On Sep 3, 12:00*pm, Charles Vincent wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 31, 10:29 pm, "
wrote:
Sorry, but that quote does not say the specific technical reason(s) he
gave up, just the basic economic idea that i've already heard -- hence
the original post. *I wanted to hear a really good reason to not use
an auto engine, give readily available magnetos. *Someone eventually
said propellor loads on the auto crankshaft.

* What? We didn't mention cooling issues, weight issues, PSRU issues,
cost issues or anything else? Aren't these good things to consider?

* * * * Dan

Guess you didn't know that the only thing holding back progress of the
auto engine in aviation was the availability of a hundred and twenty two
year old ignition design.

Charles

Guess not. Now we can put a magneto on any old engine and go
flying! Considering that the magneto has a much higher failure rate
than the old battery point-and-condenser ignition, and therefore we
need two of them, I have no idea why, in this age of electronic
everything, the homebuilder market hasn't come up with a self-powered
electronic ignition module for conversions. It would look like a
magneto, and have the rotating magnet alternator to generate some
power, but wouldn't use the troublesome points or impulse couplings or
distributor and the alternator part would have many magnets, not just
one, so that the magneto dynamics that sometimes lead to drive failure
wouldn't be there. Dave Blanton found those dynamics in his
conversions and had to modify the mag drives to take it.

Dan