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

Dual Lightspeed?
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

glastar(at)gmx.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:32 am Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

Hi Chris,



 	  Quote: 	
		   In theory, I suppose that you could also run much leaner without 

 roughness, because you can advance the timing to a point that you will 

 still achieve a complete burn (or more complete I should say) of the 

 fuel charge.  Again, in theory, you could lean and lean and lean, and 

 advance (with manual control) and advance and advance, and get a very 

 low fuel burn. 



I can confirm, that with my Lasar setup I can run lean of peak to such 
	


an extend, that if a go a fractional turn further, my engine just stops 

and the control is maybe 2-5 mm from the maximum movement when that 

happened, so I see quite low fuel flow around 6.2-6.5 gal (O-320) during 

cruise with 23/2300.



br Werner



do not archive

wcurtis(at)core.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:36 am Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

[quote]The phrase Optimum is a mis-leader in that it is the better of a poor >trade off.  PRISM will address this need for a changing advanced spark >curve.  One of the vulnerabilities of Mags is they are Primeval - Brain >Dead simple and reliable at a single setting throughout a range of >performance requirements.  John,  Don't tell me that you have been drinking the GAMI kool-aid.  Since 1998 when I first acquired the Cardinal, GAMI has been touting PRISM and bad mouthing every other competitor product (FADEC,  Lightspeed, LASAR, etc).  Almost ten years later, they still don't have a product.  I'll wager that in 2010 PRISM will still NOT be available. If and when it does become available it will NOT be cost competitive and the performance gain will be marginal-if any.    As for their balanced injectors, they are a waste of money for Lycoming engines-even if you plan to run LOP. The tolerances on the stock Lycoming injectors are much better now.  In 2004 I had a Factory Reman IO-360 installed and I’m able to run smooth significantly LOP with the stock injectors.  It's always funny to see those owners who insist on GAMI injectors for their Lycoming engines that have no intention to run LOP.  BIG waste of money.  Those Advanced Pilot Seminars are ensuring a loyal following of kool-aid drinkers and a constant revenue stream to GAMI.  Personally, I plan to go with one Lightspeed and one mag. Would have preferred a dual P-Mag setup if it was available. William Curtis http://nerv10.com/  [quote][b]

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:25 am Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

Br Werner, can you tell about your Lasar set up?  How long have you had it and how reliable is it? Pros/Cons? Can you describe the installation?

Thanks

Do not archive

 Rob



 



On Oct 21, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net (glastar(at)gmx.net)>

Hi Chris,

  	  Quote: 	
		  In theory, I suppose that you could also run much leaner without roughness, because you can advance the timing to a point that you will still achieve a complete burn (or more complete I should say) of the fuel charge.  Again, in theory, you could lean and lean and lean, and advance (with manual control) and advance and advance, and get a very low fuel burn. 

 	
I can confirm, that with my Lasar setup I can run lean of peak to such an extend, that if a go a fractional turn further, my engine just stops and the control is maybe 2-5 mm from the maximum movement when that happened, so I see quite low fuel flow around 6.2-6.5 gal (O-320) during cruise with 23/2300.

br Werner

do not archive

          - The RV10-List Email Forum -

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

              - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

  -->               - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -

  -->             - List Contribution Web Site -

  Thank you for your generous support!

                              -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

--> 

 [b]

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

Well, you know what happens when you make universal statements. I know

lots of IO-360s that won't run LOP, some that will, with stock

injectors, my own included. However the TSIO540 used in the Mooney

TLS/Bravo flat will not run LOP on the vast majority of those engines.

It, by the way is a parallel valve 540, a distant cousin to what most

folks are putting in the RV10. With GAMIs and an otherwise healthy

engine, it will run LOP, up to certain power/TIT limits, but generally

will not generate 75% LOP within those temp limits.

While I can go to 70 LOP or so with my IO-360, I am certain it would

run smoother LOP with GAMIs than it does without. Sounds like you have

been drinking the factory Kool-Aid.

