ElectroAir Update

[Bob - S50]

Almost forgot.  I also talked to ElectroAir yesterday about their progress on a replacement for the "D" magnetos.  They have changed their approach, hope to have it ready by Oshkosh, but did not have a price.  If I remember right, the cost of their current system to replace a single magneto on a two magneto engine was about $4000.  So I'm guessing we are probably talking about $6000 or $7000 but we will see when it comes out.

Their new approach is to build their own standard magneto that will replace the "D" magneto.  On the shaft of that magneto there will be an inductive pickup that will be used to trigger the other ignition system which will be electronic.

[INA201]

Thanks for the update.

[aviatoreb]

52 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

Almost forgot.  I also talked to ElectroAir yesterday about their progress on a replacement for the "D" magnetos.  They have changed their approach, hope to have it ready by Oshkosh, but did not have a price.  If I remember right, the cost of their current system to replace a single magneto on a two magneto engine was about $4000.  So I'm guessing we are probably talking about $6000 or $7000 but we will see when it comes out.

Their new approach is to build their own standard magneto that will replace the "D" magneto.  On the shaft of that magneto there will be an inductive pickup that will be used to trigger the other ignition system which will be electronic.

I'm not sure I understand.  What is the advantage of the new system then over their current system?

[MIm20c]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I'm not sure I understand.  What is the advantage of the new system then over their current system?

I think the old system only replaced one mag. If I’m reading the above info correctly it sounds like it still installs on one side but actually outputs to all 8 plugs?

[Bob - S50]

3 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I'm not sure I understand.  What is the advantage of the new system then over their current system?

Currently those of us with the "D" engines like my IO-360A3B6D are unable to install an electronic ignition.  The only systems available are for those who have two separate magnetos.  They replace one magneto with an electronic ignition.

What ElectroAir is attempting to do is replace our "D" magneto that has two magnetos in one case with a single magneto in the case.  They will then use an inductive pickup off the magneto drive shaft to find timing for an electronic ignition.  The idea behind the electronic ignition is that it is supposed to make starting easier (although I don't have a problem now) and can vary the timing based on RPM and MP to provide optimum timing.  That provides the opportunity for more efficient operation.  IF it allows me to avoid spending $1500+ every 500 hours for a magneto inspection, it will eventually pay for itself in maintenance and fuel costs.  How long that would take remains to be seen.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Bob - S50
typo

[aviatoreb]

1 minute ago, MIm20c said:

I think the old system only replaced one mag. If I’m reading the above info correctly it sounds like it still installs on one side but actually outputs to all 8 plugs?

That would be good - if it outputs to all 8 points by electronic ignition.  

But I am confused what is the second mag they are replacing doing? 

And where is it getting its energy source?  From something on the second mag mounting that they make, or is that still coming from the standard alternator?  So is the energy source more reliable?  Same?  Is that then still a mag as a back up but now 8 points (12) of electronic ignition?

 

[Bob - S50]

2 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

I think the old system only replaced one mag. If I’m reading the above info correctly it sounds like it still installs on one side but actually outputs to all 8 plugs?

Not quite.  It is one magneto that replaces the dual magneto and that magneto only fires 4 plugs.  The inductive pickup off the shaft is used for timing purposes only.  That information is sent to the electronic box that is powered by the battery to fire the other 4 plugs and varies timing to be more optimal.

[Bob - S50]

3 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

That would be good - if it outputs to all 8 points by electronic ignition.  

But I am confused what is the second mag they are replacing doing? 

And where is it getting its energy source?  From something on the second mag mounting that they make, or is that still coming from the standard alternator?  So is the energy source more reliable?  Same?  Is that then still a mag as a back up but now 8 points (12) of electronic ignition?

 

4 plugs would be powered by the new magneto and would operate during total electrical failure.  The other 4 would be electronically controlled and would rely on electrical power from the normal electrical system.  And this system is not for those who have 2 separate magneto.  It's for those of us that have the single dual magneto.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Bob - S50

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

4 plugs would be powered by the new magneto and would operate during total electrical failure.  The other 4 would be electronically controlled and would rely on electrical power from the normal electrical system.  And this system is not for those who have 2 separate magneto.  It's for those of us that have the single dual magneto.

Cool.  Sounds like a good addition to their line up.

