1964-M20E Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 I read the article in this month’s AOPA magazine about the future of piston aircraft engines and the article raises some good points already touched on here. Electronic ignition has been used on cars for the last 40 years and have been perfected to a point of very few if any failures Electronic fuel injection has been used in cars for the last several decades. Why are we flying engines with 50 year old induction and ignition technology? We still use carburetors the automobile industry gave them up 20 or 30 years ago? We still use magnetos just about all other piston engines gave that up 60 or 70 years ago? There are electronic fuel injection and ignition systems available out there but we cannot use them on our certified plnaes. This all points to one common factor the FAA. The FAA has consistently held back technology in the name of “safety” yet in their overzealous quest for "safety" they has doomed us to using ancient technology costing us fuel and safety. It is time the FA either greatly streamlines the certification process or gets out of the way and let us upgrade the technology in our aircraft. 1 Quote
chrisk Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 Electronic ignition has been used on cars for the last 40 years and have been perfected to a point of very few if any failures We still use magnetos just about all other piston engines gave that up 60 or 70 years ago? There are actually good reasons not to use electronic ignition, or at least to have a fully redundant system. As an example, last summer, the battery started to go in my car. I jump started it and took off to the battery shop. 200 yards from the shop, the engine quit. The battery had completely given out. After a new battery, the car started up and ran fine. --I'd hate to have my airplane engine quit because the battery died. On the other hand, there is probably value in a hybrid system. One mag and one electronic ignition. And I believe some of these are on the market. Reports of their value have been mixed. Quote
Bob_Belville Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 The government is what the government is. What role has the 2 engine manufacturers played in this situation? Has either Lycoming or TCM made an effort to certify their engines with modern electronics? Just asking. Quote
timpercarpio Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 It's the same with avionics. "Experimental" planes can legally fly in the same IFR environment system as "certified" planes with brand new, state of the art avionics, at a fraction of the price we have to pay. How is it safer for us to use 30-40 old radios and autopilots because new ones are too expensive? The FAA serves at the pleasure of the airlines. They don't give a crap about GA, especially the little guys. You know the saying..."they're not happy until you're not happy"! Quote
rbridges Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 I also wonder There are actually good reasons not to use electronic ignition, or at least to have a fully redundant system. As an example, last summer, the battery started to go in my car. I jump started it and took off to the battery shop. 200 yards from the shop, the engine quit. The battery had completely given out. After a new battery, the car started up and ran fine. --I'd hate to have my airplane engine quit because the battery died. On the other hand, there is probably value in a hybrid system. One mag and one electronic ignition. And I believe some of these are on the market. Reports of their value have been mixed. yeah, you'd definitely need some type of redundancy, but that article got me thinking, too. It kept referring to the better fuel efficiency of more modern engines. I'd love to be burning less fuel at the same speeds. Quote
RocketAviator Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 While I understand chrisk comments not sure I would agree. The reliability of the mag is inherently just as much or more error or failure prone than that of the "loss of power supply" approach he suggests. For example the avionics industry have taken this into account with a small battery backup which the same principle could be used in an electronic ignition system as well. Less weight more reliable, less expensive... on and on. Also there could be the best of all worlds if one were to want to go to that extreme and piggy back electronic on top of a mag (yes it can be done) where if the electronic should fail the mag immediately and mechanically picks up. I am a big fan of safety but to me the GA has been unreasonably held back by what & whom ever and often by at least to me by the lack of information, miss information and unfounded information, especially if you want to talk facts with supporting data that is overwhelming (billions of safe hours of electronic ignition data compared to a relatively short number of mag hours). Give me the option and I would take A GOOD SAFE electronic over a Mag anytime! Better for my engine, better for fuel, more reliable... Just my 2 cents worth! Check this link out if you are interested in hi-bird electronic ignition http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2013/03/electroair-lets-electronic-ignition-kit-do-the-talking/ Fly Safe Rocket On! Quote
Hank Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 Electronic ignition can be a really good thing. Except for the one total electrical failure I had during IFR training, crossing the VOR inbound and dropping the gear. Cranked the gear down the rest of the way, followed the river home slowly with gear down and Takeoff flaps out. The fun part was it happened just after "Radar contact lost. Report back on your missed." I flew home slowly, ~30 minutes, below the clouds in VFR conditions, no radio, no transponder. Engine ran fine, and would have kept doing so for about 4 more hours based on fuel onboard. Could I have made it home with a backup battery for ignition? I don't know, it will vary every time based on winds, backup battery condition, charge state, etc. Quote
1964-M20E Posted June 21, 2013 Author Report Posted June 21, 2013 All I'm saying here is if I had a choice I'd put the EFII electronic fuel injection and ignition on my plane it would be done before the end of the year. Some may not be comfortable with that and that is fine and this goes for avionics as well. But that’s just it the FAA has removed choices from me on maintaining and upgrading MY airplane. I paid for the plane, I pay to maintain it and I pay to operate it. It would be different if the FAA was footing the bill and I do not want that. Quote
N201MKTurbo Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 So what would electronic ignition give us? Easier starting - Yes! Longer spark plug life - Yes! Less misfires - Yes! Better mileage - maybe. More Power - probably not. Able to burn lower octane fuel - Yes, at reduced power. What would EFI give us? Automatic mixture control - I don't mind adjusting the mixture. The reason aviation has not adopted the electronic controls is, under critical analysis they don't have that much to offer. Aircraft engines are not operated the same as car engines. Most of their time is spent at constant RPM and throttle settings. In a car you are constantly changing these. Big difference! Quote
Jeev Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 Not full eliectirc ignition and EFi but a step in the right direction and STC'D...... I want one anyone have a PIREP? http://www.electroair.net/stc_ignition_kit.html Quote
N201MKTurbo Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 Too bad it won't work on my IO-360 A3B6D Quote
FloridaMan Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 Electronic ignition can be a really good thing. Except for the one total electrical failure I had during IFR training, crossing the VOR inbound and dropping the gear. Cranked the gear down the rest of the way, followed the river home slowly with gear down and Takeoff flaps out. The fun part was it happened just after "Radar contact lost. Report back on your missed." I flew home slowly, ~30 minutes, below the clouds in VFR conditions, no radio, no transponder. Engine ran fine, and would have kept doing so for about 4 more hours based on fuel onboard. Could I have made it home with a backup battery for ignition? I don't know, it will vary every time based on winds, backup battery condition, charge state, etc. Did they deploy S&R for you? Quote
jetdriven Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 I flew a Liberty XL and the airplane had some strange characteristics. It had an IO-240F fadec engine installed. It also had two FADEC computers and electronic ignition. On the glareshield it had a master caution and master warning. If the master warning lit up the POH said to land as soon as possible, the engine is not guaranteed to continue running. They didnt specify airports. It also had a ship's battery and a fadec backup battery. If you lose the alternator, you were only guaranteed 30 minutes of continued flight. It had a recurring master warning problem with a rough running engine. Finally after about 6 months of this, someone from Liberty came out and replaced everything electronic under the cowling. It fixed the problem. It was the only airplane I ever flew when I pulled the alternator circuit breaker the engine would stumble and lose power for a few seconds. I like the idea of electronic ignition, but not for the entire system. Give me a dumb old magneto in one hole. Quote
Hank Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 Negative. After 5-10 minutes with Avionics Master off, I turned it back on [again] and the radios came alive--one set for Approach and one for my home field. I re-established comms, told them what happened, and other than switching the intercom to #2 and minimal transmissions, touched nothing electrical, just had a long, slow ride home. Just in case, I followed the Ohio River, whose shores form most of the occasional flat spots up here, instead of heading sort-of direct back in a dead reckoning way over the hills. Just in case anything else went wrong . . . No further problems until after shutdown, when the door handle broke off . . . Gotta love Vintage aircraft! Three months later the electrical issues had been troubleshot and repaired; the hardest part was obtaining obsolete electrical components [the board that the panel light dimmer switch mounts to blew up, couldn't find a schematic; it's amazing how many other things route through there!]. Quote
RocketAviator Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 Not full eliectirc ignition and EFi but a step in the right direction and STC'D...... I want one anyone have a PIREP? http://www.electroair.net/stc_ignition_kit.html It is my understanding they are reported to work well, although I have not personally used or flown in an airplane that has one. I have installed and use one in my boat and my off road equipment.... I know not the same environment but I can attest to better fuel, easier starting and better acceleration in multiple engine driven platforms. I plan to put one on my Rocket as soon as they have 6 cyl version STC... who knows when that will be! Quote
Oscar Avalle Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 It is my understanding they are reported to work well, although I have not personally used or flown in an airplane that has one. I have installed and use one in my boat and my off road equipment.... I know not the same environment but I can attest to better fuel, easier starting and better acceleration in multiple engine driven platforms. I plan to put one on my Rocket as soon as they have 6 cyl version STC... who knows when that will be! I have been flying for several years with a LASAR ignition system. A precursor to the electroair ignition (it still has two magnetos as back up). Overall I am happy. Fuel consuption has gone down and the engine runs smooth. The only problem I see with LASAR is that it advances tyming by 25 degress, thus the CHTs run higher... Otherwise, ok. Would I do it again, most likely yes. Or, at least i would consider installing the electroair ignition. 1 Quote
RocketAviator Posted June 21, 2013 Report Posted June 21, 2013 I have been flying for several years with a LASAR ignition system. A precursor to the electroair ignition (it still has two magnetos as back up). Overall I am happy. Fuel consuption has gone down and the engine runs smooth. The only problem I see with LASAR is that it advances tyming by 25 degress, thus the CHTs run higher... Otherwise, ok. Would I do it again, most likely yes. Or, at least i would consider installing the electroair ignition. Would like to know more about this LASAR ignition system with the mag backup! I might be interested depending on cost and PIREP and that is if it is even available for my 520 6 cylinder Rocket! Quote
Oscar Avalle Posted June 22, 2013 Report Posted June 22, 2013 Would like to know more about this LASAR ignition system with the mag backup! I might be interested depending on cost and PIREP and that is if it is even available for my 520 6 cylinder Rocket! Unfortunately, LASAR is not available anymore. It was produced by UNISON and then Champion bought the patent. Now I really don't know who provides support to my system... :=(, o even if you could still buy it. I believe eletroair tried to get into that niche. My experience was good, the engine starts great, it runs smooth and consumption is ok. However, I have to say that I had the unit now for about 8 years, or so, and I had not problems with ti what so ever. Beyond the fact that my CHTs run a little high. Quote
Oscar Avalle Posted June 22, 2013 Report Posted June 22, 2013 Unfortunately, LASAR is not available anymore. It was produced by UNISON and then Champion bought the patent. Now I really don't know who provides support to my system... :=(, o even if you could still buy it. I believe eletroair tried to get into that niche. My experience was good, the engine starts great, it runs smooth and consumption is ok. However, I have to say that I had the unit now for about 8 years, or so, and I had not problems with ti what so ever. Beyond the fact that my CHTs run a little high. aviation consumer article about lasar ignition. http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/28_4/avionicsreport/4881-1.html Quote
RocketAviator Posted June 23, 2013 Report Posted June 23, 2013 aviation consumer article about lasar ignition. http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/28_4/avionicsreport/4881-1.html Thanks for the update Ocsar, that explains why I could not find anymore info on UNISON website! Sounded like a great idea to me, where one could take advantage of the newest technology with the old as a proven backup.... NOW THAT is what I would like to see more of in the aviation world.... then we could get some real world reliability data! 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.