@KenMacMillan, addressing your comment about why there is no reason an aircraft engine shouldnt be able to use pump gas. 100LL has lead in it to boost octane to 100. Highest pump gas is 93, maybe lower itsnt guaranteed @93. Aircraft engines require the performance of a race car which do use high octane racing fuel. Aircraft eng. runs at full throttle on every flight, something not required of a standard car. Preignition can cause a deadly engine failure which high octane eliminates
@circusboy90210 It already does, electronic computer controlled (ECU) Individual ignition modules, automatic mixture and much more has been in the Auto industry for years. Civil Aviation tends to lag behind in technology due to safety demands and the cost of development and certification
@idontcare80 The fuel injection systems that are timed to fire the injectors in sync with the intake stroke are sequential systems, direct fuel injection must also fire at a precise moment relative to the combustion cycle. Also, if you want to see a truly modern aircraft engine check out ADEPT Airmotive's engine.
Will you certificate a "multifuel" version? Here in Brazil we at the agricultural aviation industry would like an engine running either Avgas or Ethanol.
jclfozy - It’s delayed because the industry had to endure, then recover from 30 years of cutthroat lawyers that sued everyone and everything even remotely connected to each aircraft accident. If you’re angry, it would be more appropriate to vent at a litigation lawyer.
@@Supernumerary You mean lawyers stopped them from doing what Rotax and others did years ago? Make no mistake, it wasn't until the competition from other manufactures that were providing more advanced engines that has made the Lycoming's and the Continental's decide to step it up.
@circusboy90210 automobile engines have had this sophistication for about 30 years, a modern automobile engine has more control systems than the Saturn 5 rocket and about 50 times the computing power.
@KenMacMillan You are 100% right. With fuel return lines to the selected tank and with proper insulation there is no logical reason we shouldn't be able to use pump gas. Even the worst case of using winter mogas on a hot summer day should work. But I do not think Lycoming is setting out to refuel GA with this engine.
@SoCalFlya I'm spculating that since the workload of the pilot is reduced there is a gain in safety. Also, the system should eliminate pilot errors that can cause decreases in performance and engine life. With two parallel computers, total failure should be very rare (much less comman than the rare failure of both mags). Finally Lycoming engines can have the same multiport sequential fuel injection and electronic variable ignition timing that cars have had since the early 1980s.
Accually there is or some aircraft lines. It's built into TCM engines. If you have a late model engine like a IO-550B or IO-520BB in a Bonanza that has the propper cam gear. It's and easy bolt on.
The one thing I want to know and is not clear to me after watching this video; assuming a competent pilot, is this system safer and more efficient than manual mixture and power adjustments?
No, it's the FAA. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to privately fund an STC to retrofit a Cherokee or a 172? To put it another way, All agencies in Washington DC are oriented to clean air, energy efficiency and energy conservation. All except the FAA. Why can't the FAA provide in the name of clean air and energy conservation a blanket STC for older aircraft to retrofit with FADEC technology?
@idontcare80 not really aware of any engine that controls each and every combustions cycle as an independent event for each cylinder, or that can be reprogrammed for different fuels on the fly. (no pun intended). ecu failures happen, seen a few on fleet vehicles, crown vics, town cars, etc... busses 18 wheelers.
@circusboy90210 If I understand you question correctly GA aviation is very cautious before implementing new technology until it is tested to exhaustion. They want to test all possible situations that can occur. The term if its not broke dont fix it comes to mind. But yes by keeping GA engines very simple there are less things to fail and Lyco's are very reliable. But now the Lyco"saur" engines are just ancient compare to auto technology and they are slowly catching up.
I don't understand why not for this HP and price range wouldn't it be better to use an Allison Rolls Royce 250 turbo shaft. It's much lighter, quieter, smoother. Runs on JP fuel
@circusboy90210 I guess if you deal with American vehicles you're bound to see a lot of failures lol. As far as I know most engine controls deal with each combustion cycle as an independent event, otherwise how else would an engine vary the timing and pulse width of each injector, or the timing of each spark based on load, rpm, knock, etc. Most modern engines will compensate automatically for different fuel types, just check out the specs on the new Mustang 5.0, or the Flexfuel vehicles.
