Design your own aircraft parts.

ircphoenix

ircphoenix

En-Route
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
2,531
Location
Redondo Beach, CA
Display Name
Display name:
ircphoenix
Okay... so here's the idea.

Plenty of people here have lots of criticisms about damn near everything.

So this thread is a place for people to describe how they'd change current technology and incorporate it into their existing aircraft. Basically, if you were the owner of an experimental plane, and in a position to design and install something, or several things, or improve existing things on your aircraft. Transponders, magnetos, avionics, airspeed indicators, flaps, fuel senders, etc.

The rules are: if you're going to criticize someone else's idea, it must be constructive, either by improving on their idea, or offering an alternative that you feel will work better to accomplish their goals. Redundancy or fail safes are a must. If your plane has a current backup, then your improvement must have some sort of redundancy.

So for example, I'd love to have a FADEC in my airplane. Unfortunately I don't think that's possible in something like a naturally aspirated engine in my airplane. The engineering people here probably have a leg up.

Reading another thread where people described the difficulties in incorporating a car engine into an airplane got me thinking. And with all the negativity about ADS-B by some people, I'm really curious how they'd implement an effective replacement.
 
I'd slap all the "experimental only" avionics in that I could along with BACKUPS to critical things and fly the crap out of it. VFR, IFR, wouldn't care.

If only such things were allowed.

Because seriously there's some nice stuff out there in the "experimental" world and for fraks sake, most manufacturers are literally building the EXACT same boxes and labeling one with a lower price tag for the experimental crowd.

As far as ADS-B goes, I've already covered that but it's way too late.

Wide area multilaterization on the ground for watching transponder equipped aircraft and an UPLINK ONLY solution that's nothing more than half of a UAT device in the aircraft. No "hockey pucks", build to a data rate that can handle transmitting all traffic in the reception radius of the ground station. Portable receivers for that uplink, allowed.

There's very little need for downlink data from aircraft for real safety of flight issues. Downlinking where a GPS says you are is stupid if time to reception calculations by fixed stations can already figure that out to a standard plenty close enough for approach control work.

It works for radar, it works for WAM, there never was any reason to put a transmitter other than the existing Mode-C transponder in the aircraft. None.
 
denverpilot said:
I'd slap all the "experimental only" avionics in that I could along with BACKUPS to critical things and fly the crap out of it. VFR, IFR, wouldn't care.
Click to expand...

When you say backups to critical things, what do you mean? Like the Skyview, but have backup steam gauges?
 
ircphoenix said:
When you say backups to critical things, what do you mean? Like the Skyview, but have backup steam gauges?
Click to expand...

Could use other brand Y stuff, even solid state.

Would all depend on the level of "I don't know if I trust this thing" for critical components.

By far the most annoying price tag is an IFR certified GPS source nowadays, though. We're well past the era of GPS being particularly hard to do. Over $10,000 for a device that displays GPS information on a touchscreen is ridiculous.
 
Knock sensors, automated timing advance, electronic ignition and integrated continuous mixture control on my Lycomings. At a time when fuel is comparatively expensive, and will remain so, it is absurd we are running these engines with the best of 1920s magneto technology, fixed advance and "pull the red knob until the engine runs rough" air/fuel ratio control.
 
Last edited:
Automatic fuel mixture control, just like cars and trucks built since late 1980s.
 
Not sure if this fits the bill or not, but I think it is just a matter of time before 3D printing technology allows printing replacement parts on demand for legacy aircraft. If the material can satisfy the weight/strength demands, it would be ideal for production of the small sized production runs of parts we see in the aviation industry.
 
ircphoenix said:
So for example, I'd love to have a FADEC in my airplane. Unfortunately I don't think that's possible in something like a naturally aspirated engine in my airplane. The engineering people here probably have a leg up.
Click to expand...

First, the Icon A5 has a single single lever, so I don't think you mean "naturally aspirated".

But I think what you want could be technically feasible. You just need to manage the mixture if it's turning a fixed pitched prop. If not, adding a servo for the CS prop isn't that hard. There was a brief period of time where automotive carbs were computerized, so the tech is there. Plus, swapping a carb for throttle body injection is a lot cheaper than port injection or direct injection.
 
*Have one knob for throttle, let the engine engine figure out the optimum mixture and prop pitch.. have a manual over-ride if you need it
 
Personally I like my carbureted Lycoming with a mixture knob and magnetos that will keep the engine running if the battery dies, alternator dies, Master relay dies, lose one magneto etc. Simple to work on, no computers, mechanics know how to fix it etc. Has some advantages. Pilot controlled. If the pilot does the right thing, he will save fuel, get there on time. Takes some PILOTING!
 
^I can definitely appreciate the desire to have full manual control over the engine, so I think manual over-rides for the mixture are good to have... but to me the desire to keep all this ancient tech in planes is kind of like if boats were all still navigated with compass and sextants since they're technically the most failsafe and any competent sailor should know how to use them...
 
coloradobluesky said:
Personally I like my carbureted Lycoming with a mixture knob and magnetos that will keep the engine running if the battery dies, alternator dies, Master relay dies, lose one magneto etc. Simple to work on, no computers, mechanics know how to fix it etc. Has some advantages. Pilot controlled. If the pilot does the right thing, he will save fuel, get there on time. Takes some PILOTING!
Click to expand...
Reliable as all getout.
 
denverpilot said:
By far the most annoying price tag is an IFR certified GPS source nowadays, though. We're well past the era of GPS being particularly hard to do. Over $10,000 for a device that displays GPS information on a touchscreen is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

+1
 
I know you mentioned "experimental" aircraft but in the real world, I would like to see PMA/STC requirements relaxed by the FAA and competition extended and encouraged to replacement parts manufacturers. For example, a friend of mine owns a Cessna 210. He needed to replace a small, Z-shaped bracket in his door lock. He found one online priced at $340 for an existing replacement. A skilled metal worker could make one in 20 minutes using a few cent's worth of steel. But since that part is still available, it doesn't qualify for a "owner produced part." These outrageous/ridiculous prices for replacement parts is my source of frustration in aircraft ownership.

We've discussed PMA vs experimental parts before, specifically the Stratus ADS-B out transponder. Other parts such as Aveo lighting are almost half the price for experimental vs standard (you're welcome Jim) aircraft even though they come off the exact same assembly line. I'm not a lawyer but if the FAA could allow those of us with standard aircraft to sign a waiver that we won't sue a manufacturer if we have a mishap caused by an "experimental only" part installed on a standard aircraft, I would sign it in a heartbeat and enjoy the lower price.

Lastly, a preemptive
slap.gif
to anyone who feels the need to say, "if you can't afford parts for your airplane, maybe you shouldn't be flying."
 
Timbeck2 said:
I know you mentioned "experimental" aircraft but in the real world, I would like to see PMA/STC requirements relaxed by the FAA and competition extended and encouraged to replacement parts manufacturers. For example, a friend of mine owns a Cessna 210. He needed to replace a small, Z-shaped bracket in his door lock. He found one online priced at $340 for an existing replacement. A skilled metal worker could make one in 20 minutes using a few cent's worth of steel. But since that part is still available, it doesn't qualify for a "owner produced part." These outrageous/ridiculous prices for replacement parts is my source of frustration in aircraft ownership.

We've discussed PMA vs experimental parts before, specifically the Stratus ADS-B out transponder. Other parts such as Aveo lighting are almost half the price for experimental vs standard (you're welcome Jim) aircraft even though they come off the exact same assembly line. I'm not a lawyer but if the FAA could allow those of us with standard aircraft to sign a waiver that we won't sue a manufacturer if we have a mishap caused by an "experimental only" part installed on a standard aircraft, I would sign it in a heartbeat and enjoy the lower price.

Lastly, a preemptive
slap.gif
to anyone who feels the need to say, "if you can't afford parts for your airplane, maybe you shouldn't be flying."
Click to expand...
I absolutely mean certificated aircraft too. I just meant if you were able to treat your current aircraft kind of like an ex-ab.

