Phillps oil for Jabs

[jetjr]

No they dont

 

Engines become more efficient as well as handling emissions improvements

 

Efficiency would be higher if much of these hurdles werent there

 

Much of these emission control measures rely on EFI and electrically based systems which can degrade reliability and redundancy.

 

Seems your arguing that auto engines should replace aero ones? They can but not if you want it certified and its a path littered with problems for those who have tried.

 

 

[facthunter]

Any auto engine I've looked at has a PCV Positive Crankcase Ventilation fitting to a high point on the motor that may have a small amount of baffling to stop flinging oil coming out with the extracted gases. I've never seen a separator as such. This fitting is connected to the manifold downstream of the throttle valve. If any of this fails the engine runs pretty rough. Some engines have a filtered air entry at some other point on the motor which gives a flow through the engine feature which helps vent moisture and is a good idea. BUT on an aeroplane engine it's something else to fail, so should pass the "necessary" test.. Nev

 

 

[Paul davenport]

Come on fellas this type of talk of replacing aero engines with auto engine is not what was inferred . I am how ever making the point confirmed by your comments that we are not moving forward but in either stationary or going backwards. I have worked in the auto industry for the last 30 years and I have never seen a crank case vent system fail yet, IF a hose comes off it is because someone didn't fit a clamp as required by the manufacturer, as for maintainence WHAT maintainence is required other than visual inspection to ensure integrity of the system components. If YOU remove the hose on a correctly calibrated system the engine will RUN ROUGH AND STALL AT IDLE above idle you would not even notice. I wonder just how many of you drive a modern car with that un reliable fuel injection system you talk of . If you are prepared to go back to early 60s technology cars that leak oil are low on power hard to start require points and timing adjustments and carburettor tuning run hot in the summer and use more fuel,then I will conceed you have a valid point but if as I suspect you all drive modern cars then your opposition to new and improved technology is a bit hard to accept. We could and should embrace the opportunity this technology offers perhaps in some modified form for aviation, but to say it's not for us is head in the sand stuff

 

 

[jetjr]

"We" are using the best aero engines available

 

Piston aviation still largely on leaded fuel, how does PCV move ahead?

 

What exactly are you sugesting?

 

 

[Paul davenport]

You are missing the point it's not just PCV it's the idea that reliability can only be found if we don't do anything else IN CASE it's un reliable so we don't do anything and we stay right where we are stuck in the past . An improved crank case vent system cannot be a bad thing .

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes it can

 

Adding oil vapour into intake reduces power

 

Efi isnt certified in any aero engine yet, needs full duplicate system just like ignition

 

What are you suggesting aircraft owners do?

 

 

[Paul davenport]

If your engine is in good condition and your oil vapour separator baffling is designed well you only have bypass gasses to enter the motor and not much of them if all engine components are serviceable . Electronic fuel injection with integrated ignition is only not certified because we insist it's not possible but I think Rotax is trying to prove otherwise. It's not up to aircraft owners to do anything other than discuss as we are now and push engine manufacturers to lift their game. I believe a jab owner is experimenting with fuel injection in South Australia with some exciting results I wonder what our thoughts on this will be in 10 years time

 

 

[jetjr]

Its not certified for good reason and yes Rotax are wor,king on it and not without a lot of pain and money.

 

Main reason is efficiency and the pending loss of Avgas in EU

 

it has raised cost and complexity a lot and efficiency a little. Still not certified as I know

 

Maybe you need to lern about certification procesess, it isnt up to owners or consumers to demand anything

 

EFI has been fitted to Jabs for almost 15 years but only on experimental classes

 

Just FYI all Jab engines have a vapour separator and collect blow by gasses, plenty run catch can and collection. They are air cooled and run higher crank pressures than tighter watercooled engines.

 

Im still lost in what you think PCV setup brings to the table except inducing oil filled hot air into induction, reducing power and potentially clogging intakes....just like it does on cars

 

Where would you fit it to say a Jabiru?

 

 

[Paul davenport]

OK I will say again because you seem fixated on this is as good as it gets because every thing else is TOO HARD .Improvements happen in all spheres of the world for many reasons SOME OF THEM ARE advances in technology and materials ,government legislation and consumer demand. When the internal combustion engine was first designed it was crude and inefficient it has been improved some what since then as I am sure you would agree but only as a result of trying new ideas and technology's . I Am sure just as you would not drive a car from the the sixties you would not fly an aircraft that had that not been advanced to where it is now . You stay where you are if you wish but I will continue to ask for solutions and advancements to improve what is basically a primitive design albeit relatively reliable ,it can and should be better and continually evolving due to advances in technology .