TCM offers the same flavor Kool-Aid, and a few of their tuned intake

engines are okay LOP but virtually all can have tighter mixture

spreads.  What the OEMs seem to miss, is that it isn't having

identical injectors that is the goal, it is having all cylinders reach

peak EGT at as close to the same fuel flow as possible, and unless all

cylinders flow identical amounts of air through the power range, you

won't achieve that with identical flowing injectors.

On 10/21/06, W. Curtis <wcurtis(at)core.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   >The phrase Optimum is a mis-leader in that it is the better of a poor

  >trade off. PRISM will address this need for a changing advanced spark

  >curve. One of the vulnerabilities of Mags is they are Primeval - Brain

  >Dead simple and reliable at a single setting throughout a range of

  >performance requirements.

  John,

  Don't tell me that you have been drinking the GAMI kool-aid. Since 1998

 when I first acquired the Cardinal, GAMI has been touting PRISM and bad

 mouthing every other competitor product (FADEC, Lightspeed, LASAR, etc).

 Almost ten years later, they still don't have a product. I'll wager that in

 2010 PRISM will still NOT be available. If and when it does become available

 it will NOT be cost competitive and the performance gain will be marginal-if

 any.

  As for their balanced injectors, they are a waste of money for Lycoming

 engines-even if you plan to run LOP. The tolerances on the stock Lycoming

 injectors are much better now. In 2004 I had a Factory Reman IO-360

 installed and I'm able to run smooth significantly LOP with the stock

 injectors. It's always funny to see those owners who insist on GAMI

 injectors for their Lycoming engines that have no intention to run LOP. BIG

 waste of money. Those Advanced Pilot Seminars are ensuring a loyal following

 of kool-aid drinkers and a constant revenue stream to GAMI.

  Personally, I plan to go with one Lightspeed and one mag. Would have

 preferred a dual P-Mag setup if it was available.

  William Curtis

  http://nerv10.com/

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

Kelly, thank you.  My point which is clearly now lost, was that Hot

Rodding (a topic I love) supports (does not demand) matched flow

cylinder heads, tuned Barrett "Style" induction and Forsling "Style"

tune exhaust with a balanced to within 0.5 gram component build engine,

mounted inside a NON factory pressure capturing high pressure composite

plenum with LoPresti low drag induction ports.  If you go that far, then

use of changing timing advance for the ever changing input in F/A

density, temperature, humidity, rpm and prop loading is desirable. IMHO



I do not espouse PRISM as a specific product, but since I run a John

Conforti Land Shark performance chip in my stealth M5 BMW and

occasionally stay at a Holiday Inn, I can appreciate deviating off the

conservative path of a factory recommended build and capture the

additional power and performance of an enhanced and modified spark

curve. PRISM (in concept) does exactly that. A MAG is safe, reliable and

proven technology which does not yield to such desires.  For those less

desirous of pursuing improvement, then the primitively simple Mag (or

two) does quite well. A Mag and one Lightspeed does even better.



The phrase Kool Aid is often used by those seeking to enflame and

polarize discussion.  For those less foolish, let's elevate the

discussion so people seeking a product selection do so meaningfully.



I am a conservative, safety desirous, hot rodder who does not believe

they are mutually incompatible.  I acknowledge that VAN is trying to

level the insurance actuarial tables by KISS, keeping it simple stupid

and play by the book.  His premise is sound.  Low insurance rates and

pilot longevity are mutually compatible.



Now does anyone want to question the statement that Dual Lightspeeds do

not produce the same power output of two Magnetos at cruise rpm on a

dynamometer?  I want power, I want it on demand and I want it reliably.



Just trying to answer the question awkwardly above of evaluating Dual

Lightspeeds.  Sorry to all of you that are not interested.  Now back to

my Kool aid drinking evening while I wait for my P mag to arrive.