So while we're on the topic of engines... HOW would you implement the fuel/air digital control? Like a car? Some O2 sensors and a computer and be done with it?

Aluminum block to save weight?
 
UL Power incorporates FADEC into their aero engines. If I ever get around to completing my RV-7 I'd love to put one in.
 
ircphoenix said:
I absolutely mean certificated aircraft too. I just meant if you were able to treat your current aircraft kind of like an ex-ab.

So while we're on the topic of engines... HOW would you implement the fuel/air digital control? Like a car? Some O2 sensors and a computer and be done with it?

Aluminum block to save weight?
Click to expand...


I would LOVE to see the 2.7L 325 hp aluminum block, twin turbo, V-6 engine that is in my truck, in an airplane. But at 440 lbs, it is twice the weight of the O-320 that's installed now. I'm not an engineer but it would seem easily possible to incorporate many things in a modern fuel injected vehicle engine into an airplane. It would then seem that hot start procedures would be a thing of the past.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I would LOVE to see the 2.7L 325 hp aluminum block, twin turbo, V-6 engine that is in my truck, in an airplane. But at 440 lbs, it is twice the weight of the O-320 that's installed now. I'm not an engineer but it would seem easily possible to incorporate many things in a modern fuel injected vehicle engine into an airplane. It would then seem that hot start procedures would be a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

Here's the hard part.

Disconnect your car battery ground with the engine running. What happens to your engine?

It's easy to make a car engine work nominally. But it adds a HELL of a lot of failure modes. Like, it's not possible for your airplane to blow a water pump or radiator hose in flight, or lose a cam sensor. A loss of electrical fuel pump is concerning, but not an emergency. Loss of electrical power to injectors doesn't happen with mechanical injection. And so on. Car engines quit much too easily for use in an airplane.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I would LOVE to see the 2.7L 325 hp aluminum block, twin turbo, V-6 engine that is in my truck, in an airplane.
Click to expand...
I've often had the same thought when driving... but I've also wondered a couple things
*can our car engines survive if ran at 65-75% power for the majority of their lives?
*with the peak HP/torque up in the 3K to 4K rpm range we would need a gearbox to content with.. that is *okay*, I know Rotax has them, but there is some added complexity there
*they're ultimately designed for sea level operation, so wonder how these would operate up around 10K, or higher for the turbo'd versions

I brought up can engines in planes in another thread and was summarily silenced, but I don't think it's impossible and the idea shouldn't be given up on

The biggest barriers to GA tech advancement are a very tiny market and crazy high costs :-(
 
...and like @MAKG1 said the failure modes are crazy high... having said that, in 6 years of ownership, combined with some offroad use, my Toyota 1GR-FE has not had a single issue... NADA... and that's with some very hot desert driving and some unfriendly offroad bashing mixed in. I would never put the 1GR-FE into a plane, but you can buy one for around $4K... prior to that my Mini never stranded me, and prior to that my VW never stranded me either. Come to think of it, in 16 years of driving and probably half a million miles driven the only time I got stranded was because I ran out of gas (which was my fault, I drove around for a week straight with my gas light on since I was putting (apparently) too much faith in my new Ultragauge (which I later found out I setup incorrectly))

I would be lying if I told you I don't have doodle sketches of pusher config flying wings with automotive engines with cost workups, etc. I'm convinced I could build a fully flyable plane for no more than $30K and use all sorts of cool experimental and Raspberry Pi, Arduino tech, etc., and after a few drinks have thought about doing that and backing into the certification costs elsewhere. Then I sober up and realize I don't want to be "that guy" in my neighborhood who spends Saturday's building a plane...

Before going too far down this rabbit hole, you can buy composite building materials off boat building websites... flying doesn't have to be as expensive as it is, it is all just marked up because "plane=rich"
 
MACG1 - I get it, I really do but these tried and true aircraft engines were developed long before man ever walked on the moon. With all the technology since then, you would think that someone, somewhere would have come up with a more fail safe and less expensive method of powering piston aircraft than the technology of yesterday.
 
Timbeck2 said:
MACG1 - I get it, I really do but these tried and true aircraft engines were developed long before man ever walked on the moon. With all the technology since then, you would think that someone, somewhere would have come up with a more fail safe and less expensive method of powering piston aircraft than the technology of yesterday.
Click to expand...

You seem to think technology makes things cheaper.

No. Economies of scale do. Whether it's high tech, low tech, or no tech.

Adding failsafes to your $4000 car engine will add a couple of zeroes to it. It will NOT be cheaper. Quite the contrary.

It's not like you're the first guy to come up with this idea. It's been around for decades. I know it's fashionable to blame government regulations for that, but the reality is that you would be building these for a very small population, and that by itself makes it prohibitively expensive.
 
..and the car never stranded me, and a lot of those failsafes are more a response to costly litigation threat and everyone trying to CYA themselves. FWIW all my doodles had two $4K engines on them anyway ;) because I get that a car engine isn't as bullet proof as an O-360

The ultimate answer though, to your point, are the economics of scale. The whole reason that car engine is $4K is because Toyota sells THOUSANDS of them in a single year. Would be great if GA ever got to that point
 
MAKG1 said:
You seem to think technology makes things cheaper.

No. Economies of scale do. Whether it's high tech, low tech, or no tech.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I necessarily agree or disagree. What I have seen though is technology is often used to let manufacturer's cut corners.
 
MAKG1 said:
You seem to think technology makes things cheaper.

No. Economies of scale do. Whether it's high tech, low tech, or no tech.

Adding failsafes to your $4000 car engine will add a couple of zeroes to it. It will NOT be cheaper. Quite the contrary.

It's not like you're the first guy to come up with this idea. It's been around for decades. I know it's fashionable to blame government regulations for that, but the reality is that you would be building these for a very small population, and that by itself makes it prohibitively expensive.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do indeed think technology makes things cheaper. I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to remember the first hand held calculator available to the public. It cost around $70. Today you can find these hanging next to the gum at the checkout stand for a buck or two. Today's $4000 engine would cost an extra couple of zeros back when our aircraft engines were designed. Using your logic (of which I understand and at least partially agree with) a modern car engine should cost around 80 - 100k. I didn't blame the government for anything but the question remains how they can get away with regulation that requires manufacturers to charge two different prices for the same exact part, depending upon which aircraft it is installed.
 
Tantalum said:
I brought up can engines in planes in another thread and was summarily silenced, but I don't think it's impossible and the idea shouldn't be given up on
Click to expand...

DA42 has modified Mercedes car engines. Nobody's ever died in a DA42.

The Rotax 912is, while not a car engine, does have a few of the same characteristics of a modern car engine such as EFI, computerized ignition, water cooling, gearbox, etc so it's doable. It's mainly a matter of convincing the cavemen in the left seat.
 
asicer said:
water cooling
Click to expand...
Yup... that was something else that I was told would be too complex for the aviation world, and apparently was indicted as one of the reasons the Extra 400 was a failure

So.. it can certainly be done.. but with such few new aircraft sales each year the dev costs for an engine manufacturer is high and will take a while to recoup. And the status quo "works" so to speak... we all know the Lyco and Conti engines and the mechanics know them. I get the economies of scale are small, but I also think there is a huge amount of red tape that is stifling progress. Just look at the experimental and LSA world... they have EFI, water cooling, and a host of "neat" things that you just don't really see in the regular fleet. As I've said before, if it wasn't for Avidyne and Garmin's G1000 the typical plane would still be more or less be the same as it was in the 1970s... heck, avionics aside most are effectively the same plane, just with less useful load now thanks to added structure and weight

For the flack we've given Icon recently at least there is someone out there who's core mission is to help revitalize GA and not charge $400K for a 1960 airplane with a new GPS. Don't get me wrong, I'm not (yet) getting back on the Icon train though... (but I'll leave that for the Icon thread ;))
 
The P-51 and Me-109 are two examples of airplanes with water cooled engines.
 
