Date   

Re: templates

Larry
 

I have a young man sharing my hangar. He is building a lancair legacy IV. He is into the basic airframe for over $50,000.00 now he has to get a IO550 and prop (another $50K+-), and then where do we start, or stop on the avionics About $70K. I figure I will have about $15-20K in my Q-vair. There will be about a 50-70mph difference in airspeed, and my baggage capacity is limited in the "Q", but then If I have to travel far, carry 7 people, and go real fast (@38-45GPH), I will take the twin commander.
regards,
Larry Baxter Q-Vair in progress

----- Original Message -----
From: damiantwinsport@...
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: templates


"Better suited" Where would one start looking for such a design? And what
characteristics would be more desired? Lift? Lower drag?
I have always loved the look of the Q since day 1 and since studying
advanced composites for the last 5 years I would love to build the "Ultimate Q."
I look at the success that Lancair has had and the differential in costs as
well as what a finished aircraft Q. Vs Lancair are. Makes me wonder if it
would be worth it to invest some time in developing a "better " Q.
I would like to pose a general query to the Q populace. What would be the
"Ideal" Q?
Features that are a must etc..
Thanks in advance,
Damian Gregory





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Re: More on flutter/ New designs

David J. Gall
 

Jim,

You'll note that I was ONLY trying to answer Ryan's specific request
for information on HOW to balance a rudder. Not whether it was a good
idea or anything else. This IS specific information to help a builder
move forward with HIS project, whether or not that project conforms to
some strict definition of "Quickie."

All the "teeth gnashing" about flutter that followed was the result of
Mr. Kittleson opening a debate as to whether these planes are
susceptible to flutter, a debate from which I believe you, personally,
have benefitted. You did say something about monitoring the condition
of your rudder control cables more closely, didn't you?

In fact, it is the "newbie," Mr. Gregory, who is bringing all the stuff
about redesigned structures and morphing wings to the table. Thank
goodness Klaus Xavier(sp?) didn't cave in to similar pressure to
conform when HE was the newbie touting the benefits of unproven new
technology like lean-burn and electronic ignition. Otherwise, you, Jim,
might still be stuck with magnetos.

C'mon, Jim, you're weighing in on the wrong side of the issue. You were
encouraging me to design a "new Q200" just last year. What, do you
expect that to happen in secrecy or in a vacuum? Somebody needs a forum
to discuss such ideas and their details and features; if this Q-LIST is
not it, then the Quickie design lineage might as well come to an end.

Damian is young and enthusiastic. He'll soon enough learn of the
downsides of the emerging technologies. But through discussions such as
occur on this list, he, and a lot of other people who never type in but
only read these lists, will learn a LOT about why certain design
decisions and features are -- or are NOT -- on our planes.

So, if you're not particularly interested in wing morphing, hold us to
the standard of properly labeling our subject lines so that you can
avoid the messages you don't want to read. But, please, don't ask us to
censor our conversations because they range a bit far afield from
"Quickies" as defined by QAC. If we were limited to that narrow
definition, you'd be the outlaw for exceeding Vne and having a
non-standard rudder control system, tailwheel, and brakes!

Finally, you'll also note that the "us" I refer to in the last
paragraph does not even include me; I have not participated in the wing
morphing discussion or the new structures discussion because I, like
you, consider it a waste of time. But to the participants, it is not a
waste of time. They need to spend the time weighing the costs and
benefits so that they, too, can come to the realization that its a
waste of time -- or surprise the hell out of us all by solving the slow
landing-fast cruise balance that is the holy grail of airplane design
and blow your doors off!! :-)

Respectfully,


David J. Gall

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:32:15 -0000, "Jim Patillo" wrote:



P.S. This sounds like the same shit they built the space shuttle out
of.
Jim P.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo" <patillo@a...> wrote:
David, Damian, Peter & all,

Not to be a dick head but please tell me how all this verbal
spewing, diatribe and tooth nashing (regarding wing morphing,
redesigning structures, balancing things that until now appear to
have been working satisfactorily per many many test hours) helps
any
of us complete and fly our planes.

What has any of this contributed to helping a new builder
understand
the logic of it all and moving forward on his project? If you guys
are so capable of such complicated stuff, why do you not give
simple
answers (i.e.; one sky dog)that alot of these guys are looking
for.
I for one feel information on this list is becoming a waste of
time.
I am not particularly interested in wing morphing and I suspect
alot
of the other guys aren't either. Why in the world don't you guys
spend your time finishing and flying your creations so you can
ligitimately contribute test phase and the future of a really nice
flying bird. I realize opinions are like you know what and
everybody
has at lease one but "can't we all just get along"?