John Cox - 40600

Do not Archive



--

bpattonsoa(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

I worked for some time on a Reno Air Sports racer this year.  We have a highly modified Continental twin turbo, intercooled, ADI and water spray.  We were trying to balance the EGTs.  We purchased a set of drills, .001" apart in the range of the injectors.

  

 It took a few tries, but by examining the data from the engine monitor post flight, we reamed out the injectors on the hottest EGTs.  After a while, we were running within 100 degrees or less across the board.   (We were running very rich of peak, around 55 GPH at 42" boost, a lot of cooling by fuel.  When we went over 44", the thing went to 65 gph, way too rich, very rough. The pilot could lean to run, but you don't have time to do that in a Race.  Next year, the system will be changed so the Pilot only has to push the throttle.)      We had a lot of spare injectors, but only went too far a couple of times.  Seems .003 enlargement would get us around 180 degrees cooler.  You have to drill with care and then sort of polish out the holes by spinning the shank of the drill in the hole for a time.

  

 Bruce Patton



 [quote][b]

rvbuilder(at)sausen.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:00 am Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

Just to throw a skew on this, Allen HATES Lightspeed ignitions,

especially dual.  He sees better performance in the test stand off of

mags and the install, and Klaus, can be a serious PITA compared to mags.

Even with his strong objection (which he still mutters something under

his breath when LSE comes up) I felt there is enough evidence out there

to go with dual Lightspeeds. Mind you, that was my dual lightspeed

IO-540-X on display at BPE's booth this last Airventure, but he wasn't

happy about the LSE on it.



  Allen and his family were absolutely wonderful to work with and I bow

to their much greater knowledge in engine building.  But I had my mind

set on the dual LSE's and they graciously accommodated that.  The engine

still turned out beautifully and is a work of art.  Oh ya, and I have a

standing offer for him to rip off the Lightspeed and put in good ole

mags anytime.  



  If the eMag guys had their 6 cyl version ready I probably would have

went with those.  I was back in Texas this last weekend chatting with

some of the guys in the know and the eMag guys have some really cool

things they are working on and are moving to a new building to ramp up

production.  They are well aware that they are missing out on a huge

opportunity with the 6cyl market and will hopefully have something out

next year.



Michael Sausen

-10 #352 Holding Pattern



--

rvbuilder(at)sausen.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:00 am Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

One of the things I posted a while back was a  summary of a conversation I had with a instructor at a Sportair workshop.   He is a long time A&P/IA, teaches A&P at a university in the DC area,  EAA contributor, blah, blah, blah, knows his stuff and is a smart guy.   Basically his thought on the matter was that with a single mag and a EI, the  flame front would no longer meet at the optimum point because of the differences  in timing.  Now he didn't have any evidence that this would cause any  problems, but his feeling was that it is less than optimum.  This is why  Klaus says that the addition of a second LSE wouldn't improve things very much,  but it also shows that flame front propagation does have a measurable  effect.

  

   This was one of the key factors that led  me to make the decision on dual LSE's.  There could also be a negative  effect of additional stress if the flame front is no longer meeting in the  center of the piston, but again I have no evidence of this and it was just a  possibility the Sportair instructor mentioned.  Wave propagation  isn't the easiest thing to model but the guys at GAMI and some at  Lycoming/Continental are doing a lot to understand it.  This is the same  reason you now see odd shaped piston heads in high performance applications, to  get optimal wave propagation and focus the shockwaves in the  cylinder.

  

 Michael Sausen

 -10 #352 fuselage - still in Texas



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

Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:00 PM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Dual  Lightspeed?

 

  

Flame front propagation  is a fascinating topic.  F/A mixture is hotter near the exhaust valve that  a comparatively cooler intake valve. Heat is a catalyst for combustion.  If  it is a charged carbon deposit and ignites a mixture at other than the required  timing it gets its own name – Detonation.  If the event happens before the  piston is ready to provide the power-stroke and it is before the exalted event,  it is called PRE – ignition.  Read the GAMI site.  The theory is they  both meet in the middle in perfect harmony.  Distributor, Mag timing and  Electronic timing and all things spark related need to change with the change of  engine load and rpm.  A finite setting does not enhance this  phenomena. 

