Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Electronic Ignition
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com
Guest

Posted: Fri May 17, 2013 4:44 pm Post subject: Electronic Ignition

Jim,

I wanted to follow up to make sure you knew my post 

 	  Quote: 	
		  > 56% of all statistics are either wrong or made up... including this one.<<

The "made up" part was referring to the 56% of all statistics... not your post.
	




It was more of a commentary of all the data we review and when one does not know the background of a "Stat" it can be meaningless or misleading. I know partially because I worked with an engineering firm that can cherry pick research data to best fit their clients' interests. We can all imagine the "expert witness". Unfortunately the courtroom is no place to dig into the nuances of predictive modeling and the like.



Back to aviation, I am more sympathetic to your argument. I absolutely want the efficiency of EI but I don't want two of them.

Excellent post.



Robin

--

Greg McFarlane

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Posts: 57
Location: Albany Western Australia

Posted: Sat May 18, 2013 3:46 am Post subject: Re: Electronic Ignition

O Boy Jim talk about a can of worms. Interesting grab of the last 2 weeks of Matronics re electronic ignition, you sound just like my Mag AP. All the Spam Cans who haven't got the option of bringing ignition forward at least 80 years take it for granted, mag failure on ramp RPM drop 400 or 800 due to oiled up plugs or bad points, failure in flight, no worries, just hope we can make it home one one. We expect overhaul at 500 hours..... no worries at least we don't have to have a back up battery, What's the best starting technique? o hell we've just blown a starter cause we've had hot start issues. I think Tim's option of two bob each way (sorry a quarter each way) one EI & One Mag is best option, You get 90% of the advantage of Dual Electronic Ignition ie Optimum Timing, Easy Starting, Better fuel economy, Smooth running, Better Idle. Electronic readouts for RPM, MP & Timing Position of Ignition with Lightspeed. Wack in a Mag as an easy backup but be careful about relying on it after more than 200Hrs. Maybe the stats would be different if Klaus recommended  overhauls at 500 Hours or even less because of the advantages of EI cause nothing lasts forever. Cheers from Western Australia

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Sat May 18, 2013 9:49 am Post subject: Electronic Ignition

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to open up the whole can of worms about 

whether EI is advisable or not based on reliability, availability and 

serviceability



My understanding is that EI can perform better than mags and I assume it 

does. So far some words about MPG being the proper metric and increased 

efficiency being the payoff have been posted. Okay, I agree.



I know it's tough and expensive to do any side by side testing so I 

guess none has been done that is somehow relevant to the '10. I was just 

curious.



Bill "knows that EI is the future while flying around with 2 mags" Watson

On 5/17/2013 7:43 PM, JimVillani wrote:

[quote] 



 Well,



 1st of all

 let's look at all of Just the "Matronics Mail" sent in about Electronic

 Ignitions within

 just the last 2 weeks with "An open Mind"...



 1) I never have to "Carry extra coils with my mags in case one fails"

 2) I never have to "Open my oil door to let my mag cool off"

 3) I can "Fly without any electricity" in my plane with my mags

 4) I don’t have to "Face my plane into the wind to cool my mags" after any

 flight...

 5) Mags have at least a "60 year history of reliability"

 6) I can get Mag parts (Points) at about any FBO,

 Or

 I can file them down,

 Set the "Gap" with a "match book cover"

 And

 Make them work to get me home.



 Try doing that with EI...



 And last but not least...



 7) I don’t need a "Backup Electronic Ignition" for my mags...



 as is "Recommended my most A&P mechanics",

 Most all articles written about EI,

 Or anyone who has used EI in the past..



 And all of that is from the last few weeks of "Matronics mail"......



 Haven’t read much about "Mag Failure" in the last few years...Have you?

 I read the stats in a magazine article about reasons why experimental

 airplanes

 Fail in flight or need emergency landings.

 Yes it was on line, and from a reputable source...