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200




--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
Yes, Yes Yes, "more rigid" A carbon reinforced superstructure
would do just
that. The discussions as well about making sure the flap surface
was correct
and flat on bottom would be an argument for a correct female
mold.
A rudder
constructed with advanced methods would be light and rigid
allowing minimal weight
needed for balance
Regards,
Damian Gregory.


Re: Mono wheel - again

Hot Wings
 

I never once had a problem with a x-wind landing, which could be
remotely attributed to the single center wheel. Bear in mind, gliders
usually have a long fuselage (long moment arm) and a rather large
rudder.
I have not yet had the privilege of flying a glider, but is suspect that we'd
all be better pilots if we had benefit of this experience.

Was this flying done from a paved surface or from dirt/grass? Also, not
having any experience, it seems to me that most gliders have their mono wheel
closer to the CG, whether they are a taildragger or not, than most power planes.
Can you confirm or refute my supposition?

I've spent too much time on my landing gear as it is so I don't really have
any intention of changing plans - again. I want to be able to fly my Quikcie
to take glider lessons in Colorado this coming spring. Winch launching sounds
like it's a real ride. <G>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leon McAtee
BD5ER@... Rocky Mountains USA
Q-1 amateur builder/engineer - With yearnings to change that state
Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
i
~~~~(^)~~~~ 55% finished
_____l__ __I_____ ZERO Flight hours


Re: Tire tubes

James Postma <james@...>
 

Sam,

The Q2 POH recommends 26 psi.

James Postma
Q2 Revmaster N145EX
Q2 Revmaster N8337F
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT
May your header tank be always full and your wings right side up.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 3:06 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Tire tubes


This pressure issue is interesting. I have always ran my tire pressure
around 30-35 PSI, mostly because I had no advice or opinions otherwise.
Like Earnest Martin says, when pressures are higher the landings become
"firmer". Marvin Getten used to feel that high pressure led to more
bounced
landings.

I'm going to change my skins soon, and I'll set them to 55 psi and see how
that works.

Thanks for the input.

Sam


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Bounds [mailto:rebounds@...]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:36 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tire tubes

Lynn,
I have had 3 nose gear flats with a hole in the side of the tube.
A
mechanic at the last shop where this occurred said it was caused by
under
inflation. I had be running about 36 PSI at the time. I had never been
able to find
the proper inflation number for these tires until recently. Wicks'
catalog
list these tires and a suggested PSI of 55# for the mains and 60 for the
nose
wheel. I have used these pressures for 50 hours or so without a problem
except
for a firmer arrival. Time will tell.
Earnest
800 hrs triq200

Same thing for my EZ. I had a flat on the ground with one of my Lamb
tires due to under-inflation. It was during the winter and I hadn't flown
for awhile. I knew the tire was a little low (like 35 lbs) but I figured
it
would be fine for one trip. Not. I try to keep them at 55 which on EZ's
is
considered on the low side and have had no trouble since. Watch out for
the
slow deflation that occurs over time.

Bounds
Vari-Eze lurker





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Re: More on flutter/ New designs

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Jim,
Surely in a forum like this there is room for discussion about a new generation Q. Maybe the future of the Q depends on this kind of debate . Yes it does lead to ideas marginal practicality . All part of the creative process. We are also among the strongest supporters of this bird which has no equal in performance/power.
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Patillo
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 5:30 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: More on flutter/ New designs


David, Damian, Peter & all,

Not to be a dick head but please tell me how all this verbal
spewing, diatribe and tooth nashing (regarding wing morphing,
redesigning structures, balancing things that until now appear to
have been working satisfactorily per many many test hours) helps any
of us complete and fly our planes.

What has any of this contributed to helping a new builder understand
the logic of it all and moving forward on his project? If you guys
are so capable of such complicated stuff, why do you not give simple
answers (i.e.; one sky dog)that alot of these guys are looking for.
I for one feel information on this list is becoming a waste of time.
I am not particularly interested in wing morphing and I suspect alot
of the other guys aren't either. Why in the world don't you guys
spend your time finishing and flying your creations so you can
ligitimately contribute test phase and the future of a really nice
flying bird. I realize opinions are like you know what and everybody
has at lease one but "can't we all just get along"?

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200




--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
> Yes, Yes Yes, "more rigid" A carbon reinforced superstructure
would do just
> that. The discussions as well about making sure the flap surface
was correct
> and flat on bottom would be an argument for a correct female mold.
A rudder
> constructed with advanced methods would be light and rigid
allowing minimal weight
> needed for balance
> Regards,
> Damian Gregory.
>
>
>


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Video Clips

Letempt, Jeffrey CW4 <jeffrey.letempt@...>
 

Been playing around with my new computer and have placed a short video clip
of a Dragonfly fly-by at the fly-in. Since I have verified that it worked I
will put a few more short clips on the site within the next few days. You
can see the short clip of David Bourque's MK-II at:
http://www.fidnet.com/~letempt/

If you are waiting for a CD with all the event pictures on it....I am still
waiting on a few pictures to be sent to me. Once I get the pictures sent to
me I will get your CD's in the mail.

I jost ralized I speelled David's lasst nam wrrooong on the web sit. Maybe
I should check my spelling a little mo' better.

Jeff


Re: More on flutter/ New designs

Jim Patillo <patillo@...>
 

David, Damian, Peter & all,

Not to be a dick head but please tell me how all this verbal
spewing, diatribe and tooth nashing (regarding wing morphing,
redesigning structures, balancing things that until now appear to
have been working satisfactorily per many many test hours) helps any
of us complete and fly our planes.

What has any of this contributed to helping a new builder understand
the logic of it all and moving forward on his project? If you guys
are so capable of such complicated stuff, why do you not give simple
answers (i.e.; one sky dog)that alot of these guys are looking for.
I for one feel information on this list is becoming a waste of time.
I am not particularly interested in wing morphing and I suspect alot
of the other guys aren't either. Why in the world don't you guys
spend your time finishing and flying your creations so you can
ligitimately contribute test phase and the future of a really nice
flying bird. I realize opinions are like you know what and everybody
has at lease one but "can't we all just get along"?

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200




--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
Yes, Yes Yes, "more rigid" A carbon reinforced superstructure
would do just
that. The discussions as well about making sure the flap surface
was correct
and flat on bottom would be an argument for a correct female mold.
A rudder
constructed with advanced methods would be light and rigid
allowing minimal weight
needed for balance
Regards,
Damian Gregory.



Seperate list for Experimental ideas

Hot Wings
 

Didn't we use to have a separate q-list for experimental ideas?

Pat
Jon Finley set up Q-Perfoemance - but it got little use and it is now gone.
If we just mind Etiquette rule # 2 I think we can all coexist. The delete key
isn't that hard to use - IF - we know what to delete.

There is also Ryan's small Q-1 specific Yahoo group (Q1_Aircraft), but I kind
of like the intermingling of ideas. This last round has become somewhat
Vitriolic.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leon McAtee
BD5ER@... Rocky Mountains USA
Q-1 amateur builder/engineer - With yearnings to change that state
Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
i
~~~~(^)~~~~ 55% finished
_____l__ __I_____ ZERO Flight hours


