Why doesn't the FAA want GA to become more mainstream?

Wade

Wade

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
129
Location
Boise Idaho
Display Name
Display name:
Maxcat
Hello,

Just started my journey on becoming a Private Pilot and have been researching training options, planes, maintenance, costs, etc.

As a rookie my first impression is the FAA wants to make it as difficult as possible to become a pilot and own a airplane. What is the reasoning behind not opening up GA to aftermarket companies and let the free market drive the economy and technology of aviation? With all the FAA regs. it forces people to fly 1950's technology and try to keep these old dinosaurs in the air. All while saying they are here to make aviation as safe as possible. It is just crazy to me we are forced to utilize magnetos, carbs, and aircooled cylinders in this day and age unless you have 300k disposable income laying around.

It seems to me if they didn't make the homologation process so expensive and difficult we would have cheaper more reliable electronic ignitions, fuel injection, serpentine belts, even much less expensive and reliable water cooled modern diesel or higher compression long stroke industrial style overhead cam variable valve timing gas engines etc.

I realize they gave us the experimental side for sport pilots but for some reason the costs are the same or actually more expensive than certified aircraft when you look at a 4 seat 1300 to 1500lb payload aircraft and I am not sure why that is.
 
Last edited:
What gives you the impression that it's the FAA holding companies back? Are you suggesting that aircraft and aircraft parts should not be certified, like experimentals?
 
Because they are the government.

Flying really is one of the purest examples of freedom

No government on earth, throughout history, has ever said "gee we should make our subjects more free, and ourselves less important"


Gotta remind folks who da masta is
 
I'd looked this up way back and I can dig up the numbers again if need be but back in the 50s when they first hit the market you could buy a Cessna 172 NEW for around $75,000 in 2016 dollars.

I wouldn't say it's just the FAA but they surely play a role. How much of a role is probably anyone's guess. I suspect liability is also a factor, people have a very different attitude about financial responsibility for accidents now than I imagine they did half a century earlier. I think people's expectations of safety have changed too. Some of the lawsuits we see against aviation companies are unbelievable. The other elephant in the room is volume- they just don't sell as many planes as they used to. That might be a chicken or the egg discussion as far as cost vs sales volume goes.

Still, you've gotta wonder why we're trusting our lives to 70+ year old engine technology when the automotive industry has had more efficient and reliable options for half that time span.
 
A bunch of years back, the FAA's edict was to promote aviation and be an enforcement agency (or something to that effect). After a rather public crash (can't remember which one) where the promotion and enforcement aspects were conflicting, the promoting aviation aspect of the FAA was removed. I don't believe there is a government agency tasked with promoting aviation at all anymore.

Someone with a better memory than me can probably provide better details/specifics.
 
Don't overlook labor costs, either. While the manufacturing costs of cars and most other consumer goods are kept low by increasing automation and/or outsourced overseas labor, a Cessna 172 is as hand-built - domestically - now as it was in 1966. Look at median new home prices, also largely a function of labor costs -- under $21,000 in 1966, and just under $300,000 now.
 
Brad Z said:
What gives you the impression that it's the FAA holding companies back? Are you suggesting that aircraft and aircraft parts should not be certified, like experimentals?
Click to expand...
I agree there needs to be a certification process, and the thought of a bunch of people flying around with cheap Chinese parts is rather frightening. But, from my limited research it seems the PMA approval process is so costly and laden with red tape that it doesn't make financial sense for companies to go through the process to design and manufacture new aftermarket parts especially with the current rather small GA market.(When compared to other industries such as like automobiles, RV's, farm equipment etc.).

There are many more reasons I am not seeing yet that have contributed to flying not experiencing a industrial revolution that can support a thriving aftermarket industry like everything else from cars to computers to housing etc., but it just seems to me govt regulations have held it back significantly.
 
