OkieFlyer
En-Route
Eh, I'm not against newer designs, but I do prefer simplicity in an airplane. The goofy thing is that old, simple, proven, cookie cutter engine technology should equal cheap, but it doesn't.
It's clear people are of very different minds on this issue and that's fine. I'm not proposing we ban carbs and mags but I'd have no hesitation in flying an EFI/electronic ignition aircraft and I'd like the option. My expectation is it would be most people's preference after a few years out in the wild.
There is seldom anything as simplistic as electronic ignition, none of the multitude of spinning parts that are in a mag. not as easy to miss the timing marks either.Eh, I'm not against newer designs, but I do prefer simplicity in an airplane. The goofy thing is that old, simple, proven, cookie cutter engine technology should equal cheap, but it doesn't.
Sure. But do you want a variance that goes from Toyota Camry to Chrysler (anything) in terms of reliability? In the sky? Probably not.
...sometimes folks get a little carried away with the "saftey" thing.
Redundant sensors means limp mode. Are you really willing to give up half your engine power because a MAF sensor wire broke? Think hard about that.
Safety.
That is why it is somewhere between difficult and impossible to make changes to aircraft to improve crash survivablity. For example, look at what has happened in the auto industry since the 1950's:
GM didn't make that video.I hate that video and I hate GM for making it. I have a passionate love for vintage cars and that stupid video demonstration is pointless. I think everybody on the planet knows that new cars are safer. There was no need to destroy something that somebody preserved for decades out of love just to make a stupid YouTube sales pitch that nobody cares about.
Yeah but how many people can you get in that 30 footer! And how much would an airplane cost to carry that load offshore
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Apples and oranges. How many people can board a 30 foot boat like that? More apt comparison might be a little 16 foot runabout... I bet most airplanes we fly for 200k are four seaters...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can these electronic ignition/EFI engines be hand flipped?
Or if my batter goes T/U and I don't have a way to jump or charge it, am I in for a looooooong hike??
I hate that video and I hate GM for making it. I have a passionate love for vintage cars and that stupid video demonstration is pointless. I think everybody on the planet knows that new cars are safer. There was no need to destroy something that somebody preserved for decades out of love just to make a stupid YouTube sales pitch that nobody cares about.
Eh, I'm not against newer designs, but I do prefer simplicity in an airplane. The goofy thing is that old, simple, proven, cookie cutter engine technology should equal cheap, but it doesn't.
Yes.
We installed dual E-mags on our RV-8 this past Spring. Each Emag has an integral alternator that makes it's own power when spinning. Thus, I now actually have three alternators on board.
When my starter died in June, my options were limited to (1) hand-prop an O-360 or (2) rent a car. I opted for #1, and was amazed at how easily it started. Like, almost scary-easy, on the first quarter-turn of the prop. It really hammered home to me how important it is to make sure the Emags are OFF during ground ops.
Now, if the battery was dead? I suspect it wouldn't be so easy, but it should still work.
Edit: Our installation is on a normally aspirated engine, not injected.
There is seldom anything as simplistic as electronic ignition, none of the multitude of spinning parts that are in a mag. not as easy to miss the timing marks either.
The reality is that "safety" is a red herring in this argument, because if the consumer wants to take the risk, in a free market that choice should be left up to them.
JKG
This is a great comment. And I guess this circles us back to liability costs, government oversight costs, etc.Eh, I'm not against newer designs, but I do prefer simplicity in an airplane. The goofy thing is that old, simple, proven, cookie cutter engine technology should equal cheap, but it doesn't.
Are prices high in marine products because that is the price the market will bear?have you priced the costs of offshore marine things? It's not that much different in terms of cost than flying.
I'll give you a for example.
new 30 foot center console boat low end model with engine no electronics is about 200k
you are going to burn about 250 gallons a tuna trip down here, so 250 x $3.00 (marine rec 90) = $750 in fuel
bait and tackle is about $150-200 per trip.
down here I would need to tow the boat to the marina with a 3/4 ton truck round trip is about 150 miles. I won't add that cost in for this example.
boat insurance is going to be about 5000k a year.
if you can't keep the boat at your house, that's anywhere from 250-500 a month for storage.
new electronics package, about $7500-15000
then people normally re power at 1000 hours when warranty is up. it normally coincides with the 3, 5, or 7 year warranty.
so two new 300HP's are going to be about 50k or more.
annual Mx on a boat that size. 100 hour service, is going to be close to $1000 for everything normally one to two of those per year.
So, it's not that different from aviation costs wise.
Old automotive engines quit more frequently due to the lack of carburetor heat (yup, they were prone to carb ice as well), and a mixture knob.
Redundancy has to be designed, which costs a billion dollars on a car just for R&D, and it's working directly AGAINST the physics fundamentals. How much do you want to pay for that? An aircraft engine's natural state is running -- they are designed to fail on. An EFI's natural state is doing nothing.
Redundant sensors means limp mode. Are you really willing to give up half your engine power because a MAF sensor wire broke? Think hard about that.
Single point of failure - crankshaft position sensor. And every engine I've ever seen had only one. Maybe there are some out there I've not seen with more than one.
Cars don't have much redundancy, most of R&D costs go to emissions control systems. (even if you do what GM did, that VAG copied, with known results...)
Limp mode means whatever calibration engineers want it to mean. Current ECUs carry multiple substitute functions in case of a failure. MAF sensor broke = turn into speed density strategy. IAT sensor broke at the same time? Use ISA values corrected for pAtm. Limp mode is only used when engine protection is required, or we cannot guarantee emissions compliance with a missing/faulty input.
If calibrated for a critical task, and assuming a full dual FADEC/ECU/whatever you call it, I'd say full failure in a way which renders the engine inop would happen once perhaps every 100k to a million hours. And that would very likely involve mechanical damage to systems. There are cars that have done a million miles, with zero issues in the injection system.
A modern car can run without any issues with every lambda sensor, MAF sensor and camshaft sensor disconnected, and it will still meet emissions criteria required to certify it. ECUs are physics modeled, they don't require many inputs to run, as long as the initial calibration is done correctly.
Are you claiming that a modern car will continue to run with no significant degradation in performance if the engine block ground breaks? In my experience, that's a good way to screw up a lot of sensor inputs at the same time.
You're kind of grasping a bit on that one. How often have you had an engine ground "break"? On most modern vehicles, the ground cable is usually 2/0 or similar gauge wire, which doesn't exactly snap easily, so I don't see why it would fare much differently under the cowl of an aircraft. Again, with the addition of a small backup battery (say 30-minute reserve) for the ECU, it should quell most fears.
Are prices high in marine products because that is the price the market will bear?
Are prices high in aviation for the same reason?
we can agree to disagreeHaving owned pretty much nothing but EFI vehicles, I can honestly say I've never had an EFI failure in hundreds of thousands of miles. I've had alternators go out, or an occasional coil-on-plug failure, but never an issue from the EFI-system itself.
The electronic distributor on my boat has saved a good bit of annual maintenance by not having to check points, etc. and has made all operations silky smooth just like a fresh set of points that last forever.
There's little reason that several of the modern tech items should be restricted from non-commercial GA. I can modify my car or boat to my heart's content, but do so in an aircraft and it's suddenly a paramount offense.
Also, I have no idea what the purpose of the discussion of marine vs aviation expenses is. The marine industry isn't nearly as expensive as the aviation industry is until you start playing on the commercial side or are dealing with large vessels. A Cessna is akin to a 20' runabout, not a 30' offshore center console fishing boat. You can get a new 20' runabout with modern EFI engine for less than $30K, or you can buy the SR-22 version from Formula/Chris Craft/Cobalt for $50K. Either way, the parts are affordable because they're mostly universal parts for GM engines. You start playing with 350HP outboards and things are bound to get expensive. Also, the carbed boat and jet ski have had their issues with reliability from time to time, but the EFI outboards have never needed repair or adjustment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Understood, MAKG. However, I should have been more specific with the backup power in that it should include a dedicated ground. Even if the backup ground source was slightly different, I'm sure the programming should be able to sort it out well enough to provide emergency power. I understand that all sorts of crazy things can occur with electronics, especially when a ground or relay goes bad. I don't think that a self-contained ignition system, and a separate EFI system would be so complicated that it would have a whole host of potential problems that couldn't be resolved through dedicated engine block grounds. If those systems reside on their own circuitry, instead of being shared on the bus with the other aircraft systems, it should limit the potential anomalies to an acceptable level. Granted, nothing with wheels or wings will be without some idiosyncrasies, but I hardly believe that reliability will be much different between the the old magneto/carb setup and the newer electronic versions with the dozen vehicles I've owned being just about flawless.
In Lightspeed and SDS systems all I see is a reluctor pickup. every thing else is done in the little brain box. I put a reluctor unit in my old type one VW and it ran 650,000 miles with not problem. No,,, not in the same engine.Single point of failure - crankshaft position sensor. And every engine I've ever seen had only one. Maybe there are some out there I've not seen with more than one.
That's why every one loves this web page.Interestingly the thread went from the original question into silly minutiae about a single system on piston powered airplanes -- and we wonder why the certification process is expensive and stupid.
See thread. Haha.
That's why every one loves this web page.
First time I've ever heard "normally" aspirated, and first time I've ever heard "aspirated" in any context, in reference to gas turbine engines. "Naturally aspirated" is a type of induction system associated with reciprocating engines.
we can agree to disagree
Look at a outboard engine, they live in an extremely corrosive environment, they see a lot of vibration and g forces. They seem to make it work just fine, albeit I would have somthing like a redundant crank sensor on a ignition system like a Verado/Optimax because when that goes out, you have no more spark. A very simple system with a extremely robust PCM made my Motorola.