Mono wheel - again

Hot Wings
 

The trouble with a mono wheel, at least as used on the Europa, is that there
is no way to have any brake steering. As for me personally, I'm not
interested in flying a taildragger without brake steering.
Seems I've done a partial 360 on the mono wheel thing.

At first glance I thought it looked like an attractive option/modification if
I could figure out what to do with the fuel tank. Then I read this, and with
a slap to the forehead and my best imitation of Homer Simpson's "Dhoo", I
realized why this may not be a good idea. I also did not know that the Europa
owners were not universally happy with this feature. This seemed to be a nail n
the coffin for the mono wheel version of a Q. Some times the simple, little
things escape my notice.

But somewhere in the background my mind must have been still chewing on the
problem. If the lack of directional control is the only thing making the
adaptation of a mono wheel to a Q unwise, then is there a way around that problem
or a way to minimize it?

Yes, I believe there is. Maybe. Make the mono wheel castor like a tailwheel
for cross wind landings. This effectively converts the plane into a nose
dragger and one lands in a crab rather than a slip. It's not a new idea. Even
certified by the FAA at one time. Once down and slowed to taxi speed the gear
is then locked into place, either automatically, like the nose wheel on a BD-5
as it is retracted, or manually. Normal taxi functions then are possible -
minus the better turning radius that one can achieve with a locked brake and
full swivel tail wheel.

An added benefit could be improved crosswind limits, even with that
undersized and fluttering rudder <G> <G>

Now if I could just figure out what to do with the fuel................

