What not efi like cars

Piper Dreaming

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 13, 2023
Messages
33
Display Name

Display name:
Piper Dreaming
EFI is now old technology, and is ultra reliable.
Why hasn't it been adopted to plane engines.
They could always be at optimum mixture, no matter what, and adjusted multiple times per second, each cylinder.
 
EFI is available in the experimental world, but there are limitations due to physics and chemistry. First, because knock sensors have a hard time with our large air-cooled engines, so we can't use them to control ignition timing. Second, because lead contaminates oxygen sensors, which are used to optimize the fuel/air ratio.

There are workarounds for both issues, but at this time you can't just yank a system off of your Toyota and bolt it to your Lycoming...
 
EFI in cars uses computers to control fuel and ignition systems, variable valve timing, etc. I have the most sophisticated mechanical injection available for the Exp market. It works great, but nothing close to what we have in cars. Since we run long durations at one throttle setting the real advantage of FI is LOP operations.
 
Last edited:
Switching over to an EFI system also requires a redundant electrical system which would get very expensive and complicated in a certified airplane not already designed for it. With a carb and mags if your alternator or battery dies you can keep on flying. If the same thing happens in an EFI equipped plane your engine just stops. Sometimes old simplistic ways are better than new modern technology.
 
Why hasn't it been adopted to plane engines.
Main reason is there is no viable market to warrant any type of investment to make it wide spread. Private Part 91 aircraft makes up such a small portion of GA now most new money is spent on other items with a guaranteed ROI.
 
Most airplanes are operated at a constant RPM for the majority of the time. In that case a properly sized and tuned carburetor is actually pretty efficient especially when you consider we can control the mixture. Fuel injection comes into it's own where power is constantly changing. An O200 and a fuel injected 912 rotax burn basically the same amount at 75% power.
 
He was saying that the reliability argument is invalid because airliners use fadec.
Are you suggesting that I was being sarcastic? Of all people - Me?

On a serious note - as has been pointed out, the technology is out there. And, I am reasonably confidant that the factory Rotax injection system does not rely on the battery. Quick look - they talk about lane A and lane B generators - sounds similar to the "electronic" (Capacitive discharge) ignition on my carbatooted 912 - but I'm too lazy to track that down for sure.
 
Switching over to an EFI system also requires a redundant electrical system which would get very expensive and complicated in a certified airplane not already designed for it. With a carb and mags if your alternator or battery dies you can keep on flying. If the same thing happens in an EFI equipped plane your engine just stops. Sometimes old simplistic ways are better than new modern technology.

https://bandc.com/product/bonanza-standby-alternator-system-components-stc-pma/#regulator-controller
 
Have any EAB folks removed the alternator entirely and replaced each mag with a brushless alternator/ignition module? Then you'd have redundant power for EFI.
 
You don’t need redundant power. A battery back-up is a good idea. Not unlike the battery requirement for glass panels in standard category planes. EFII sells a Bus Manager for managing a second isolated battery, which is popular in the Exp EFI world using lithium batteries. I run my G3X through a TCW battery backup unit. Their 6a model is used by EFI guys, but as light as EarthX batteries ate more guys double up on those. My own FI is mechanical, and very close to EFI efficiency but without power. Easy peasy.

I have friends running very high output IO-409 engines with EFI. They can run so lean of peak that the had to add operable louvers on their cowls to block airflow because their CHTs were getting too low. Don’t see that in the standard category.

One advantage for FI is forward-facing induction, which allows cold air induction. We get ram air, too.

IMG_0827.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Have any EAB folks removed the alternator entirely and replaced each mag with a brushless alternator/ignition module? Then you'd have redundant power for EFI.
I have an accessory pad mounted alternator and Pmags, which make their own power above 900 rpm. I have a friend who has EI and EFI and doesn’t have an accessory case. He uses dual batteries and with no engine mounted fuel pump uses two electric fuel pumps. It works great. He does use a belt-driven alternator.
 
There have been many advances that did not make it simply because sales

volume is way too low.

The Cessna 172 is the most produced aircraft of all time with sales in the 40K

range. In the nearly 70 years of production there have been at least 6 different

engines. Add to that the various carbs, mags, plugs etc that are not

interchangeable. Mooney’s Porsche engined 1 Power Lever and new Franklin

engines passed because of this fact. It’s a long list though,
 
and adjusted multiple times per second, each cylinder.

