@ Yr. Right....I still remember when 6,000 mile plug -changes were the norm.
I had a V-8 Mercedes in, with electronic injection. The plugs were a textbook pale chocolate colour and the exhaust pipes very similar.....The owner was getting remarkable fuel-economy for such a big, heavy car.

I agree that for pure power-output, better results are had by carb induction...
but the usable energy extracted ,per gallon burnt, is what drives the real-life commercial and general transport world.
(there are some massively overpowered ,totally fuel-inefficient aircraft, of course,- think of the F1 round-the pylon racers like Paul Bonhomme....bet his only concern is the extra fuel's weight slowing him down)

You make a throwaway remark about CASA....Everything I've read on these forums, leads me to conclude they are an inept, self-serving beaurocracy which has lost sight of it's raison d' etre and hastotally inadequate supervision.
Surely you don't give any credence to this cunch of bunts ?

@Andy RR...thanks for the laugh! witty and apposite!

Mmmm casa. We'll I worked against them they tried to have me removed from a court case as a hostile witness and I've worked with them. Unfortunately they are our regulator and with have to work within the parameters they set. But yes they made up now of ex military and airline staff that have no idea how the industry works and needs to be able to survive. Un like the UK we such a large country on a break down last week 2 1/2 hour flight at 160 average grind speed to get to the machine. Or a days driving there and then another back. It's sad to see what these clowns have done.
Aust lives of Sydney Melbourne and Brisbane and if you are any where else stiff ****.
How ever we just keep putting our heads in the sand and hope it will all go away. As can be seen with cvd but action has started. It only takes one stone to be pulled for the ache to collapse it getting to that stone. People have had enough of mindless crap.
To that point I believe that the Dalby case has been dropped by casa.


But back on track yes efi will maintain to a closer level the optimum mixture but it's only a small saving. Is it worth the development cost involved re invent the wheel. Personal I would think not. I guess time will tell. And nothing still beats the spark from a magneto.
Cheers

FADEC includes controlling ignition timing as well as fuel. That's necessary for getting the full effect, but it doesn't preclude using magnetos.

Good engine management will:

- improve fuel consumption for everyone by much more than "a small saving" - even those who are currently operating LOP
- almost eliminate starting issues at almost any temperature.
- make all of the possible power available whatever the density altitude.
- eliminate cylinder head temperature excursions that promote fatigue failure.
- reduce oil contamination from rich operation extending oil change intervals
- minimize or perhaps even eliminate plug fouling
- automate engine pre-flight testing - indeed monitor the engine condition 100% of the time
-allow operation on a wider range of fuel quality, including unleaded.
- automate and optimize turbocharger operation
- log engine run-time and fault conditions for better maintenance.
- a bunch of other stuff I haven't even imagined.

I can see why the established LAMEs wouldn't be interested though or actively promote such technology, because it represents a lot of new learning and a bunch of lost maintenance business opportunity.

But that's neither here nor there, because the real stumbling block is one of finance, development capital, litigation risk and the cost of regulatory approval. I was once pretty keen to use my experience in this area to develop something along these lines, but as it's mostly only GA-focused and GA is a shrinking market given the current regulatory environment world-wide, there is precious little interest in funding the development of such a product.

It's been quiet on this thread for a while. Has anyone heared how the EPS engine is progressing through it's testing programme. It seemed to generate a lot of interest from punters at Oshkosh this year. Wonders if it is achieving it's targets.

Piper are quoting a new price of about $400K US for the Archer DX, with that price it might actually generate some buyers. Avgas certainly isn't the way ahead in my opinion. Once the bugs are ironed out the engine should be good.

But that will put Jaba out off bussiness. See what the future holds. Think Avgas will be around for a long time yet.

Pfft. It would take a CIA style hit man to put Jaba out of busy-nes.
Come to think of it... A bottle of Bundy rum does a pretty good job of it too.

I reckon the diesel V8 won't be generally available any time soon.

New "old" technology of the EPS engine is interesting, just had a look at their web site. It appears they are operating an aluminum propellor.
It had a lot of of interest at Oskosh.
I was talking to a bloke in Cairns that has a diesel in a 182?(I think), was ambivalent about the pros and cons.
Maybe worth considering when I replace the engine in the 206Hi Andy
Reading through the thread I noted your thoughts on maintenance of the engines. The maintenance people I know have a deep interest in new technology and gaining whatever qualifications required, so I feel they would view it as more income not less.

People are can't afford to do an o/h now how are they going to be able to afford an engine replacement. Remember the the thunder v8. Where is it now. Dead and buried. The reason we have the engingunes we have now is because they got it right in the first place. With modern electronics I'm sorry that's not going to be the answer. Will you pay more for your service to maybe have less done. Your brains are clicking now. Wtf is he in about. Who is going to pay for the computer box to fix it when you have one aircraft to look after. I'm not against improvements but they come at a hugue cost to all them that are involved. Then you have problems of the machine saying something's wrong. Then you spend a day looking for the proplem to find it's not fitted and it's a soft where proplem. Who gets that cost. I'll tell you we were it. So unless your prepared to spend more and I really can't see GA doing that can you.

Hi Yr Rite
You have probably nailed the problem with marketing the engine as a retrofit. Won't be viable.

Well, you have all the fancy glass cockpits, probably running linux-derivative OS's behind the jazzy graphics. The easiest and best solution would be to have the diagnositics functions, read-outs, service notes, service history etc. on-line and available to everyone, pilot, LAME et al. No need to plug anything in at all!

Just because it is new, doesn't mean it has to cost more money to service, if it's designed right...

News flash. The aircraft will be able to give you the code with out any computer attached.

No ****e.

Aviation Andy is a leader and not a flower. We been able tondo this since the 80s. A little known aviation company you may have heard of is called airbus. It's aircraft where always sick. They always where calling the boss to say I'm sick and can't work today. Then the dr was called only to find nothin wrong with you off you go.

Like the problem we had. I'm sick. Go though everything only to find out that it wasn't even fitted to the aircraft. But you have to go though everything before you can say nothing wrong with you.


Now the difference between automotive world and aviation we have to have everything certified before we can use it. Those cost have to be then flowed on. Now when you consider that ford in the first 18 months of sale sold over one million units. I doubt if we even produced that figure in the whole of aviation since the first flight was done.

Cost never go down in aviation manly due to litigation cost but also nothing stays the same for long. May look the same but new materials are I then uses.

Aviation never sleeps but desiel engines will produce there own problems

Everything's certified in the automotive world too, you know. Red tape abounds there too!

...and they have diagnostics systems you LAME's can't even imagine

...and they sell millions of units a year.

Now, who's leading and who's following...?

Agreed Andy RR
I would assume that the FADEC on the Graflight engine would have the same interrogation function as modern vehicle ECUs, so may not require any specialest equipment, just a bridge to short out the appropriate terminals and a flashing light.

Yep you win.
Lots of muti engine cars with complex fly by wire controlling 5000 to 8000 psi hydraulic systems and cabin px systems with carbon composites and carbon brakes with full anti lock temp sensing with wheel px relaying systems and muti avionics with gps Atsb hf and VHF and telemetry via satellite in real time with full fadec engine control. Nah we use none off that.

Oh and what about roller lifters and viable cams fuel cells lithium battery's carbon fibre composites aluminium panels etc etc. just about anything you can bring up has been tried or used in aviation in the first instance.

As the saying goes every thing is new again.

How many million aircraft are sold each year, there in lies the problem with amortising design and certification costs.

The OEM market may survive but I don't see the retro fit market taking off, it'll cost more than most aircraft are worth.

The only reason we had electronic GA EFIS was the development of stability systems in motor cars which paved the way for the "gyro" systems in the EFIS screens to be built at economic prices. But for the systems to get market share they still have to be priced competitively with existing gear and provide extra functionality, which of course they do in spades. Just to get some idea of the cost of certification compare the price of EFIS units for the home built market to the certified GA aircraft market.

Unfortunately a diesel engine doesn't provide a major step ahead for most owners to bother with the cost. Plus unlike an EFIS system which will pretty much fit straight into the existing panel for most aircraft, with a diesel engine there's the changes to the engine mount and probably fuel system and quite likely new cowls and prop etc. Not insignificant items. All to do what?

Desiel retro fit has already been tried and failed due to cost. Aero enterprises at lismore tried it 10 years gone back.

I have to dis agree on cars given us efis in GA. Efis in GA has been around a lot longer than the use in cars. I would think there are more aircraft manufactures using glass screens than cars manufactures. If you really need to thank anyone it would be the computer industry and also the gaming industry. They the ones that really have made a Difference to screens and to making them smaller lighter and reliable. Rate gyros in the hand controller for motion detections.
But still once again the progression came for aviation down to the motor industry and not the other way.

But once again the cost and repair cost can cripple you when they fail. And they do fail.

http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/imag...ies/rofl02.gif

It will?

I think all of GA can disappear along with all the LAME's, the airlines get robots to fix their jets……..and it will have zero affect on my business. When all food production, water, sewage, power generation, road building, construction materials, mining, brewing, hospitals, <keep adding every industry sector you can dream of> and all the other industries in between disappear, then I am in trouble.

Just a quick look at Diesel Aviation engines and fuels, the calorific values, mass etc. For the comparison lets look at the pick of the Diesels so far, the SMA 230HP in the C182, and a typical GA engine the 260HP IO540.

Remember the Diesel burns Jet A, with a SG of about 0.81 and 128K BTU's / gallon. Avgas is about 0.71 and 114K BTU's / gallon. Lets for arguments sake assume tank volume is not an issue, because you can get more kg of Jet n the same tank and MTOW is, the Avgas KG=160.56K BTU's. The Jet A is 158.0K BTU. The Avgas has about 1.6% more per kg.

BSFC, the key diesel strength is impressive and the SMA quoted figures are 0.36 and compared to say a typical IO540 at 0.39-0.395 or even a TNIO550 at 0.385 you can say it is roughly 10% better. If you look at the lower compression engines such as many TC's then the BSFC gap is even greater.

I have not compared the SMA to any lower compression TC engines because while you could argue the SMA is turbocharged, and it is….it is not comparing real world apples with apples as it has to be TC just to match the N/A 540/550 as is the nature of the beast. In fact that is also its achilles heel.

Next is the weight of the power plant 455 lbs to 410 lbs, naturally the SMA is heavier, and this will affect the fuel payload assuming all other things are equal, as to what the net affect is will depend on the mission.

One advantage is the SMA will hold its HP up to 10,000' and that has a TAS benefit as the IO540 will be around 60-65% of its power at those kind of heights. The squared law comes into affect of course so it is not going to be quantum leaps faster. The C182 is about 11% faster for the same fuel flow, so there is a lot to like about it.

The downside is the cost, however the fuel is roughly 11-13% at the Shell pumps around Oz more for Avgas so that can have an impact when there is a 10% less burn. Makes the MPG about 24% more in dollar terms.

There is a lot to like, but this is a niche machine for one, and it is not going to be across the fleet any time soon. The STC process alone to convert the fleet is prohibitive for a start. Let alone all you folk who want EO's even with the STC.

The other down side is many GA pilots have had many intake leaks……and most never know about it (but that is another story) and this is my main concern. Look at the lovely picture here http://www.smaengines.com/IMG/pdf/Fi...Engine_BAT.pdf and ask your self what happens with those pretty blue couplings when all is not 100% right. On your typical IO540 or even a TC/TN engine you have a manageable albeit non conforming engine. The SMA you have silence. :uhoh:

Pick ya poison!



Disclaimer: Numbers quoted are approximates and all is "back of beer coaster" calculation and analysis. In true PPRUNE tradition ;-)

Jaba :ok:

yr rihgt, what are your expert opinions about runnng diesels LOP?

:}

Humpty Dumpty the k()&.

Most folk don't know they have an induction leak. Where is your data on that. That's another I pull that out of the blue sky. What a crock. Induction leak is the quickest thing you will know about may take some time to find where it is. So Jaba are you a master of every thing I take it. Ga will always be around. Maybe be not for private but there still a lot of work out there besides private work.

Hempy….myself being a conservative kind of guy would opt for LOP, but I can imagine some out there telling us ROP is the only way to go :}:}:}


You are funny whoever you are :ok:

Jaba

For the record exactly what aviation qualifications do you have.

Cheers

Jaba
Since jan 2014 how many days have you spent in maintenance hangar preforming maintenance

yr right, your last two posts are what's known as argumentum ad hominem. Grasping at straws, methinks...

The real problem is that aviation in general and general aviation in particular wants to keep itself mysterious and elite. If it were democratised, like the auto industry, it would be able to generate the sales and use volumes that would bring prices down. Unfortunately, between the regulators and the epaulette brigade, there is some resistance to doing this. Sad really, because for point-to-point transport it is pretty efficient on a passenger-mile and infrastructure cost basis.

I don't have to grasp at any straws at all. The point is I'm making is that people like to have a dig yet they don't have the qualifications to have it. Like he has told me I've and we all been issuing M/R we on yet he has never issues one. He also dosnt understand a burnt valve and how it happens.

No one besides the regulator dosent won't GA. The damage is the legal profession like it or not. When tcm can make a whole new engine from paper with the cost of their insurance each year there lies the main proplem.

Oh and then all what I've been taught learnt and found out myself is all wrong because Jaba and his clones say so. To be told I was dangerous was quite liable lucky I not pressured I. That way to have taken action for that coment. But what I've been told is true after the acciedent in Melbroune this week some things may be up for change as they going to be very closely looked at.

Might not have to……but you do it an awful lot. :=



None, I am a 7 year old kid in primary school…..who just gets lucky on his engine theory stuff :ok: But just like asking who knows more about the design of a B747, the engineers who designed it or the lady screwing the Hyloc's in the aft section of the fuse? And yes I know that answer to that one in more detail than you can imagine ;)

Do I have a LAME licence like you have….no, but that does not mean you are qualified to comment on 99% of the stuff you do. Some regardless of your "qualifications", you are qualified to comment on however. There is a subtle difference.

I think if we divided Andy RR's qualifications by mine numerically we would still have a numbers exceeding yours…..but really in the end that is just a pi$$ing contest and means little. So quit while you are not so far behind on that, and we might drop it too. :cool:

OK, what do you have to say on that? It better be good, and accurate.

So back to the diesels…..


Yr Right, Hempy asked you a straight direct question. Sorry to distract you.

I like your optimism but even if things were changed to the way you suggest I doubt they'd get the economies of scale.

Oh rang

You finish assembling your air fix kit yet ?

So Jaba sorry but what aviation qualifications do you have

We'll I can say a whole lot more dyicnoics than you Jaba. I've had to remove 5 engines in the last 3 months for various reasons. And I can tell you an induction leak really is not common and when you do have one it's quite simple to know what it is.

Really? Not the ones you don't know about!! Most pilots and LAME's never know until such time it is actually so damned obvious that ….
:ugh:

But let me say this, regardless of what you think you know about intake leaks (the easy ones) the Turbo diesel ones will be REALLY easy to detect :}


So, please tell us all how and what tools you would use to find an intake leak (that is very easy for me to detect), that offers no rough running and no visible stains or anything visible to the naked eye. And it still ran fine LOP, which normally is one give away, and started and ran at idle quite happily too.

I am genuinely keen to learn (no doubt others also), as I am prepared to admit I do not claim to know everything and there is always a chance I could learn from you on this topic apparently.

We'll Jaba you proclaim to be the super hero here you quite often told me how my training is inadequate and my text books are all wrong.

You still not told us all what aviation qualifications you have or how many days this year you spent in a maintenance shop.