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

SoonerAviator said:
I'm not sure which portion of that you're referring to. Marine products for inboards are mostly generic automotive parts, except where spark/flame arresting versions are necessary. Most boat manufacturers use the same steering cables, throttle cables, trim pumps, etc, so the volume of parts sales in the market keeps the prices reasonable. Outboards are expensive when purchased new, but most people aren't replacing them that often if they aren't in commercial use. Hell, I'd wager that the majority of outboard-equipped boats ever sold to non-commercial customers are still with their original equipment.
Click to expand...

No! You bite your tongue. Marine products are special. Very, very special, SoonerAviator.

An ignorant person might look at my boat engine and say, "Well, that there is a run of the mill Chevy 305." I would have to remind this idiot that what he's looking at is a Mercruiser 5.0, and it's very, very special, and automotive parts simply wouldn't do. :rolleyes:


And to clarify an earlier comment of mine, I think that we could do as good or better with newer designs, including electronic ignition and fuel injection. I do, however, think there is some value in keeping things reasonably simple, such that the owner/ operator can have a good understanding of what's going on under the hood.
 
Last edited:
SoonerAviator said:
I'm not sure which portion of that you're referring to. Marine products for inboards are mostly generic automotive parts, except where spark/flame arresting versions are necessary. Most boat manufacturers use the same steering cables, throttle cables, trim pumps, etc, so the volume of parts sales in the market keeps the prices reasonable. Outboards are expensive when purchased new, but most people aren't replacing them that often if they aren't in commercial use. Hell, I'd wager that the majority of outboard-equipped boats ever sold to non-commercial customers are still with their original equipment.



I'm not in disagreement. I was just saying that it shouldn't be overly-complex to design an EFI system for GA piston aircraft which is simple, effective, and appropriately redundant where necessary.
Click to expand...

I was referring to a small part of the rec marine market, the guy who fished for tuna in my area during the year. Like you said, you can always make boating cheaper.

I agree with you, with GA aircraft, reliability with simplicity trumps everything else in my book.
 
OkieFlyer said:
No! You bite your tongue. Marine products are special. Very, very special, SoonerAviator.

An ignorant person might look at my boat engine and say, "Well, that there is a run of the mill Chevy 305." I would have to remind this idiot that what he's looking at is a Mercruiser 5.0, and it's very, very special, and automotive parts simply wouldn't do. :rolleyes:


And to clarify an earlier comment of mine, I think that we could do as good or better with newer designs, including electronic ignition and fuel injection. I do, however, think there is some value in keeping things reasonably simple, such that the owner/ operator can have a good understanding of what's going on under the hood.
Click to expand...

I was talking about outboards not I/O, if that makes a difference.
 
OkieFlyer said:
Actually, it does. I was just attempting to be humorous. My humor is often lost on....well....everybody.
Click to expand...

I was picking up what you were laying down. ;) Merc/Volvo/OMC doesn't mean much of anything for the engines, since they pretty much shared the same Ford/GM engine variants over the years, the nameplate really only signified the outdrive model and a few external engine components (shift cable brackets, exhaust manifolds, bell housings) to make the package work.

On outboards, things get much more specific to individual brand. However, the aftermarket has pretty solid support so that upgrades and tweaks can be accomplished without going through the OEM. Truth be told, one of my favorite outboard engines was the old Johnson V4 90HP; cold-natured and smoked like hell on startup, but once it fired up, it was damn-near unbreakable.
 
OkieFlyer said:
I do, however, think there is some value in keeping things reasonably simple, such that the owner/ operator can have a good understanding of what's going on under the hood.
Click to expand...

That's why we should have FADEC systems. Way easier and simpler systems than carbs and magnetos.
Carbs and magnetos work based on holy spirit, and black magic. EFI systems are nice, simple and easy to understand :)
 
SoonerAviator said:
I'm not in disagreement. I was just saying that it shouldn't be overly-complex to design an EFI system for GA piston aircraft which is simple, effective, and appropriately redundant where necessary.
Click to expand...

its not complex per se. Just expensive. And the manufacturers try to make their R&D back on the first 1000 units.
 
mtuomi said:
That's why we should have FADEC systems. Way easier and simpler systems than carbs and magnetos.
Carbs and magnetos work based on holy spirit, and black magic. EFI systems are nice, simple and easy to understand :)
Click to expand...

Hmm, we are apparently on different planets.
 
Since this ahead has drifted... I am a big fan of electronic ignition and hope to have a plane with it one day, but those who support it must be realistic. The electronic ignitions that are commonly available for E/AB planes have killed a lot of people. So far their promises of increased reliability and safety have not materialized. They have not been reliable, or safer than the old magneto.

In addition, their promises of increased performance and fuel savings are marginal. There is a benefit, but it's really not as big as they make out. If you want to know more about them, check out the Vans forums. They are the most common E/AB plane on the planet and likewise many have been equipped with electronic ignition so there are lots of reports on the merits, or problems with it.
 