 The article was written a few months ago,

 and confirmed my prior research on EI.



 The article did mention than less than 5% of airplanes crash due to

 mechanical failure,

 The article also mentioned crashes or emergency landings were mostly Pilot

 error.



 The article went on to talk about engine modifications,

 and it did address mags vs EI,



 It said mags fail 8% of the time,

 and EI failure rate was 16%,

 Twice as often as mags...



 "Don’t Shoot me",

 "I am just the messenger"...



 I will find the article and post it...



 Now I was going to use EI,

 but

 I elected to have my

 Bendix mag completely rebuilt and I also added "Shower of Sparks" to the

 system.

 For a mire $2500.00 or so.



 I must report that they "the mags" and "SOS" have worked flawlessly,

 For the 1,000 or so hours in prior planes that I have flown,

 And also for the 90 plus hours on my RV-10.



 Based in this "cool place" called "Las Vegas" (102 Tuesday)



 And...



 I never have (or had to) "exert any effort" to "Cool my mag down"



 Even after the "hottest flight".



 Imagine that...



 N10KQ

 Las Vegas Nevada

 KVGT...

 Jim

 --

Bajajim

Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 30

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 11:00 am Post subject: Electronic Ignition

Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg Greg...



Oh Boy...



Yea, 



The mags are old school... 



But



You mentioned...

Oiled up Plugs, Fouled plugs, 

Sounds like you may have other problems

Mixture, Shut down Procedure, Start up procedure, Rings?



Blown a starter?

Maybe oil leaking from your engine into the throat of the starter,

Or maybe you went "Light" on the starter feed cable 

using #4 or #6 from your battery instead of #2 

to save weight (1 to 2 pounds) to get better gas mileage...

 

Mag overhaul or checkout at 500 hours

That's 5 maybe 7 to 10 years for most aviators.

Most of your hoses on your plane should be replaced every 5 years or so...

Oh yea that's in certified planes...

Sounds reasonable to me to have your Mags looked at every 5 years...



Hot start Issues...

Is the mag in control of a "Hot Start?"

Or is the Pilot responsible?



That's like blaming the Gun for the Murder...



I have "Electronic RPM readout" and "Electronic Manifold Pressure" using

Magnetos.

I have 1-2 turn starts with my Mags and Shower of Sparks System.

I also have EGT and Cylinder temps on all cylinders,

Oil pressure, Oil temperature, Fuel Pressure using my mags.

It's called an "EFIS"  



Maybe you should look at your starting procedure...



Hot Starts on my IO540 are usually 2 to 3 revolutions,

but I blame that on the Fuel Injection not the Mag.



I have friends with Carbureted engines, 

and Mags that start in 1-2 turns hot or cold.  



Why not change out the "Old School Lycoming Engine", 

It's only good for 2,000 hours anyway...

It's been around for 60 or so years also...

Why pay $40 to $60k for old school technology?



Again engines are good for 20 to 25 years for most aviators



You can go buy a Subaru or a "Brand New Factory Porsche engine" for about

$15k

(you can really save some gas cash using that thought) 

Then modify it to work in your RV... 

"Mooney Porsche" did that back in 1989 or so. 

They were trying to improve on the old school technology also..

That model lasted a year or so... 



Do you not think that the Millions and Millions of dollars Lycoming, 

and Continental spends on R&D engineering and testing could have figured

this out over the past 30 years or so EI has been around.



Maybe they figured out it wasn't "Worth the Risk"



Or did you think maybe,

"They had a hell of an overstock" of these "Old School Magnetos" that they

needed to get rid of,

So..

They sold their antiquated engines and ignition systems to 

"Not so up to speed companies like Cessna and Piper...

and they still haven't dumped all the magnetos...



Fuel economy...



Think about that one night when your EI turns your RV into a glider.

"Boy I saved $500 in fuel last year..." 

"What a deal"

Meanwhile you are looking for an off airport landing site...