 

 

[Paul davenport]

who said anything about certification I did not

 

 

[facthunter]

You have to consider it because it's a part of aviation. You have facts presented to you which you choose to ignore and just suggest we have our heads in the sand about "Progress" which is emotional rather than scientific. External plumbing on an aero engine is probably not only maintenance intensive but also safety related to a large extent. Oil coolers and filters. Coolant heat exchangers water pipes fuel lines heat shielding exhaust ducting/pipes breather pipes and fuel vent tubes are all safety sensitive subject to vibration and need constant inspection, and proper installation. The less of them the better. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

Yeah im reading you might have a fair bit to research about aviation engines and thier priorities

 

 

[Paul davenport]

Boy do you fellas get hot under the collar when some one suggests we could improve. May I suggest you take a big deep breath and consider how far we have come and then look ahead.go out and look at some auto systems they are not as complicated as you think ,they are reliable maybe not quite aviation ready just yet

 

 

[facthunter]

You have your opinion. I'm not against improvement and I don't particularly like piston engines in aircraft, but have built and worked on more engines than most have. What is your PRACTICAL experience? If you assert something you should be able to back it up with reasons. Aviation is unusual in many ways Reliability lightness and simplicity feature big in an aviation engine most of which are still direct drive, and have a mixture control and even cowl flaps. Not hard to learn to use. Nev

 

 

[Paul davenport]

OK point by point Jet

 

What facts have presented to me to change my view .statements like "no its not" and "no they don't " are hardly convincing and then a statement like"all jabirus have a vapour separator to collect GASSES and plenty run catch cans".Its oil they collect out of the blow by gasses and the majority of the gasses at the end are relatively oil free on an engine on good condition .so what are you referring to when you refer to as vapour separators and then catch cans how are they plumbed external by hose ?

 

What imperical evidence do you have and how was it collected to prove your point and discredit mine what aviation engine has a pcv system which degrades the inlet system,who dynoed this engine to prove a power loss was as a result of introducing a crank case bypass gasses

 

Nev "potentially blocking intakes" does it block them or doesn't it ,how many vent systems have you inspected and how many were blocked,what was the physical condition of these engines were they serviced correctly

 

"EFI isn't certified in any aero engine yet it needs full duplication" why? Do you duplicate a certified carburettor,there have been incidents involving carburettor failures too

 

Certifying rotax EFI is causing some head aches and costing money to get the bugs out but eventually they will and you are right they are doing it for EFFICIENCIES and the loss of Av gas

 

When the first injection systems were introduced there were over 360 individual components at last count in the most modern systems it was around 65 less to go wrong and it will get better again

 

"Maybe I need to learn more about the certification process" I would love to but quite frankly this should not be the reason to stop testing new systems

 

I opperate in the experimental category where people are more open to new and advancing ideas

 

Nev I have read many of your repleys to forums and I don't doubt your knowledge and agree with almost all of what you have to say(no one is right all the time. Not even me) ,you have worked on many engines and quite rightly ask what experience I have to allow me to make comments ,for the last 41 years I have worked in the auto trade and on engines such as rotax 2 and 4 strokes I have built subaru engines for aircraft ,small and large Diesel engines ,rotary engines ,tractors and gypsy aero engines I currently hold an L2 for the RAA.I own an AVID MK4 and a J 230 I hold a a GA private pilot licence and was glider rated

 

I do not and have not asserted anything other than "there is room for improvement" I do take a little offence in some one telling me that something does not work based on here say evidence and then proceed to tell me just what will happen, when they have never tried it or seen the results of such a study or trial (or provided me with the results so I can make an apology ). Nev I think you put it quite well early on in a thread on Phillips oil when some one stated that is why it had done X hours as a result of running on Phillips oil

 

I would agree that the aviation industry does not have the economy of scale to spend the amounts that the auto industry spends on R&D so why not cherry pick the best of their technology and improve it for ours (slowly)

 

I visited Oshkosh last year and the most exciting segment in aviation is in the experimental area,I suspect the big guys are using the experimental section to do their R&D for them

 

Fellas I do not profess to know it all and not a day goes by that I don't learn something new (although for the life of me I cannot remember learning anything new yesterday) I ask question on forums like this to learn and I respect your views BUT keep it factual and if you have a source of information share it . I have been in love with aviation for some 41 years (my wife says I have an illness)

 

It has been informative to say the least discussing this with you

 

 

[jetjr]

Paul, we arent hot under the collar, at worst simply dont agree with you.