@fatmanmedia auto's don't have redundant systems or engine management computers this advanced, close but a few things are missing, except for high end models, or aftermarket equipment. how you get more computing power than a saturn 5 rocket is beyond me. remember most of the computing in analogue systems are built into the device though engineering.
Lycoming has become a shlock house using parts from sub-par subcontractors. Lycoming's use of hollow crankshafts from a low-cost supplier then reselling the rebuilt engines -- which have become a death trap -- for $40,000 should have had those Lycoming execs jailed.
30 years after EFI became standard... Lycoming thought, "Hey, that might be a good idea!". In their defense they are really a small company compared to say a honda or toyota.
@circusboy90210 Auto's don't need redundant systems. When was the last time you heard of and ECU failure or an ignition system failure in a modern car? Hell, the redundant systems on this engine are just excessive. Also, autos have had technology that is MUCH more sophisticated that this for years; VNT turbos, electronically controlled VVT, EFI, direct fuel injection, CPC ignition, knock sensors, etc, etc, etc. This is still stone age stuff, a crude beast in a pretty dress.
idontcare80 it is a step up from years of continental telling us their old engine designs were good enough and not offering anything new or improved. Got to start some where.
What does that have to do with anything being discussed here? And I'm not just talking about your general dislike and disregard for government regulation, I'm mean specifically?
the automobile should have this level of sophisitcation , technology, and efficiency
@KenMacMillan, addressing your comment about why there is no reason an aircraft engine shouldnt be able to use pump gas. 100LL has lead in it to boost octane to 100. Highest pump gas is 93, maybe lower itsnt guaranteed @93. Aircraft engines require the performance of a race car which do use high octane racing fuel. Aircraft eng. runs at full throttle on every flight, something not required of a standard car. Preignition can cause a deadly engine failure which high octane eliminates
@circusboy90210 It already does, electronic computer controlled (ECU) Individual ignition modules, automatic mixture and much more has been in the Auto industry for years. Civil Aviation tends to lag behind in technology due to safety demands and the cost of development and certification
@idontcare80 The fuel injection systems that are timed to fire the injectors in sync with the intake stroke are sequential systems, direct fuel injection must also fire at a precise moment relative to the combustion cycle. Also, if you want to see a truly modern aircraft engine check out ADEPT Airmotive's engine.
Very impressive engine.
I would be interested to know if it Density based or Mass Air based fuel mapping system.
Will you certificate a "multifuel" version? Here in Brazil we at the agricultural aviation industry would like an engine running either Avgas or Ethanol.
Sort of like the "flex fuel" engines we've had in cars for more than two decades ...
Only 30 years late.
jclfozy - It’s delayed because the industry had to endure, then recover from 30 years of cutthroat lawyers that sued everyone and everything even remotely connected to each aircraft accident. If you’re angry, it would be more appropriate to vent at a litigation lawyer.
@@Supernumerary You mean lawyers stopped them from doing what Rotax and others did years ago? Make no mistake, it wasn't until the competition from other manufactures that were providing more advanced engines that has made the Lycoming's and the Continental's decide to step it up.
@circusboy90210 automobile engines have had this sophistication for about 30 years, a modern automobile engine has more control systems than the Saturn 5 rocket and about 50 times the computing power.
i'll buy one of them when money comes
@KenMacMillan You are 100% right. With fuel return lines to the selected tank and with proper insulation there is no logical reason we shouldn't be able to use pump gas. Even the worst case of using winter mogas on a hot summer day should work. But I do not think Lycoming is setting out to refuel GA with this engine.