By the way...

What was that insurance deductable???



If you want Real Fuel Economy...

 

FLY COMMERCIAL...



No Offence...

Just some spare time...

And a big spoon to stir the pot...



Jim

N10KQ

 



--

partner14

Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 540
Location: Granbury Texas

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 11:19 am Post subject: Electronic Ignition

There's probably quite a few of the guys that would tell you were to put the spoon.

You had already made YOUR point.

BYW over 500 hours, no problems with dual EI in under 4 years.



--- On Sun, 5/19/13, JimVillani <Jim(at)JimVillani.com> wrote:

[quote]

From: JimVillani <Jim(at)JimVillani.com>

Subject: RE: Re: Electronic Ignition

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Sunday, May 19, 2013, 2:00 PM



--> RV10-List message posted by: "JimVillani" <[url=/mc/compose?to=Jim(at)jimvillani.com]Jim(at)jimvillani.com[/url]>



Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg Greg...



Oh Boy..



Yea, 



The mags are old school... 



But



You  mentioned...

Oiled up Plugs, Fouled plugs, 

Sounds like you may have other problems

Mixture, Shut down Procedure, Start up procedure, Rings?



Blown a starter?

Maybe oil leaking from your engine into the throat of the starter,

Or maybe you went "Light" on the starter feed cable 

using #4 or #6 from your battery instead of #2 

to save weight (1 to 2 pounds) to get better gas mileage...

 

Mag overhaul or checkout at 500 hours

That's 5 maybe 7 to 10 years for most aviators.

Most of your hoses on your plane should be replaced every 5 years or so...

Oh yea that's in certified planes...

Sounds reasonable to me to have your Mags looked at every 5 years...



Hot start Issues...

Is the mag in control of a "Hot Start?"

Or is the Pilot responsible?



That's like blaming the Gun for the Murder...



I have "Electronic RPM readout" and "Electronic Manifold Pressure" using

Magnetos.

I have 1-2 turn  starts with my Mags and Shower of Sparks System.

I also have EGT and Cylinder temps on all cylinders,

Oil pressure, Oil temperature, Fuel Pressure using my mags.

It's called an "EFIS"  



Maybe you should look at your starting procedure...



Hot Starts on my IO540 are usually 2 to 3 revolutions,

but I blame that on the Fuel Injection not the Mag.



I have friends with Carbureted engines, 

and Mags that start in 1-2 turns hot or cold.  



Why not change out the "Old School Lycoming Engine", 

It's only good for 2,000 hours anyway...

It's been around for 60 or so years also...

Why pay $40 to $60k for old school technology?



Again engines are good for 20 to 25 years for most aviators



You can go buy a Subaru or a "Brand New Factory Porsche engine" for about

$15k

(you can really save some gas cash using that thought) 

Then modify it to work in your RV... 

"Mooney Porsche" did that  back in 1989 or so. 

They were trying to improve on the old school technology also..

That model lasted a year or so... 



Do you not think that the Millions and Millions of dollars Lycoming, 

and Continental spends on R&D engineering and testing could have figured

this out over the past 30 years or so EI has been around.



Maybe they figured out it wasn't "Worth the Risk"



Or did you think maybe,

"They had a hell of an overstock" of these "Old School Magnetos" that they

needed to get rid of,

So..

They sold their antiquated engines and ignition systems to 

"Not so up to speed companies like Cessna and Piper...

and they still haven't dumped all the magnetos...



Fuel economy...



Think about that one night when your EI turns your RV into a glider.

"Boy I saved $500 in fuel last year..." 

"What a deal"

Meanwhile you are looking for an off airport landing site...

By the way...

What  was that insurance deductable???



If you want Real Fuel Economy...

 

FLY COMMERCIAL...



No Offence...

Just some spare time...

And a big spoon to stir the pot...