The EFI on road vehicles does not adjust fuel mixture on each cylinder. To do so would require each cylinder to have its own oxygen sensor. Cost accountants would not like this! The typical inline four has only one sensor. V type engines have two, one for each bank. Note I am not counting sensors downstream of the catalytic converter; these only monitor the converter efficiency and do not adjust the mixture.
 
Considering that most of the aircraft being flown were manufactured prior the point where there was wide acceptance of EFI, is it any surprise that few aircraft you’d be exposed to have it? Retrofits aren’t practical due to the costs associated with them and honestly, I don’t expect that any implementation we’d see would be clean enough to impress me.

I’ll stick with my carburetor, mechanical fuel injection, and magnetos. I’ve made my living working on and developing vehicle electronics for my entire adult life (mostly EFI) and I don’t want to have to deal with more of it on my aircraft.
 
Around my area avgas is $8.00 per gallon. LOP is pretty attractive at that. Saving $25 per hour is pretty easy with a 4-cylinder. I don’t see a downside.
 
The EFI on road vehicles does not adjust fuel mixture on each cylinder. To do so would require each cylinder to have its own oxygen sensor.
FWIW
There has been work done looking at variations in the O2 sensor over the course of two revolutions.
Also looking at variations in cylinder to cylinder accelerations.
Dunno if either of those ever made it into production or not.
 
Lycoming's certified iE2 EFI/EI engine has its own backup alternator that takes over feeding the fuel and ignition if the ship's electrical system fails. The Rotax also has a small built-in alternator. That's what is necessary to get certification: redundant power, and a power management system.

The E-AB world has a lot of good stuff now that could be certified, but there's little chance the certification costs could be recouped. The market is small and is getting smaller, and owners are already stretched pretty thin just owning an airplane.

Besides getting the engine certified that way, the airframe would also need to be certified for that modified engine. Expensive.
 
Last edited:
No matter how you look at it, the best fit for an engine in an airplane application is diesel. Great torque, sips fuel in constant RPM ops, less maintenance…. If AC Aero gets their Higgs Diesel engines into production? They’ll be the next big thing.

https://www.ac-aero.com/technologies/

Except that diesels are typically heavy.
If they can make it light, and reliable, then yes.
 
Like to see it but Guiberson built and flew a diesel radial nearly a 100 years ago.

There is a vid on a steam powered aircraft that is interesting.

Bill Lear’s last projects included steam propulsion.
 
Except that diesels are typically heavy.
If they can make it light, and reliable, then yes.
Read the link. The 4-cyl is 300# and makes either 350 or 500 hp. For my Cessna 180? That would offer a significant power increase with a weight reduction.
 
I'm in the process of flying off the Phase 1 tasks behind (actually, in front of) and Rotax 915iS. It has 2 generators to supply power to the EFI and other components. One powers the EFI constantly, while the other is a backup and is used to power avionics and charge the battery. If the main (Lane 1) fails, the second (Lane 2) takes over automatically. It's also possible to use the battery as a backup, in case both fail.

I find engine management stupid-simple so far. I just put the throttle where I want it to be, and don't worry about anything else. Rotax has both experimental and certified versions. I don't see why they are able to do it, but Conti and Lycoming can't.
 
Read the link. The 4-cyl is 300# and makes either 350 or 500 hp. For my Cessna 180? That would offer a significant power increase with a weight reduction.
It's not flying yet. I wonder if there's a prototype running. If they can achieve their claimed numbers, it will be an awesome engine, though it is still a spark-ignited engine. One of the attractions of diesel is its compression ignition. No sparkplugs or other ignition stuff other than the glow plugs for starting.

The certified SMA SR305-230E is STC'd for the Cessna 182P and Q. It's heavy. The numbers:

upload_2023-6-18_12-17-14.png

455 pounds. The O-470U it replaces is 412 pounds. The battery had to be relocated from the firewall to the tailcone to balance it and the intercooler and massive oil cooler (cylinder heads are air- and oil-cooled) and to make room for those big coolers.

It generates its 227 HP at 2200 RPM, redline, and the prop governor is set to that RPM and never moves. It uses a more-efficient composite prop that loses less HP to drag at that low RPM. Full FADEC with mechanical override in case of computer failure. But it has disadvantages, too, like the allowable starting temperature range of -5°C (23F) to 45°C (113°F). That won't work for a lot of folks, especially the low temp limit.

