Magneto
11-30-2003, 08:48 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Magneto
Del Rawlins wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2003 06:48 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>
>>Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used
>>on cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
>
> About the only thing they have going for them is that they generate
> their own power. A modern electronic ignition produces a better spark,
> is plenty reliable for ground use, and has no points to wear out. The
> mags I have worked on (aircraft) do not have any provision for an
> automatic advance, and are fixed to fire at the same number of degrees
> before top center under all conditions. This is okay on an aircraft
> which runs at the same RPM for hours on end, but not so good for an
> automobile in traffic. Other than the non dependence on the vehicle's
> electrical system, the reason they are considered reliable on aircraft
> is because two of them are used, each firing a separate set of spark
> plugs (two plugs per cylinder). I've got less than 100 hours in my
> logbook and I have still had a mag failure on an airplane I was flying.
> Then on the next (and last) time I flew it, it had an alternator failure,
> but at least due to the magneto ignition that just meant the radio got
> quiet.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
I knew they were used on aircraft, and this is what led me to believe
they must be more reliable.
Thanks
> On 29 Nov 2003 06:48 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>
>>Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used
>>on cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
>
> About the only thing they have going for them is that they generate
> their own power. A modern electronic ignition produces a better spark,
> is plenty reliable for ground use, and has no points to wear out. The
> mags I have worked on (aircraft) do not have any provision for an
> automatic advance, and are fixed to fire at the same number of degrees
> before top center under all conditions. This is okay on an aircraft
> which runs at the same RPM for hours on end, but not so good for an
> automobile in traffic. Other than the non dependence on the vehicle's
> electrical system, the reason they are considered reliable on aircraft
> is because two of them are used, each firing a separate set of spark
> plugs (two plugs per cylinder). I've got less than 100 hours in my
> logbook and I have still had a mag failure on an airplane I was flying.
> Then on the next (and last) time I flew it, it had an alternator failure,
> but at least due to the magneto ignition that just meant the radio got
> quiet.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
I knew they were used on aircraft, and this is what led me to believe
they must be more reliable.
Thanks
11-30-2003, 08:48 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Magneto
Del Rawlins wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2003 06:48 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>
>>Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used
>>on cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
>
> About the only thing they have going for them is that they generate
> their own power. A modern electronic ignition produces a better spark,
> is plenty reliable for ground use, and has no points to wear out. The
> mags I have worked on (aircraft) do not have any provision for an
> automatic advance, and are fixed to fire at the same number of degrees
> before top center under all conditions. This is okay on an aircraft
> which runs at the same RPM for hours on end, but not so good for an
> automobile in traffic. Other than the non dependence on the vehicle's
> electrical system, the reason they are considered reliable on aircraft
> is because two of them are used, each firing a separate set of spark
> plugs (two plugs per cylinder). I've got less than 100 hours in my
> logbook and I have still had a mag failure on an airplane I was flying.
> Then on the next (and last) time I flew it, it had an alternator failure,
> but at least due to the magneto ignition that just meant the radio got
> quiet.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
I knew they were used on aircraft, and this is what led me to believe
they must be more reliable.
Thanks
> On 29 Nov 2003 06:48 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>
>>Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used
>>on cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
>
> About the only thing they have going for them is that they generate
> their own power. A modern electronic ignition produces a better spark,
> is plenty reliable for ground use, and has no points to wear out. The
> mags I have worked on (aircraft) do not have any provision for an
> automatic advance, and are fixed to fire at the same number of degrees
> before top center under all conditions. This is okay on an aircraft
> which runs at the same RPM for hours on end, but not so good for an
> automobile in traffic. Other than the non dependence on the vehicle's
> electrical system, the reason they are considered reliable on aircraft
> is because two of them are used, each firing a separate set of spark
> plugs (two plugs per cylinder). I've got less than 100 hours in my
> logbook and I have still had a mag failure on an airplane I was flying.
> Then on the next (and last) time I flew it, it had an alternator failure,
> but at least due to the magneto ignition that just meant the radio got
> quiet.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
I knew they were used on aircraft, and this is what led me to believe
they must be more reliable.