Jim

N10KQ

 



--

_________________
Don A. McDonald
40636

jkreidler

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 151
Location: Sheboygan Falls WI

Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 4:02 am Post 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

jdriggs49(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 5:56 am Post subject: Electronic Ignition

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. 

 	  Quote: 	
		   Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition

 From: jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com

 Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 05:02:03 -0700

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 --> RV10-List message posted by: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)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

=

  [quote][b]

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 6:55 am Post subject: 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(at)msn.com (jdriggs49(at)msn.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		     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. 

 

 	  Quote: 	
		   Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   From: jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com (jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com)

 Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 05:02:03 -0700

 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 --> RV10-List message posted by: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com (jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com)>

 > 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   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.

 > 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   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

 > 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   --------

 Jason Kreidler

 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI

 Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler

 N44YH - Flying - #40617

 

 

 > 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Read this topic online here:

 


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400982#400982

 > 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  =

 

 

 


	


 		 	   		  

   	  Quote: 	
		  



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

  

  [quote][b]

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

jdriggs49(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 7:16 am Post subject: Electronic Ignition

To my (admitted limited) knowledge Electroair is the only one out there that has certified EIS for the type of airplanes we commonly drive. They use inductive type of spark which gives a longer dwell time than the CDI which is 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 spark multiple times to get any kind of dwell time, 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 engine parameters that we can keep ahead of most potential problems if  or as they arise. I was programming my GRT HX EFIS yesterday. I'm still amazed at what it can do for such a relatively small amount of money.



Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:55:15 -0500

Subject: Re: Re: Electronic Ignition

From: apilot2(at)gmail.com

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com



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(at)msn.com (jdriggs49(at)msn.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		     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. 

 

 	  Quote: 	
		   Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   From: jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com (jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com)

 Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 05:02:03 -0700

 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 --> RV10-List message posted by: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com (jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com)>

 > 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   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.

 > 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   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

 > 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   --------

 Jason Kreidler

 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI

 Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler

 N44YH - Flying - #40617

 

 

 > 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Read this topic online here:

 


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400982#400982

 > 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  =

 

 

 


	


 		 	   		  

   	  Quote: 	
		  


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

  

  [quote]


===========

arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

===========

http://forums.matronics.com

===========

="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

===========


[b]

carl.froehlich(at)verizon
Guest

Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 10:22 am Post subject: 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)

 

<![if !supportLists]>1.     <![endif]>

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. 



[img]cid:image001.gif(at)01CE5563.AD0740A0[/img]



 

 

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen

Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:55 AM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: 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(at)msn.com (jdriggs49(at)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. 

 	  Quote: 	
		   Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   From: jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com (jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com)

 Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 05:02:03 -0700

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 

 --> RV10-List message posted by: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com (jason.kreidler(at)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


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400982#400982

 

=

 

 

 


	


 	  Quote: 	
		    get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listtp://forums.matronics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	




-- 



- sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm

 	  Quote: 	
		     	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
3

image001.gif

Description:

Filesize:

701 Bytes

Viewed:

10956 Time(s)

Deems Davis

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 925

Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 11:09 am Post subject: 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(at)regalbeloit.com (jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com)> wrote:

[quote]   --> RV10-List message posted by: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com (jason.kreidler(at)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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 [b]

jkreidler

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 151
Location: Sheboygan Falls WI

Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 11:27 am Post 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

carl.froehlich(at)verizon
Guest

Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 1:50 pm Post subject: 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)



--

neal.george(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 5:36 pm Post subject: 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(at)MyRV10.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 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

>

flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 1:45 pm Post subject: Electronic Ignition

On 5/20/2013 9:35 PM, Neal George       wrote:

     

      	  Quote: 	
		          	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: Neal George <neal.george(at)gmail.com> (neal.george(at)gmail.com)



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. 	
     	
     Pardon my ignorance and I'm a little slow so       bear with me.  What you infer is that one plug/cylinder quits       firing???  Why???  Which one quits .... the mag or the EI???