We did a bunch of work on one of the first generation installations, replacing some cracked bracketry and repairing leaks. They had teething problems early on. When it starts, the FADEC will not respond to throttle inputs until it reaches a certain minimum engine temperature, and it idles at maybe 700 RPM. Its four big cylinders and 15:1 compression ratio makes it vibrate a lot at that speed, and it cracks stuff. I found one prop blade cracked, probably from the vibration. A metal prop would have made that engine move even more.

It's an expensive conversion. $80K+ last I heard.

httpswww.flyingmag.comsitesflyingmag.comfilesimport2008sitesallfiles_images200804042320081210310230.jpg
 
I’m sure they can. Ref #30

How many hundreds a year though?
 
I find engine management stupid-simple so far. I just put the throttle where I want it to be, and don't worry about anything else. Rotax has both experimental and certified versions. I don't see why they are able to do it, but Conti and Lycoming can't.
No? Then what is Lycomings iE2 all about? Full EI and EFI, with a backup alternator. And what is Continental's version of SMA's SR305-230 full-FADEC diesel, if not a single-lever affair?

The Cessna 182 with the SMA has this engine control quadrant:

httpswww.flyingmag.comsitesflyingmag.comfilesimport2008sitesallfiles_images200804042320081210311091.jpg


Two levers. The big black one is the throttle. The red striped one is the emergency mechanical override that the pilot pulls to gain mechanical control over the throttle if the FADEC fails, so no backup alternator needed for fuel control, and no spark because it's a diesel.

The blue prop control knob is used on runup to check propeller function, never touched in flight. The Rotax never drives constant-speed props, does it?
 
If they can achieve their claimed numbers, it will be an awesome engine, though it is still a spark-ignited engine. One of the attractions of diesel is its compression ignition. No sparkplugs or other ignition stuff other than the glow plugs for starting.
The tradeoff is that the Higgs is 2-stroke, so no valve-train.
Except that diesels are typically heavy.
Being 2-stroke and no valve train is what makes it lighter than a conventional diesel.
It's not flying yet. I wonder if there's a prototype running.
Aye, there's the rub.
 
There have been many advances that did not make it simply because sales

volume is way too low.

The Cessna 172 is the most produced aircraft of all time with sales in the 40K

range. In the nearly 70 years of production there have been at least 6 different

engines. Add to that the various carbs, mags, plugs etc that are not

interchangeable. Mooney’s Porsche engined 1 Power Lever and new Franklin

engines passed because of this fact. It’s a long list though,


This thread sent me down a shallow rabbit hole exploring economies of scale and just how small of a market GA entertains.

The Cirrus SR series of aircraft is arguably the quintessential GA airplane of todays market. They are outselling all other legacy manufactures combined. The first SR20 was introduced in 1995. Since that time, they have produced over 8000 aircraft. Impressive!


The Toyota Camry is a very popular sedan, but by no means dominates the family sedan market. They sell a lot of Camrys, but many other competitive sedans are available and sold. The Toyota Camry is produced in Gerorgetown, KY. Since 1995, when the first Cirrus SR was built, the Toyota plant in KY has produced over 8 million Camrys….just Camrys.


If any aircraft manufacture ever reaches the production scale that any car manufacture enjoys, we would see the same engine technology in piston airplanes, and it would be affordable. They won’t, and we won’t.

That said, the speed at which avionics technology has advanced has been a great benefit to GA. And relatively speaking, avionics have gotten very affordable for what you’re actually getting.


Links for reference:

https://cirrusaircraft.com/about/#:~:text=Beginnings,passenger home-built kit airplane.


https://pressroom.toyota.com/toyota-celebrates-production-of-10-millionth-camry-in-kentucky/
 
If any aircraft manufacture ever reaches the production scale that any car manufacture enjoys, we would see the same engine technology in piston airplanes, and it would be affordable. They won’t, and we won’t.
Except it almost happened. To take you a bit deeper down your rabbit hole the Cirrus SR20 and the Columbia 300 were the result of the efforts and money from NASA/FAA AGATE program in the early 90s. All told there were about 5 or 6 other aircraft in development during the same time to include one from Toyota.

Using the same AGATE R&D as Cirrus and Columbia Toyota hooked up with Burt Rutan and developed and flew a 4-place prototype. While this prototype used a conventional aircraft engine Toyota supposedly was working on its own aircraft engine. The intent was for Toyota to adapt its production expertise into the aviation industry with the assistance of the AGATE program.