Thanks
11-30-2003, 09:01 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Magneto
Del Rawlins wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2003 06:48 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>
>>Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used
>>on cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
>
> About the only thing they have going for them is that they generate
> their own power. A modern electronic ignition produces a better spark,
> is plenty reliable for ground use, and has no points to wear out. The
> mags I have worked on (aircraft) do not have any provision for an
> automatic advance, and are fixed to fire at the same number of degrees
> before top center under all conditions. This is okay on an aircraft
> which runs at the same RPM for hours on end, but not so good for an
> automobile in traffic. Other than the non dependence on the vehicle's
> electrical system, the reason they are considered reliable on aircraft
> is because two of them are used, each firing a separate set of spark
> plugs (two plugs per cylinder). I've got less than 100 hours in my
> logbook and I have still had a mag failure on an airplane I was flying.
> Then on the next (and last) time I flew it, it had an alternator failure,
> but at least due to the magneto ignition that just meant the radio got
> quiet.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Your planes specs are close to that of a Maule.
> On 29 Nov 2003 06:48 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>
>>Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used
>>on cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
>
> About the only thing they have going for them is that they generate
> their own power. A modern electronic ignition produces a better spark,
> is plenty reliable for ground use, and has no points to wear out. The
> mags I have worked on (aircraft) do not have any provision for an
> automatic advance, and are fixed to fire at the same number of degrees
> before top center under all conditions. This is okay on an aircraft
> which runs at the same RPM for hours on end, but not so good for an
> automobile in traffic. Other than the non dependence on the vehicle's
> electrical system, the reason they are considered reliable on aircraft
> is because two of them are used, each firing a separate set of spark
> plugs (two plugs per cylinder). I've got less than 100 hours in my
> logbook and I have still had a mag failure on an airplane I was flying.
> Then on the next (and last) time I flew it, it had an alternator failure,
> but at least due to the magneto ignition that just meant the radio got
> quiet.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Your planes specs are close to that of a Maule.
11-30-2003, 09:01 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Magneto
Del Rawlins wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2003 06:48 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>
>>Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used
>>on cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
>
> About the only thing they have going for them is that they generate
> their own power. A modern electronic ignition produces a better spark,
> is plenty reliable for ground use, and has no points to wear out. The
> mags I have worked on (aircraft) do not have any provision for an
> automatic advance, and are fixed to fire at the same number of degrees
> before top center under all conditions. This is okay on an aircraft
> which runs at the same RPM for hours on end, but not so good for an
> automobile in traffic. Other than the non dependence on the vehicle's
> electrical system, the reason they are considered reliable on aircraft
> is because two of them are used, each firing a separate set of spark
> plugs (two plugs per cylinder). I've got less than 100 hours in my
> logbook and I have still had a mag failure on an airplane I was flying.
> Then on the next (and last) time I flew it, it had an alternator failure,
> but at least due to the magneto ignition that just meant the radio got
> quiet.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Your planes specs are close to that of a Maule.
> On 29 Nov 2003 06:48 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>
>>Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used
>>on cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
>
> About the only thing they have going for them is that they generate
> their own power. A modern electronic ignition produces a better spark,
> is plenty reliable for ground use, and has no points to wear out. The
> mags I have worked on (aircraft) do not have any provision for an
> automatic advance, and are fixed to fire at the same number of degrees
> before top center under all conditions. This is okay on an aircraft
> which runs at the same RPM for hours on end, but not so good for an
> automobile in traffic. Other than the non dependence on the vehicle's
> electrical system, the reason they are considered reliable on aircraft
> is because two of them are used, each firing a separate set of spark
> plugs (two plugs per cylinder). I've got less than 100 hours in my
> logbook and I have still had a mag failure on an airplane I was flying.
> Then on the next (and last) time I flew it, it had an alternator failure,
> but at least due to the magneto ignition that just meant the radio got
> quiet.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Your planes specs are close to that of a Maule.