Wade said:
I agree there needs to be a certification process, and the thought of a bunch of people flying around with cheap Chinese parts is rather frightening. But, from my limited research it seems the PMA approval process is so costly and laden with red tape that it doesn't make financial sense for companies to go through the process to design and manufacture new aftermarket parts especially with the current rather small GA market.(When compared to other industries such as like automobiles, RV's, farm equipment etc.).

There are many more reasons I am not seeing yet that have contributed to flying not experiencing a industrial revolution that can support a thriving aftermarket industry like everything else from cars to computers to housing etc., but it just seems to me govt regulations have held it back significantly.
Click to expand...
That whole process can be elevated by allowing the use of Amateur home built usage as required testing time required for certification.
 
The reason is simple.

Safety.

Now before I get shot down, hear me out.

It is far simpler and cheaper to duplicate the systems on our 40 or 50 year old aircraft for redundancy's sake than it is to do the same thing with two of everything for newer stuff. I think it is absurd that aviation technology has stagnated as much as it has, but I certainly understand it. If something goes wrong in the sky, you don't coast to a stop at the side of the road. So you stick with what works forward of the firewall.

Now on the cabin side, the requirements are freaking incredibly archaic, burdensome, and ludicrous. Technology that has been employed for 20 years, which can't hurt anything if it fails. If they are that critical to flight, require two.

I understand if an engine fails, that's a big effing deal. But if you have an Aspen that doesn't work, but an ASI and altimeter as backups, then... Okay. You can safely get where you need to and get it fixed.

Anyway, I'm tired. Translate the above mess into something that makes way more sense and that's what I meant.
 
Wade said:
Hello,

Just started my journey on becoming a Private Pilot and have been researching training options, planes, maintenance, costs, etc.

As a rookie my first impression is the FAA wants to make it as difficult as possible to become a pilot and own a airplane. What is the reasoning behind not opening up GA to aftermarket companies and let the free market drive the economy and technology of aviation? With all the FAA regs. it forces people to fly 1950's technology and try to keep these old dinosaurs in the air. All while saying they are here to make aviation as safe as possible. It is just crazy to me we are forced to utilize magnetos, carbs, and aircooled cylinders in this day and age unless you have 300k disposable income laying around.

It seems to me if they didn't make the homologation process so expensive and difficult we would have cheaper more reliable electronic ignitions, fuel injection, serpentine belts, even much less expensive and reliable water cooled modern diesel or higher compression long stroke industrial style overhead cam variable valve timing gas engines etc.

I realize they gave us the experimental side for sport pilots but for some reason the costs are the same or actually more expensive than certified aircraft when you look at a 4 seat 1300 to 1500lb payload aircraft and I am not sure why that is.
Click to expand...

One way to look at the FAA is that their job is to protect the public. First foremost and always. Not to promote aviation or protect pilot interests. Its to ensure the public is "safe". From a bureaucratic and regulatory viewpoint, the way you do that is with regulatory structure and standardization. The more risk your operation provides to the public, the more regulatory structure and oversight you incur. In this sense, its no different than a state medical board having the mission of protecting the public (as opposed to protecting physicians)... or any other professional regulatory body.

Now.. to address some other comments you've made... Aircraft engines tend to operate in a pretty simple and predictable fashion... Start up.. idle or low power for taxi, Advance to full power for takeoff and then at around 75% power or another intermediate setting in cruise for HOURS, until time for descent and landing, which is again at low power. then shut down. You aren't drag racing, cornering, alternating between accelerating and stopping, so the complexity of adding variable timing or variable compression engines does not provide a benefit that outweighs the costs. Automobile engines typically are not operated at high constant power settings in typical operation. They make their peak torque and HP at different settings than the typical air cooled aircraft engine.. Liquid cooling works quite well.. but its heavier, and adds another several failure points (pump, tubing, radiator). Some of these legacy systems are still in use for their simplicity. Magnetos? Means the engine will still run/make spark even if the electrical system catastrophically fails. Serpentine belts? One belt fails, all your accessories quit. Do you want that when you are in hard IFR weather? Direct drive gearing with crankcase lube is amazingly robust. Things are the way they are for quite a few reasons, and the while the FAA is a regulatory obstacle of sorts, there's not much incentive to spend millions of dollars on a "new" concept that doesn't really provide much advantage over the old stuff.. particularly when it comes to maintaining and refurbishing 20-50 year old airframes. Some clean sheet designs are out there, and the people selling them are trying to make their money back on them...

Just my 2 cents.. welcome to the fun world of flying.
 
There are no concrete answers other than blame it on the lawyers.
Why is it they an air cooled four cylinder engine for a car is worth maybe a couple thousand dollars can but for an airplane, will run ten to twenty times that amount.
Aviation is full of this stuff. A wiring harness for a frighin landing light costs four hundred dollars plus a mechanics rate to install. Moisture cables for over a thousand dollars etc etc.
they keep wondering what is keeping more people from flying, well it is money. And every time there is an accident or problem their answer is for the owners/pilots to spend more money on training, updated avionics, more training, new radio, adsb-abcdefgh etc.

I guarantee that if you came up with an advertising campaign that could sell all the madness to the masses, the faa would line your pockets. Good luck.
 
Archaic rules can be petitioned for change. Part 11 describes how that process works. It's just that for some firms in the industry, it benefits them for everyone to be working off the same archaic rules. Do you think Cessna, who's been building certified planes for decades wants to start competing against manufacturers who have spent a fraction of the development costs? Well, they have congressmen that represent them too.

I'll mention another issue: the certification process is always hardest for the first entity to attempt it. Makes sense right? The entity needs to build a safety case, show data, work with FAA reps to approve. After everyone goes through the process, it's much easier for the second person to get approved because the process has been trail blazed. So there is a disincentive for a company to be the first to attempt, as their certification expenses will be greater than the second or third person to go through the process.
 
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:
You wouldn't want that kind of technology in an aircraft, would you?
And, think about engine controls - why replace good old unreliable mechanical points with an electronic system? What would all the companies rebuilding 50 year old magnetos do to stay in business? Think of the children!
Fuel injected engines that would hot start at the touch of a button? No way! A random terrorist could start an aircraft if we had that! This is a job that only a highly trained pilot should be allowed to do!
 
Sure. But do you want a variance that goes from Toyota Camry to Chrysler (anything) in terms of reliability? In the sky? Probably not.

Which is why the majority of the fleet is using 1950's technology. Because it's easier to say "this works and is proven" than it is to say "this works and is reliable, but not for as long, so we don't trust it." So we have an unresponsive inflexible certification process. And we don't have the benefit of paying customers to subsidize the R&D for aircraft on the GA side, and we have a bureaucracy that demands a cumbersome, lengthy, expensive process for every single alteration to anything on an aircraft.
 
They don't manufacture anything equivalent to a 1966 172 any more. Look at all the electronics pilots want in their airplanes nowadays. Would they buy an new airplane that costs $75,000 with one nav, one com, no DME, no RNAV/GPS capability, no engine monitor, etc.? Not sure there would be a market for that; sure a few would buy, but not enough to make them viable.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
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:
You wouldn't want that kind of technology in an aircraft, would you?
And, think about engine controls - why replace good old unreliable mechanical points with an electronic system? What would all the companies rebuilding 50 year old magnetos do to stay in business? Think of the children!
Fuel injected engines that would hot start at the touch of a button? No way! A random terrorist could start an aircraft if we had that! This is a job that only a highly trained pilot should be allowed to do!
Click to expand...

I am not sure if your joking, but I found your response funny. Yes, I would like to have some of the technology currently built into modern cars in aircraft. For instance, the 2009 Malibu fared much better than the 59 Belair(btw it makes me sick watching it being destroyed) and a passengers chance of surviving the crash was much greater in the modern vehicle. This is due in large part to the crumple zones and a rigid passenger compartment structure.

As far as engine technology, the biggest engineering concern in building a airplane part is making it as light as possible with as much reliability as possible. I guarantee we have the tech to build a engine that weighs less, is twice as reliable, makes more power in a smaller package, and costs half as much as a new or rebuilt old Lycoming 0320. Plus it would have more redundancy than the current mechanical points and carbs. Think of it this way the weigh savings and mechanical complexity of electronic systems compared to mechanical systems is such that you could have a complete extra system ready to take over should the original fail.
 
Everskyward said:
They don't manufacture anything equivalent to a 1966 172 any more. Look at all the electronics pilots want in their airplanes nowadays. Would they buy an new airplane that costs $75,000 with one nav, one com, no DME, no RNAV/GPS capability, no engine monitor, etc.? Not sure there would be a market for that; sure a few would buy, but not enough to make them viable.
Click to expand...


Sign me up, if it had a IPAD with Foreflight or a Garmin G500 and a fuel injected watercooled 200hp engine that lasted 5k or even 10k hours before overhaul and had inexpensive plug in play parts that could be diagnosed easily though a refined OBD type automotive system they would sell like Tequila in Little Mexico! Plus, in a few years there would be a whole lot more parts planes out there for the diehard purists to keep their dinosaurs flying.
 
Brad Z said:
Archaic rules can be petitioned for change. Part 11 describes how that process works. It's just that for some firms in the industry, it benefits them for everyone to be working off the same archaic rules. Do you think Cessna, who's been building certified planes for decades wants to start competing against manufacturers who have spent a fraction of the development costs? Well, they have congressmen that represent them too.

I'll mention another issue: the certification process is always hardest for the first entity to attempt it. Makes sense right? The entity needs to build a safety case, show data, work with FAA reps to approve. After everyone goes through the process, it's much easier for the second person to get approved because the process has been trail blazed. So there is a disincentive for a company to be the first to attempt, as their certification expenses will be greater than the second or third person to go through the process.
Click to expand...

You must work for the government, or a government contractor.

Do you really think that Cessna or, for that matter, any automaker really wants to spend hundreds of millions to over a billion developing new vehicles to meet the government's, and not the consumer's, preferences? 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.

In the auto industry, the exorbitant costs of regulation can be spread out over millions of vehicles. Aircraft and avionics manufacturers are not so lucky, and aircraft owners even less so. That's why we have $100 radios selling for $5k, $500 GPS units selling for $15k, and Pepsi cans with rivets selling for over $1MM using 70 year old technology. Do you really think that Cessna or Garmin would risk their reputation by cutting corners they didn't have to cut? By contrast, you have "certified" systems which are antiquated and not nearly as safe, capable, or reliable as they could be because the costs of making a change to bring them into the modern era are difficult or impossible to recoup in the marketplace.

I'm not opposed to a certification requirement just like I'm not opposed to having laws as a framework for civilized society. The problem is that government can't just put regulations or legislation in place as a framework, they have to constantly build on it. What you end up with is a gigantic morass of onerous requirements and red tape which serves no one well except those who draw a paycheck from it.


JKG
 
Wade said:
Sign me up, if it had a IPAD with Foreflight or a Garmin G500 and a fuel injected watercooled 200hp engine that lasted 5k or even 10k hours before overhaul and had inexpensive plug in play parts that could be diagnosed easily though a refined OBD type automotive system they would sell like Tequila in Little Mexico! Plus, in a few years there would be a whole lot more parts planes out there for the diehard purists to keep their dinosaurs flying.
Click to expand...
1966 172s didn't have 200 hp, fuel injected, water-cooled engines that lasted for 5k or 10k hours...
 
Everskyward said:
1966 172s didn't have 200 hp, fuel injected, water-cooled engines that lasted for 5k or 10k hours...
Click to expand...

In fairness, most of that additional HP has been consumed by empty weight increases over the years. They're not markedly improved performers by way of the increase.
 
ircphoenix said:
Now on the cabin side, the requirements are freaking incredibly archaic, burdensome, and ludicrous. Technology that has been employed for 20 years, which can't hurt anything if it fails. If they are that critical to flight, require two.
Click to expand...

In general I agree with you about safety. We keep doing it this way because we know this way works, even when this way isn't really working now and really won't work in the future.

I disagree with you about avionics. Too many people don't understand the difference between a system can get it right and a system that cannot get it wrong. I have seen a lot of systems out there that claim to be able to do X but can easily misguide you. Not airplane releated, but very recent - we generally think of Google Maps as being a pretty good system, but this morning it told me to take a sharp right (like 175 degrees) on the highway and drive the wrong way up an exit ramp. Ok, I ignored it, but what if that had been slaved to my autopilot? How long would it have taken me to correct that? Could I have missed something subtle that caused a significant safety issue? The systems on AF 447 (and the pilots) got it wrong when all the sensor systems iced up.

In my airplane, I want systems that cannot get it wrong.
 
Another issue in regards to developing new parts and aircraft is the insurance industry. The major cost of any aircraft now days is insurance coverage for the company. It doesn't cost Cessna 350K to make a new 182. A lot of the cost is so Cessna can better protect themselves from being sued when their aircraft crash, for whatever reason. Yeah there are R/D recoup costs, but on a 182 that should have been washed out decades ago.
 
I have a buddy who used to restore antique tractors... as in stuff from the 1930s/40s. I was showing him pictures of my airplane in annual. He recognized the carburetor from something he'd worked on. He's also one of the few people I know outside of aviation who knows magnetos.

I'm trusting my life to antique tractor technology. EFI, engine management computers, and electronic ignition are not new or novel inventions. This is well proven stuff and is already working it's way into experimental aircraft. We have it, it works, lets get the red tape out of the way.

Now, I know avionics are a different matter.... for IFR. I will submit to you though that most private pilots fly VFR most of the time and you don't need a $40,000+ glass panel for VFR navigation. Steam gauges, a basic radio, and an iPad panel dock would be a perfectly acceptable VFR solution and probably far better than what people were perfectly happy with 50 years ago.

Don't think this stuff is "safe enough"? well don't buy it and don't fly with it but please don't stop those of us who would like to have it.
 
cowman said:
I have a buddy who used to restore antique tractors... as in stuff from the 1930s/40s. I was showing him pictures of my airplane in annual. He recognized the carburetor from something he'd worked on. He's also one of the few people I know outside of aviation who knows magnetos.

I'm trusting my life to antique tractor technology. EFI, engine management computers, and electronic ignition are not new or novel inventions. This is well proven stuff and is already working it's way into experimental aircraft. We have it, it works, lets get the red tape out of the way.

Now, I know avionics are a different matter.... for IFR. I will submit to you though that most private pilots fly VFR most of the time and you don't need a $40,000+ glass panel for VFR navigation. Steam gauges, a basic radio, and an iPad panel dock would be a perfectly acceptable VFR solution and probably far better than what people were perfectly happy with 50 years ago.

Don't think this stuff is "safe enough"? well don't buy it and don't fly with it but please don't stop those of us who would like to have it.
Click to expand...


Lol kinda the inverse, EFI, electronic ignition, etc isn't as big of a deal for me as being able to run off the shelf LEDs and a full sky view suite complete with a coupled AP.

For some of the backcountry stuff, having a system that doesn't require a good battery for start and has less failure points is nice, but I agree you should be able to get stuff done/upgraded on the plane for far less, and with less red tape (medical too), sometimes folks get a little carried away with the "saftey" thing.
 
Having worked on automotive EFI, I can only imagine that most of the posters on this board have never tried to diagnose and repair one.

The failure modes are not acceptable for aircraft. Full stop. End of story. A worn distributor bushing should never kill an engine without warning (my VW did that several times). A little bit of moisture in a coil should never disable it. A mid-90s EFI had more than seven miles of wiring to break. Later models sometimes use on-board networks to cut down on the wiring. Have fun with that. The BMW has VVT, but the VANOS units tend to just stop working after several years due to hardened O-rings. Ford V6s like to blow heads when the cooling system blows up (which is frequently).

With electronic injection, you'll have to design what to do if the ignition system lacks a critical input. Shut it off? Engine will die. Open the injectors? Engine will die (flooded). Pick defaults? It will work for one specific configuration, and you'll have to choose between landing and takeoff configuration; it will very likely die in the other one.

Faults that don't kill the engine may put it in limp mode, which could still make you crash. And there are a LOT of these.

The attraction of the old engines is that there is a LOT less to fail on them, and at least some of the failure modes are much more benign. Carburetors decide on fuel over a very wide range, due to their basic physics. Mechanical injection is less fundamental, but at least it doesn't depend on a computer with some seven different inputs, all being right.

Of course any engine will seize if it doesn't have oil or you overheat it severely. Fundamentals are the same regardless of engine control technology.
 
Old engines in cars failed a LOT more often than modern EFI engines. More failure points do not equate to more frequent overall failures.

You can have redundant sensors and operation modes with EFI, just off the top of my head if you had a crank position sensor, cam position sensor, and an ignition trigger sensor you could have a system still operating with 2/3 sensors failed. Ignition problems? We have 2 magnetos, why wouldn't we have 2 electronic ignitions? Electronic ignition is MUCH MUCH less likely to fail than a magneto and if you have 2 of them you're golden. Again, more potential failure points do not equate to more frequent failures.

If electronic engine controls or so darn unreliable and dangerous then you'd better not fly on any modern jet aircraft, airliners included.
 
cowman said:
Old engines in cars failed a LOT more often than modern EFI engines. More failure points do not equate to more frequent overall failures.

You can have redundant sensors and operation modes with EFI, just off the top of my head if you had a crank position sensor, cam position sensor, and an ignition trigger sensor you could have a system still operating with 2/3 sensors failed. Ignition problems? We have 2 magnetos, why wouldn't we have 2 electronic ignitions? Electronic ignition is MUCH MUCH less likely to fail than a magneto and if you have 2 of them you're golden. Again, more potential failure points do not equate to more frequent failures.

If electronic engine controls or so darn unreliable and dangerous then you'd better not fly on any modern jet aircraft, airliners


You sir get it! It just blows my mind that people will argue a carb and magneto is a safer system than a modern electronic controlled induction and spark timing system that could be developed specifically for aircraft use with double redundant safeguards.
Click to expand...
 
cowman said:
Old engines in cars failed a LOT more often than modern EFI engines. More failure points do not equate to more frequent overall failures.

You can have redundant sensors and operation modes with EFI, just off the top of my head if you had a crank position sensor, cam position sensor, and an ignition trigger sensor you could have a system still operating with 2/3 sensors failed. Ignition problems? We have 2 magnetos, why wouldn't we have 2 electronic ignitions? Electronic ignition is MUCH MUCH less likely to fail than a magneto and if you have 2 of them you're golden. Again, more potential failure points do not equate to more frequent failures.

If electronic engine controls or so darn unreliable and dangerous then you'd better not fly on any modern jet aircraft, airliners included.
Click to expand...

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.
 
A speed density EFI system only requires throttle position, engine RPM, and manifold pressure sensors to operate and you need not lose half your power from a single sensor failure. Failure modes are all in the programming. Also consider that you could have 2 completely independent EFI systems that could run the engine independently and be switched just like our current ignition systems.

Carbs fail a LOT. Jets clog, needle valves stick, floats fail, gaskets leak, it's not just carb ice and mixture knobs. I've had a LOT of engines in a lot of different things over my lifetime and every single carb I've had aside from my airplane has had a failure. I'll let you know if I ever have an EFI system fail to run, it hasn't happened yet.
 
MAKG1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can you fly a mag'd engine without an electrical system?

Can you do the same with an EFI engine?

What can you do with an EFI engine in an emergency that you can't do with the old tech? And vice versa? To me, the mag and carb seems pretty simple and foolproof. And will work indefinitely once the engine is started. Is that true for modern EFI systems?
 
cowman said:
A speed density EFI system only requires throttle position, engine RPM, and manifold pressure sensors to operate and you need not lose half your power from a single sensor failure. Failure modes are all in the programming. Also consider that you could have 2 completely independent EFI systems that could run the engine independently and be switched just like our current ignition systems.

Carbs fail a LOT. Jets clog, needle valves stick, floats fail, gaskets leak, it's not just carb ice and mixture knobs. I've had a LOT of engines in a lot of different things over my lifetime and every single carb I've had aside from my airplane has had a failure. I'll let you know if I ever have an EFI system fail to run, it hasn't happened yet.
Click to expand...

No. Speed density requires an air charge temperature sensor, or for coolant-heated intakes, a coolant temperature sensor, in addition. Review your basic stoichiometry. You can only calculate volumetric flow if you know the pressure AND temperature.

They run very badly when the temperature sensor wire breaks and the computer thinks it's -40 F. Like, blowing black smoke out the back and barely making it off a stop sign bad.

If you haven't had an EFI failure, you've been lucky. They aren't that rare, particularly as the engine ages far less than you would expect an aircraft engine to last. Yes, you might avoid it if you buy a new car every three years. Not acceptable for an aircraft. Some of them will last 100,000 miles without problems (and some will have significant warranty work well before then). 100,000 miles corresponds to about 1000 hours TBO in a slow aircraft. Pretty bad. And there is no way your water pump will last that long; on some car engines, that's expensive.

Not to mention, a timing belt failure is an instant engine-quit, and in some cases, a self-destruct. They can fail prematurely due to oil or coolant contamination. A serpentine belt failure will turn the common alternator failure into an engine failure by disabling the cooling system. At least you get some warning for that. Aircraft engines do not suffer this risk at all.

You're proposing a massive R&D effort. What do you gain? "Newness?" That's really, really bad cost-benefit analysis.
 
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??




As far as "old" cars, many failures were due to poor MX which would have rendered a aircraft unairworthy.
 
My jeep cherokee lost all engine power when the crank position sensor failed at highway speeds. That wasn't the only sensor that left me stranded over 14 years of ownership. Alternator failures were another one. Sure only happened twice, but that's twice too many away from home. The point being, in the air, those would have been 3-5 electrics-dependent engine failures over the same time span. Not good.

I loved that thing, but it was the ELECTRICS that sidelined it as a transportation conveyance. I think the P-mags with mechanical FI are a good compromise. I don't find the EFI solution good enough to fly single engine pistons. Not in the automotive form anyways.
 
cowman said:
There might be a lot to gain
http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/News/2016-SNF-Today-GoingFastLessGas.pdf
Click to expand...

Trading off fuel efficiency for reliability is a poor choice.

Sure, EFI is much better at adapting away small discrepancies, and for environmental conditions. As long as it doesn't break, it gives very good performance. It's just that the failure modes are just unacceptable, and most of us can't afford $10 million 172s, with all the additional single point failures engineered away.

Before you go blaming government regulation, it's really important to understand the history of EFI. It was invented in the 50s. It only became commonplace after CARB required it in 1986.
 
My 14 year old fuel injected car died one time after 20k hours of use with very little maintenance so I dont want my plane to be fuel injected. Lol. With that thinking the world would still be riding in horse drawn carriages.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top