User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 8:00:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. Too expensive, unless the FAA offers up funding for this 98% of small GA airports will just run 100LL until they can no longer buy it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Will airports put up another tank/pump for unleaded avgas? For how long? Decades? No. Too expensive, unless the FAA offers up funding for this 98% of small GA airports will just run 100LL until they can no longer buy it. Negative. You can mix 100LL and G100UL. They can put the new stuff right into the same tank and then next week put 100LL in it and no problem. The problem will be the STC issue. Since they blanket approved it, they should issue an AD requiring a placard change (which can be done by the owner/pilot) and voila, all airplanes are legal and what’s in the tank doesn’t matter when you pull up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 8:06:15 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Negative. You can mix 100LL and G100UL. They can put the new stuff right into the same tank and then next week put 100LL in it and no problem. The problem will be the STC issue. Since they blanket approved it, they should issue an AD requiring a placard change (which can be done by the owner/pilot) and voila, all airplanes are legal and what’s in the tank doesn’t matter when you pull up. Yeah, you’re right I’m just talking out of my butt, no clue what I’m doing since I haven’t learned a single thing in the 35 years I’ve been doing this. I’m just gonna get back to work on the two fuel farm projects I’m currently overseeing... y’all keep doing it we’re all counting on you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 8:11:01 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My Champ has an STC to run autogas. I've never done it for that reason. And it stinks. It causes a lot of fuckery that you don't discover till the overhaul time comes and shit gets expensive. Dealt with a couple of Pawnee B's running mogas STC's, and even the "alcohol free" stuff left hellacious deposits on the pistons and valves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 8:16:38 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lead was a valve stem lubricant also. Put unleaded in old engines and watch the valve guides wear out in no time! Seats. Valve seats. The stems are usually lubed with oil, the uncommon ones use grease, or castor oil mixed with the gas. The tetraethyl lead was primarily added to fuels for it's antiknock properties, rather than it's lubricity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 9:30:54 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Aviation is afraid of change. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Current "advanced " engines are needlessly complex and heavy. Weight is the enemy. And lawyers. Electronic control barely adds any weight and would save lives. Aviation is afraid of change. You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 10:45:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It causes a lot of fuckery that you don't discover till the overhaul time comes and shit gets expensive. Dealt with a couple of Pawnee B's running mogas STC's, and even the "alcohol free" stuff left hellacious deposits on the pistons and valves. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My Champ has an STC to run autogas. I've never done it for that reason. And it stinks. It causes a lot of fuckery that you don't discover till the overhaul time comes and shit gets expensive. Dealt with a couple of Pawnee B's running mogas STC's, and even the "alcohol free" stuff left hellacious deposits on the pistons and valves. I figure it runs great on the 100LL, so why change? I burn about 4 1/4 GPH, so it wouldn't even save a lot of money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 10:50:10 PM EDT
[#7]
You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues A year ago it was 9 months, between their price hikes and supply chain shortages who knows what it is now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 10:54:40 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2022 11:06:00 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, you’re right I’m just talking out of my butt, no clue what I’m doing since I haven’t learned a single thing in the 35 years I’ve been doing this. I’m just gonna get back to work on the two fuel farm projects I’m currently overseeing... y’all keep doing it we’re all counting on you. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Negative. You can mix 100LL and G100UL. They can put the new stuff right into the same tank and then next week put 100LL in it and no problem. The problem will be the STC issue. Since they blanket approved it, they should issue an AD requiring a placard change (which can be done by the owner/pilot) and voila, all airplanes are legal and what’s in the tank doesn’t matter when you pull up. Yeah, you’re right I’m just talking out of my butt, no clue what I’m doing since I haven’t learned a single thing in the 35 years I’ve been doing this. I’m just gonna get back to work on the two fuel farm projects I’m currently overseeing... y’all keep doing it we’re all counting on you. You know what happens to companies that dig in their heels and don’t accept progress? Ask all those buggy whip manufacturers. Nothing like an expert saying “it can’t be done”. The competition will do it for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 12:31:30 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 12:41:41 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It will be interesting to see how the transition works...or doesn't. 100LL is the standard fuel for GA aircraft. Will airports put up another tank/pump for unleaded avgas? For how long? Decades? The thing that sucks for consumers, but is great for GAMI is that every piston airplane owner will have to buy the STC from GAMI for about $500, which will buy you a couple "100UL" decals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 12:47:13 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I doubt that AvGas contributes much to lead pollution in general, but I think the unleaded AvGas will be great for valves, pistons, oil and spark plugs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 12:47:24 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, you’re right I’m just talking out of my butt, no clue what I’m doing since I haven’t learned a single thing in the 35 years I’ve been doing this. I’m just gonna get back to work on the two fuel farm projects I’m currently overseeing... y’all keep doing it we’re all counting on you. AVFUEL seems to believe (in writing) that G100UL can be pumped right in to existing infrastructure with zero modifications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 12:49:47 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doubtful. I expect they'll just cut over, and probably with little to no advance notice. The thing that sucks for consumers, but is great for GAMI is that every piston airplane owner will have to buy the STC from GAMI for about $500, which will buy you a couple "100UL" decals. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It will be interesting to see how the transition works...or doesn't. 100LL is the standard fuel for GA aircraft. Will airports put up another tank/pump for unleaded avgas? For how long? Decades? The thing that sucks for consumers, but is great for GAMI is that every piston airplane owner will have to buy the STC from GAMI for about $500, which will buy you a couple "100UL" decals. The Swift fuel STC is $100, I'm pretty sure. eta: ...just as a reference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:08:17 AM EDT
[#15]
So then we don’t have to buzz lead deposits out the spark plugs anymore? And my valves aren’t going to stick because they’re full of lead?