^^my aircraft sketches at home that I referenced higher up in the thread also made use of the engine's heat for anti-ice. Probably not possible in the real world, but my thought is to circulate some liquid through critical surfaces of the plane (leading edges, etc.) and heat that liquid with heat exchanger from the aircraft exhaust manifold. That would probably have been done already if it were possible, but if we're in the "design your own parts" world then why not?!
 
I had to repair the fuel selector on my Cardinal. In order to remove it I had to open the panel under the selector and remove two of the three hoses then I had to remove the seats and flooring to get to the third hose. If the panel was an inch bigger and towards the pilot side it would have all come out the bottom in a lot less time.
 
sferguson524 said:
http://raptor-aircraft.com/

and /Thread.
Click to expand...

Impressive. You know, I always thought the Velocity was an awesome plane and this thing is that and more

"The Raptor is an extremely spacious 5 place, pressurized, composite aircraft with a 62" wide cabin with a possible top speed of 300 knots that can cruise at 230 knots true on 7 gph of Diesel or Jet-A. It will come equipped with an optional BRS airframe parachute, constant speed propeller and anti-lock brakes."

wow... $2K deposit?? I'm honestly one glass of wine away from that
 
Tantalum said:
Impressive. You know, I always thought the Velocity was an awesome plane and this thing is that and more

"The Raptor is an extremely spacious 5 place, pressurized, composite aircraft with a 62" wide cabin with a possible top speed of 300 knots that can cruise at 230 knots true on 7 gph of Diesel or Jet-A. It will come equipped with an optional BRS airframe parachute, constant speed propeller and anti-lock brakes."

wow... $2K deposit?? I'm honestly one glass of wine away from that
Click to expand...
I genuinely hope they can bring this to fruition. They are using an Audi Diesel engine for the powerplant, and using the liquid cooling for anti-ice and fuel heating (not FIKI approved).
 
sferguson524 said:
I genuinely hope they can bring this to fruition. They are using an Audi Diesel engine for the powerplant, and using the liquid cooling for anti-ice and fuel heating (not FIKI approved).
Click to expand...
Haven't they been "real close" for years now?

It seems to me they have been claiming a 15 month timeline for a flying prototype for more than 15 months....
 
Here is a progress update, literally from today, 2 minutes ago

 
MAKG1 said:
Haven't they been "real close" for years now?

It seems to me they have been claiming a 15 month timeline for a flying prototype for more than 15 months....
Click to expand...
they sure have.. Hope springs eternal.. :_
 
MAKG1 said:
You seem to think technology makes things cheaper.

No. Economies of scale do. Whether it's high tech, low tech, or no tech.

Adding failsafes to your $4000 car engine will add a couple of zeroes to it. It will NOT be cheaper. Quite the contrary.

It's not like you're the first guy to come up with this idea. It's been around for decades. I know it's fashionable to blame government regulations for that, but the reality is that you would be building these for a very small population, and that by itself makes it prohibitively expensive.
Click to expand...

You're violating the rules of the post.

Criticism has to be constructive.
 
I admit, once I saw the first video on YouTube about the Raptor, I subscribed and have watched most of their videos. There is one where he's advertising a hangar for sale. Not far from where I grew up in Arkansas. Interesting concept and I hope they do well.
 
These guys [Raptop] seem pretty confident in their design and they've done their homework. Kudos to them for putting a car engine in a plane.. it's about time we move away from 60 year old plane engines that need to be gently babysat with the threat of an engine failure always knocking at your door. I always feel so antiquated when I have people in the plane and I'm priming the engine and praying that it fires right away

http://www.raptor-aircraft.com/models/dieselgtaudi30lv6tdi.html

Although we don't yet have a flying model these people seem to have the right passion and attitude. Might not be 15 months but I bet eventually we'll see them with a flying model. Remember cirrus was around since the early 90s before they started selling their bread and butter 22s

Like someone else said, if Raptor ever gets off the ground it will be a serious game changer. Why anyone would buy a $400K Archer when they can buy one of these would be beyond me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top