Swift 100R is now ASTM

[GeeBee]

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

[1980Mooney]

29 minutes ago, 201Mooniac said:

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.

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...

[EricJ]

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.   

[N201MKTurbo]

4 minutes ago, EricJ said:

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.   

Anybody running unleaded?

[Ibra]

3 hours ago, philiplane said:

ASTM doesn't "test" anything

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")

Edited Thursday at 07:00 PM by Ibra

[EricJ]

7 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Anybody running unleaded?

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/

[EricJ]

4 hours ago, philiplane said:

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.

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.

[Ibra]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

Lycoming's iE2 has been around for a while but doesn't have many applications yet. 

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... 

Edited Thursday at 07:23 PM by Ibra

[N201MKTurbo]

10 minutes ago, Ibra said:

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 nice bone when it comes to ovehauls or TBOs 

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

[Ibra]

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...

 

 

[hazek]

20 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Or we need a troublesome and heavy gearbox.

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.

[N201MKTurbo]

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.

[N201MKTurbo]

FYI, here is the Chinese company that makes TEL.

https://www.tetraethylleadcn.com/tetraethyl-lead/tetraethyl-lead-ethyl-liquid.html

 

[philiplane]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

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...

there are two of them on the Tecnam P2012 twin that was purpose built for Cape Air, to replace their aging Cessna 402's.

[Rick Junkin]

24 minutes ago, hazek said:

If these lazy poor excuses for engineers at Lyco and Conti had any self respect and weren’t such bums...

Yikes. Having a bad day?

[Larry]

Speaking of "detuning".  Isn't that what Lycoming did when they changed the 200HP IO360 to 20BTDC from 25BTDC?  Wouldn't that potentially give the Detuned engines slightly more latitude in detonation?

 

[201Mooniac]

4 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

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...

Sorry, I just meant if the FADEC was available for the IO-360 as an STC add-on I would consider it.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, philiplane said:

there are two of them on the Tecnam P2012 twin that was purpose built for Cape Air, to replace their aging Cessna 402's.

There has been so much trouble with the "new tech" Lycoming iE2 TEO-540 that Tecnam switched to "old tech" Continental GTSIO-520 engines.  Reportedly Cape Air retrofitted engines.

Continental GTSIO-520-S ready for P2012 installation | Magazine | Business Air News

Tecnam offers Continental engine option for P2012 Traveller and Sentinel series

[McMooney]

let's be honest, these problems would've been sorted long ago if the money was in it.  heck there was too little money to change fuels for 50 years only happening now due to threats from congress.  current environment, someone pay enough i bet we coudl get rid of those threats atleast for another 10 to 15 years

[N201MKTurbo]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

Speaking of "detuning".  Isn't that what Lycoming did when they changed the 200HP IO360 to 20BTDC from 25BTDC?  Wouldn't that potentially give the Detuned engines slightly more latitude in detonation?

 

Yep

[N201MKTurbo]

2 hours ago, McMooney said:

let's be honest, these problems would've been sorted long ago if the money was in it.  heck there was too little money to change fuels for 50 years only happening now due to threats from congress.  current environment, someone pay enough i bet we coudl get rid of those threats atleast for another 10 to 15 years

It was 55 years. Up until 1970 it was MORE POWER no matter what it takes. That was when you couldn’t see two blocks anywhere in LA. And your car was covered in soot every morning. 
 

Now you can see the mountains from the beach any time. 
 

So the environmentalists have achieved everything they ever wanted. But they have these big organizations  put together with nothing left to do. So they are coming after our little airplanes so they can still be relevant.

[MikeOH]

6 hours ago, hazek said:

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.

I doubt you're even interested in a rationale rebuttal to your tirade, but I'm going to respond so that other readers that might have been 'swayed' by your hyperbole have a counterpoint to consider.

The real answer, as usual, to this problem is not poor engineering, failure to take advantage of new technologies, or 'lazy poor excuses from engineers', but ECONOMICS.

What is the volume and price of turboprop engines these days compared with GA piston powerplants?

And, yet again, how many 'spaceship' car engines do suppose are built and sold every year compared with GA piston powerplants?

Finally, given the testing and certification costs for aviation products, on top of rather significant development costs associated with a clean sheet design, just how long do you suppose the payback is going to be given the miniscule market volume of GA piston powerplants?

QED

[1980Mooney]

6 hours ago, hazek said:

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! 

Modern car engines are spaceships compared to what we are stuck with. 

If it is so easy why hasn't Rotax developed a 6 or 8 cylinder in all this time?  Why is there nothing above 160 hp?

Modern car engine....solid block, unleaded fuel, synthetic oil....   Oh and they don't run for hours on end at WOT....they would not last long.

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

It was 55 years. Up until 1970 it was MORE POWER no matter what it takes. That was when you couldn’t see two blocks anywhere in LA. And your car was covered in soot every morning. 
 

Now you can see the mountains from the beach any time. 
 

So the environmentalists have achieved everything they ever wanted. But they have these big organizations  put together with nothing left to do. So they are coming after our little airplanes so they can still be relevant.

Truer words were never written!

I grew up in the 'burbs of LA during the peak years of smog; it was BAD!! I'm talking 1 mile visibility due ENTIRELY to the smog, not weather (well, ok, an inversion was responsible for the really bad days!). Your eyes literally watered from what was likely sulfuric acid from the sulfur dioxides dissolving in the moisture in your eyes! It actually hurt to breathe in deeply; no joke! If you haven't experienced it, it's hard to understand how bad it really was.

The problem was solved by the advent of EFI/O2 sensor feedback and catalytic converters. The latter is the real reason lead had to be eliminated; lead ruined the catalytic converters. Back then the lead emissions were the least of the concerns for smog.  I.e., lead elimination was just a beneficial artifact of solving the smog problem.

As you say, the big government organizations MUST survive...particularly, the SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District), a Taj Mahal government organization and edifice if there ever was one!
However, they did manage to perform a study (which I cited somewhere in the 50+ page G100UL thread) of airborne lead levels around Whiteman Airport (KWHP) and found them to be no higher than anywhere else in the Los Angeles basin. Furthermore, the measured levels were many times LESS than Federal EPA levels!

So, yes, they are coming after our little airplanes that emit minuscule levels of lead under the guise of "NO amount of lead is safe" and the standard fear-mongering of "save the environment" and "it's for the children." This is a politically created 'problem' that is forcing an expensive and sub-optimal 'solution' upon us.  Yeah, IMHO

 

[McMooney]

20 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

If it is so easy why hasn't Rotax developed a 6 or 8 cylinder in all this time?  Why is there nothing above 160 hp?

Modern car engine....solid block, unleaded fuel, synthetic oil....   Oh and they don't run for hours on end at WOT....they would not last long.

But they could run at 2700 rpm damn near forever 8), 3500 rpm, 4000 rpm???  there's really no reason you need to run at wot unless you want like 400hp or soemthing