@SoCalFlya I'm spculating that since the workload of the pilot is reduced there is a gain in safety. Also, the system should eliminate pilot errors that can cause decreases in performance and engine life. With two parallel computers, total failure should be very rare (much less comman than the rare failure of both mags). Finally Lycoming engines can have the same multiport sequential fuel injection and electronic variable ignition timing that cars have had since the early 1980s.
Incredible powerplant!
Accually there is or some aircraft lines. It's built into TCM engines. If you have a late model engine like a IO-550B or IO-520BB in a Bonanza that has the propper cam gear. It's and easy bolt on.
The one thing I want to know and is not clear to me after watching this video; assuming a competent pilot, is this system safer and more efficient than manual mixture and power adjustments?
No, it's the FAA. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to privately fund an STC to retrofit a Cherokee or a 172?
To put it another way, All agencies in Washington DC are oriented to clean air, energy efficiency and energy conservation. All except the FAA. Why can't the FAA provide in the name of clean air and energy conservation a blanket STC for older aircraft to retrofit with FADEC technology?
@cobrala so safety concerns actually cause more safety problems for lack of current technology?
Yep
@idontcare80 not really aware of any engine that controls each and every combustions cycle as an independent event for each cylinder, or that can be reprogrammed for different fuels on the fly. (no pun intended). ecu failures happen, seen a few on fleet vehicles, crown vics, town cars, etc... busses 18 wheelers.
@circusboy90210 If I understand you question correctly GA aviation is very cautious before implementing new technology until it is tested to exhaustion. They want to test all possible situations that can occur. The term if its not broke dont fix it comes to mind. But yes by keeping GA engines very simple there are less things to fail and Lyco's are very reliable. But now the Lyco"saur" engines are just ancient compare to auto technology and they are slowly catching up.
Why is the cover of the ignition module crinkly?
I noticed that too... It's a mystery.
WHat is the shaft HP? 400?
nice
This engine will be massively expensive to maintain.
I don't understand why not for this HP and price range wouldn't it be better to use an Allison Rolls Royce 250 turbo shaft. It's much lighter, quieter, smoother. Runs on JP fuel
And it uses twice the fuel.
And the overhaul costs more than the Lycoming itself
@circusboy90210 I guess if you deal with American vehicles you're bound to see a lot of failures lol. As far as I know most engine controls deal with each combustion cycle as an independent event, otherwise how else would an engine vary the timing and pulse width of each injector, or the timing of each spark based on load, rpm, knock, etc. Most modern engines will compensate automatically for different fuel types, just check out the specs on the new Mustang 5.0, or the Flexfuel vehicles.
@fatmanmedia auto's don't have redundant systems or engine management computers this advanced, close but a few things are missing, except for high end models, or aftermarket equipment. how you get more computing power than a saturn 5 rocket is beyond me. remember most of the computing in analogue systems are built into the device though engineering.
Lycoming has become a shlock house using parts from sub-par subcontractors. Lycoming's use of hollow crankshafts from a low-cost supplier then reselling the rebuilt engines -- which have become a death trap -- for $40,000 should have had those Lycoming execs jailed.
30 years after EFI became standard... Lycoming thought, "Hey, that might be a good idea!". In their defense they are really a small company compared to say a honda or toyota.
Aviation takes a verrrrry conservative approach to innovations.
@circusboy90210 Auto's don't need redundant systems. When was the last time you heard of and ECU failure or an ignition system failure in a modern car? Hell, the redundant systems on this engine are just excessive. Also, autos have had technology that is MUCH more sophisticated that this for years; VNT turbos, electronically controlled VVT, EFI, direct fuel injection, CPC ignition, knock sensors, etc, etc, etc. This is still stone age stuff, a crude beast in a pretty dress.
idontcare80 it is a step up from years of continental telling us their old engine designs were good enough and not offering anything new or improved.
Got to start some where.
Stone Age is right
What does that have to do with anything being discussed here? And I'm not just talking about your general dislike and disregard for government regulation, I'm mean specifically?
50,000.00? 100,000.00? 150,000.00?
Clean ya nose out, bro :)