Awesome! Gonna save me thousands! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 8:53:12 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did it detect and prevent detonation? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 9:40:44 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The lead is also a lubricant. If the epa does away with 100ll a lot of older airplanes will end in the scrap pile. With as expensive as aviation is already, older airplanes are only way many can fly. Little airplanes=freedom. The Government hates freedom. TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 9:43:04 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Romans ate lead and still ruled the world for centuries. We took the lead out of gas and paint because it made kids dumb. Look around you, do they seem any smarter now?  Attached File TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 9:45:51 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Osha requires blood testing in battery plants and not a brain biopsy any idea why? Window dressing? Can’t have the battery plant shut down because of contamination, now, can we? TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 10:48:40 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doubtful. I expect they'll just cut over, and probably with little to no advance notice. The thing that sucks for consumers, but is great for GAMI is that every piston airplane owner will have to buy the STC from GAMI for about $500, which will buy you a couple "100UL" decals. That makes sense. Just annotate the pump with the details but what if I choose not to buy a STC? Most avgas I ever bought was self-service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 11:56:48 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That makes sense. Just annotate the pump with the details but what if I choose not to buy a STC? Most avgas I ever bought was self-service. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Doubtful. I expect they'll just cut over, and probably with little to no advance notice. The thing that sucks for consumers, but is great for GAMI is that every piston airplane owner will have to buy the STC from GAMI for about $500, which will buy you a couple "100UL" decals. That makes sense. Just annotate the pump with the details but what if I choose not to buy a STC? Most avgas I ever bought was self-service. If it's approved for all piston aircraft, (and not approved by type, like Swift), there would be no need for a Supplemental Type Certificate. It would be no different than using a different oil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 12:00:06 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:06:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:16:21 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:24:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:31:36 PM EDT
[#26]
Just did some math. The average mean time between engine failures in a piston is 6700 miles, which is roughly equivalent to a car engine failing every 300,000 miles. That’s impressive other than the aircraft engine having 3 overhauls in that time at a cost of $38,000 each.
Actually that’s the first time I’ve done the math and seen why a turboprop single can equal a piston twin on cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:31:58 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. Obviously, but the technology didn't exist in the 70's, and now it does. I didn't know whether he had a FADEC setup, or just the ignition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:39:59 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lead isn't there to boost the octane. It helps prevent detonation. Lead also functions as a lubricant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:41:13 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:44:20 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just did some math. The average mean time between engine failures in a piston is 6700 miles, which is roughly equivalent to a car engine failing every 300,000 miles. That’s impressive other than the aircraft engine having 3 overhauls in that time at a cost of $38,000 each. Actually that’s the first time I’ve done the math and seen why a turboprop single can equal a piston twin on cost. You mean hours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:47:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required What happens when your alternator quits? If your engine quits, does your boat sink? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:51:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required Maybe three decades ago, somebody started making an electronic module that replaced the points on push mowers. Nothing fancy with claims of increasing power - it just eliminated having to occasionally pull the flywheel to set the points. On the two electronic ignition systems I have seen installed on Lycoming engines, both required power from the aircraft electrical system. I was told the FAA will not allow installing a second electronic ignition system in place of the remaining mag, unless the plane has a dual buss electrical system (a second electrical system to power the electronic ignition, if the first electrical system fails). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:53:30 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happens when your alternator quits? If your engine quits, does your boat sink? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required What happens when your alternator quits? If your engine quits, does your boat sink? What alternator? Oh you mean the same permanent magnet system that is in your magnetos?! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:55:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe three decades ago, somebody started making an electronic module that replaced the points on push mowers. Nothing fancy with claims of increasing power - it just eliminated having to occasionally pull the flywheel to set the points. On the two electronic ignition systems I have seen installed on Lycoming engines, both required power from the aircraft electrical system. I was told the FAA will not allow installing a second electronic ignition system in place of the remaining mag, unless the plane has a dual buss electrical system (a second electrical system to power the electronic ignition, if the first electrical system fails). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required Maybe three decades ago, somebody started making an electronic module that replaced the points on push mowers. Nothing fancy with claims of increasing power - it just eliminated having to occasionally pull the flywheel to set the points. On the two electronic ignition systems I have seen installed on Lycoming engines, both required power from the aircraft electrical system. I was told the FAA will not allow installing a second electronic ignition system in place of the remaining mag, unless the plane has a dual buss electrical system (a second electrical system to power the electronic ignition, if the first electrical system fails). And yet continental is cranking out their CD line of piston engines… Amazing!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 1:57:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Obviously, but the technology didn't exist in the 70's, and now it does. I didn't know whether he had a FADEC setup, or just the ignition. Feds are now allowing one magneto to be replaced by an electronic system, while still retaining the other magneto as a failsafe against electrical system failure. If they allow replacing the mechanical fuel injection with electronic fuel injection, what would be the failsafe against electrical system failure? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:02:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And yet continental is cranking out their CD line of piston engines… Amazing! And they even hope to raise the TBR* on them. *Time Between Replacement, since overhauling them is not allowed (or not yet allowed). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:05:28 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What alternator? Oh you mean the same permanent magnet system that is in your magnetos?! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required What happens when your alternator quits? If your engine quits, does your boat sink? What alternator? Oh you mean the same permanent magnet system that is in your magnetos?! I don't know what your boat has. Does it have an ignition coil? If so, then no, it's not the same system. If it uses magnitos, then it has electronic points, and there is no real advantage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:18:19 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And they even hope to raise the TBR* on them. *Time Between Replacement, since overhauling them is not allowed (or not yet allowed). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And yet continental is cranking out their CD line of piston engines… Amazing! And they even hope to raise the TBR* on them. *Time Between Replacement, since overhauling them is not allowed (or not yet allowed). 2100 hours. and 35-40k replacement. I'm not seeing anything different than what lycoming is offering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:22:23 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You mean hours. Sorry yes, 6700 hours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:23:50 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know what your boat has. Does it have an ignition coil? If so, then no, it's not the same system. If it uses magnitos, then it has electronic points, and there is no real advantage. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required What happens when your alternator quits? If your engine quits, does your boat sink? What alternator? Oh you mean the same permanent magnet system that is in your magnetos?! I don't know what your boat has. Does it have an ignition coil? If so, then no, it's not the same system. If it uses magnitos, then it has electronic points, and there is no real advantage. and we're back full circle, aviation does not like/is afraid of change. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:32:02 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: and we're back full circle, aviation does not like/is afraid of change. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required What happens when your alternator quits? If your engine quits, does your boat sink? What alternator? Oh you mean the same permanent magnet system that is in your magnetos?! I don't know what your boat has. Does it have an ignition coil? If so, then no, it's not the same system. If it uses magnitos, then it has electronic points, and there is no real advantage. and we're back full circle, aviation does not like/is afraid of change. Change for the sake of change - no. If there is no demonstrable advantage, such as with electronic points, it's not worth the paperwork to get it approved. Aviation likes what is known and proven to work well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:39:41 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 2100 hours. and 35-40k replacement. I'm not seeing anything different than what lycoming is offering. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: And yet continental is cranking out their CD line of piston engines… Amazing! And they even hope to raise the TBR* on them. *Time Between Replacement, since overhauling them is not allowed (or not yet allowed). 2100 hours. and 35-40k replacement. I'm not seeing anything different than what lycoming is offering. From what I can find on their website, CD-135 2100 hours TBR. CD-155 2100 hours run time or 12 years calendar time TBR. CD-170 1200 hours TBR, with plans to increase it in the future. CD-300 2000 hours TBR. Also seems to be a requirement to replace the timing chain and reduction gearbox at around the halfway point to the engine TBR. I like the idea of putting diesel engines on aircraft and have argued in favor of it in the past, but there are issues involved with putting them on existing light aircraft, just as there are issues in putting electronic engine control on existing light aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:44:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Change for the sake of change - no. If there is no demonstrable advantage, such as with electronic points, it's not worth the paperwork to get it approved. Aviation likes what is known and proven to work well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required What happens when your alternator quits? If your engine quits, does your boat sink? What alternator? Oh you mean the same permanent magnet system that is in your magnetos?! I don't know what your boat has. Does it have an ignition coil? If so, then no, it's not the same system. If it uses magnitos, then it has electronic points, and there is no real advantage. and we're back full circle, aviation does not like/is afraid of change. Change for the sake of change - no. If there is no demonstrable advantage, such as with electronic points, it's not worth the paperwork to get it approved. Aviation likes what is known and proven to work well. Everyone has their opinions on change and technology. I don't think anyone will say you HAVE to run electronic ignition, same as you won't HAVE to run unleaded avgas. But you're going to have a harder time buying it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:48:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From what I can find on their website, CD-135 2100 hours TBR. CD-155 2100 hours run time or 12 years calendar time TBR. CD-170 1200 hours TBR, with plans to increase it in the future. CD-300 2000 hours TBR. Also seems to be a requirement to replace the timing chain and reduction gearbox at around the halfway point to the engine TBR. I like the idea of putting diesel engines on aircraft and have argued in favor of it in the past, but there are issues involved with putting them on existing light aircraft, just as there are issues in putting electronic engine control on existing light aircraft. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And yet continental is cranking out their CD line of piston engines… Amazing! And they even hope to raise the TBR* on them. *Time Between Replacement, since overhauling them is not allowed (or not yet allowed). 2100 hours. and 35-40k replacement. I'm not seeing anything different than what lycoming is offering. From what I can find on their website, CD-135 2100 hours TBR. CD-155 2100 hours run time or 12 years calendar time TBR. CD-170 1200 hours TBR, with plans to increase it in the future. CD-300 2000 hours TBR. Also seems to be a requirement to replace the timing chain and reduction gearbox at around the halfway point to the engine TBR. I like the idea of putting diesel engines on aircraft and have argued in favor of it in the past, but there are issues involved with putting them on existing light aircraft, just as there are issues in putting electronic engine control on existing light aircraft. I feel like i remember this same debate 20+ years ago, and you can buy all kinds of light aircraft from the OEMs with these engines installed now. I'm not saying they are then end all/be all, but how many top end overhauls have we done on engines with 500 hours on them? Gearboxes after 100 hours? Yes, airplanes are expensive. But not helicopter expensive |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:51:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everyone has their opinions on change and technology. I don't think anyone will say you HAVE to run electronic ignition, same as you won't HAVE to run unleaded avgas. But you're going to have a harder time buying it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required What happens when your alternator quits? If your engine quits, does your boat sink? What alternator? Oh you mean the same permanent magnet system that is in your magnetos?! I don't know what your boat has. Does it have an ignition coil? If so, then no, it's not the same system. If it uses magnitos, then it has electronic points, and there is no real advantage. and we're back full circle, aviation does not like/is afraid of change. Change for the sake of change - no. If there is no demonstrable advantage, such as with electronic points, it's not worth the paperwork to get it approved. Aviation likes what is known and proven to work well. Everyone has their opinions on change and technology. I don't think anyone will say you HAVE to run electronic ignition, same as you won't HAVE to run unleaded avgas. But you're going to have a harder time buying it. Problem is that unless you are flying something in the 'Experimental' category, you HAVE to get FAA approval to make the sort of changes you are talking about. From personal experience, the process of getting that approval can be as short as walking into the FSDO, explaining what you want to do and how it is similar to something that has been approved for decades, then getting a response of "   ... No."