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leon McAtee
Q-1 amateur builder/engineer - With yearnings to change that state
Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
i
~~~~(^)~~~~ 55% finished
_____l__ __I_____ ZERO Flight hours


Re: CDI Ignition

Robert Bounds
 

Robert,

What about the engine/prop vibration level with only one CDI? Did it
increase or decrease at cruise after installing the CDI? Did
vibration increase or decrease at certain RPM levels. Do you know
much about differences between the Plasma III and yours? Klaus says
it has a dual capacitive discharge providing a longer lingering spark
than the others he has sold. This is suppose to make for a better
burn and more energy from the same amount of atomized fuel. Any
coments or do you think its hype.?

Jim Patillo

I noticed no change in vibration levels at normal power settings. The idle is of course smoother. I don't know too much about the Plasma III except for what I read in Klaus's stuff. The longer spark MAY help a little, especially if you are running on the lean side of max EGT but my 0-235 won't run there due to such poor fuel distribution from the intake manifold. Sounds like a little bit of hype but I hate to say that in case Klaus monitors this group and flames me. He's real smart but they don't call him the "Teutonic Midget" for nothing. He does have the fastest Vari ever made, though.
Bounds


More on flutter

David J. Gall
 

Good reading, if you can wade through the thick parts:

1956 NACA report "Safegaurds Against Flutter of Airplanes:"
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1956/naca-tm-1423/

Note particularly the first sentence of the Preface:

"An infallible method for avoiding flutter would consist in making the
structure very rigid (for instance, twice as rigid as it would be made
according to static calculations) and in perfectly balancing the control
surfaces."

No doubt....

The third paragraph of the Preface reads thus:

"The author stresses particularly all questions concerning the movable
members because in these cases the solution is so simple that application of
the elementary rules may a priori avoid any error. However, one must not
lose sight of the fact that the most dangerous cases of flutter are those
which concern the natural modes of the tail for which the only rules are
practically: high rigidity, weight toward the front."

Rudder information starts on page 34.

Ryan, I assume you're having no difficulty figuring out how much weight to
use and where to put it...?


David J. Gall
P.S. John, shouldn't the subject line of your last post have been "Low Speed
Flutter!" instead of "High Speed Flutter!"? 120 mph isn't very fast.... ;)


Re: Q-LIST/ Morphing wing NASA

Tri-Q1 <rryan@...>
 

http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/1997/tm/NASA-97-tm4767.pdf

--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
Here is the link for research on Piezioelectric surface morpher.
<A HREF="http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/pdf/1997/tm/NASA-
97-tm4767.pdf">http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/pdf/1997/tm/NASA-
97-tm4767.pdf</A>

Regards,
Damian Gregory



Re: More on flutter/ New designs

damiantwinsport@...
 

Yes, Yes Yes, "more rigid" A carbon reinforced superstructure would do just
that. The discussions as well about making sure the flap surface was correct
and flat on bottom would be an argument for a correct female mold. A rudder
constructed with advanced methods would be light and rigid allowing minimal weight
needed for balance
Regards,
Damian Gregory.


Re: More on flutter

Hot Wings
 

In a message dated 11/4/03 09:38:23 AM Mountain Standard Time, David@...
writes:


Rudder information starts on page 34.
Page 56 seems to sum up the sited examples of Q rudder flutter...... I'd cut
n paste but it's just a scanned PDF.

Page 63 - I think fig 6, (my AOL just crashed in the middle of the load - AOL
sucks) shows an easy way to balance an existing surface.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leon McAtee
Q-1 amateur builder/engineer - With yearnings to change that state
Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
i
~~~~(^)~~~~ 55% finished
_____l__ __I_____ ZERO Flight hours


Re: More on flutter

Hot Wings
 

In a message dated 11/4/03 09:38:23 AM Mountain Standard Time, David@...
writes:


Good reading, if you can wade through the thick parts:
A fisherman with no boat learns to wade - or buys canned Spam at the market.