Dav8or said:
Since this ahead has drifted... I am a big fan of electronic ignition and hope to have a plane with it one day, but those who support it must be realistic. The electronic ignitions that are commonly available for E/AB planes have killed a lot of people. So far their promises of increased reliability and safety have not materialized. They have not been reliable, or safer than the old magneto.

In addition, their promises of increased performance and fuel savings are marginal. There is a benefit, but it's really not as big as they make out. If you want to know more about them, check out the Vans forums. They are the most common E/AB plane on the planet and likewise many have been equipped with electronic ignition so there are lots of reports on the merits, or problems with it.
Click to expand...

So other than the shooting how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? :D
 
mtuomi said:
I guess it helps that I design and calibrate EFI systems for living :)
Click to expand...

Indeed, that might contribute to your confidence in those systems. I didn't mean any offense, just don't see how even a fuel injection guru could say that EFI is less complex than carburetion.

Don't pay attention to my ramblings. If I was given a glass panel suite for free, I'd put it on ebay, and smart phones are ruining society. Maybe I'm just a tin foil hat kind of guy, but I don't have much faith in electronic equipment from a reliability standpoint. I know that electronics can manage an engine way more efficiently than I ever could, but I don't want to bet all my chips on a chip, if ya know what I mean. However, it wouldn't be impossible to change my mind in time.
 
Last edited:
OkieFlyer said:
Indeed, that might contribute to your confidence in those systems. I didn't mean any offense, just don't see how even a fuel injection guru could say that EFI is less complex than carburetion.
Click to expand...

Because the process that happens inside a carburetor is much more chaotic and uncontrollable than what we can do with proper sensor inputs/engine physics modeling in an EFI system.
Without the artificial certification costs, you could build a fully doubled FADEC system for a few thousand dollars all in, and it would outlast the airplane if you bought it new today. Time between catastrophic failure, maybe a few hundred thousand hours.
 
mtuomi said:
Because the process that happens inside a carburetor is much more chaotic and uncontrollable than what we can do with proper sensor inputs/engine physics modeling in an EFI system.
Without the artificial certification costs, you could build a fully doubled FADEC system for a few thousand dollars all in, and it would outlast the airplane if you bought it new today. Time between catastrophic failure, maybe a few hundred thousand hours.
Click to expand...

If you could double up on the whole system for reasonable coin, then I'd be in like Flynn. However, seeing as how technology developed during the cretaceous period costs a couple extremities, I don't see that happening. But, since we are talking about what might be possible if certs. didn't cost so much, then I guess I can dig what you're saying.


Edit: I'd also like to make it clear that my reluctance is based more on EFI and/or FADEC more than electronic ignition. I do believe in electronic ignition systems, and I believe they've proved themselves worthy in the automotive, marine, and motorsports worlds for many moons.
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
Since this ahead has drifted... I am a big fan of electronic ignition and hope to have a plane with it one day, but those who support it must be realistic. The electronic ignitions that are commonly available for E/AB planes have killed a lot of people.
Click to expand...

I just wasted 5 minutes googling, and can't find any statistics on how many people have been killed in experimental homebuilts by electronic ignition systems.

Since I have installed dual Emags in my RV (and love them, so far), this is near and dear to my heart. Do you go have a cite on that statement, or is this anecdotal?
 
Jay Honeck said:
I just wasted 5 minutes googling, and can't find any statistics on how many people have been killed in experimental homebuilts by electronic ignition systems.

Since I have installed dual Emags in my RV (and love them, so far), this is near and dear to my heart. Do you go have a cite on that statement, or is this anecdotal?
Click to expand...

I was also going to ask that. I don't think "read the Vans forums" is much of a good data set. But if there's a real data set, I'd like to see it.
 
denverpilot said:
I was also going to ask that. I don't think "read the Vans forums" is much of a good data set. But if there's a real data set, I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

For you guys looking for "data sets", try looking up the data that supports that magnetos kill pilots, or carburetors, or fuel pumps. It's tough because the NTSB doesn't categorize that specifically. It doesn't mean that these things don't cause engine failure and sometimes death.

I say go to the Vans forums because there is where you will find the largest set of people that promote and use aviation electronic ignition systems. There is a fair amount of debate there. It's not all gungho go for it. Sure, there are some that think certified = over priced antiquated crap, but there are others that look around with eyes wide open. That's why you'll find some Vans guys running magnetos, or hedging their bets with one Emag and one magneto.

They've read and heard the reports. Having said that, the electronic ignition makers are making improvements and those will lead to better systems. That's all part of the experimental process and it helps us all.

Jay- As to the Emags I like the concept. However, I have concerns because what are the two things that solid state electronics hate most? Heat and vibration. That's why car manufactures locate this kind of control off engine in the coolest place in the engine compartment. Maybe the folks that make the Emags have solved this issue and have a great technological secret sauce. I really hope so as I really like the idea. I applaud you for testing them for us all.
 