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:52:30 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We know that leaded gas is terrible. The question is whether avgas, which is the leading source of airborne lead, is a health risk. People who love and work near GA airfields have higher concentrations of lead in their bodies and there is no safe level of lead exposure. Talk about hyperbole, you have it in spades with your comment. Lead levels in ALL humans who live in an industrial society are higher than those before the industrial revolution. That's a FACT, and it's regardless of whether a person works in GA or some other environment. Thus, to say that there is "no safe level" is very hyperbolic. The real question is "how much is acceptable?" and NOT the question you propose of "is any lead acceptable?" By the way, this is a firearms forum, and most persons who shoot firearms recreationally are exposed to additional lead sources that are ingested into the body. Primers are the #1 source. However, like everything else, mitigating exposure by doing certain prophylactic measures can keep the lead levels down to what is considered "normal" for a industrial society resident. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:55:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Talk about hyperbole, you have it in spades with your comment. Lead levels in ALL humans who live in an industrial society are higher than those before the industrial revolution. That's a FACT, and it's regardless of whether a person works in GA or some other environment. Thus, to say that there is "no safe level" is very hyperbolic. The real question is "how much is acceptable?" and NOT the question you propose of "is any lead acceptable?" By the way, this is a firearms forum, and most persons who shoot firearms recreationally are exposed to additional lead sources that are ingested into the body. Primers are the #1 source. However, like everything else, mitigating exposure by doing certain prophylactic measures can keep the lead levels down to what is considered "normal" for a industrial society resident. I’m the guy that washes his hands after shooting then showers and changes clothes when I can. I don’t like lead. I love asbestos though. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:55:17 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Problem is that unless you are flying something in the 'Experimental' category, you HAVE to get FAA approval to make the sort of changes you are talking about. From personal experience, the process of getting that approval can be as short as walking into the FSDO, explaining what you want to do and how it is similar to something that has been approved for decades, then getting a response of " ... No."Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can now buy new Lycoming engines (though I don't know what the current wait time is, due to supply chain issues) with a new electronic ignition system on them. We've installed a few of them at the shop I work at. No STC needed, as (as I understand it) Lycoming added the electronic system to the engine Type Certificate as an alternate part for the left magneto. Looks like a weird magneto, that you have to run a power wire to, when you install the engine. There is also at least one aftermarket electronic ignition system that is STC'd for some of the Lycoming engines, but it's not self-contained in a housing similar to a magneto housing (like the Lycoming factory electronic ignition). It involves a distributor that bolts on in place of the left magneto, and a box that houses the electronics, that you have to find a place to mount it and wire it in. If you are considering either system, I would suggest going with the one Lycoming offers as an option on their engines. (Less paperwork, less to deal with on the installation, and less additional wiring to rub on stuff under the cowling.) I had dual electronic ignitions on the RV8. They worked great. Did it detect and prevent detonation? They made the sparky things spark. I feel that they helped the engine make more power. Maxed out I could see about 200mph. Fuel flow worked out to about 18 mpg Just curious, and I should have known. Car engines prevent detonation with the computer. If plane engines did that, the fuel would be much less of an issue. When they first started putting electronic ignition in cars (1970s), it didn't come with all the fancy sensors that they have been putting on them for the last couple decades or so. It was just an electronic distributor that did a better job of controlling the spark (easier starting and probably a small increase in power) with the same inputs that were available to the mechanical distributors. Until they put even more electronics on the engine (controlling the fuel, and more sensors), it's not going to be doing a lot to prevent detonation. The beginnings of electronic ignition simply eliminated points, and all of those shortcomings. I would wager a perfectly tuned set of points is as precise as a simple electronic ignition system, but not for very long. I’d also bet a nickel a dual electronic ignition system is more reliable than the old dual-mag The problem is that it relies on an electrical system, so the electrical system has to come with redundancies. Batteries are heavy, and a charge doesn't last very long. I have an outboard with a full electronic ignition, zero battery required What happens when your alternator quits? If your engine quits, does your boat sink? What alternator? Oh you mean the same permanent magnet system that is in your magnetos?! I don't know what your boat has. Does it have an ignition coil? If so, then no, it's not the same system. If it uses magnitos, then it has electronic points, and there is no real advantage. and we're back full circle, aviation does not like/is afraid of change. Change for the sake of change - no. If there is no demonstrable advantage, such as with electronic points, it's not worth the paperwork to get it approved. Aviation likes what is known and proven to work well. Everyone has their opinions on change and technology. I don't think anyone will say you HAVE to run electronic ignition, same as you won't HAVE to run unleaded avgas. But you're going to have a harder time buying it. Problem is that unless you are flying something in the 'Experimental' category, you HAVE to get FAA approval to make the sort of changes you are talking about. From personal experience, the process of getting that approval can be as short as walking into the FSDO, explaining what you want to do and how it is similar to something that has been approved for decades, then getting a response of " ... No."Wait, you have a FSDO that actually makes a decision!? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:57:11 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I feel like i remember this same debate 20+ years ago, and you can buy all kinds of light aircraft from the OEMs with these engines installed now. It was maybe 13 or 14 years ago that I was doing what I could to try to convince shop management to take a serious look at getting an STC to install the Thielert Centurion 4.0 engines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2022 2:59:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait, you have a FSDO that actually makes a decision!? Did in the mid-1990s, at least. I do what I can to avoid talking to most of them, now. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