[Brandontwalker]

Am I reading this correctly that the pickup for the EI is on the magneto shaft? I thought they were going to install a ring on the crankshaft with a pickup sensor. If the pickup is on the magneto, then we still don’t get redundancy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[N201MKTurbo]

2 minutes ago, Brandontwalker said:

Am I reading this correctly that the pickup for the EI is on the magneto shaft? I thought they were going to install a ring on the crankshaft with a pickup sensor. If the pickup is on the magneto, then we still don’t get redundancy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would putting it on the crankshaft make it more redundant? 

Are you worried about the mag falling off? That's the only failure that would take them both out. The FAA must be good with the concept or they wouldn't have approved the dual mag in the first place.

[Brandontwalker]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Why would putting it on the crankshaft make it more redundant? 

Are you worried about the mag falling off? That's the only failure that would take them both out. The FAA must be good with the concept or they wouldn't have approved the dual mag in the first place.

Obviously the FAA is good with it, but the dual mag does have a single point of failure.

[N201MKTurbo]

5 minutes ago, Brandontwalker said:

Obviously the FAA is good with it, but the dual mag does have a single point of failure.

Sure, but it would still be better than what we have now. 

I've never heard of a double failure other than one falling off. That is always because it was installed improperly. 

Has anyone else heard of a double failure without it falling off?

[Bob - S50]

3 hours ago, Brandontwalker said:

Am I reading this correctly that the pickup for the EI is on the magneto shaft? I thought they were going to install a ring on the crankshaft with a pickup sensor. If the pickup is on the magneto, then we still don’t get redundancy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I remember right he said that shaft is 9/16".  It would take an awful lot of torque to break it.  My main question (if it becomes approved) is how often will their magneto need to be inspected and how much will it cost?  If I have to spend just as much money and just as much down time inspecting their magneto as I do for my dual magneto then it probably won't be worth it.  To me, it's only worth it if it saves me money in maintenance and fuel.

It will depend on how much and when the timing is changed.  If it sets standard timing at 20 degrees BTDC instead of 25, that would be good because my engine will probably be happier at lower RPM.  If it then advances the timing at higher RPM and/or low MP to keep peak pressure at the optimum position, that will be good.  I don't care about starting, ours starts easily enough as it is.

We still have about 400 hours until our next inspection.  I'll have to look at it when it becomes available.

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Sure, but it would still be better than what we have now. 

I've never heard of a double failure other than one falling off. That is always because it was installed improperly. 

Has anyone else heard of a double failure without it falling off?

Yes. If the breaker point cam screw back out the mag shuts down. 

If the impulse coupler spring breaks the timing rolls back to zero which may not sustain flight. Planes have crashed because they couldn’t. 

 

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, Bob - S50 said:

If I remember right he said that shaft is 9/16".  It would take an awful lot of torque to break it.  My main question (if it becomes approved) is how often will their magneto need to be inspected and how much will it cost?  If I have to spend just as much money and just as much down time inspecting their magneto as I do for my dual magneto then it probably won't be worth it.  To me, it's only worth it if it saves me money in maintenance and fuel.

It will depend on how much and when the timing is changed.  If it sets standard timing at 20 degrees BTDC instead of 25, that would be good because my engine will probably be happier at lower RPM.  If it then advances the timing at higher RPM and/or low MP to keep peak pressure at the optimum position, that will be good.  I don't care about starting, ours starts easily enough as it is.

We still have about 400 hours until our next inspection.  I'll have to look at it when it becomes available.

 I Don’t see how EA can get the timing set at 20 degrees because they say set it to data plate for base timing and for the -D engine, it’s 25 degrees. The 20 is only optional by Lycoming service instruction  and that applies to many IO360 but not the -D.

Regarding optimal timing, 25 is still optimal for even lower RPM operation. RPM doesn’t change Theta PPP much and in no circumstance is 25 degrees occurring so early it’s before optimal. 

[Bob - S50]

6 hours ago, jetdriven said:

 I Don’t see how EA can get the timing set at 20 degrees because they say set it to data plate for base timing and for the -D engine, it’s 25 degrees. The 20 is only optional by Lycoming service instruction  and that applies to many IO360 but not the -D.

Regarding optimal timing, 25 is still optimal for even lower RPM operation. RPM doesn’t change Theta PPP much and in no circumstance is 25 degrees occurring so early it’s before optimal. 

You probably know more than me, but our engine really starts to complain about low RPM (<2400) and high MP (>20).  Keep the RPM up and it does fine.  Keep the MP down and it does fine.  But roll the RPM back and then keep the MP up near square and I can feel it really starting to complain.  I'm also convinced that causes a lot of blow-by too.  So for me, I drive around at 2600 RPM most of the time and won't reduce RPM below 2500 unless MP is 20 or lower.

[jetdriven]

What do you mean starting to complain? The operators manual shows power settings like 2100 RPM and 27” MP, ROP even. 

[OR75]

for that price, might as well switch from an A3B6D to an A3B6  at overhaul time, no ?

 

  

[Bob - S50]

15 hours ago, jetdriven said:

What do you mean starting to complain? The operators manual shows power settings like 2100 RPM and 27” MP, ROP even. 

It starts to rumble instead of purr.

[gacoon]

On 2/27/2018 at 8:35 AM, N201MKTurbo said:

Sure, but it would still be better than what we have now. 

I've never heard of a double failure other than one falling off. That is always because it was installed improperly. 

Has anyone else heard of a double failure without it falling off?

Cherokee 6 accident in Alaska many yesrs ago, air tour went down in water, several killed, I know pilot who survived.  Cause magneto drive broke, same mag thats on our Mooneys, its rare, but has happened 

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, gacoon said:

Cherokee 6 accident in Alaska many yesrs ago, air tour went down in water, several killed, I know pilot who survived.  Cause magneto drive broke, same mag thats on our Mooneys, its rare, but has happened 

This one? It has Slick mags where an impulse coupler rivet sheared, releasing parts into the accessory case. It cites several others too, all Slick.  https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20001208X08272&ntsbno=ANC97FA097&akey=1

Edited March 1, 2018 by jetdriven

[Bob - S50]

On 2/27/2018 at 3:51 PM, jetdriven said:

What do you mean starting to complain? The operators manual shows power settings like 2100 RPM and 27” MP, ROP even. 

My manual shows the higher I fly, the less over square permitted.

Here are the most over square settings I can find: at 2000' - 2200/25.4 (3.4), at 4,000' - 2000/22.4 (2.4), at 6,000' - 2200/23.6 (1.6), at 8,000' - 2000/20.3 (0.3), 10,000' - nothing over square and no power setting for 2000 RPM.

[jetdriven]

10 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

My manual shows the higher I fly, the less over square permitted.

Here are the most over square settings I can find: at 2000' - 2200/25.4 (3.4), at 4,000' - 2000/22.4 (2.4), at 6,000' - 2200/23.6 (1.6), at 8,000' - 2000/20.3 (0.3), 10,000' - nothing over square and no power setting for 2000 RPM.

From the Lycoming Operators manual, its more complete than extrapolated flight test data by Mooney.   https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/O-HO-IO-HIO-AIO %26 TIO-360 Oper Manual 60297-12.pdf

 

the red line was added by me to make it more visible, its overlaid on the factory chart with the line. Basically, this is your limiting MP for a given RPM, note this is also best power ROP values, you could technically go 2" further oversquare than this with similar cylinder pressure, but to keep it simple, you get about 7" over square at 1800 RPM,  6" at 2000 RPM. ..Nobody flies at that RPM so its

5" at 2300 RPM, 

4" at 2400 RPM, 

and no MP limit at higher RPM.

 

[EricJ]

19 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

My manual shows the higher I fly, the less over square permitted.

Here are the most over square settings I can find: at 2000' - 2200/25.4 (3.4), at 4,000' - 2000/22.4 (2.4), at 6,000' - 2200/23.6 (1.6), at 8,000' - 2000/20.3 (0.3), 10,000' - nothing over square and no power setting for 2000 RPM.

It's really the higher you fly the lower the ambient pressure so the less MP is available.   You can't get 25" at 10k feet because the ambient pressure is lower than that.   It's not an engine limitation.    If the engine has MP it doesn't know or care how it got it (turbo normalized or at low altitude) the setting will produce the same results, with the exception that if it does have a turbo some power will be lost to spinning the hair dryer.