What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Help me understand, please

Freemasm

Well Known Member
There's a new sticky in the prop section, "Hartzell information manual...." I don't want to clutter up that sticky but Hartzell has made a statement that I can't reconcile. Post #7 is the closest one to a summary.

My fundamental, basic question is:

Why would any EI operating fixed at the engine data plate timing setpoint affect prop compatibility?

I'm not seeing it. If it's a real technical consideration, could someone get me smarter here? Is this just a case of a certified component OEM acting as such. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
T

Why would any EI operating fixed at the engine data plate timing setpoint affect prop compatibility?

Thanks.

It wouldn't. However, given that there are no EI offerings that only offer fixed timing, Hartzell has to assume that EI is synonymous with advance levels other than book values. Most people buy EI for the performance gain that comes with advances greater than book. Not an engineer, but find it likely that different advance levels create different harmonics in a spinning apparatus, especially those related to the jolt or acceleration seen at each combustion point. While we humans see it as a smooth running rotation, I have to believe that more is going on at a deeper level and precision instruments see more variability.

Larry
 
Last edited:
@ Larry. Absolutely, but listing Ignition type and no mention of timing? Here are two direct quotes from the Hartzell Information Manual.

Electronic ignition systems operating at fixed timing also have the capability to
increase propeller stresses. At this time, Hartzell can only endorse use with the exact
ignition systems listed, in conjunction with the exact propeller/engine combination
listed.

Use of engines with unverified electronic ignition systems is done at your
own risk


The first quote is reinforced by the Hartzell rep's reply here So,. Lycoming approves any timing setting as long as the sparks are coming from mags (implicitly stated)? Vice versa, EI fixed at the engine data plate setting is unacceptable (directly stated)?

You'd have to grade this release as "incomplete" at best; a surprise for such an OEM. While the effort is very much appreciated, any attorney for someone's estate unfortunately would have a field day with this one.

If you see this another way, please correct me.
 
Scott,

I suspect you are applying logic to a decision driven by liability attorneys.

Lycoming (or anyone else) will not provide blanket approval on anything that deviates from certification criteria. I’m hopeful however as they dive further into the EI world they compile enough data to at least “lead us to understand” the risks (if any) on how we run our engine/prop/ignition setups.

Carl
 
Id have to agree with Carl here. I have no inside info at Hartzel, but I have spent 35 years in aviation and if there is one common theme to configuration management, it that if the object does not conform to published standards, its "wrong". Does not matter if the "nonconformance" is an improvement in every way - it still does not conform.

I strongly suspect that since Hartzel cant possibly test every possible engine, prop and ignition curve us users can dream up, then they can only speak to EXACTLY what they DO know. The rest just gets a blanket statement so that in the courtroom Harrtzel can truthfully say "we told you not to do that".
 
Id have to agree with Carl here. I have no inside info at Hartzel, but I have spent 35 years in aviation and if there is one common theme to configuration management, it that if the object does not conform to published standards, its "wrong". Does not matter if the "nonconformance" is an improvement in every way - it still does not conform.

I strongly suspect that since Hartzel cant possibly test every possible engine, prop and ignition curve us users can dream up, then they can only speak to EXACTLY what they DO know. The rest just gets a blanket statement so that in the courtroom Harrtzel can truthfully say "we told you not to do that".

Completely agree.

Just to pick on the liability issue. If I have a forced landing from an engine out, can my insurance carrier deny coverage based on the Hartzel or Lycoming statements about my EI timing curve not being standard?
 
Didn't make my (full) point(s), as usual. Maybe I'm just not hearing it.

@ Mr. Robinson. I've been in aero since '87 myself. I understand and expected the typical ultraconservative approach from Hartzell. There's way too many potential configurations to test and approve; but,

@ Mr Froehlich and Robinson. Not a single mention of timing; the big driver/variable here IMO. This reinforces my skeptical nature i.e. the release is more to shield Hartzell than to help the market.

Per their guidelines, I can fly behind mags with + 35 deg advance (or whatever) as long as the configuration is listed in their released IM. Again, I'd grade the release an "Incomplete" at best.
 
simply put, different timing and different energies produce different harmonics. unless hartzell has done harmonic work up on every ignition system/prop/engine combination the lawyers will never let them approve the use of it.

bob burns
rv-4 N82RB
 
Magneto timing can easily be off several degrees from wear or lack of maintenance. How much does Hartzell worry about this?

Many EIs can have the timing user adjusted through external means, PMag, Lightspeed, SDS etc. so I agree with Freemasm here. This is useless information without published timing values.

BTW SDS can be programmed to emulate fixed magneto timing easily- enter data plate timing in all the RPM slots and zero out all MAP advance/ retard values.
 