       Well, the mag doesn't quit so that leaves the EI .... which       (AFAIK) doesn't quit ...... so where did you get derailed???

       Linn

       

          [quote]        	  Quote: 	
		  



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(at)MyRV10.com> (Tim(at)MyRV10.com) wrote:



          	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com> (Tim(at)myrv10.com)



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:

            	  Quote: 	
		  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



	
         



	
       

-----

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

	
     [b]

ehm6006

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Posts: 8

Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 2:48 pm Post subject: Electronic Ignition

I'll jump into the middle of this.  I agree.  I'm not a mechanic, but I do know my way around an engine.  When I started flying in the mid 80's I thought the two mags were for redundancy also.  A couple of experienced mechanics explained it was for better combustion.  The flame front propagates so slowly that you need the two sparks to complete combustion correctly.  Both mags are firing, since one is so early that starts the flame front.  The other one fires so late it doesn't matter much.

Ed

On May 20, 2013, at 9:35 PM, Neal George wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 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(at)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

>> 

> 

> 

> 

>

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 2:51 pm Post subject: Re: Electronic Ignition

Linn,

Your error is in assuming that a post that starts out "we gotta talk" is going to be rational.

The poster said, correctly, that having two ignition sources and two propagating flame fronts helps the fuel burn more completely within the alloted time (especially true for fixed timing mags), and hence improves engine power and efficiency. (which is why there is an rpm drop on runup when operating on one mag).

He also said, correctly, that if you have an EI plug with advanced timing, that its flame front may have propagated past the second, mag fired plug, before the mag has fired, and thus the mag is "doing no work", to use his words.

But then he says that this is "bad". If it was bad, then the EI guys just wouldn't advance the timing. But they do, because the engine runs more efficiently with advanced timing under typical cruise conditions. Even if it's only one plug that's advanced. His arguement makes no sense. I thought maybe it was an IQ test, to see how many people responded.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

rv10pro(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 3:36 pm Post subject: Electronic Ignition

This seems the point at which the positives of EI need to be clearly stated  - balanced against their negatives.  Then compared directly with the clear positives of a magneto and its negatives.  When a reader understands the trade-offs they can better understand the frustration with the always coming into the near future Pmag for 6 cylinders which was going to solve everything (comes to mind). 



Mr. Barrett (or the lovely Ms Rhonda) could weigh in on why the high performance engines he builds use what they do and why power output diminishes on their dyno with one EI and one magneto. Note: a most popular blend with the RV-10 crowd.  Another question is what do S.D. Tucker, K. Chambliss and M.Goulian bet their lives on??

 



Tim's input had something to do with that isolated manufacturing incident with Slick mags a few years ago.  Two Slicks with bad carbon made for a bad day.  Two EI have their own Achilles heal.  As of today, there is still no single right answer.

 



Lycoming has made such an advanced engine in their iE2 with knock sensors, variable timing and redundant FADEC wiring for the Lancair Evolution TEO-540-A1A.  The additional price knocked a few willing participants out of the evaluation and they opt for turbine.

 



Know your mission, choose wisely, land safely Every Time.

John Cox



On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote:

 [quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>

  

 Linn,

 Your error is in assuming that a post that starts out "we gotta talk" is going to be rational.

 The poster said, correctly, that having two ignition sources and two propagating flame fronts helps the fuel burn more completely within the alloted time (especially true for fixed timing mags), and hence improves engine power and efficiency. (which is why there is an rpm drop on runup when operating on one mag).

  He also said, correctly, that if you have an EI plug with advanced timing, that its flame front may have propagated past the second, mag fired plug, before the mag has fired, and thus the mag is "doing no work", to use his words.

  But then he says that this is "bad". If it was bad, then the EI guys just wouldn't advance the timing. But they do, because the engine runs more efficiently with advanced timing under typical cruise conditions. Even if it's only one plug that's advanced. His arguement makes no sense. I thought maybe it was an IQ test, to see how many people responded.