Dav8or said:
Jay- As to the Emags I like the concept. However, I have concerns because what are the two things that solid state electronics hate most? Heat and vibration. That's why car manufactures locate this kind of control off engine in the coolest place in the engine compartment. Maybe the folks that make the Emags have solved this issue and have a great technological secret sauce. I really hope so as I really like the idea. I applaud you for testing them for us all.
Click to expand...

lol I know guys who have been flying pure electronic ignitions for 15 years, so I'm hardly Chuck Yeager testing the concept.

What sold me on the the Emag design is that it is triple redundant, each powered by an integral alternator, plus they can run solely on the on-board main alternator. Magnetos are only dual redundant. I would have to have all three of my alternators fail for the engine to go quiet -- which seems highly unlikely.
But, of course, the real reason to install an electronic ignition is that my O-360 now runs SO much better than with mags. It starts and runs like my car -- which is what all of us should expect in 2016, IMHO.
 
Dav8or said:
That's why car manufactures locate this kind of control off engine in the coolest place in the engine compartment.
Click to expand...

Oh, not all of them. For years, Ford located it's electronic ignition module directly on the distributor (for the EEC-IV/TFI-IV combination), under the mistaken impression that it would eliminate a failure mode by not having a critical wiring harness between the Hall sensor and module. And they suffered the predictable heat failure, where one of the leads would separate as it heated up. The symptom was a sudden loss of spark, with no warning, that would usually come back after 30-60 minutes of cooling. Just long enough for the tow truck to get there and the driver to look like an idiot.

This type of reliability design is considerably more difficult than people here seem to realize. Damage to distributor pickup harnesses is indeed a significant reliability problem on some cars, and that causes no-spark engine failures as well. Just, eliminating that problem caused another.
 
MAKG1 said:
Oh, not all of them. For years, Ford located it's electronic ignition module directly on the distributor (for the EEC-IV/TFI-IV combination), under the mistaken impression that it would eliminate a failure mode by not having a critical wiring harness between the Hall sensor and module. And they suffered the predictable heat failure, where one of the leads would separate as it heated up. The symptom was a sudden loss of spark, with no warning, that would usually come back after 30-60 minutes of cooling. Just long enough for the tow truck to get there and the driver to look like an idiot.

This type of reliability design is considerably more difficult than people here seem to realize. Damage to distributor pickup harnesses is indeed a significant reliability problem on some cars, and that causes no-spark engine failures as well. Just, eliminating that problem caused another.
Click to expand...

It's been a long time since I've seen a distributor.

Can we call those "vintage" now, like all the Facebook groups for stuff I've owned, used, or still own?

LOL. "Hey honey... Check this out! That thing we own? The kids are calling those "vintage" now!"

That always gets her grumpy for a minute. But then she laughs.

Distributors though. Man, even I think I'd call those "vintage".

Got any points I can change, while we're at it? Ha.
 
denverpilot said:
It's been a long time since I've seen a distributor.

Can we call those "vintage" now, like all the Facebook groups for stuff I've owned, used, or still own?

LOL. "Hey honey... Check this out! That thing we own? The kids are calling those "vintage" now!"

That always gets her grumpy for a minute. But then she laughs.

Distributors though. Man, even I think I'd call those "vintage".

Got any points I can change, while we're at it? Ha.
Click to expand...
Sure, you can change points on my Chevy. Bring a feeler gauge and dwell meter.

And a new carb 'cause that Rochester never had a leak free day in its life.
 
MAKG1 said:
Sure, you can change points on my Chevy. Bring a feeler gauge and dwell meter.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for cooler temps to tackle that job on my '52 Pontiac. Just replaced the water pump (it sounded like a coffee can full of bolts being shaken), and almost died, even with the Portacool.
 
Why is everything airplane related expensive/slow to advance?

Simple.

In July 2016, Toyota sold 34,122 Camry models in the United States. That's one month, 31 days.
Since 1955, Cessna has sold ~43,000 172 models around the world. That's 61 years.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I'm waiting for cooler temps to tackle that job on my '52 Pontiac. Just replaced the water pump (it sounded like a coffee can full of bolts being shaken), and almost died, even with the Portacool.
Click to expand...

Get a Pertronix unit and be done with it. No more gapping and dwell measurements.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Get a Pertronix unit and be done with it. No more gapping and dwell measurements.
Click to expand...
I'm sort of a purist on this car. Everything must be original.

If it was a street rod or modified, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Not on the Chief! ;)
c78a79b404e962d3b41c4b2f2c3f16b3.jpg
 
Definitely nothing wrong with keeping it original. I just like the units because they simply swap with the existing parts inside the distributor so unless you pull the distributor cap off, you'd never know it was there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top