The Saito 1.80 was running straight glow fuel and was augmented with glow and a fuel pump. I didn't run that engine with any spark ignition. In that configuration, the engine did 32 hours of general flying, without any failures.

I did some fairly extensive testing of spark ignition, using an Enya .60, with an RCExcel unit, running petrol ... and the same engine running glow fuel. The engine retained its glow fuel carb.

The Enya .60 ran very noticeably better when run as intended, but fortified by a pump and glow-driver (at low rpm).

As far as the Saito is concerned ... it achieved 100% reliability over those 32 hours of its use. That can't be beat by any engine, 'cos it is 100%. Maybe, if I was to test it over 1000 flying hours, I'd have experienced problems ... who knows?

I did score around 200 flying hours with a Zenoah 23, fitted in a Stampe. Deadsticks were not unknown, but I didn't log their occurrence,then. Nowadays, I would make a note of a deadstick.

Not much point in arguing about this, since neither "side" can produce definitive information. I haven't claimed that glow is "more reliable" than spark ignition, but I do claim that they are comparable ... but only with glow augmentation and a decent fuel pump.

With respect to power output, I confess that I don't have much opinion, since I never had any means of testing, save engine rpm. I do have the figures somewhere, but I can't remember them. I don't recall there being much difference in performance.

Originally Posted by bogbeagle

The Saito 1.80 was running straight glow fuel and was augmented with glow and a fuel pump. I didn't run that engine with any spark ignition. In that configuration, the engine did 32 hours of general flying, without any failures.

I did some fairly extensive testing of spark ignition, using an Enya .60, with an RCExcel unit, running petrol ... and the same engine running glow fuel. The engine retained its glow fuel carb.

The Enya .60 ran very noticeably better when run as intended, but fortified by a pump and glow-driver (at low rpm).

As far as the Saito is concerned ... it achieved 100% reliability over those 32 hours of its use. That can't be beat by any engine, 'cos it is 100%. Maybe, if I was to test it over 1000 flying hours, I'd have experienced problems ... who knows?

I did score around 200 flying hours with a Zenoah 23, fitted in a Stampe. Deadsticks were not unknown, but I didn't log their occurrence,then. Nowadays, I would make a note of a deadstick.

Not much point in arguing about this, since neither "side" can produce definitive information. I haven't claimed that glow is "more reliable" than spark ignition, but I do claim that they are comparable ... but only with glow augmentation and a decent fuel pump.

With respect to power output, I confess that I don't have much opinion, since I never had any means of testing, save engine rpm. I do have the figures somewhere, but I can't remember them. I don't recall there being much difference in performance.

In 1997 & the 1st half of 1998, after converting my FA150 to C&H ignition I burned 1 gallon of 15% Cool Power every week for a whole '97 season & several months of the '98 season W/O a single ignition related dead stick.

Since that time, my flying is not nearly as frequent, but I have still never had an ignition related dead stick running CDI W/C&H ignition.

I have buned so far this season 7 gallons of 15% Cool Power fuel in my Saitos.

I did have my 1st ignition related failure to start this year. Is was attributed to a cracked spark plug insulator on a plug that was one of the original Rimfire plugs I used to use. I had used a torch on to burn off years of accumulated deposits. The cracked porcelain insulator was most likely my doing when I got the plug too hot W/the torch.

Your single experiment W/the Enya .60 on an inferior brand CDI hardly makes for near the experience or insight that I have after burning more than a 55 gallion drum of methanol W/better quality CDI systems.

Originally Posted by bogbeagle

I did some fairly extensive testing of spark ignition, using an Enya .60, with an RCExcel unit, running petrol ... and the same engine running glow fuel. The engine retained its glow fuel carb.

The Enya .60 ran very noticeably better when run as intended, but fortified by a pump and glow-driver (at low rpm)..

A gasoline/CDI conversion will always result in a power loss over glow fuel/glow ignition in a similar engine of the same displacement. The lower octane of the gasoline compared to methanol requires a less aggressive timing advance setting resulting in lost power. If you look @ Saito's power rating for gas vesions of a similar displacement glow engine, there will be a loss of about 15% HP. Saito has either stopped listing HP ratings for their new FG engines or increased displaement to compensate such as in the case of the FG57 version of the 300T, as well as the FG84R3 version of the FA450R3 engine.

The higher octane of methanol will allow a more aggressive timing advance setting closer to the 36* ideal timing advance for a high output 4-stroke internal combustion engine. Methanol on spark ignition will allow a much higher CR @ these aggressive spark advance setting allowing even more HP increase over a gasoline engine of similar design/displacement.

