Thanks: 
Likes: Some of the 'improved' beavers have a second light- stall warning!!Originally Posted by BC12D-4-85
Yea, seriously they suck.
Some of the 'improved' beavers have a second light- stall warning!!
Yea, seriously they suck.
I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
I personally had a real bad experience with one of the electronic Ignitions -- first the failing with no diagnostics --Mag check was perfect but it shut down at 21 inches of manifold pressure with no warning no diagnostic features on this one (as most are only a few steps more advanced than the mags) and than no parts for 6 weeks. If it was not for that I would be all over them the advantages are obvious. None of it makes a difference when sh##t fails and you can not get parts. In aircraft I found the extra cost of FI in initial and at overhaul is about what you save in fuel -- no savings just heavier and more complex. Real EFI has way more advantages but is less proven and requires even more equipment ( weight and cost) besides making you into a test pilot as none are real well tested. Looking into the experimental realm where this is more common place on the Auto engine conversions you will find that the great manny forced landings are most often due to the complex mostly unproven fuel system malfunctioning.
I am not saying don't do it but be very aware what it is you are buying. I am curious about the Lycoming electronic mag replacement, it is simple enough that It may just be worth trying, unfortunately it is so simple that it has fixed timing so no advance no a lot to gain but should be more reliable than Points. I installed lots of similar systems in Marine engines 30 years ago with good results. They are backed by Lycoming so one one may be able to get service and parts.
The last point is the fuel Injected angle Valve engines are not as bullet proved as the better known parallel valve engines.
It is hard to improve on the low cost and weight of the carbureted parallel valve 320/360 series, almost bullet proved they just work.
Spend the extra cash on gas and fly the heck out of it. Save yourself a lot of headaches especially if you fly lots or use it for a living.
As one inmate mentioned if cash burns a hole in your pocket a constant speed prop will give you way more benefit all around.
cheers
Great thread, folks! Since developing 12 20# bags of carb ice over Pennsylvania at night once, I have always regretted not going FI in my C180 when the engine was replaced... That and watching the temperature differentials due to poor fuel distribution.
Most of the electronic ignition systems (full) only will run about 20-30 minutes if you have a complete power failure. I think about Paul Claus saying they flew 500NM over water between Canada and Greenland. There are places where 30 minutes is not enough. This problem may have already been solved, but I often think about it when flying EI.
As for charging jump packs - remember that a flashlight is largely a place to store dead batteries...
sj
"Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
------------------------------------------
DENNY liked this post
Let's assume complete power failure means loss of alternator and discharge of the main battery to the point it will no longer operate the electronic ignition. You would then select the ignition backup battery which, in a well designed and maintained system, will be charged to full capacity. How long the engine will run from that point depends on the battery capacity and the current draw of the connected ignition system(s). You can size the backup battery to give any duration you want.
Even with the silly small 2 AH battery in my Carbon Cub I think I can keep the engine running for well over an hour after first indication of an electrical system malfunction. My electrical system is well instrumented and will alert for abnormal battery current, abnormal alternator current, and abnormal main bus voltage. I also display, and alert on, ignition battery current and voltage. I have tested and twice demonstrated that the emergency ignition battery will run the engine in flight for over 30 minutes.
2a? Is it an IBBS? They make a 6a unit. Seems like a no-brainsr to increase duration. The 6a battery won’t fit into the smaller housing, in my case 3a. I wondered how the 6a would work for EI. The guys I know with full electric ingition-injection use a second EarthX. What injection does the 363 use? I assume a Bendix variant, so mechanical?
I vote:
Injection
Primer
One Electronic Mag
One Mechanical Mag
Starting injection (continentals in my experience) - Once you learn your engine, not a problem.
Tim
CubCrafters uses a stand alone 2 AH AGM battery for ignition backup. IBBS powers G3X touch system only.
My CC363i uses a mechanical Bendix derivative injection system. It appears to be an Avstar AVX360 not the Precision Airmotive system documented in the maintenance manual.
Just a note; your backup battery needs to be sized to keep your aircraft functional for as long as you can fly on a full load of fuel. Some people operate where 30 or 60 minutes just get you closer to the scene of the crash.
Web
Life's tough . . . wear a cup.JeffP thanked for this post
EFI. I never thought much about it until I visited a friend whose Cub has EFI. He was making a pilot-controlled louver front for his cowl openings because he could run LOP to the point his CHTs were too low. A big, high output engine could be dialed back to sip fuel for a true economy cruise. I’m not sure if my mechanical injection is up to that task, even though my injectors are very well balanced. Honestly, until he told me about it I had no idea such a thing was even possible. No matter how old I get, there’s always more to learn.
