the
front air vents and that was not good. I would certainly prefer the wing, but
under the HS on the right side woud be my next choice. You may get a little higher
reading there due to the potential heat coming off the cowl, especially
if you have the gills/vents on the right side of your cowl.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
On May 20, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Gordon Anderson <mregoan@hispeed.ch> wrote:
>
> Old subject revisited, but I'm curious about whether placing the OAT probe under
the right side horizontal stabilizer is much less accurate than in the "correct"
position eg. in the wing inspection panels.
>
> I mainly want to avoid adding 4 spliced junctions to make the wires long enough
to reach the wings. (The sensor resistance is 15kOhm at RT so I understand
that the joints shouldn't affect the reading significantly, they just aren't
"nice".)
>
> Does anyone have any data to say what the difference in temperature readings
between these 2 locations would be on the RV-10?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Gordon Anderson
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Bad Starter Noise |
I have a Skytec starter with just over 600 hours and recently it started to make
an awful grinding noise when starting the engine. The noise seems to quite
as soon as the engine starts (a little hard to tell over the noise of the engine).
Looking at the flywheel and bendix gear I expected to see a storage wear
pattern, and there is a slight one but not really the indication I expected if
it wasn't fully engaging. It runs great off the engine and the bendix seems
to fully extend, but I know a starter can give a false sense of security when
it isn't under any load.
Any thoughts on what the culprit might be?
Thanks,
Marcus
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: Bad Starter Noise |
Mine did that when the starter mount bent.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Marcus Cooper <cooprv7@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have a Skytec starter with just over 600 hours and recently it started to make
an awful grinding noise when starting the engine. The noise seems to quite
as soon as the engine starts (a little hard to tell over the noise of the engine).
Looking at the flywheel and bendix gear I expected to see a storage wear
pattern, and there is a slight one but not really the indication I expected
if it wasn't fully engaging. It runs great off the engine and the bendix seems
to fully extend, but I know a starter can give a false sense of security when
it isn't under any load.
>
> Any thoughts on what the culprit might be?
>
> Thanks,
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Bad Starter Noise |
Probably a bearing going bad in the starter. Don't know what their
current charge is, but was around $150 last time I needed it, and they
shipped it out repaired the same day they received it.
On 5/20/2013 4:13 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote:
>
>
> I have a Skytec starter with just over 600 hours and recently it started to make
an awful grinding noise when starting the engine. The noise seems to quite
as soon as the engine starts (a little hard to tell over the noise of the engine).
Looking at the flywheel and bendix gear I expected to see a storage wear
pattern, and there is a slight one but not really the indication I expected
if it wasn't fully engaging. It runs great off the engine and the bendix seems
to fully extend, but I know a starter can give a false sense of security when
it isn't under any load.
>
> Any thoughts on what the culprit might be?
>
> Thanks,
> Marcus
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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: Bad Starter Noise |
It looks normal, is it possible to replace just that part?
Thanks,
Marcus
On May 20, 2013, at 7:42 PM, Kevin Belue <kdbelue@charter.net> wrote:
Mine did that when the starter mount bent.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Marcus Cooper <cooprv7@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have a Skytec starter with just over 600 hours and recently it started to make
an awful grinding noise when starting the engine. The noise seems to quite
as soon as the engine starts (a little hard to tell over the noise of the engine).
Looking at the flywheel and bendix gear I expected to see a storage wear
pattern, and there is a slight one but not really the indication I expected
if it wasn't fully engaging. It runs great off the engine and the bendix seems
to fully extend, but I know a starter can give a false sense of security when
it isn't under any load.
>
> Any thoughts on what the culprit might be?
>
> Thanks,
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Tim / Robin (et al) -
We gotta talk.
Our aircraft engines DO NOT have two ignition sources for redundancy. It's required
for best operation.
The combustion chamber in our opposed air-cooled engines is so big it needs to
have the flame lit in multiple locations to achieve reasonable combustion in the
time allotted per power stroke.
If you're running one mag and one EI, you're only running on one plug above idle.
Not good. Nowhere close to optimum. A hotter spark from EI masks some of the roughness
from inefficient combustion, but it's still just one plug doing all the
work.
This is a critical system, and not a place for compromise or hedging bets. It's
binary-land. You're either in or out. Pick one or the other and run with it.
Your fuel consumption per unit power / distance / time (pick your favorite measuring
stick) will decrease and engine performance / smoothness will increase.
"Redundancy" or "safety" are false promises.
Neal George
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
> I feel about the same. I wouldn't ever be happy anymore with
> 2 Mags. Reliability wise I've actually had more worrysome
> issues with planes over the years with mags than with the
> lightspeed on one side. I'm not sure where those statistics
> came from exactly, but especially with that last
> Slick AD I'm not sure I'd believe them. Maybe Bendix
> would be a different story. These days nobody runs
> points and mags in a car....and even in my boat one of the
> best things I did in the last year was swap the points
> for an electronic trigger module. So one side has to be
> E.I. for me.
>
> But, just like Robin says, I don't know that I'd want to put
> TWO of anything on the engine yet. If I did have 2, I don't
> think the lightspeed would be my choice on the RV-10, because
> you'd still have one crank sensor. And given the Looooooong
> time to market and broken promises of pMag for the 6, I think
> I'd want to see a few hundred flying, for a few 10's of
> thousands of hours before I'd dive in. It wouldn't take but
> a couple years for them to develop a track record one way
> or the other...and I have to assume that if they were
> reliable right now, they would be AVAILABLE right now, because
> there certainly is a market for them once they are
> released. I can only assume that it's because of issues
> that they aren't making it to market...so I'll want to
> see a track record before I'd go that route.
>
> In the end, I'm very happy to have only 1 mag to overhaul,
> but even happier that the engine runs best on that one
> EI. I would prefer to keep that same type of
> arrangement down the road...I'm not an "all eggs in 1
> basket" kind of guy.
>
> Tim
>
> On 5/16/2013 12:20 PM, Robin Marks wrote:
>> I prefer the mixed set up of one EI and one mag. I love the set up on my 8A
with one Pmag. I won't run dual anything but Mags however I prefer the better
burn of EI and with a single EI you get almost all the benefit of having dual
EI but still have a good old Mag to rely upon.
>> I would consider two different EI but not two of the same EIs.
>> I wish the 6 cylinder pmag were available (and fully tested)
>>
>> Robin
>>
>
>
>
>
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: | The Joys of Experimental Aircraft Ownership |
The reason I spend top dollar on a comfortable interior!
[https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-8jZ0_d4wPDQ/UZpgXJKtieI/AAAAAAAAFmA/7cq
sEpHmOuY/w656-h875-no/IMG_20130520_104123.jpg]
Robin
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! --
|