[Chris Wolfson]

You like to play with your engine settings and do not trust others to do them correct. This is good pilot behavior, who should not hand over the last check to others, but perform it personally.
Anyway, if you do settings, you have to know what is right in ANY situation. As you know, such perfection is impossible if things become turbulent.
A CPU calculating best timing for an engine does not get distracted by air traffic, weather conditions, ground communication or talking passengers. The time you need to check all gauges and estimate the best timing, then setting it and checking the results, may be the 5 seconds you would have needed to avoid a collision. Maybe think about it that way?

Commercial planes have erased a completes person's job with FADEC. Have a look at the actual size of such an unit, compared to a Trent 1000 it controls in any aspect, for example. Automated engine control is safer, more exact and more economical than manual adjusting.
IMO you should not look at it as loosing control over your plane, but winning time to be a better pilot.

Another point is weight. Any mechanical gauge adds a whole lot of mass and cost (!) to your plane, taking up space in your cockpit. Throwing out all of that and using one or two variable displays will add a lot of benefit. Like only activating gauges if they are needed. What kind of interest has fuel or oil pressure, as long as it stays in a well defined window?
I'm sure you get the picture.

That is very interesting stuff for your plane stuff. Keep one fact in mind, no modern car engine will even notice you with a warning light, if you take it to 6000 feet attitude. While maintaining economy, most of it's power and clean emissions.

Last, there is a way of getting rid of an ignition system, the diesel engine. If private aviation has a future, which sure will not be electrically powered, if not a jet engine, this will be it. You can convert any vegetable oil or fat into sun fuel with some (solar powered) simple processing. If you fly longer distances, the added engine weight will be over compensated for by higher energy content and efficiency. Also, you can fuel up hardly anywhere, low cost.

[LarryGrant]

Response to Chris W:
1. I think you are correct about EGT K thermocouple probes. They are not degraded by leaded fuel. Further, there is no absolutely correct EGT - EGTs are relative (to their sibling cylinders). Their usefulness is being able to identify a peak in those temps (perhaps a touchy-feely process) and to lean slightly beyond that, observing a drop in temps of about 50*F. Fuel injection, whether mechanical or electronic, highly facilitates this process. Carbs are not known for even distribution of consistent air/fuel mixtures to the various cylinders. The uneveness is going to result in bigger cylinder differences in EGT than with an injected engine.
2. Actually the O2 sensor (wide band or otherwise) has been successfully used in aircraft using leaded fuel (100LL). The trick is to locate the sensor in one of the 4 exhaust runners close to the selected cylinder's exhaust valve (4" to 6"). The closeness keeps the sensor tip burned clean. BTW, 100 Low Lead is a bit of a misnomer - the low lead reference is compared to the 115 octane (lean) fuel. The latter had no limit on the lead content and typically contained 4 to 5 grams/gallon. The 100 LL is limited to 2 grams/gallon. The 115 octane has been phased out and is no longer available.
3. You read too much into and have concluded too much about my cockpit behavior while possessing EI. Maybe part of that is from reading David's posts? I can appreciate that you and David are concerned about my safety and are trying to keep me alive. But throttle back a little and reread the posts. And finally, be sure to read my response to David.
Larry

[LarryGrant]

David:
1. You seem vexed about a combined magneto-EI setup. In my experience, it's very common - done all the time. There are numerous for-profit EI companies out there prepared to sell you aircraft EI and they are quite comfortable with the aircraft operator combining the two. Those companies would like to sell you two systems but generally know that most everyone is going to start with one. Also, I know of three Megajolt setups that are doing the exact same thing. Lycoming also recommends retaining a neandethal magneto. No one is reporting problems with the "two systems." For everyone except Lycoming, the two system approach is to get some substantial hours on the new system and prove its trouble-free operation. What are your specific concerns? Something more substantial than "Humm"

2. Good suggestion on the practical experience game plan.

3. THE KNOB I believe I've answered this before but I'm happy to do it again. I'll preface the discussion with a rhetorical question: Can we all conclude that almost all tuning results in a perfect tune the first time? Or is it a matter of trial and error over weeks-months and the acceptance of a good tune, and probably not the perfect tune.

I'm guessing the latter. With that in mind, the "Knob" is of interest to me only as a means of making slight adjustmests to the high-altitude-cruise static timing of the tune (static because the input is static - MAP(load), RPM, Baro). That ability would help one tune for those conditions and put it in the table(s) - much, much cheaper that the trial and error process. Further, it's possible the tune (the one I would likely create) might not be sophisticated enough to take into account all of the variables. So being able to vary the advance 1 or 2 degress in either direction might be a means of overcoming other limitations that I created in my haste or clumsiness.

As far as local recreational flying is concerned, I believe I said that most pilots would be perfectly happy with a "good tune." Count me in on that - I have no plan to be manually changing ignition advance timing in anything but straight and level, cross-country, high altitude fast cruise.

No. 3 above is just a smoke screen. The discussion about tuning is BS. My real plan is to us THE KNOB as a modern day voodoo doll and, after the hexing ceremony is complete, every time I touch THE KNOB, you are going to receive an excruciatingly painful pain in the arse.