My 12.7:1 (estimated) compression ratio FA180HC CDI makes 17% more HP than my standard CR FA180 running glow ignition W/the same 15% Cool Power glow fuel. In fact, it makes nearly the same HP (97%) as a glow ignition FA220 & & makes 13% more HP than the CDI/gasoline vesion of the FA220 (FG36) even though the displacement is 18% less.

AS far as your results/ What was the spark advance curve in the RCEXL system? Did you do various advance settings observing power gains/losses for various degrees of timing advance settings?

C&H uses a ring that secures to the existing prop hub W/set screws. It can be readily advanced/retarded in small increments . I have done testing from 28* BTDC to 36* BTDC. Most engines W/CDI/methanol ran @ higher WOT RPM W/advance setting in the 34-36* BTDC range compared to the 28* BTDC initial setting.. Idle performance is not substantially affected as the built in retardation of spark @ idle speeds is still sufficient for good idle performanmce.

The prop hub installed magnet of the RCEXL system lacks a locating pin like the OEM Saito system. This lack of a solid locating device frequently results in the shifting of timing on the initial start-up. This often degrades performance.The scew applied timing ring of the C&H CDI does not suffer from this problem as the prop hub driving the propeller is not removed/shifted for the initial installation.

Originally Posted by bogbeagle

Not much point in arguing about this, since neither "side" can produce definitive information.

I would say that testing W/various ignition advance setting (hard to do W/RCXEL's inferior prop hub magnet system) & gaining consistant 5%-6% gains in power, 22%-23% fuel economy, ease of hand starting & @ least 300 RPM lower reliable idle speed in EVERY CASE W/6 different Saito engines would be difinative information.

Originally Posted by bogbeagle

I haven't claimed that glow is "more reliable" than spark ignition, but I do claim that they are comparable ... but only with glow augmentation and a decent fuel pump. .

Originally Posted by bogbeagle

You can certainly run a glow engine on methanol and spark ignition. I've done it, successfully.

BUT I found that the setup was less reliable than running the same engine in its standard form, and using glow augmentation at low rpm. So, imo, there's no advantage to running methanol and spark ignition.


.

Well saying that spark ignition is "less reliable" sounds an awful lot like saing that glow is "more reliable".

Power loss due gasoline conversion has NOTHING to do with octane number or even with burning dynamics.

It has everything to do with the respective stoichiometric ratio of both fuels, and their respective caloric values: Gasoline has a two times higher caloric value by weight (even slightly more than two times) but in the same amount of air, you can burn roughly 2.5 times more methanol (by weight).

Therefore, the total chemically stored energy that is admitted at every cycle, is, as you mentioned, approximately 15% higher when using Methanol as fuel.

Timing, ignition requirements or burning characteristics don't have anything to do with that standard power difference.

You can take for example take a small two stroke petrol engine, and fuel it with methanol. Adjust the needles but don't touch the ignition, and you will see that power gain.... Has nothing to do with agressive timing....

Brgds, Bert

OK, I give in.

Originally Posted by Brutus1967

Power loss due gasoline conversion has NOTHING to do with octane number or even with burning dynamics.

It has everything to do with the respective stoichiometric ratio of both fuels, and their respective caloric values: Gasoline has a two times higher caloric value by weight (even slightly more than two times) but in the same amount of air, you can burn roughly 2.5 times more methanol (by weight).

Therefore, the total chemically stored energy that is admitted at every cycle, is, as you mentioned, approximately 15% higher when using Methanol as fuel.

Timing, ignition requirements or burning characteristics don't have anything to do with that standard power difference.

You can take for example take a small two stroke petrol engine, and fuel it with methanol. Adjust the needles but don't touch the ignition, and you will see that power gain.... Has nothing to do with agressive timing....

Brgds, Bert

Yes, I conceed that methanol will yield more power W/O other changes & I agree W/your explanation fo the reasons for the standard 15%, but under certain conditions, so will more aggressive ignition timing.

I was able to gain 200 RPM W/a 15 X 4 prop on my FA91 CDI/methanol conversion by advancing the timing from 28* to 36* W/no other changes. Almost all of my testing has yelded similar power gain W/more agressive ignition timing.

More ignition timing advance will make more HP as will higher CR.

Modern 3rd gen Chryler Hemis can run 14:1 CR on E-85 while 93 octane pump gas starts running into detonation issues @ the 11:1 range.

Even with the same energy content in the fuel, compressing it into a smaller chamber before ignition will extract more power as long as the octane is high enough to prevent detonation @ a given advance value for the ignition.

Lower CR, loose power. Retard the timing, loose power.

The increase in power is 2 fold when ignition timing factors are considered, 3 fold when timing as well as CR factors are considered. More power from methanol due to higher volunm (by weight) of fuel being buned thus more power. 15% buy your calculations.