Unfortunately there was no market to support such a widespread venture and most of the 70+ industry players who had signed up with AGATE quietly packed up their innovations and products and went home. To include Toyota. But all was not lost as there were a number of AGATE successes like the Cirrus SR20, Columbia 300, ADS-B, and most current digital avionics. So had there been a viable market in 2000 there could have been a flying version of a Camry produced in KY as well.

But I dont think Toyota is done yet with aviation. They are invested in and developing the production equipment/lines for the Joby eVTOL. Who knows maybe if things go good they'll ressurect their original 4place prototype and give Cirrus a new run for their money?
 
The Cirrus SR series of aircraft is arguably the quintessential GA airplane of todays market. They are outselling all other legacy manufactures combined. The first SR20 was introduced in 1995. Since that time, they have produced over 8000 aircraft. Impressive!
So in the 28 years since 1995 they have produced 8000 airplanes.

Cessna built more than 44000 172s between 1956 and now, with the vast majority of those in the 30 years between 1956 and 1986. None built between '86 and '96, and not many of the '96-present models have been built. Accurate figures for numbers by year are hard to come by unless one gets onto the TCDS and does the math and addition to use the serials numbers for each submodel and add them up, and even then that doesn't include the FR172s built in France.

And that's just the 172s. If one adds in all the other Cessna singles, the numbers are truly extraordinary for the light-airplane market. The 172 has been built in larger numbers than any other airplane in history.
 
So in the 28 years since 1995 they have produced 8000 airplanes.

Cessna built more than 44000 172s between 1956 and now, with the vast majority of those in the 30 years between 1956 and 1986. None built between '86 and '96, and not many of the '96-present models have been built. Accurate figures for numbers by year are hard to come by unless one gets onto the TCDS and does the math and addition to use the serials numbers for each submodel and add them up, and even then that doesn't include the FR172s built in France.

And that's just the 172s. If one adds in all the other Cessna singles, the numbers are truly extraordinary for the light-airplane market. The 172 has been built in larger numbers than any other airplane in history.


Agreed. And if we count every Cessna ever built, to include piston and turbine, they still don’t have 1/100th of the scale of an auto manufacture market for even a single year.

My point was comparing the economies of scale between the light aircraft industry and the auto industry. They are apples and oranges. And while there are many commonalities and some auto companies have delved into aviation, and continue to do so, the sales figures will never be aligned. Hence, the origin of the thread is a false narrative from the start; few companies are willing to spend the amount of money required to bring auto engine technology to piston aircraft engines simply because the sales figures are not and will never be remotely close.*

*Not saying it can’t be done, as there are a few EA builders -engineery types- that have done amazing things with auto engines to include EFI in light aircraft. But by the time they are done with it, the investment and performance are along the same lines of a legacy aircraft engine.
 
Agreed. And if we count every Cessna ever built, to include piston and turbine, they still don’t have 1/100th of the scale of an auto manufacture market for even a single year.
Yes. I have posted here before about that, and on HBA.

In 2019, before Covid messed things up, there were 1324 piston GA airplanes delivered worldwide. In that same year, there were a bit less than 92 million cars and light trucks built. The ratio is about 69,000 to one, not 100:1. Pretty stark, and a clear reason why light airplanes and engines are really expensive.

From http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/General-Aviation.html

upload_2023-6-18_19-53-4.png
1324 piston-powered in 2019, including twins. Singles were about 1100 or so, from other sources that I can't spot right now.

From https://www.statista.com/statistics/262747/worldwide-automobile-production-since-2000/

upload_2023-6-18_20-3-3.png

Some of those, I presume, are heavy trucks and buses and the like. The vast majority will be light vehicles.
 
MANY years a mag published “ The TSO’d Pencil”. I doubt if more needs to be said here.


When war is imminent there is R&D money available as folks don’t want to have to learn a new language.

WW2 - Civilian Pilot Training = J-3, 7AC and more.

National Defense = Facilities & equipment for technical training that may still be in use today.

Most famous graduate is named “Rosie”.

Vietnam - GI Bill = C-150 & 172, Cherokee etc

Also A & P training.


Current - While some veterans were able to use their benefits to enter an Aviation Career; there were others that

could not use their benefits due to “policy changes”. Hard to raise a family and attend school only to

find that “approved” flight training centers are now hours away.
 
Back
Top