Under what circumstances could an aircraft ever be full fuel duration from a safe place to land, assuming in-flight refuel capability is not present?
Even if full fuel duration is a reasonable requirement the time should start from first recognition of an electrical system malfunction not with selection of the emergency ignition battery.
I would not consider selecting my emergency ignition battery until the main battery would not run the ignition system. With master off the only load on the battery of my airplane is ignition systems and GPS keep alive. If the charging system failed when the battery was fully charged the main battery would keep one or both ignition systems running for several hours.
Gordon, need more decisions? Check out SDS fuel injection and ignition systems, they are extremely popular with the Vans RV gang, and have been around, as I understand it, far longer than the flyefii systems. In fact, and anyone feel free to refute this, also depending on who you ask, the SDS systems and components have been pirated by others in their design and engineering. The SDS website is a vast thing but it is EXTREMELY informative and they make good stuff. I get nothing for saying any of this, and don’t own one of their systems. Opinion formulated in shopping for a system and interaction via emails and phone conversations with the SDS people.
My decision to not purchase one of their systems was and has been driven purely by the oldest reason in the book….the depth of my wallet. I have my stock Bendix RSA system, dependable and true, needs an overhaul due to age, can have that done for about $1K. SDS pricing is as variable as you want it to be depending on your needs and choices.
Have fun with the search! The SDS track record is unparalleled.
FWIW, I would buy an SDS system before I’d of an EFII one. Just my .02 based on what I see in their various components designs etc.
www.sdsefi.com
Cheers, Mike “Oz”
Arizona is nothing like interior northern Canada where one carries as much gas as possible.
N1PA
Not all flights originate from a 'civilized' airfield. Some flights originate from sand bars and small clearings in the brush. If the issue is identified while on the ground, that means the aircraft will need to be started and flown at least to a location with maintenance facilities. Most, if not all operators locally have had to fly home with maintenance issues, many times electrical. Many of these locations require fueling before flight in order to make it back. Facts not 'what ifs'.
Now, take these parameters and add to it, an aircraft that requires electrical power to run the ignition or the fuel system. You'll need to be prepared to refuel for the trip, start the aircraft, and keep it running for the time required to get home. As no one can predict exactly what problem will arise, it's wise to be prepared for the worst case scenario. In this case an unusable ships battery. Battery might be bad, connections damaged, relays inop, etc. With an adequate backup battery you can start the engine (hand prop will save charge on the backup) and operate the aircraft normally for the flight home.
You just can't argue with an empty fuel tank. It's the ultimate limiting factor in flight distance.
Web
Life's tough . . . wear a cup.
All worthwhile thoughts guys - thanks, and keep 'em coming!
Gordon
N4328M KTDO
I am definitely a fan of fuel injection. I backed out of using the efii system 32 on my pa18 build due to an uneasy feeling about the complexity of the system. I am however going to use silverhawk FI.
I am not convinced there is ANY advantage of a carb. Every significant inflight problem that I have ever experienced with a piston aircraft engine was directly related to the carburetor. My current cub is on its 3rd carb overhaul in 11 years
The proposed advantages of the carb are simplicity and weight. Im not sure if either are real. Has anyone weighed the difference? A carb and its associated airbox, carb heat shrouds hoses and controls etc must be much heavier than the spider and fuel pump for fuel injection. Also consider that if it saves you 1 gallon over a several hour flight that is the same as taking 6 more lbs out of the plane. Additionally I dont know of anyone that has overhauled their carb in the field. Those things are filled with needle valves, floats and small passages that are just as susceptible at clogging and maybe more so since carbureted systems don’t typically contain fine inline filters.
The advantages of FI are many. More power (especially at high density altitude), better fuel economy (less fuel carried/better range), more even cylinder temps, and I would argue more reliable/fewer modes of failure. No carb ice, stuck floats, separating or leaking carb seals. Both systems can get clogged. I have had problems with hot starts but that can be dealt with and I would gladly take that to eliminate the risks of a carb and gain the performance of FI.
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
Are you using a purge valve with the Silver Hawk? Just curious, I know next to nothing about that servo.
I havent installed it yet or read the install manual, it ships with the engine next week. I do not believe a purge valve is required with it, though it may be an option.
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
A purge valve or bypass system require a fuel return line to a fuel tank or accumulator tank. Not all mechanical fuel servos are “zero leak down” and there’s a potential for the very slight fuel pressure from a gravity feed high-wing tank leaking fuel into the cylinders. Even with my Airflow Performance servo, which is zero-leakdown, API recommends that the fuel valve be shut off after engine shutdown, or better yet, a little before engine shutdown to relieve line pressure. I haven’t gotten into the habit and so far so good but I know guys who’ve had cylinders filled with fuel while parked. Hydraulic lock would really suck. I haven’t heard of any hydraulic lock but you would have to remove plugs are blow out the fuel.
I suppose that would depend on the slope of the induction port below the injector. I have not studied that for the Lycoming IO-360 but it is my impression that any fuel leaking from the injectors of my CC363i (a Lycoming IO-360 with a few mods) runs down the induction tubes into the CubCrafters custom induction manifold and exits through the sniffle valve. That may only be true if the aircraft is level.
I have seen no caution about hydraulic lock on this engine but I was advised to shut off the fuel when parked to stop leakage from the sniffle valve. I shut off the fuel when parked in the hangar but often have to select one or other tank when parked on a sloped surface to prevent fuel transferring to the low tank and venting overboard. For this fuel valve "Off" leaves the path between tanks open.
Last edited by frequent_flyer; 12-15-2021 at 03:25 PM. Reason: Clarification of "Off"
I can guarantee that a friend of mine still remembers the night we got carb ice in the lowland swamps of Bolivia. Not a light in sight anywhere. While his life flashed before his eyes I was trying not to pull the carb heat cable right out of the panel. I pushed the power up after that.Great thread, folks! Since developing 12 20# bags of carb ice over Pennsylvania at night once, I have always regretted not going FI in my C180 when the engine was replaced... That and watching the temperature differentials due to poor fuel distribution.
Most of the electronic ignition systems (full) only will run about 20-30 minutes if you have a complete power failure. I think about Paul Claus saying they flew 500NM over water between Canada and Greenland. There are places where 30 minutes is not enough. This problem may have already been solved, but I often think about it when flying EI.
As for charging jump packs - remember that a flashlight is largely a place to store dead batteries...
sj
I like fuel injection when it works... Lean of peak is nice but a fuel pump can run a grand and we had problems with the injectors clogging in the Mooney from filter fibers in the fuel down here.
Sent from my SM-G965U1 using SuperCub.Org mobile app
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Psalms 19:1
Please describe what fuel filter is supplying the fibers?
Gary
API recommends an in-line fuel filter. I figured the screen in my Steve’s strainer was fine enough since 99% of my fuel comes from my tank that’s well filtered. Other guys may benefit from an added filter.
Not one in the plane. Probably from the fuel production/storage here in Bolivia. They would clog that last chance screen in the servo, unseat it and get into the injectors. We would pull a ball of fuzz out of the screen every inspection.
One time we waited all day for an exit permit to Brazil, got it at sundown and went anyway. Well out over the jungle several cylinders start to fluctuate in temps. I learned to pray...and not fly at night.
Sent from my SM-G965U1 using SuperCub.Org mobile app
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Psalms 19:1
Stewart, given your experience with API, if you were to start over today what system would you choose, and why?
Mechanical? API 200A, which is what I have. Zero leak-down and adds about 3-1/2% horsepower. I’m impressed with EFI but not enough to change. On a new build? I’d look at EFI but I’d probably do the same thing again because of Don and Kyle at API. Always available, always helpful. Customer service goes a long way with me. I like relationships with vendors.
Thanks. In that case would you employ the purge valve, and again, why?
Gordon
N4328M KTDO
No. I didn’t add one before and (so far) no consequences. API said not necessary with this servo. I probably just jinxed that!
I've been operating airplanes with the Bendix and Continental fuel injection systems with both high and low wing airplanes for almost 60 years and have never seen nor heard of leakage which would work it's way into the cylinders. Both the Continental and Lycoming engines have their discharge nozzles in a location where any fuel leakage would flow into the induction tubes back towards the airbox. The only leakage if you call it that, is when an engine is hot after shutdown. The heat rising from the cylinders heats the fuel in the distribution lines squirting it out the nozzles.
As far as the fuel head pressure from the high wing tanks forcing fuel past the servos, I haven't experienced that either. The fuel would have to work it's way past the boost pump and the engine driven pump in order just to get to the servo. Both the boost pump and the engine driven pump have check valves which allow fuel to be forced or drawn past the pump if they were inoperative. So ... for the fuel to enter the engine while shut down it would need to leak past check devices in two pumps and the fuel mixture shutoff as well as a shutoff in the distribution spider.
I do not consider this to be an issue worth worrying about or making any device or special procedure to prevent.
Hydraulic lock is something which occurs in the lower cylinders of radial engines.
N1PA
First things first, Continental injection uses a fuel return so isn’t applicable to this topic.
Priming. When an intake valve is open some of the prime ends up dripping into the bottom of the manifold and out the sniffle. On a Continental there’s an open hole to let accumulated fuel exit the manifold. In either engine brand if an exhaust valve is open some of the prime will drip into the exhaust manifold, and is expelled as droplets at start-up. Skup made a video of my IO-400 puking raw fuel out the exhaust at startup. I reduced my prime duration as a result. Sometimes a cylinder is on the compression stroke so both valves are closed. No fuel drips out.
Anyone else bought a new Lycoming lately? They ship with cylinders and sump filled with oil. Drain the sump and oil still remains in the cylinders. Remove the exhaust flange caps and some oil comes out. But beware, Lycoming tells you to pull the plugs and rotate the crank. Guess what? One of the cylinders was full. That’s why Lycoming tells you not to rotate the crank before draining all cylinders or you’ll have hydraulic lock and damage your new engine. If enough fuel is allowed to leak into the cylinders and one is on the compression stroke? Sad day. The leak-down thing is real. The only guys I’ve spoken with that have experienced it had Silver Hawk servos. Kyle at API advised me to be careful even with my zero leak-down servo and shut off the fuel when parked. I live, I learn, I share.
Some reading that some may find interesting. https://vansairforce.net/community/s...d.php?t=113006
Last edited by stewartb; 12-15-2021 at 09:31 PM.
Just remember this is for a CUB not a Lance-air so KISS is the principal I use on my current Build (Keep It Simple Stupid)
I am shooting for 1050 LB on 31s with a cargo pod - only doable if you are ruthless with weight.
The performance gain of a light cub is significant, It will outdo a heavy one with big engine. My experience anyway.
The same goes for reliability and Cost less complex is cheaper and has less failure points.
We had a all out modded cub with slats EFI electronic ignition all you can imagine in the shop (Ignition problems, he was stuck for almost a week waiting for parts)
It was up for sale due to it getting beat by stock cubs and even a stock 185 flying out of a high strips. Empty weight was 1380 pounds.
He was looking for a light cub--this one was build by a very well known Guy building very specialized cubs for big money.
I am not bashing the builder he did built it to customer specifications - but after a few hundred hours the customer recognized he made a mistake going with all the bells and whistles. EFI and electronic Ignitions make a whole lot more sense in a aircraft with large engines that fly IFR at high altitudes -- this is where the real benefit of Lean of peak EFI and EI comes in and a huge amount of fuel savings can be had.
Different guys want different things. No big deal. But a high-powered slatted Cub taking off longer than a 185? Either the plane needed more power or the pilot needed an instructor. Having a heavily modded heavy Cub and a 520-powered 180? My Cessna performs very well but it sucks hind tit compared to my Cub for takeoffs and landings. And in my case the Cub doesn’t give up much in useful load. To accomplish what I wanted requires lots of power. An IO-390 with 10-1 compression and forward facing cold air induction works great. Not everybody’s cup of tea but it sure makes me happy. But to the topic? If I built a light Cub I’d still want fuel injection. If your Cub has an electrical system it’s a better way to provide fuel to any engine.
Last edited by stewartb; 12-16-2021 at 09:55 AM.
Been there, done that!
Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
Hi Stewardb
I am with you if there would be a true EFI with Electronic ignition that is proven I would be all over it. The available systems are not there.
We both seem to know it takes lots of extra HP to make a heavy cub perform similar to a nicely dialed light cub.
I am just arguing the less is more point for the less experienced pilots so they realize that there are two ways to achieve great performance. Most pilots would be better of spending the extra cash on flying. And I like the feel of a light cub. I fly heavier planes (Air Taxi) always loaded for work all the time so for fun lighter is for me.
As long as you have fun with your plane and it puts a smile on your face when you fly it you win. Cheers
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks