cujet Posted April 14, 2014 Report Posted April 14, 2014 Cujet, That is a pretty large, interesting difference. Any idea where that data comes from? Is it from the automotive world? I'd like to see improvements in cruise efficiency. That kind of data, could lead to wide spread electronic ignition adoption. Best regards, -a- Data comes from real world users in the experimental aircraft world, myself included. Mostly on Lycoming engines, but certainly not limited to them. There are many Continental users of electronic ignition systems. One thing that is nearly universal, electronic ignitions result in smoother operation. The ignition advance really helps ground ops, low power ops, and during descent. But rather than take my word for it, check out CAFE Foundations testing. Here is some light reading... http://cafefoundation.org/v2/research_reports.php (the source for the info) http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_cafe_reports/ignition1.pdf http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_cafe_reports/ignition2.pdf http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_cafe_reports/ignition3.pdf You will note that the electronic ign actually resulted in a slight loss of top speed, under full power operations. I've written on this before. Electronic ign may not help an underpowered aircraft much. Some aircraft are operated at full throttle, maximum possible power, all the time. My 200HP Lycoming is one of those engines that never see LOP operations, or high altitude. An Electronic ign is not going to help me much, as fuel flow is always at max power. Quote
aaronk25 Posted April 14, 2014 Report Posted April 14, 2014 On a NA engine at 12,500 your gonna be running right at peak egt trying to maximize speed, I don't think your gonna be able to advance the timing much more than 30 degrees as CHTs will break 380 because the indicated airspeed is lower and therefore less cooling. Alternatively the engine could be run more LOP and advance timing upto 40 to realize some additional mpg but it's certainly not gonna be a speed mod. On my J at 12,500 the CHTs run same or higher because instead of running lop I run peak... Quote
DaV8or Posted April 14, 2014 Report Posted April 14, 2014 Here is some light reading... http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_cafe_reports/ignition1.pdf http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_cafe_reports/ignition2.pdf http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_cafe_reports/ignition3.pdf Guess not. None of those links work. I apparently am "forbidden". Quote
cujet Posted April 14, 2014 Report Posted April 14, 2014 Guess not. None of those links work. I apparently am "forbidden". I tried on both my browsers and I had no problem. Try a google search for CAFE Foundation Ignition dynamics. Quote
cujet Posted April 14, 2014 Report Posted April 14, 2014 Alternatively the engine could be run more LOP and advance timing upto 40 to realize some additional mpg but it's certainly not gonna be a speed mod. . If you read the CAFE testing, they discovered that the elec ign worked it's magic at the lean limit. Allowing better speed and efficiency during LOP operations. I simply don't fly that way. Quote
DaV8or Posted April 15, 2014 Report Posted April 15, 2014 We would need to know why they chose EFI and again why they went back. What didn't work as expected? Largely lack of reliable spark. Too many planes ending up in farmer's fields. The typical experimental installation is a copy of what's in your car. No redundancy. I guess maybe poor engineering too? The numbers of failures is significant from what I've read. Way higher than the certified category. Quote
carusoam Posted April 15, 2014 Report Posted April 15, 2014 My iPad is forbidden as well... Need to go to my old desk top... On the topic of back-up system... I would expect an electronic system and an old magneto to keep us out of the weeds... Best regards, -a- Quote
DaV8or Posted April 15, 2014 Report Posted April 15, 2014 My iPad is forbidden as well... Need to go to my old desk top... On the topic of back-up system... I would expect an electronic system and an old magneto to keep us out of the weeds... Best regards, -a- This is one strategy and people do do this. However, it negates 50% of the advantages. Quote
orionflt Posted April 15, 2014 Report Posted April 15, 2014 A, I had the same problem. I found reloading the page brought it up. I uploaded the files under the topic CAFE Ignition Quote
aaronk25 Posted April 15, 2014 Report Posted April 15, 2014 Redundancy wouldn't be to much of a concern I'd each system had it's own crank pick up sensor and alternator/ charging system. However as expensive as aircraft components are, expense mitigates the gains. Would be nice for dual mag/single shaft drivers to have some additional redundancy. Quote
DaV8or Posted April 15, 2014 Report Posted April 15, 2014 Redundancy wouldn't be to much of a concern I'd each system had it's own crank pick up sensor and alternator/ charging system. However as expensive as aircraft components are, expense mitigates the gains. Would be nice for dual mag/single shaft drivers to have some additional redundancy. I'm going to post this again. The problem has already been solved, but because this company seems to be poor at self promotion, they don't get talked about much. E-Mag Their "P" model is a drop in replacement for your magnetos, complete with all the same redundancies. Each P-Mag has it own built in alternator, so in the event of loss of ship's power, it powers itself. Just like you current mags do. All the advantages of electronic ignition and all the advantages of magnetos. Sadly, experimental only. P-Mag link to info. Quote
RocketAviator Posted April 16, 2014 Report Posted April 16, 2014 I'm going to post this again. The problem has already been solved, but because this company seems to be poor at self promotion, they don't get talked about much. E-Mag Their "P" model is a drop in replacement for your magnetos, complete with all the same redundancies. Each P-Mag has it own built in alternator, so in the event of loss of ship's power, it powers itself. Just like you current mags do. All the advantages of electronic ignition and all the advantages of magnetos. Sadly, experimental only. P-Mag link to info. Looks very interesting but don't see anything about one for a 520... I would like to know if anyone has an electronic ignition system for my Rocket? Quote