But, my tests show 22% gains when running CDI/methanol W/an additional 8* ignition timing over the Saito FG versions of the same engines.

Furthermore, using my high compression FA180HC as an example, the increase in power over an FG30 should be about 34% if the FG30 does indeed drop 15% HP over the glow FA180 as other Saito gas engines seem to suffer..

Standard FA180 2.91HP (according to my tests/calculations) less 15% = 2.53HP

My FA180HC CDI = 3.38HP using the same tests/calculations as above.

FA180HC 3.38/2.53 = 1.34 34% more HP.

15% more power due to the metahol fuel.

6% more HP compounding that 15% by more aggressive ignition timing.

17% more HP compounding that 15% by more aggresive ignition timing & an increase in CR from 9.56:1 to 12.67:1.

It all adds up.

Originally Posted by SrTelemaster

I've been running C&H spark ignition for 15 years & have never had a reliability issue.

Perhaps it's not the spark ignition per see that was causing you reliability problems but the brand of spark ignition.

To say that a glow driver is more reliable than a properly set-up CDI seems a bit absurd to me.

Yup, the most reliable 4 cycle I ever had is the 300 on C&H ignition. ALWAYS one flip starts and an idle you won't believe. NEVER had a deadstick.

Originally Posted by datsunguy

Yup, the most reliable 4 cycle I ever had is the 300 on C&H ignition. ALWAYS one flip starts and an idle you won't believe. NEVER had a deadstick.

Same here W/may Saito 300TTDP.

800 RPM idle once it gets warmed up good.

I sent Adrian of C&H an email telling him what I wanted to do. He sent me an email asking him to call and we could talk about it. After discussing it he said he had never made a unit for a helicopter using the engine I want to use. So I am going to send him a couple different engines, an OS 50 hyper, and a YS 50 regulated helicopter engine for him to work with and he said he would see what he can come up with. This is the first time I have had a manufacturer do anything like this for me. If this works it will cut the cost of flying helicopters by about 50%. I am so stoked.

Originally Posted by mac2286

I sent Adrian of C&H an email telling him what I wanted to do. He sent me an email asking him to call and we could talk about it. After discussing it he said he had never made a unit for a helicopter using the engine I want to use. So I am going to send him a couple different engines, an OS 50 hyper, and a YS 50 regulated helicopter engine for him to work with and he said he would see what he can come up with. This is the first time I have had a manufacturer do anything like this for me. If this works it will cut the cost of flying helicopters by about 50%. I am so stoked.

C&H is a one man operation & Adrian is a CDI genious. He will custom design a sytem for just about anything & charge a very minimal fee as he uses the experience for R&D.

Hi Guys,

This Is Adrian AKA CH Ignitions.
I will try my best to help any and each of you I can.
I have lot of work and I am ...One guy at the moment+ Wife that is a real great help.
On the site all say on order as everything is build as ordered.
A Helicopter engine request I did not had but will give it a shoot.
I know it will but is the 85gr weight that you have to add to the heli.
Any and every engine can be converted is just a matter to find the best solution .
I am also going to have real soon for public custom curves. I will be able to make the curves per customer specifications.
CDI systems for radial engines , 3 cyl first then 5,7,9.

Thanks for testing and support

Adrian

I got the engines ready to send in the morning. The weight will not be an issue. The power to weight on these 3D helicopters is just crazy. You will have them in a few days. I can't believe you found this thread. that just shows you are one dedicated man. It may not work but I think I found the right person to help me find out. Adrian, thanks again.

Originally Posted by mac2286

I got the engines ready to send in the morning. The weight will not be an issue. The power to weight on these 3D helicopters is just crazy. You will have them in a few days. I can't believe you found this thread. that just shows you are one dedicated man. It may not work but I think I found the right person to help me find out. Adrian, thanks again.

Even when running on 15% nitro, the CDI will decrease the required fuel for a given flight time by 20% compared to glow ignition W/the same fuel.

Going from the much higher nitro content of heli fuel to pure methanol will further decrease the fuel requirements.

I think that the 85g weight penalty for CDI will be offset by a smaller fuelm load requirement.

3oz less fuel will just about make uo for rhe weight of the CDI.

Parts that are not present cannot break . Parts with serial function diminish reliablity .

Originally Posted by Gary Cee

Parts that are not present cannot break . Parts with serial function diminish reliablity .

OK? a glow plug cannot break?

Anyway, that is not how reliability assessments are made.

That would be: parts present combined with their respective mean faillure rate.

Personally, I think glowplugs in general show a significantly higher faillure rate than the combined chain of battery, sensor, electronics and sparkplug.

Brgds, Bert