  

The phrase Optimum is a  mis-leader in that it is the better of a poor trade off.  PRISM will  address this need for a changing advanced spark curve.  One of the  vulnerabilities of Mags is they are Primeval – Brain Dead simple and reliable at  a single setting throughout a range of performance  requirements. 

  

Everyone building  should make their personal decision based on research rather than popularity of  the moment. 

  

John  Cox 

    

  [quote][b]

LarryRosen

Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 415
Location: Medford, NJ

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

In fact BPE no longer offers a lightspeed option.  They will sell the engine less one or 2 mags, make the appropriate modifications required so you can install the lightspeed(s).



Mike, I think it was the issues they had with your lightspeeds that convinced them to go that way.



I am going with 2 mags and if and when a pmag comes out then make the transition.



Larry Rosen

#356



 -------------- Original message ----------------------

From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>

[quote] 

 <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>

 

   Just to throw a skew on this, Allen HATES Lightspeed ignitions,

 especially dual.  He sees better performance in the test stand off of

 mags and the install, and Klaus, can be a serious PITA compared to mags.

 Even with his strong objection (which he still mutters something under

 his breath when LSE comes up) I felt there is enough evidence out there

 to go with dual Lightspeeds. Mind you, that was my dual lightspeed

 IO-540-X on display at BPE's booth this last Airventure, but he wasn't

 happy about the LSE on it.

 

   Allen and his family were absolutely wonderful to work with and I bow

 to their much greater knowledge in engine building.  But I had my mind

 set on the dual LSE's and they graciously accommodated that.  The engine

 still turned out beautifully and is a work of art.  Oh ya, and I have a

 standing offer for him to rip off the Lightspeed and put in good ole

 mags anytime.  

 

   If the eMag guys had their 6 cyl version ready I probably would have

 went with those.  I was back in Texas this last weekend chatting with

 some of the guys in the know and the eMag guys have some really cool

 things they are working on and are moving to a new building to ramp up

 production.  They are well aware that they are missing out on a huge

 opportunity with the 6cyl market and will hopefully have something out

 next year.

 

 Michael Sausen

 -10 #352 Holding Pattern

 

 --

_________________
Larry Rosen
#40356
N205EN (reserved)
<http>

CJohnston(at)popsound.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:45 am Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

 	  Quote: 	
		  >.  This is the same reason you now see odd shaped piston heads in high performance applications, to get optimal wave propagation and focus the shockwaves in the cylinder.  

   
	


I think I agree with all except the above, because mostly (at least in the automotive world)  the piston dome shape is as a direct result of the size and shape of the combustion chamber in the cylinder head, and how much compression you want.  You also end up having to have valve relief areas on the head of the piston depending on the lift of the camshaft profile so that the valves don’t crash into the top of the piston.  I think (just a hunch) the effect of wave propagation would be a very difficult thing to test by changing the shape of the top of the piston.  Aftermarket cylinder heads for performance applications can have differently shaped combustion chambers (heart shaped, etc) and designs that have the valves sitting at a different angle, but this is an attempt to increase and optimize airflow.  The sparkplug location is the thing I’ve heard of most being used as a tool in the hunt for a more optimal charge ignition.  I suspect that optimizing the combustion chamber (including the top of the piston) for the speed at which the charge burns would be a tail chasing adventure, because you’d never get exactly the same conditions for each test.  Too many variables.  Mixture, slight changes in actual octane ratings of fuel, timing, cylinder leakage, charge contamination (water, oil).  I guess you could build a sealed combustion chamber of a specific shape, compress gas in it, and ignite it, but you wouldn’t be taking account of the movement of the air through the cylinder.  Also, you’d basically be building a bomb J.  

   

These are all things that I just think based on experience.  I don’t actually know anything.  Engineers?  

   

cj  

#40410  

fuse  

www.perfectlygoodairplane.net  

      [quote][b]

rvbuilder(at)sausen.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:29 am Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

I do believe that was the impression he gave me after my setup.  

Didn't help that Klaus sent a used connector that was worthless and then

tried to say it wasn't his problem.  I've always had the impression from

others that when the LSE worked, it was great but when it didn't, Klaus

could be a pain to get a solution out of.  Goes back to the whole

starter, he said/she said thing with why Sky-tec's starters were being

ripped apart on LSE installs.  Klaus still insists it wasn't his fault

and yet he modified his system to reduce the chances of kickback.  I

also went with the new Sky-tec Inline HT model rather than the stock PM

model.  Little pricier, and heavier, but more compact, lower inrush, and

it has more torque.



 I don't see that as a problem for people that really want to run LSE.

BPE does the basic mods necessary for LSE, and then runs it in the test

cell with mags for benchmarking, leaving it to the home builder to do

the LSE install.  Tim, wasn't this basically what Aerosport did?



Michael



--

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:48 am Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

Yeah, they drilled my ring gear for the lightspeed magnets, installed

the crank sensor (and maybe timed it since I never had to adjust it),

and they bolted my coils on the engine, but other than that, it was

up to me to finish it....which wasn't a very hard task overall.  They

test ran it with mags.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:

[quote] 

 

   I do believe that was the impression he gave me after my setup.  

 Didn't help that Klaus sent a used connector that was worthless and then

 tried to say it wasn't his problem.  I've always had the impression from

 others that when the LSE worked, it was great but when it didn't, Klaus

 could be a pain to get a solution out of.  Goes back to the whole

 starter, he said/she said thing with why Sky-tec's starters were being

 ripped apart on LSE installs.  Klaus still insists it wasn't his fault

 and yet he modified his system to reduce the chances of kickback.  I

 also went with the new Sky-tec Inline HT model rather than the stock PM

 model.  Little pricier, and heavier, but more compact, lower inrush, and

 it has more torque.

 

  I don't see that as a problem for people that really want to run LSE.

 BPE does the basic mods necessary for LSE, and then runs it in the test

 cell with mags for benchmarking, leaving it to the home builder to do

 the LSE install.  Tim, wasn't this basically what Aerosport did?

 

 Michael

 

 --

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

Michael, this is exactly the kind of data which keeps the cavity prone sugar sweetened kool-aid at bay.  I agree.  I want to know why the horsepower drop vs. two pre-cambrian magnetos with no timing change on a dynamometer run.  

   

John  

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen)

 Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:36 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Dual Lightspeed?  

  

   

  One of the things I posted a while back was a summary of a conversation I had with a instructor at a Sportair workshop.  He is a long time A&P/IA, teaches A&P at a university in the DC area, EAA contributor, blah, blah, blah, knows his stuff and is a smart guy.  Basically his thought on the matter was that with a single mag and a EI, the flame front would no longer meet at the optimum point because of the differences in timing.  Now he didn't have any evidence that this would cause any problems, but his feeling was that it is less than optimum.  This is why Klaus says that the addition of a second LSE wouldn't improve things very much, but it also shows that flame front propagation does have a measurable effect.  

   

  This was one of the key factors that led me to make the decision on dual LSE's.  There could also be a negative effect of additional stress if the flame front is no longer meeting in the center of the piston, but again I have no evidence of this and it was just a possibility the Sportair instructor mentioned.  Wave propagation isn't the easiest thing to model but the guys at GAMI and some at Lycoming/Continental are doing a lot to understand it.  This is the same reason you now see odd shaped piston heads in high performance applications, to get optimal wave propagation and focus the shockwaves in the cylinder.  

   

Michael Sausen  

-10 #352 fuselage - still in Texas  

       

  

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

 Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:00 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Dual Lightspeed?  

