All Activity

Are there STCs for this? I didn't see any mention of them. I would certainly consider it at overhaul time if I could use it on my IO-360. If they are only looking to new production aircraft, I doubt this will get much traction.

Exactly. 15 years ago Lycoming introduced the iE2 engine. Also if you think it is so easy look at the Orenda V-8 liquid cooled engine development. It started as the Thunder Engine in the 1980's and then the Orenda in the 1990's. Then Texas Recip in the 2000's and TRACE in the 2010's. No applications. Lots of money wasted in 40 years. iE2 Engine | Lycoming Aircraft | Lycoming Engines Turbo charged 540 with electronic engine controls. First experimental with the Lancair. Then certified on the Tecnam Traveller P2012. You won't find many still on the Lancair or anyone that likes it. And Beechtalk reports that Cape Air put their entire fleet of Tecnam P2012 up for sale in May - reportedly the engine was an issue - heavy and expensive. The iE2 has been a commercial failure. There are no other installations in 15 years. From 2010: Ready for takeoff: Lycoming’s iE2 — General Aviation News Lycoming IE2: Incremental Technology - Aviation Consumer By automotive standards, the IE2 is about on par sensor wise. But it doesn't need the oxygen sensor circuit nor the transmission controls found on modern cars to improve fuel economy. The basic inputs are venturi pressure and temperature for mass airflow calculation, MAP, induction temperature, CHT, TIT and RPM. For crankshaft and top dead center reference, the IE2 has two magnetic position sensors, one on the crank and one on the cam. They sense crank position by magnetically detecting a missing tooth in the gear train, but unlike Hall-effect sensors, they aren't powered, thus eliminating at least one failure point. Speaking of power, its delivered to the engine via a dedicated dual-channel power box that can run the engine either from the aircraft bus or from the default position-a dedicated permanent magnet alternator installed on the accessory case. The engine is designed to run independently of aircraft electrics, although it doesn't have to. It has provisions for an additional alternators on the accessory case or via front-belt drive. Starting with the air, gone is the traditional Bendix RSA throttle body and injector system. In its place is a throttle body that still has hard linkage to the power lever, but one that's equipped to measure mass airflow and temperature, with redundant temperature sensing capability, since air density and flow is such an important player in power setting. The engine control unit is housed in a single box the size of a thick netbook and is dual channel-either channel can run the engine. The ECUs use sensed throttle position as a target reference for the pilots power command, then the mass airflow data is used to fuel the engine accordingly by referring to a customizable look-up table and fine tuning that according to a feedback loop with programmed limits and protections. The IE2 uses electronic pulse injectors whose reliability in automobile use has been raised to nearly failure-proof levels. These run from a common rail at a pressure of 3 bars or about 43 PSI. This fueling option adds a measure of reliability because the engine is set up to run each cylinder as an individual power unit-if one fails, either due to fuel or ignition, the other five will continue running as smoothly as the software can make them. The system is configured with return lines which circulate fuel as a hedge against vapor lock. Ignition still terminates in two plugs per cylinder, but rather than mags or remote spark generation, each plug has its own direct-fire coil similar to the high-reliability type found on modern motorcycles. In automotive and motorcycle apps, direct-fire coils usually attach to the plug, but on the IE2, there’s no room for that. All of the coils-12 total-live in an array mounted on top of the engine where the fuel injection spider would otherwise be found. As you'd expect, the ECU channels cross control, so if one fails, the other can still fire at least one plug in each cylinder.

Try this. Every manufacturer has it's own numbering system. Just check the dimensions. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pnpages/MW-3.php

Here are the speakers for Friday 26 and Saturday 27th Pilot Plus One in Lakeland Florida! We do have 4 spots left. Because flying isn’t a solo mission — join us at Pilot Plus One in Lakeland, Florida 9/26-27 at the ACE Center Left Seat or Right Seat, build safety and confidence for every cockpit role. Learn together. Fly safer. Have fun. WINGS Safety Seminars by industry leaders Hands-on Redbird Simulator sessions for all Right Seat Ready Companion Seminar Friday Night Social + Door Prize Secure your spot today — your +1 is waiting! Registration for Pilot Plus One: https://jolielucas.com/pilot-plus-one.html Single seats available as well.

Excess oxygen may slightly improve complete combustion but the bigger improvement comes from improved thermal efficiency. Regardless you can already achieve that by twisting the Red Knob (or pull the Red Lever as @N201MKTurbo says) with our current engines.

Everybody objects to de-tuning their engine to make it run on unleaded avgas. But they have no issue using an ECU to automatically de-tune your engine so it will run on unleaded avgas.

Many engines make too much noise for knock sensors to be effective in all conditions. Many auto engine ECU maps just know the conditions that will lead to knock or other bad things and adjust around them. I'd suspect the valve trains alone in our engines are too noisy, plus the cylinders are mechanically isolated from each other, so effective knock sensing could be a really difficult thing to make work on most GA recip engines. Lycoming's iE2 has been around for a while but doesn't have many applications yet. The Tecnam P2012 uses it, and I haven't heard much about operational experiences with it there yet. https://www.lycoming.com/engines/ie2

Removed serviceable from my airplane. Green tagged. TCM harness with ~1200 hours in service. Asking $600 USD

The front and rear seats mechanism is different in my airplane. The pilot is moved via a screw set under the seat. All highly visible and it will make sense once you have it out. I suspect something is bent/damaged. To remove the seat, you just need to removed the pins in the rail that limit how far forward or rearward the seat can move. Move it past the end of the rail on the front, lift the front out of the rails, then move it back till the rear is out of the rails. When the seat is re-installed, the cotter pins are there to prevent the seat from popping off the rail in flight and need to be re-installed.

ASTM doesn't "test" anything. ASTM simply reviews the reports submitted by the organization seeking an ASTM rubber stamp. If they determine that the submission checks all the boxes it said it would check, you get the rubber stamp.

Any fix for this? It looks like it's happening to my pilot seat now. I've just gotten used to flying like a low-rider until I can take the seat out and look. I've never taken the seat out though, so I don't even know what I'm looking at after I take it out. ('79 K)

I wonder if an "advisory" FADEC would be a first easy step based on NORSEE, monitoring all variables (rpm, crankshaft position, knocking sensor, cht, eht, fuel flow, mp, etc) and provide, for the current power requirement, ideal FF, RPM, MP. It would be up to the pilot to move the knobs, and for sure ignition advance would not be part of this... but maybe is a way to get the ball rolling...

Their claim is that the power increase comes from better exhaust scavenging from the combustion chamber, which reduces back pressure and increases volumetric efficiency. Better breathing = more air = more power. They also claimed that the better flow would pull more heat through the system vs. it wicking into the cylinder walls/heads. So that makes sense to me that they can have more power and lower CHT. EA on the other hand, is increasing spark energy and duration significantly, and advancing the timing below 24" MAP, so that allows more/complete combustion of fuel and thus more power. In that case, more heat is produced and ends up going into CHT if the exhaust is unchanged. While I was at the PF booth at OSH asking these questions, a customer walked up to tell them his newly-installed 6 cyl PF (on his 182) did in fact reduce his CHTs back to "normal" after he installed a single EA system previously. He was not aware that I was asking exactly that question at the time, and mentioned his CHTs went up about 20° just like I have observed in my J. I am hopeful I'll have the same improvement, and if I get a performance boost that will be a bonus too. I know they optimized their J system for ~11,000 feet, which I previously thought was dumb since our optimal cruise altitude is 8-9000 feet, but perhaps the EA + PF combo will really shine at 10k or above. If I measure no improvements in CHT or performance, then I will remove it and return it.

I don't know much about PowerFlow, but I seem to remember reading on MooneySpace that it increases CHT. At the time, I thought it made sense. More power=more heat?

We all do, but it's a lot to expect new Close, but I don't think that actually true. If it were, BFSC would not continue to drop at leaner efficiency ratios.

You can do it and I can do it. However, it took quite a while to get to that point. I think you mean "just a tad lean" of tripping the knock sensor.

These engines are not a mess. They are actually an impressive combination of power, weight, reliability and specific fuel consumption. The fixed-timing, ignition systems with which they were certified is the hurdle to utilizing different fuels. All of the current Rotax models run on pump gas yet are turbocharged and running higher compression ratios than any of the normally aspirated legacy engines. As far as innovation goes, this is what happens when the regulatory barriers to entering the market are perceived to be greater than the return. This is not to say that no one can succeed by innovating in aviation, but it's easier and more profitable to take advantage of the regulatory hurdles by rolling up legacy companies and the doubling the pricing of existing products à la Hartzell Aviation.

Eventually I need to write a detailed review, but overall I'm satisfied. I was an early adopter and we worked through some teething issues with the kit and integration. It is a VERY extensive installation and integration task that I did under supervision. I likely had 60+ hours of effort but expect an experienced shop could do it in 45-50. Maybe faster now that I've learned the backup battery harness comes with enough length so that you don't have to splice it like I did. It is expensive, especially if you're paying full-boat for installation labor, but I expect the continually increasing cost of dual mag service to eventually wash-out the cost of the kit. This system is also truly redundant and gives me more peace of mind, even though I never had any issues with the dual mag. Performance-wise, it seems to have more power on climbout and up high with the timing advance, but that also increases CHTs by ~20°F or more. That limits my power settings in LOP cruise where I have to lean further to keep temps down where I'd like in the summer vs. running more power and going faster. I've ordered a PowerFlow exhaust and expect it will reduce the CHTs after hearing some testimonials from others with similar observations. Several times this summer I exceeded 400°F in climb whereas it never got that hot before. I'm looking forward to the PF upgrade but won't truly know if I'm happy until next summer. I plan to do a rigorous test flight/profile before and after the PF change and will share the data. I wish I had done so with the old mag, but I was down for over a year during the installation due to life getting in the way, so it would have been different test conditions that I'd have to correct for during data reduction. Oh well.

Sorry, everybody: I should have made this its own thread. It really doesn't belong here. I don't think i can move it but will post an update separately. -dan

They have both built and certified them. Nobody buys them.

I assure you a FADEC with a knock sensor is much better at it than you. It is the reason for instance you can burn any fuel in an automobile even if the manufacturer says otherwise. Yeah, you won't get the full performance of the engine design, but it demonstrates the capability of FADEC. The Big 2 in aircraft don't need new engines, they need new engine controls.

But that might be just the invoice portion of the software the shop uses. I’d still ask. Overall solid inspection. On a side note with the connecting rod AD, how are others signing off if affected pN installed? Complied with AD, no metal found?? -Matt

Every 10 minute job is one stripped screw or broken bolt away from becoming a 2-hour project.

I have a red lever that does that.

Wow. Great catch!!