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leon McAtee
Q-1 amateur builder/engineer - With yearnings to change that state
Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
i
~~~~(^)~~~~ 55% finished
_____l__ __I_____ ZERO Flight hours


Re: High Speed Flutter!

John ten Have <jtenhave@...>
 

For those who are interested in reading about some real life composite
flutter and its consequences check the following link :

http://www.rutanaircraft.com/htmlpages/mangndelevators.pdf

Of particular note is the CP 21 extract wrt the speed at which flutter
occurred. The issue of safety margin erosion is also addressed. The
homework for tonight is to equate the previously offered dangerous advice to
freely extend control surfaces aft of the hinge line to this scenario.

Sobering stuff for those sober enough to understand it......


John


Re: CDI Ignition

Jim Patillo <patillo@...>
 

Robert,

What about the engine/prop vibration level with only one CDI? Did it
increase or decrease at cruise after installing the CDI? Did
vibration increase or decrease at certain RPM levels. Do you know
much about differences between the Plasma III and yours? Klaus says
it has a dual capacitive discharge providing a longer lingering spark
than the others he has sold. This is suppose to make for a better
burn and more energy from the same amount of atomized fuel. Any
coments or do you think its hype.?

Jim Patillo


Re: Lightspeed Ignition Update

Jim Patillo <patillo@...>
 

Thanks Damian,

Good point! I will check it out.

Jim Patillo



--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
Jim, A few words of warning,( Oddesy Batteries and vibration ). We
sold those
units for a time for use in Harley Davidsons they had a mortality
rate of
about 70% due to thin attachments from plate to plate as well as to
main terminal
lugs. We now sell a different sealed batery with a much more
successful life
span. I would check out your local Harley dealer and look at the
Sportster and
Buell batteries. Sealed units. If they will live in a Harley they
will live.
Regards,
Damian Gregory



Re: New design?

Bruce Crain
 

Jim,
In your opinion which is the best aircraft with the best future for upgrades. ie larger engines, wings, stretches in fuselage, faster cruise.
The Q had evolved from 1 seat onan to Rotax, to Q2, Q200, Tri-Q2, Tri-Q200, Tri-Q200 with longer wings. If not for the liability issue that derailed Quickie where would Quickie be today.

I have seen 1 DragonFly with an 0200 and tri-gear (Butch Hernandez). What is keeping the evolution from happening like RV, Velocity, etc?
Bruce

-- JMasal@... wrote:


Strictly speaking, the Dragonfly and the Q-2 have the same forebear, the
single-place Quickie (airframe from the wacky imaginings of Burt Rutan, the
principal designer). One of the first Quickies completed was by a plumber in Canada,
Gary LeGare. Gary soon started to adapt the plans for his own two-place
(without enthusiasm from Quickie Aircraft Co. initially). Meanwhile, two Southern
California guys who had bought the Quickie plans (and who had probably heard
QAC protest loudly that it had no plans for a 2-place), independently had the
same idea as LeGare. The Dragonfly just barely beat the Q-2 to market, having
been introduced at an August Oshkosh only 3 months before the Q-2 in Tullahoma
Tennessee. There must have been quite a bit of gnashing of teeth over that one
at QBA. Both planes were slab sided like their Quickie progenitor and both had
VW type engines. What the difference in their "missions" were I can't say,
but the Dragonfly has the most "deviation from plans."






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!


Re: Lightspeed Ignition Update

Robert Bounds
 

Robert,

Do you now have two Plasma III's installed? If so, did you see any
gain in ceiling or take off performance. What about your fuel burn?
What engine?

I have a 25AH Concorde battery installed. I'll probably be replacing
it with a couple 17AH Oddesy batteries, if they do not weigh much
more that the Concord. If so I'll size down the second battery.
Totally separate systems!

Regards
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200

Jim,
I have an earlier version of the Lightspeed CDI ignition before he came out with the Plasma series. (one only) I think the difference is that the Plasma has the ability to retard the spark to some distance after TDC for really safe starts. The engine is an 0-235C Lyc with one Slick mag and the Lightspeed. I honestly didn't see much difference in takeoff performance when I installed the electronic. It does idle much smoother and burns about 10% less fuel at altittude. I think it makes a little more power at high altittudes because if you shut it off it sure makes a difference but shutting off one mag also makes a little difference. I just like the not having to mess with always checking the timing. To tell the truth, I've had good luck with my mag. I just had new points and condensor put in and had it checked out and pronounced good to go. This was after the 500 hours I put on it. It had unknown hours when I got it but was fairly fresh. Sounds like you have the dual system figured out so I think you will have a really good system that will be VERY reliable.

I forgot to answer your other questions I guess. My ceiling is around 15,000'. It will still climb but it's pretty lame and I get spooky about staying up there too long without oxygen. (I'm 51) You'll see a gain in ceiling, less fuel burn, smoother running, and less maintenance. None of these gains will be huge but you'll be happy. Oh, and one more thing. For some reason, I have less lead fouling on BOTH sets of plugs since adding the electronic. Go figure.

Bounds