Flame front propagation is a fascinating topic.  F/A mixture is hotter near the exhaust valve that a comparatively cooler intake valve. Heat is a catalyst for combustion.  If it is a charged carbon deposit and ignites a mixture at other than the required timing it gets its own name – Detonation.  If the event happens before the piston is ready to provide the power-stroke and it is before the exalted event, it is called PRE – ignition.  Read the GAMI site.  The theory is they both meet in the middle in perfect harmony.  Distributor, Mag timing and Electronic timing and all things spark related need to change with the change of engine load and rpm.  A finite setting does not enhance this phenomena.  

   

The phrase Optimum is a mis-leader in that it is the better of a poor trade off.  PRISM will address this need for a changing advanced spark curve.  One of the vulnerabilities of Mags is they are Primeval – Brain Dead simple and reliable at a single setting throughout a range of performance requirements.  

   

Everyone building should make their personal decision based on research rather than popularity of the moment.  

   

John Cox  

       

   

  

   	  Quote: 	
		   	
[quote]  [b]

Deems Davis

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 925

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:20 pm Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

John, Good Luck in finding out the answer to this. I really hope that 

you (or someone does). I asked both Allen Barrett and Klaus S. directly. 

 	  Quote: 	
		  From Allen I got: " I really don't know why it is this way perhaps it 

has something to do with Altitude, The engines on the dyno might perform 
	


better (at) altitude with the EI than they do here on the ground, but I 

have no way of simulating altitude differences here in the dyno room". 

 From Klaus S. " That's just what I'd expect an engine builder to say, 

they just don't want to be bothered with the extra work to hook up the 

LS EI to the dyno. (according to Allen there is several hours extra work 

involved). If it were true why would all of the Reno racers be running 

my ignition?"

So, that's the extent of what I was able to get from 2 of the experts. 

Perhaps someone with more engine knowledge/wisdom than I who knows the 

more appropriate questions to ask could help to narrow down the mystery.



Deems Davis # 406

Finishing (A Misnomer!)

http://deemsrv10.com/



John W. Cox wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Michael, this is exactly the kind of data which keeps the cavity prone 

 sugar sweetened kool-aid at bay. I agree. I want to know why the 

 horsepower drop vs. two pre-cambrian magnetos with no timing change on 

 a dynamometer run.



 John



 ------------------------------------------------------------------------



 *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *RV 

 Builder (Michael Sausen)

 *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2006 8:36 AM

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

 *Subject:* RE: Dual Lightspeed?



 One of the things I posted a while back was a summary of a 

 conversation I had with a instructor at a Sportair workshop. He is a 

 long time A&P/IA, teaches A&P at a university in the DC area, EAA 

 contributor, blah, blah, blah, knows his stuff and is a smart guy. 

 Basically his thought on the matter was that with a single mag and a 

 EI, the flame front would no longer meet at the optimum point because 

 of the differences in timing. Now he didn't have any evidence that 

 this would cause any problems, but his feeling was that it is less 

 than optimum. This is why Klaus says that the addition of a second LSE 

 wouldn't improve things very much, but it also shows that flame front 

 propagation does have a measurable effect.



 This was one of the key factors that led me to make the decision on 

 dual LSE's. There could also be a negative effect of additional stress 

 if the flame front is no longer meeting in the center of the piston, 

 but again I have no evidence of this and it was just a possibility the 

 Sportair instructor mentioned. Wave propagation isn't the easiest 

 thing to model but the guys at GAMI and some at Lycoming/Continental 

 are doing a lot to understand it. This is the same reason you now see 

 odd shaped piston heads in high performance applications, to get 

 optimal wave propagation and focus the shockwaves in the cylinder.



 Michael Sausen



 -10 #352 fuselage - still in Texas



 ------------------------------------------------------------------------



 *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

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

 *Sent:* Friday, October 20, 2006 7:00 PM

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

 *Subject:* RE: Dual Lightspeed?



 Flame front propagation is a fascinating topic. F/A mixture is hotter 

 near the exhaust valve that a comparatively cooler intake valve. Heat 

 is a catalyst for combustion. If it is a charged carbon deposit and 

 ignites a mixture at other than the required timing it gets its own 

 name – Detonation. If the event happens before the piston is ready to 

 provide the power-stroke and it is before the exalted event, it is 

 called PRE – ignition. Read the GAMI site. The theory is they both 

 meet in the middle in perfect harmony. Distributor, Mag timing and 

 Electronic timing and all things spark related need to change with the 

 change of engine load and rpm. A finite setting does not enhance this 

 phenomena.



 The phrase Optimum is a mis-leader in that it is the better of a poor 

 trade off. PRISM will address this need for a changing advanced spark 

 curve. One of the vulnerabilities of Mags is they are Primeval – Brain 

 Dead simple and reliable at a single setting throughout a range of 

 performance requirements.



 Everyone building should make their personal decision based on 

 research rather than popularity of the moment.



 John Cox



 < Forum Email RV10-List The>< to Navigator Features List Matronics>< 

 Subscriptions the as such utilities>< Chat, Browse, 7-Day Search>< 

 much and Photoshare,>< - FORUMS WEB MATRONICS>< Web via available also 

 now content>< - MATRONICS WIKI LIST>< info>< - List Web Site>< 

 generous your for you Thank><>



* *



* *



**



**



**



**



**



**



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



**



**



**



**



**



**



**



**



**



**



**



**



**



**



* *



*

*

kdbelue(at)charter.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

The Cafe Foundation has done research on magneto  vs. the Jeff Rose electronic ignition. This is a 3 part report that has  interesting results - it appears that magnetoes are slightly faster but the  electronic ignition is more efficient. Read at:   http://cafefoundation.org/v2/research_reports.php

  

 Kevin Belue

 [quote]   ---

glastar(at)gmx.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:03 am Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

Hello Rob,

 

 I have it now 3 yrs and so far have still to wait that it fails on me. Occasionally I have a starting problem when the voltage goes to low, but just recycling power to the box and you're ready to go again. Start is normally (if correctly primed) on the 2nd or 3rd blade, runs very smooth (you know when you do the run up and switch magnetos) and the leaning is a great thing to extend your range (as long as you have all EGT/CHT temps monitored). I have no carbon build up on the spark plugs either. I bought the engine with the Lasar together, but you would need to swap the two magnetos only, hook up a little box to the cables coming from the magnetos and you're ready to check the timing (a tester needed for that).

 

 Pros: my engine is still a certified one, starting and operation I would not change back to magnetos only, saves also a lot of money on fuel consumption

 Cons: expensive as it is certified, still using magnetos with their limited lifetime.

 

 The time I bought it (2001) Klaus ignition was available already, but looking at his electrical layout then did not get me enthusiastic (his fail over system with two magnetos had a single point of failure. having the backup on magnetos gives me a good feeling as the engine still would run without any power (and believe me I have a full electronic cockpit with three power systems. I would look in the P-/E-mag probably today for my O-320 but hey, I'm more then satisfied right now with what I have!

 

 Werner

 

 do not archive

 

 Rob Kermanj wrote: [quote]Br Werner, can you tell about your Lasar set up?  How long have you had it and how reliable is it? Pros/Cons? Can you describe the installation?      

   Thanks      

   Do not archive

       Rob

      

       

   

      On Oct 21, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:

       	  Quote: 	
		       --> RV10-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net (glastar(at)gmx.net)>

     

     

     Hi Chris,

     

     

      	  Quote: 	
		         In theory, I suppose that you could also run much leaner without roughness, because you can advance the timing to a point that you will still achieve a complete burn (or more complete I should say) of the fuel charge.  Again, in theory, you could lean and lean and lean, and advance (with manual control) and advance and advance, and get a very low fuel burn. 

     	
     I can confirm, that with my Lasar setup I can run lean of peak to such an extend, that if a go a fractional turn further, my engine just stops and the control is maybe 2-5 mm from the maximum movement when that happened, so I see quite low fuel flow around 6.2-6.5 gal (O-320) during cruise with 23/2300.

     

     

     br Werner

     

     

     do not archive

     

     

               - The RV10-List Email Forum -

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

                   - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

       -->                   - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -

       -->             - List Contribution Web Site -

       Thank you for your generous support!

                                   -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

          

     

     

     

     

     

      

     

   	
   

   

   

   

    	  Quote: 	
		  



 face="courier new,courier" size="2">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List



	
 [b]

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:07 am Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

Thanks for the info,  I will most likely switch to Lasar when I am faced with mag failure.  I just cheapened out a little at the time.  How is the "little Box" hooked up?

do not archive

 Rob Kermanj



 



On Oct 24, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:

[quote]  Hello Rob,

 

 I have it now 3 yrs and so far have still to wait that it fails on me. Occasionally I have a starting problem when the voltage goes to low, but just recycling power to the box and you're ready to go again. Start is normally (if correctly primed) on the 2nd or 3rd blade, runs very smooth (you know when you do the run up and switch magnetos) and the leaning is a great thing to extend your range (as long as you have all EGT/CHT temps monitored). I have no carbon build up on the spark plugs either. I bought the engine with the Lasar together, but you would need to swap the two magnetos only, hook up a little box to the cables coming from the magnetos and you're ready to check the timing (a tester needed for that).

 

 Pros: my engine is still a certified one, starting and operation I would not change back to magnetos only, saves also a lot of money on fuel consumption

 Cons: expensive as it is certified, still using magnetos with their limited lifetime.

 

 The time I bought it (2001) Klaus ignition was available already, but looking at his electrical layout then did not get me enthusiastic (his fail over system with two magnetos had a single point of failure. having the backup on magnetos gives me a good feeling as the engine still would run without any power (and believe me I have a full electronic cockpit with three power systems. I would look in the P-/E-mag probably today for my O-320 but hey, I'm more then satisfied right now with what I have!

 

 Werner

 

 do not archive

 

 Rob Kermanj wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		  Br Werner, can you tell about your Lasar set up?  How long have you had it and how reliable is it? Pros/Cons? Can you describe the installation?    

  Thanks    

  Do not archive

     Rob

    

     

  

    On Oct 21, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:

     	  Quote: 	
		      --> RV10-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net (glastar(at)gmx.net)>

    

    

    Hi Chris,

    

    

     	  Quote: 	
		        In theory, I suppose that you could also run much leaner without roughness, because you can advance the timing to a point that you will still achieve a complete burn (or more complete I should say) of the fuel charge.  Again, in theory, you could lean and lean and lean, and advance (with manual control) and advance and advance, and get a very low fuel burn. 

    	
    I can confirm, that with my Lasar setup I can run lean of peak to such an extend, that if a go a fractional turn further, my engine just stops and the control is maybe 2-5 mm from the maximum movement when that happened, so I see quite low fuel flow around 6.2-6.5 gal (O-320) during cruise with 23/2300.

    

    

    br Werner

    

    

    do not archive

    

    

              - The RV10-List Email Forum -

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

                  - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

      -->                  - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -

      -->             - List Contribution Web Site -

      Thank you for your generous support!

                                  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

        

    

    

    

    

    

     

    

  	
  

  

  

  

   	  Quote: 	
		  

 face="courier new,courier" size="2">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List



	
 

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

ntribution



	
[b]

BPA(at)bpaengines.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:59 am Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

--

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject: Dual Lightspeed?

So, Monty – If the amount of advance provided by the Lightspeed was less (and more in line with a NO CHANGE magneto) is there are potential for the benefits of electronic ignition without a commensurate drop in top end horsepower at cruise?  Could there be room for improvement in the programmed timing curve of an electronic unit in your opinion?  

   

John  

         

  

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

 Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:03 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: FW: Dual Lightspeed?  

  

   

   

   

   

--

Display posts from previous:

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

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