Completely agree.

Just to pick on the liability issue. If I have a forced landing from an engine out, can my insurance carrier deny coverage based on the Hartzel or Lycoming statements about my EI timing curve not being standard?

I don't believe so, in the Experimental world, but check with your agent to be sure.

I was told by an agent once, when I asked a similar question - "We will always pay for stupid. We will pay for illegal once."
 
Just re read the OP and I think what you are asking is: If a magneto fires at 25 degrees BTDC, and a given EI fires at 25 degrees BTDC, then why does the prop care?

If thats the question, I'm right there with you.
 
I have no expertise in this area so my contribution this morning is one of pure, under-caffeinated speculation - and offered up for my personal entertainment only.

I suspect the answer we're going to get from Hartzell is that even with fixed timing at the same degree of advance, there may exist a difference in spark energy, voltage rise times or whatever between magneto and EI ignition systems that Hartzell's legal team, if not their engineers, are concerned about. Kind of like what one poster said: "more is going on at a deeper level and precision instruments see more variability."

"...you are applying logic to a decision driven by liability attorneys." Yeah, we need to stop doing that. As in right now - stop.

Perhaps what aviation needs is what I saw in Ross' comment: "...zero out all the... retard values."

As long as there are litigators, ^^ this will never happen. :p
__________________
 
The timing value sets when the ignition system triggers. There are a myriad of things that follow that trigger event, but, fundamentally, they contribute to the phase/load/frequency relationship that is eventually transmitted to the propeller. Due to the functional differences between magneto ignitions and electronic ignitions, an electronic ignition can alter that phase/load/frequency relationship in a meaningful way, by potentially altering how quickly and completely the mixture is ignited and combusted, even if the trigger angle is identical to that of the magneto.

This is not a purely theoretical consideration. Test data supports that this can make a difference to propeller loads and that the resulting differences in loads, and whether that difference is of concern, can be specific to the propeller, engine, ignition system combination. Unfortunately, the test data available at this point in time does not support making any more definitive of a statement as applied to EI systems in general; it would not be sufficient to publish a range of timing settings independent of the ignition system specifics. Specific propeller, engine, and electronic ignition system combinations that have completed sufficient testing to be determined to be compatible are listed in the tables in Manual 193, Volume 1. Testing of additional configurations is ongoing, but takes time.

Propellers are subject to vibratory loads created by the engine and are therefore subject to fatigue. These vibratory frequency orders are often high, leading to a large number of accumulated cycles that must be sustained (or avoided with an operating restriction or life limit). The relationship between stress amplitude and frequency (S-N) means that small increases in stress at high frequencies can lead to reductions in component life. It is for this reason that we must be so specific and careful about changes to the system. As engineers, when we say a system is compatible it means that we have determined that the design life is not compromised, that the system (as specified) is safe; we must therefore restrict ourselves to the conclusions for which we have sufficient data. An untested combination may be safe, it may be unsafe, it may be safe if used with an operating restriction, but without the data we don’t know and cannot make a statement of compatibility.

Our compatibility determinations are made with the ignition set up per the manufacturer's recommendations. This means that for magneto ignitions, the timing is set per the type certificate (data plate) for the subject engine; usage of timing settings other than those are, just like other modifications, not determined to be compatible. For electronic ignitions, the EI is set up and operated per the EI manufacturer instructions and predetermined timing profiles. Customized user variations to base timing and/or timing advance profiles are unlikely to be supported due to the significant variation possible, but this is still TBD as we continue testing.

Manual 193 was born in the engineering department and is the result of us here at Hartzell, some of whom are homebuilders ourselves, wanting to communicate helpful information for the experimental community and to promote safety by providing a documented resource of compatible combinations and the factors that alter compatibility. Manual 193, Volume 2, which should be published soon, will attempt to explain a little more of the "why" behind some of these factors, though much of it is paraphrased here as it relates to EI. We intend to revise and add to this manual as we complete more testing. We always welcome feedback on the effectiveness of our communication.
 
The timing value sets when the ignition system triggers. There are a myriad of things that follow that trigger event, but, fundamentally, they contribute to the phase/load/frequency relationship that is eventually transmitted to the propeller. Due to the functional differences between magneto ignitions and electronic ignitions, an electronic ignition can alter that phase/load/frequency relationship in a meaningful way, by potentially altering how quickly and completely the mixture is ignited and combusted, even if the trigger angle is identical to that of the magneto.