  

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401148#401148

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 [b]

robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 4:14 pm Post subject: Electronic Ignition

I spoke with Barrett and rather than get an answer on their preferred set up Alan told me they are working on a dual electronic ignition of their own (bolt onto the Magneto platform).  They are fashioning it after the successful EI they developed for their MP-14 (Radial). ETA likely 2014.  

As far as what Sean Tucker et.al. uses I am not sure their risk analysis matches mine. I frankly never considered flying upside down to cut a ribbon with my rudder a few feet  off the pavement. Just never came to mind.  

  

Thanks, 

Robin 

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox

 Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:36 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: Electronic Ignition 

   

This seems the point at which the positives of EI need to be clearly stated  - balanced against their negatives.  Then compared directly with the clear positives of a magneto and its negatives.  When a reader understands the trade-offs  they can better understand the frustration with the always coming into the near future Pmag for 6 cylinders which was going to solve everything (comes to mind).  

  

  

Mr. Barrett (or the lovely Ms Rhonda) could weigh in on why the high performance engines he builds use what they do and why power output diminishes on their dyno with one EI and one magneto. Note: a most popular blend with the RV-10 crowd.   Another question is what do S.D. Tucker, K. Chambliss and M.Goulian bet their lives on?? 

  

  

  

Tim's input had something to do with that isolated manufacturing incident with Slick mags a few years ago.  Two Slicks with bad carbon made for a bad day.  Two EI have their own Achilles heal.  As of today, there is still no single right  answer. 

  

  

  

Lycoming has made such an advanced engine in their iE2 with knock sensors, variable timing and redundant FADEC wiring for the Lancair Evolution TEO-540-A1A.  The additional price knocked a few willing participants out of the evaluation  and they opt for turbine. 

  

  

  

Know your mission, choose wisely, land safely Every Time. 

  

  

  

John Cox 

 

  

   

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote: 

--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>

 

 Linn,

 Your error is in assuming that a post that starts out "we gotta talk" is going to be rational.

 The poster said, correctly, that having two ignition sources and two propagating flame fronts helps the fuel burn more completely within the alloted time (especially true for fixed timing mags), and hence improves engine power and efficiency. (which is why  there is an rpm drop on runup when operating on one mag).

 He also said, correctly, that if you have an EI plug with advanced timing, that its flame front may have propagated past the second, mag fired plug, before the mag has fired, and thus the mag is "doing no work", to use his words.

 But then he says that this is "bad". If it was bad, then the EI guys just wouldn't advance the timing. But they do, because the engine runs more efficiently with advanced timing under typical cruise conditions. Even if it's only one plug that's advanced. His  arguement makes no sense. I thought maybe it was an IQ test, to see how many people responded.

 

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401148#401148

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

  

 

  

  	  Quote: 	
		    	
 ==============[/b][/quote] V10-List Email Forum -[/b][/quote] >[/b][/quote] :p>[/b][/quote] /o:p>[/b][/quote] tor?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List[/b][/quote] ==============[/b][/quote] bsp;    - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -[/b][/quote] :p>[/b][/quote] tp://forums.matronics.com[/b][/quote] ==============[/b][/quote] bsp;  - List Contribution Web Site -[/b][/quote] e> bsp;                   -Matt Dralle, List Admin.[/b][/quote] bution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution[/b][/quote] ==============[/b] [/quote]   

 

No virus found in this message.

 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

 :p> 

    [quote][b]

rv10pro(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 4:26 pm Post subject: Electronic Ignition

Research will find they don't mix and match. 

The Barrett solution for the M-14 has been remarkable.....but... the Russian & Chinese mags had a life limit of 750 hours. Getting correct parts is another matter. 

Barrett's have made a lot of improvements, for the old M-14. 

Too bad we don't have a thousand engines available with FADEC. 