RocketAviator Posted April 16, 2014 Report Posted April 16, 2014 $5,500 for certified 6 cyl kit on their website. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk what website has a certifed 6 cylinder kit, do you know if it for Turbo units? Quote
aviatoreb Posted April 16, 2014 Report Posted April 16, 2014 what website has a certifed 6 cylinder kit, do you know if it for Turbo units? I think it isn't for turbo - I would have been interested too. Quote
banjo Posted April 18, 2014 Report Posted April 18, 2014 L've got electroair in my E and love it. Easier start, smoother running,better climb and at 12,000 getting at least a 2 GPH saving Only heard good stories from the experimental side. Savvier and the long eze boys swear by them Haven't heard of the car industry going back to mags. Sorry , but electronic ignitions are coming and here to stay. Quote
Piloto Posted April 19, 2014 Report Posted April 19, 2014 From their Installation Manual Most electronic ignition systems, Electroair’s included, require a minimum amount of power available in order to operate correctly. In the case of the Electroair EIS, the minimum system voltage required is 8V. If the system voltage falls below that value for any length of time, the EIS will not function properly and can potentially cause the engine to ‘kick-back’. This event can happen during the start-up of an aircraft engine using a permanent magnet starter if, for instance, the battery is not a peak charge. It is strongly recommended that an operator of one of these starters with an EIS always keep a full charge on their battery. Other suggestions that have come from some starter manufacturers include adding a dual battery to support the starting requirements. Electroair also supports the idea of a dual battery system, in particular, for potential emergency situations. This solution, however, has to be balanced with what the original weight considerations of the aircraft were in the first place. They forgot: " Wearing parachute is recommended when having one of these installed" No way Jose. For what you pay for this you can get 1,000 gals of AVGAS. Not even in ten years will you get enough fuel saved (if any) to justify it cost. Not to mention another headache to worry about. José Quote
DaV8or Posted April 19, 2014 Report Posted April 19, 2014 This is where I get really miffed about the whole "certified" thing. This year I'm due to have my mags rebuilt. I guess it's going to cost me about $1300 or so. I would much prefer to spend double that and upgrade my plane to electronic ignition with the P-Mags I posted above, but they are not legal for my certified plane. So I looked at the actual certified alternatives, the Electroair system and the LASAR system. The Electroair system would cost me $3100, plus 8-14 hours install and I would still have to rebuild one of my mags for $650. It also has all kinds of gack that is supposed to be attached to the firewall both engine side and avionics side. I have no idea where I would put it. The LASAR system looks to be cleaner and simpler, but they want $10,000 for that thing!! So I will likely suck it up and rebuild the mags one more time and enjoy the best the 1950s have to offer. We really, really need an Experimental, Factory Built category to put some life back into GA. Quote
jetdriven Posted April 20, 2014 Report Posted April 20, 2014 And the LASAR makes it run hot, the performance aspects are debatable, it takes a special expensive box to time them, AND they are still based on Slick mags. Quote
cujet Posted April 20, 2014 Report Posted April 20, 2014 We really, really need an Experimental, Factory Built category to put some life back into GA. I'm willing to work towards that end. Let's put pressure on the FAA to change...... I'm 100% sure they are willing to listen to the experts actually doing the work.... In all seriousness, I'm not at all certain the federal government has the Constitutional authority to disallow, what are, in essence, minor alterations. The FAA used to allow field approvals for just this reason (at least part of the reason was an alteration pathway for owners/operators, seen as needed under the guide of the US Constitution as blanket prohibition would be seen as federalism) . Field approvals are a thing of the past, because the FAA cannot be bothered with them anymore. But from a legal standpoint, the private, part 91 owner/operator of a light aircraft is not engaging in air commerce and therefore cannot be regulated under the commerce act. Nor can it be said that the greater public good is at risk (remember the 12,500 pound or more limit) by altering and testing a light aircraft in a safely defined manner. Quote
1964-M20E Posted April 20, 2014 Report Posted April 20, 2014 Do toy have some specific numbers on fuel burn mp lop rop both before and after changing to electronic? Quote
carusoam Posted April 20, 2014 Report Posted April 20, 2014 I'm really starting to like CUJ's writing skills! Best regards, -a- Quote
Oscar Avalle Posted April 21, 2014 Report Posted April 21, 2014 And the LASAR makes it run hot, the performance aspects are debatable, it takes a special expensive box to time them, AND they are still based on Slick mags. I installed a LASAR system about 8 years ago on my M20C. Let me share with you how I feel about the system: Positive: It starts like a car. Never had a problem staring the engine. Fuel savings... well I would say that I save some fuel, but I really don't see such a huge difference Redundancy: the ignition is backed up by two magnetos. Negative: CHT are way up! Future support is rather questionable to say the least. Repair costs are way to high. Would I install a LASAR system again? II don't think so. Although, it is nice to know that the engine will start easily and it is also great to have the redundancy. I don't feel at all confortable with the high CHTs. Also, the fuel savings did not really materialize, nor the power increase... So if I could do everything over again, I would install a shower of sparks unit and a Powerflow exhaust. Total cost, about 5 k. similar to what I paid for the LASAR 8 years ago. Oscar Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.