This is not a purely theoretical consideration. Test data supports that this can make a difference to propeller loads and that the resulting differences in loads, and whether that difference is of concern, can be specific to the propeller, engine, ignition system combination. Unfortunately, the test data available at this point in time does not support making any more definitive of a statement as applied to EI systems in general; it would not be sufficient to publish a range of timing settings independent of the ignition system specifics. Specific propeller, engine, and electronic ignition system combinations that have completed sufficient testing to be determined to be compatible are listed in the tables in Manual 193, Volume 1. Testing of additional configurations is ongoing, but takes time.

Propellers are subject to vibratory loads created by the engine and are therefore subject to fatigue. These vibratory frequency orders are often high, leading to a large number of accumulated cycles that must be sustained (or avoided with an operating restriction or life limit). The relationship between stress amplitude and frequency (S-N) means that small increases in stress at high frequencies can lead to reductions in component life. It is for this reason that we must be so specific and careful about changes to the system. As engineers, when we say a system is compatible it means that we have determined that the design life is not compromised, that the system (as specified) is safe; we must therefore restrict ourselves to the conclusions for which we have sufficient data. An untested combination may be safe, it may be unsafe, it may be safe if used with an operating restriction, but without the data we don’t know and cannot make a statement of compatibility.

Our compatibility determinations are made with the ignition set up per the manufacturer's recommendations. This means that for magneto ignitions, the timing is set per the type certificate (data plate) for the subject engine; usage of timing settings other than those are, just like other modifications, not determined to be compatible. For electronic ignitions, the EI is set up and operated per the EI manufacturer instructions and predetermined timing profiles. Customized user variations to base timing and/or timing advance profiles are unlikely to be supported due to the significant variation possible, but this is still TBD as we continue testing.

Manual 193 was born in the engineering department and is the result of us here at Hartzell, some of whom are homebuilders ourselves, wanting to communicate helpful information for the experimental community and to promote safety by providing a documented resource of compatible combinations and the factors that alter compatibility. Manual 193, Volume 2, which should be published soon, will attempt to explain a little more of the "why" behind some of these factors, though much of it is paraphrased here as it relates to EI. We intend to revise and add to this manual as we complete more testing. We always welcome feedback on the effectiveness of our communication.

Trevor, I'm very happy to keep getting these updates. Thanks for sharing your views and plans. As mentioned in the other thread, there are lots of us running your props with EI, and we want to do it in as safe a way as possible. If that means avoiding RPM ranges, or specific timing, so be it.

There are so many variables to the stresses on the prop, I am amazed that you guys can get even one combination approved.
 
Yes indeed, Trevor, thank you for posting.

Due to the functional differences between magneto ignitions and electronic ignitions, an electronic ignition can alter that phase/load/frequency relationship in a meaningful way, by potentially altering how quickly and completely the mixture is ignited and combusted, even if the trigger angle is identical to that of the magneto.

I've been poking around on my bookshelves, reviewing ignition fundamentals. I don't have anything specific regarding differences between aircraft magneto and inductive EI in the breakdown, arc, and glow phases...and we can't forget CDI, like Lightspeed. I realize you may not be able to share Hartzell data, but can you recommend reading material specific to the subject?
 
@TParker. Was gonna post a long, comment specific reply but don't feel like getting into anything today. We understand the potential relationship between the combustion events and prop responses. If a higher energy spark significantly erodes design margin, it does not breed confidence. With the other plethora of potential combustion variables (nominal and slightly off nominal), creates more questions. That said, while initial testing may have not covered it, operating hours has established validation for the mature products. BTW, I owned/flew behind an HC Hartzell for a few decades; plus a few other H props.

All of that said, I still personally don't think the document provides a lot of help to the EAB community versus attempting to shield Hartzell. Others may/probably see it differently. This is understandable but an interesting case-in-point (to me at least); the Hartzell rep's prop recommendation to me at SnF is in contradiction to the subject release.

The effort is appreciated. At the very least, I'd take some points from the associated responses back to my employer for possible incorporation into future releases and/or revisions. Some are very valid and identify points where the information is unclear, contradictory, leaves Hartzell open to exposure, etc. (e.g. timing deviation from data plate is only mentioned in the EI compatibility that I saw).

Is it 1700 yet?
 
Dan: Unfortunately I don't have any reading material to offer, sorry. To be clear, I'm not claiming to be an expert on ignition systems.
 
The following is theory with no science....

Resonant harmonics is the concern. I've wondered if a Mag has a slight randomness to its spark that helps avoid or interrupt and dampen the harmonics of the spark/ignition event. Now we put on EI with super precise spark events giving the harmonics a better chance to resonate and magnify our spinning tuning forks.

I also wonder if dual EI might have a slightly softer ignition event if we time the L and Right sides one or two degrees apart.

If so then could not the future Ei be produced to randomize the spark just enough to protect against harmonics? Maybe Hartzel will manufacture there own ignition some day
 
Back
Top