John

 On May 22, 2013 5:19 PM, "Robin Marks" <robin(at)painttheweb.com (robin(at)painttheweb.com)> wrote:

 >

 > I spoke with Barrett and rather than get an answer on their preferred set up Alan told me they are working on a dual electronic ignition of their own (bolt onto the Magneto platform). They are fashioning it after the successful EI they developed for their MP-14 (Radial). ETA likely 2014.

  >

 > As far as what Sean Tucker et.al. uses I am not sure their risk analysis matches mine. I frankly never considered flying upside down to cut a ribbon with my rudder a few feet off the pavement. Just never came to mind.

  >

 >  

 >

 > Thanks,

 >

 > Robin

 >

 >  

 >

 > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of John Cox

  > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:36 PM

 >

 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

 > Subject: Re: Re: Electronic Ignition

 >

 >  

 >

 > This seems the point at which the positives of EI need to be clearly stated  - balanced against their negatives.  Then compared directly with the clear positives of a magneto and its negatives.  When a reader understands the trade-offs they can better understand the frustration with the always coming into the near future Pmag for 6 cylinders which was going to solve everything (comes to mind).

  >

 >  

 >

 > Mr. Barrett (or the lovely Ms Rhonda) could weigh in on why the high performance engines he builds use what they do and why power output diminishes on their dyno with one EI and one magneto. Note: a most popular blend with the RV-10 crowd.  Another question is what do S.D. Tucker, K. Chambliss and M.Goulian bet their lives on??

  >

 >  

 >

 > Tim's input had something to do with that isolated manufacturing incident with Slick mags a few years ago.  Two Slicks with bad carbon made for a bad day.  Two EI have their own Achilles heal.  As of today, there is still no single right answer.

  >

 >  

 >

 > Lycoming has made such an advanced engine in their iE2 with knock sensors, variable timing and redundant FADEC wiring for the Lancair Evolution TEO-540-A1A.  The additional price knocked a few willing participants out of the evaluation and they opt for turbine.

  >

 >  

 >

 > Know your mission, choose wisely, land safely Every Time.

 >

 >  

 >

 > John Cox

 >

 >  

 >

 > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote:

 >

 > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>

 >

 > Linn,

 > Your error is in assuming that a post that starts out "we gotta talk" is going to be rational.

 > The poster said, correctly, that having two ignition sources and two propagating flame fronts helps the fuel burn more completely within the alloted time (especially true for fixed timing mags), and hence improves engine power and efficiency. (which is why there is an rpm drop on runup when operating on one mag).

  > He also said, correctly, that if you have an EI plug with advanced timing, that its flame front may have propagated past the second, mag fired plug, before the mag has fired, and thus the mag is "doing no work", to use his words.

  > But then he says that this is "bad". If it was bad, then the EI guys just wouldn't advance the timing. But they do, because the engine runs more efficiently with advanced timing under typical cruise conditions. Even if it's only one plug that's advanced. His arguement makes no sense. I thought maybe it was an IQ test, to see how many people responded.

  >

 > --------

 > Bob Turner

 > RV-10 QB

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 > Read this topic online here:

 >

 > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401148#401148

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 > ===========

 > arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 > ===========

 > http://forums.matronics.com

 > ===========

 > le, List Admin.

 > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 > ===========

 >

 >

 >  

 >

 >  

 >

 >  

 >

 > ============== V10-List Email Forum - > :p> /o:p> tor?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ============== bsp;    - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - :p> tp://forums.matronics.com ============== bsp;  - List Contribution Web Site - e> bsp;                   -Matt Dralle, List Admin. bution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ==============

  >

 >  

 >

 > ________________________________

 >

 > No virus found in this message.

 > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

 > :p>

 >

 =============

 List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 =============

  -

 ms.matronics.com

 =============

  -

          -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 ttp://www.matronics.com/contribution

 =============

 >

   [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum