All Activity

That's the same way the FAA certificates airplanes. In standards bodies the participants figure out what testing they want/need and do it themselves, often in collaboration, in order to provide the data/results to develop the standard and the testing requirements for meeting the standard. You're right that the standards body (ASTM, SAE, IEEE, 3GPP, whoever) typically just facilitates the accretidization. It's up to the participants to do all the work.

Thank you! The first time I flew it, my buddy (the seller) was in the right seat. As soon as I was on downwind with the gear down and flaps out, he said "It's just a Cherokee....a really fast Cherokee!" I actually got it down and stopped in the same distance he demonstrated for me. I even got an "eyebrow raise" getting stopped so well! I do know that it's going to take a few hours to get everything down (no pun intended) pat, but really looking forward to this next step in my airplane ownership journey!

It sounds like it's pretty common to do so, but I don't know any specifics. This seems to be the system that most people are using: https://www.flyefii.com/

Of course, Swift is responsible for submitting tests for ASTM to get their rubber stamps and approvals. Strictly speaking Swift does not even "test" their own fuels. For detonation, they send their 100R to Lycoming, Lycoming run detonation testing on their facilities, they issue some paper to Swift, then Swift sends that paper to FAA or ASTM, then FAA or ASTM will do a rubber stamp.... Anytime one talks about ASTM or FAA testing, they refer to the process to get approval (this does not imply that FAA or ASTM runs independent testing on their side, they may do in some cases where the FAA conducts their own "independent testing", however, in most cases, the FAA or ASTM will rely on participant to submit testing work, then they "independently review and approve")

Anybody running unleaded?

Agreed.

The experimental guys have been running electronic fuel injection and electronic ignition with full ECU control on Lycomings for a while. I've seen a few and they're pretty impressive.

PSA: If you use an engine dehydrator on a Bravo engine, or probably any Lycoming, consider putting the tube into the oil fill tube rather than the oil breather tube. Yesterday I discovered that the "ice hole" in the oil breather tube on my TLS/Bravo is located about 2 feet from the tube opening. That's a long way to fish a dehydrator tube with a somewhat frangible foam seal, as recommended by the Engine Dehydrator manufacturer. I hadn't looked for it before now because I insert the dehydrator tube through a silicone stopper I put in the oil filler tube. With this discovery I don't recommend trying to use the oil breather tube on this engine. I had read a lot of material on the virtues of using a dehydrator and determined there wasn't much difference whether you insert the tube in the oil breather or the oil fill tube on a Lycoming engine. I found a stopper to fit the fill tube, drilled a hole in it to fit the dehydrator tube, and just remove the dip stick and plug it in. It's a lot easier and cleaner than using the breather tube. I'll add pictures at a later date. There's a recent discussion in the Ovation forum about what's required to do the same kind of thing on a Continental, which is a little more involved.

It would be a whopper for your plane. The iE2 is a FADEC turbocharged Lycoming 540 rated at either 350 hp or 375 hp. I see that Air Power has the ECU alone for that engine on backorder - the price is only $25,000+ for the box alone. 60B29062 | ECU ASSY IE2 TEO-540-A1A Lycoming - Air Power Inc. I bet the engine costs $150,000....maybe $200,000? It would add probably 250 lbs forward of your firewall...... But man would it leave the M20J Missile conversion behind...

Nobody buys them because nobody has to buy them. Necessity is the "mother of invention"?

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.