All Activity

I cannot find any articles online about any experimentals running the Flyefii system on a 100 octane engine with UL94 or auto fuel. The flyefii website claims it is possible, but It doesn’t look like anybody has actually done it.

Either or huh? There’s no way to design a gearbox you think that is both reliable and light? Someone call Rotax and tell them they’re breaking fundamental laws of physics! Or the Adept team! Of course wee need engines that run on higher RPM! That’s where the innovation is needed! If these lazy poor excuses for engineers at Lyco and Conti had any self respect and weren’t such bums they could have designed this DECADES ago. You know how I know? You have turboprops running with gearboxes that don’t break and aren’t prohibitively heavy!! Modern car engines are spaceships compared to what we are stuck with. And no one will tell me the same innovation can’t be done for us.

Saw 141 IAS today for a 174 TAS at FL105 at 65% (27/22)

Follow the brick

I've always heard it described as "has the glide ratio of a sewer lid," but "like a brick" is gentler.

Are you replacing the windlace around the door while you have everything out? It’s a tedious job. But now is the time if it’s worn.

True, the Arrow has a glide range with gear and flaps out about the same as a brick!

The first time I took a Piper pilot to ride, we were on final over the trees about 1/4 mile from the displaced threshold and I pulled the throttle to idle. His head spun toward me, then looked back out front. As I taxied clear of the runway (3000' long minus abiut 10% for the displacement, only one exit 2000' from that end), he looked at me wide-eyed and said, if I'd pulled the throttle in my Cherokee when you did, I'd have gone down in the trees. But in your plane, nothing happened! You're gonna like your new Mooney! It's the same as mine, but you have 20 more hp.

Yep that is what I did with my PA-18 and I didn't even drill the hole. https://www.amazon.com/Craft-Brew-3827-Drilled-Stopper/dp/B00AFD9VSE/ref=sims_dp_d_dex_popular_subs_t3_v6_d_sccl_1_2/132-8704144-6508838?pd_rd_w=tmKGU&content-id=amzn1.sym.e94802a9-3b18-4cbd-b410-204abb9c6aed&pf_rd_p=e94802a9-3b18-4cbd-b410-204abb9c6aed&pf_rd_r=29QEM90YV3CKHWS2H31W&pd_rd_wg=jr460&pd_rd_r=dbe9616d-6459-4fa5-bfab-bfb91ca5d602&pd_rd_i=B00AFD9VSE&psc=1

Yes it's a refined design already I am sure it can be refined more (not a lot) with EIS or FADEC and some operators may take it, however, only they can get lot of maintenance credit in exchange...

I said it was a well refined design. I said you thought it was a stale design.

https://vantageassoc.com/finishing-materials-window-beading-krbbeige-145.html

Like many things in aviation, in new application? MAYBE, in "retrofitting"? lilely NO At overhaul, this may get some traction but there is not much interest neither? I recall, Lycoming makes 2000 engines and overhauls 2000 engines every year, even if all these gets fitted, it will take 100 years to recycle the whole fleet It's hard to compare with automotive industry, due to economies of scale: the car engine builders spends more when building factory that produces car engines than what Lycoming makes in engine revenues for 5 decades ! As @N201MKTurbo said it's a stale design for 90 years already, the new EIS or FADEC may get some traction if FAA throws a "big bone" to some operators when it comes to maintenance, overhauls, TBOs...

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 accreditation. 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.