Cheers,
Larry

[LarryGrant]

theonewithin and all others:

Thanks for your response. Your response caused me to dig deeper into the "official" boards and that was a good thing.

So now I'm kinda focused on the NO2C. Many questions:
1. Is there anything (any unique feature or shortcoming) about this board that disqualifies it for my overall EI-aircraft plans. Am I trying to stuff 10 lbs of manure into a 5 lb bag?
2. Looks like the DB2 has to be added to get Baro (and also 2 more ignition channels)? I hope I'm wrong about the Baro. Can anyone comment as to the ability to add Baro to the primary board.
3. Looks like, for a 4 cylinder, one could go wasted spark and forego the DB2 or add the DB2 and go with the flamethrower LS2/truck coil (self igniting). Mox nix.
4. Can anyone recommend their favorite self igniting wasted spark coil pack? I'm familar with Ford packs that match up with EDIS but they are not self igniting.
5. MAP sensor - 25 or 40?
6. Do I want PCB connectors or Panel connectors?

Don't forget have I have absolutely no experience with the firmware and TS. I'm assuming that an "official board" works with the firmware and with TS.

Thanks in advance to everyone.
Cheers,
Larry

[PSIG]

David:
1. You seem vexed about a combined magneto-EI setup. In my experience, it's very common - done all the time. There are numerous for-profit EI companies out there prepared to sell you aircraft EI and they are quite comfortable with the aircraft operator combining the two. Those companies would like to sell you two systems but generally know that most everyone is going to start with one. Also, I know of three Megajolt setups that are doing the exact same thing. Lycoming also recommends retaining a neandethal magneto. No one is reporting problems with the "two systems." For everyone except Lycoming, the two system approach is to get some substantial hours on the new system and prove its trouble-free operation. What are your specific concerns? Something more substantial than "Humm"

Hmm... I'm not vexed at all , and am fully aware of all that. I apologize if our communication has broken-down, and I confused you. The point isn't two systems, or seeing if it works OK for hours, etc, but to have a test plan that proves it works as-required at all, and always. This will not be a tried-and-true proven system. There are assumptions with an existing system that it works like we think it does, but in this case we have to prove it. What's your plan for that?

Sure, we hit it with a timing light. OK, that works, while stationary. What happens to the timing when airborne, freezing cold, and unloaded? Is the reported timing actual? Oscilloscope probes are challenging over 100 mph. How do you deal with the lack of mag-check differential? Is the RPM drop because the mag is at 15°, while EI is at 30°, or is something else wrong that is now hidden? How will you know, not only to provide the safety aspects of mag-checks, but in order to prove it is functioning exactly as planned?

This is a new and unproven design, and IMO some thought should be placed on how you intend to rectify that not-so-insignificant point. On that journey, we can compile more useful info, such as if a test harness should be included in the design, or if isolated grounds or processor shielding is a good idea — or if an $8 processor package with an 85°C operating limit is even worth looking at.

2. Good suggestion on the practical experience game plan.

Thanks. I have extensive experience in ignition systems of all types, including magnetos in aircraft. I'm trying to give back to the community, and I hope my certs and ratings sprinkled across many years of involvement can be made helpful to others. In wanting to pass-along help another way, after a few years as a flight instructor and repair technician, I spent some years as an EAA Technical Counselor for light aircraft engines. I've helped to design and develop some of the systems out there today. Now I'm other places, such as here, looking to help where I can. I'm not asking operational questions because I don't know (although I don't know everything), but to see where you are coming-from, how you think, and to allow others to follow along.

3. THE KNOB I believe I've answered this before but I'm happy to do it again. I'll preface the discussion with a rhetorical question: Can we all conclude that almost all tuning results in a perfect tune the first time? Or is it a matter of trial and error over weeks-months and the acceptance of a good tune, and probably not the perfect tune.

This is a big one. The answer can be either, depending on how you tune. Most hobby tuners (including here) use trial-and-error methods, mostly because that's what they know, so far, and it can get you there with patience and determination. This is fine for most applications, as they are not critical nor are most willing to spend time learning both the concepts and the use of tools to do it any other way. OK, no problem, and there is something to be said for the ability to fidget with it constantly, for a feeling of control and satisfaction.

However, the alternative tuning method is to approach it scientifically, using data and diagnostics. Engine operation is based in science and mathematics, with a lot of real-world variables thrown-in. As you've seen on the Forums and the Wiki, we begin with some numbers for values and calculations for first-start. Then we gather data from dozens of data streams to see the effects of the real-world factors once it's running; performing diagnostics of resulting timing, drift, Lambda, pressures, torque, etc. Then we use math again to alter applicable functions in order to align with those factors for best efficiency. Efficiency translates to every performance from best torque to best economy.

If all the functions and factors are addressed, the results are as perfect as the functions, diagnostics and variables you permit (fuel is a big one) allow it to be. 1° of timing will not produce enough response to the average pilot to be useful. Conversely, a flight distance competition (not the typical use) would not use a knob, but rather a running laptop with adjustment and performance data analysis running, so tiny tweaks are done by facts, not feel.

So, I hope you can see that if your answer to my question was for the developers and testers to use a "knob" for injecting experimental values for data… awesome! If the answer was for release versions to allow every unfamiliar Joe to mess with timing in real-time during flight to see what it would do, I would have differing points of view to suggest. If they haven't the skills to tune it reasonably well initially, will a knob improve or diminish their ability to cope with results? Would "good enough" initial tuning, with in-flight logging, following with data analysis and corrections prove to be a better solution for improvement in following flights? General aviation pilots have not had the ability to alter in-flight ignition timing in most cases, so this is both all-new and another in-flight function to learn and skill to master, if it is offered.

I'm guessing the latter. With that in mind, the "Knob" is of interest to me only as a means of making slight adjustmests to the high-altitude-cruise static timing of the tune (static because the input is static - MAP(load), RPM, Baro). That ability would help one tune for those conditions and put it in the table(s) - much, much cheaper that the trial and error process. Further, it's possible the tune (the one I would likely create) might not be sophisticated enough to take into account all of the variables. So being able to vary the advance 1 or 2 degress in either direction might be a means of overcoming other limitations that I created in my haste or clumsiness.

As far as local recreational flying is concerned, I believe I said that most pilots would be perfectly happy with a "good tune." Count me in on that - I have no plan to be manually changing ignition advance timing in anything but straight and level, cross-country, high altitude fast cruise.

No. 3 above is just a smoke screen. The discussion about tuning is BS. My real plan is to us THE KNOB as a modern day voodoo doll and, after the hexing ceremony is complete, every time I touch THE KNOB, you are going to receive an excruciatingly painful pain in the arse.

As you can see from my response above, it is not the latter method I suggest, and trial-and-error is not a path I would recommend. As to "good" being OK, those are the results you will achieve, and the reputation you will have. I promote "great", as it is rarely achieved, but allows for "good" as worst-case. Good planning with the typical end-user in-mind will be the factors that move it towards great. And, as to your last comment, I simply can't confidently perceive in text what your meaning is, nor whether your intent is aggression or humor. I will benefit the doubt towards neutral until clarification, and I apologize I am not perceptive enough to get it either way.

[LarryGrant]

Wow, time flies! It's been a few months since I or anyone else has posted to this thread. Here is an update on my activities. I am not going to invest any time in relearning what was posted before - I'm sure that, at my age, I've forgotten much of the details of the preceding posts.

I'll start with "I don't know much of anything about electronics." But since the EDIS4 systems are proven and well documented, the contribution that I could make to this aviation opportunity was to do the hardware - trigger wheel, sensor(s) bracket, case mount, covers for the vacated magnetos, etc. First, I learned enough LibreCAD to create .dxf files and then I designed a trigger wheel and a sensor bracket that would accommodate multiple sensors. I manually fabbed one-off case mounts (later to be designed in LibreCAD and laser cut) and 1) installed these metal-mechanical pieces; 2) installed the EDIS4 ignition control module and wasted spark coil; 3) sourced some high tech MSD spark plug wires and Denso 18mm spark plugs; and 4) hooked everything up and now have the engine running on E.I. for one set of spark plugs. When the remaining magneto is shut off and running on the E.I. alone, it has never idled better! I haven't flown with it yet but will do so just as soon as I can get another set of eyes to look through and critique everything that I have done.

Everyone probably knows this already but JIC: the EDIS4, when not driven by an ECU, defaults to firing at TDC (the 9th tooth after the missing tooth) when below 400 rpm and then at 10* BTDC (the 8th tooth after the missing tooth) when above 400 rpm. I have positioned a second sensor upstream by 15* and that will result in a static advance of 25* (10*+15*) which matches the engine data plate for magneto advance timing.

For the foreseeable future, there will be no ECU - simply the ability to move a 3 position rotary switch from 10* to 25* to 33*. A Speeduino or Megajolt can be added later, which, of course, would render the 2nd and 3rd sensors useless.

So, at the moment, the system will immolate the static timing of a magneto and have the ability to switch between three levels. The 0*/10* will be used for starting and warmup; the 25* setting will be used for most all normal recreational flying; and the 33* advance will be used for high altitude cruise where one can lean the mixture to something LOP (lean of peak exhaust gas temperature).

If I can figure out how to upload pics, I'll post a few.
Cheers,
Larry

[LarryGrant]

Would anyone out there be interested in designing/creating (using a nano - arduino or seeeduino) a perpetual timing light that would, instead of flashing a strobe, create a signal or data stream that would be a readout on a gauge installed on a panel or dashboard. The readout could be whole numbers or whole numbers with one decimal place.

For aircraft purposes there is dual ignition with independent timing. So there would need to be 2 readouts. Maybe they could be stacked and squeezed into a 2.25" diameter circle? The 2.25" diameter is one of two standard form factors for steam gauge (non-digital panel) instruments in aircraft.

A sensor would be positioned on a bracket and juxtaposed to a trigger wheel with a known position vs TDC (and everything else for that matter). For aircraft, two single spark plug pickups, like the ones used by timing lights, would be used, one fore each set of plugs and each ignition timing calculation.

I believe having this info in the cockpit would be a big hit.

Thanks,
Larry