11-30-2003, 09:01 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Magneto
Del Rawlins wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2003 06:48 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>
>>Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used
>>on cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
>
> About the only thing they have going for them is that they generate
> their own power. A modern electronic ignition produces a better spark,
> is plenty reliable for ground use, and has no points to wear out. The
> mags I have worked on (aircraft) do not have any provision for an
> automatic advance, and are fixed to fire at the same number of degrees
> before top center under all conditions. This is okay on an aircraft
> which runs at the same RPM for hours on end, but not so good for an
> automobile in traffic. Other than the non dependence on the vehicle's
> electrical system, the reason they are considered reliable on aircraft
> is because two of them are used, each firing a separate set of spark
> plugs (two plugs per cylinder). I've got less than 100 hours in my
> logbook and I have still had a mag failure on an airplane I was flying.
> Then on the next (and last) time I flew it, it had an alternator failure,
> but at least due to the magneto ignition that just meant the radio got
> quiet.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Your planes specs are close to that of a Maule.
> On 29 Nov 2003 06:48 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>
>>Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used
>>on cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
>
> About the only thing they have going for them is that they generate
> their own power. A modern electronic ignition produces a better spark,
> is plenty reliable for ground use, and has no points to wear out. The
> mags I have worked on (aircraft) do not have any provision for an
> automatic advance, and are fixed to fire at the same number of degrees
> before top center under all conditions. This is okay on an aircraft
> which runs at the same RPM for hours on end, but not so good for an
> automobile in traffic. Other than the non dependence on the vehicle's
> electrical system, the reason they are considered reliable on aircraft
> is because two of them are used, each firing a separate set of spark
> plugs (two plugs per cylinder). I've got less than 100 hours in my
> logbook and I have still had a mag failure on an airplane I was flying.
> Then on the next (and last) time I flew it, it had an alternator failure,
> but at least due to the magneto ignition that just meant the radio got
> quiet.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Your planes specs are close to that of a Maule.
11-30-2003, 10:12 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Magneto
On 30 Nov 2003 05:01 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>
> Your planes specs are close to that of a Maule.
When he designed the Bearhawk, Bob Barrows incorporated design elements
from a lot of different airplanes. The landing gear and cargo door are
the same style as the Maule uses, while the fuselage and controls are
real similar to the maule and also the piper pacer, which the maule is a
rip-off of. The wings rely heavily on Van's RV and Midget Mustang
construction methods, and the tailfeathers use skybolt type hinges (I'm
using standard pin-type hinges). The wing struts are off of a Cessna
180, the windshield is a Cessna 172 unit, and the cowling is from a
Pitts Special.
The overall result is a visually attractive airplane which performs
extremely well, while carrying 4 people and a good amount of stuff. One
builder who got time in a Maule prior to his first test flight, says
that the Bearhawk is about 10 times easier to handle, although they both
perform much the same mission.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>
> Your planes specs are close to that of a Maule.
When he designed the Bearhawk, Bob Barrows incorporated design elements
from a lot of different airplanes. The landing gear and cargo door are
the same style as the Maule uses, while the fuselage and controls are
real similar to the maule and also the piper pacer, which the maule is a
rip-off of. The wings rely heavily on Van's RV and Midget Mustang
construction methods, and the tailfeathers use skybolt type hinges (I'm
using standard pin-type hinges). The wing struts are off of a Cessna
180, the windshield is a Cessna 172 unit, and the cowling is from a
Pitts Special.
The overall result is a visually attractive airplane which performs
extremely well, while carrying 4 people and a good amount of stuff. One
builder who got time in a Maule prior to his first test flight, says
that the Bearhawk is about 10 times easier to handle, although they both
perform much the same mission.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
11-30-2003, 10:12 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Magneto
On 30 Nov 2003 05:01 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>
> Your planes specs are close to that of a Maule.
When he designed the Bearhawk, Bob Barrows incorporated design elements
from a lot of different airplanes. The landing gear and cargo door are
the same style as the Maule uses, while the fuselage and controls are
real similar to the maule and also the piper pacer, which the maule is a
rip-off of. The wings rely heavily on Van's RV and Midget Mustang
construction methods, and the tailfeathers use skybolt type hinges (I'm
using standard pin-type hinges). The wing struts are off of a Cessna
180, the windshield is a Cessna 172 unit, and the cowling is from a
Pitts Special.
The overall result is a visually attractive airplane which performs
extremely well, while carrying 4 people and a good amount of stuff. One
builder who got time in a Maule prior to his first test flight, says
that the Bearhawk is about 10 times easier to handle, although they both
perform much the same mission.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>
> Your planes specs are close to that of a Maule.
When he designed the Bearhawk, Bob Barrows incorporated design elements
from a lot of different airplanes. The landing gear and cargo door are
the same style as the Maule uses, while the fuselage and controls are
real similar to the maule and also the piper pacer, which the maule is a
rip-off of. The wings rely heavily on Van's RV and Midget Mustang
construction methods, and the tailfeathers use skybolt type hinges (I'm
using standard pin-type hinges). The wing struts are off of a Cessna
180, the windshield is a Cessna 172 unit, and the cowling is from a
Pitts Special.
The overall result is a visually attractive airplane which performs
extremely well, while carrying 4 people and a good amount of stuff. One
builder who got time in a Maule prior to his first test flight, says
that the Bearhawk is about 10 times easier to handle, although they both
perform much the same mission.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
11-30-2003, 10:12 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Magneto
On 30 Nov 2003 05:01 PM, Kevin posted the following:
>> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>
> Your planes specs are close to that of a Maule.
When he designed the Bearhawk, Bob Barrows incorporated design elements
from a lot of different airplanes. The landing gear and cargo door are
the same style as the Maule uses, while the fuselage and controls are
real similar to the maule and also the piper pacer, which the maule is a
rip-off of. The wings rely heavily on Van's RV and Midget Mustang
construction methods, and the tailfeathers use skybolt type hinges (I'm
using standard pin-type hinges). The wing struts are off of a Cessna
180, the windshield is a Cessna 172 unit, and the cowling is from a
Pitts Special.
The overall result is a visually attractive airplane which performs
extremely well, while carrying 4 people and a good amount of stuff. One
builder who got time in a Maule prior to his first test flight, says
that the Bearhawk is about 10 times easier to handle, although they both
perform much the same mission.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>
> Your planes specs are close to that of a Maule.
When he designed the Bearhawk, Bob Barrows incorporated design elements
from a lot of different airplanes. The landing gear and cargo door are
the same style as the Maule uses, while the fuselage and controls are
real similar to the maule and also the piper pacer, which the maule is a
rip-off of. The wings rely heavily on Van's RV and Midget Mustang
construction methods, and the tailfeathers use skybolt type hinges (I'm
using standard pin-type hinges). The wing struts are off of a Cessna
180, the windshield is a Cessna 172 unit, and the cowling is from a
Pitts Special.
The overall result is a visually attractive airplane which performs
extremely well, while carrying 4 people and a good amount of stuff. One
builder who got time in a Maule prior to his first test flight, says
that the Bearhawk is about 10 times easier to handle, although they both
perform much the same mission.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
12-01-2003, 04:44 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Magneto
I think that if a magneto ignition was suitable for use on an automobile,
then we would still be using them today instead of having devised a means of
getting rid of them 70-some-odd years ago.
"Kevin" <Kevin@el.net> wrote in message
news:3Mdyb.254542$mZ5.1886878@attbi_s54...
> Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used on
> cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
then we would still be using them today instead of having devised a means of
getting rid of them 70-some-odd years ago.
"Kevin" <Kevin@el.net> wrote in message
news:3Mdyb.254542$mZ5.1886878@attbi_s54...
> Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used on
> cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
12-01-2003, 04:44 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Magneto
I think that if a magneto ignition was suitable for use on an automobile,
then we would still be using them today instead of having devised a means of
getting rid of them 70-some-odd years ago.
"Kevin" <Kevin@el.net> wrote in message
news:3Mdyb.254542$mZ5.1886878@attbi_s54...
> Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used on
> cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>
then we would still be using them today instead of having devised a means of
getting rid of them 70-some-odd years ago.
"Kevin" <Kevin@el.net> wrote in message
news:3Mdyb.254542$mZ5.1886878@attbi_s54...
> Is a magneto ignition system more reliable than the alternators used on
> cars? Can you use mags on a jeep ?
>