 

if you are an aircraft owner and L2 you should know all the views we are putting out there

 

Innovation is a great thing, we never said it wasnt just that is isnt automatically a good thing because its innovative or sucessful in auto engines

 

Auto engines are driven by different issues and a whole portion of their design is for meeting constantly changing emmissions legislation

 

Im still lost by why you feel issues like PCV will help an existing engine like your J230

 

Go ahead and try it let us know how much efficiency you achieve

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't recall blocking intakes being mentioned by me in any post and I have just had another look through. PC valves gum up and don't function a lot particularly in short use vehicles and now that you mention it I have seen a Valiant with at least 80% port blockage due carbon build up on the head of the valve in the port area, and it hardly delivered any power. and it's fairly common in diesels with exhaust RG valving, to have the most incredible foul gunk all through the inlet tract. This is all done to improve pollution not reliability. When an EGR valve doesn't seal you can't see anyone behind you, for the soot and you are in limp home mode.

 

You did use some colourful expressions about us too, you know. I don't believe I have a head in the sand approach. I am very open to improvements but this AUTO thing keeps being trotted out all the time, and there are very few satisfactory applications. Most often the redrive is not competently engineered .Ideally the best engines will be built specifically for aircraft from commencement of the design spec, but it's hard ask with low volumes and good quality control , light weight, cheapness and user friendly in the field.

 

I am fully aware that putting my views up leaves me open for criticism, and it restricts a me a lot. I am prepared to answer for what I post, but not what some think I have posted. I suggest people read what I post carefully before reacting to it. I try not to get personal, but I'm human too when I'm openly insulted. I hope I never say something that inhibits someone posting or asking to clarify something said. I have picked up a lot on this forum, but it gets pretty hard if you have to overly qualify something to try to ensure no one takes it the wrong way, as does inevitably occur sometimes. There will also be times when we agree to disagree. Be boring if we all thought the same wouldn't it/ Nev

 

 

[Paul davenport]

Great discussion and I detect perhaps a slight change in ALL our posts .i have started some few weeks ago to separate oil from the bypass gasses keeping the original catch can at the end of the vent line, at the moment I have not had to add any oil to the engine and no oil is accumulating in the catch can so after some more flying I will move to the next phase of creating a drafting tube on the inlet system up stream of the carburettor (the reason for the first post).I will keep you posted. Nev A VALIANT how old did you say you were! They were discontinued in the 70s no wonder it was blocked (sounds like we are the same age) . EGR now there's a nice subject remember we are talking advancements here , that was introduced in petrol and Diesel engines to lower combustion temps and lessen nox gasses and apart from making jobs for my trade was NEVER considered an improvement . I have Never in this thread suggested we adopt some of the crazy ADVANCED ? ideas from the auto industry , but I think the word used was cherry pick to our advantage, and although I have used the auto industry as a stepping stone (and I fly behind a subaru ea81 with an Amax redrive in the avid) I am not suggesting we use auto engines as best practice ,aero engines are as you quite rightly put it the athletes of the engine world and opperate under special conditions. Having said that there are some mighty fine alloy engines coming out from auto manufactures the quality of the castings and engineering is mind blowing (makes aero engines seem crude in comparison) These engines have some demanding testing conditions placed on them,runing them fully loaded for 24 plus hrs on an engine dyno is something not done to my knowledge on aero engines. When you pull down an engine these days (and that's not as often as it used to be) they are relatively un worn and you would be hard pressed to measure the wear. Temperature control seems to be the answer here and you just cannot beat liquid cooling for that. Trotting out AUTO yes I would agree it just not realistic to grab an auto engine and lace it up to an aircraft without a properly designed redrive unit but I was never suggesting that in the first place .it takes MONEY to R&D a redrive unit and quite honestly I don't see anyone with deep enough pockets to volunteer for the job ,so we are stuck with a couple of engines to choose from, old design aero engines, new (and improved although some woud disagree with improved) jabiru engines (I like mine ) rotax who to there credit are putting some effort into some of those modern ideas I keep talking about and a smattering of other manufacturers who are at least trying . Great discussion let's keep it up

 

 

[Paul davenport]

Nev either some one has removed some of your earlier post or I read it incorrectly saying potentially blocking inlets if you did not say this pleas accept my apologies

 

 

[Paul davenport]

Found the reference to potential blockage it was by another contributor to this thread

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes I said it Paul, in reference to emissions control advancements, not just oil capture. Oil soaked MAF sensors and clogged intakes from oil recirc and EGR is common. Plenty of oil problems in late 80's carb fed cars with PCV setups too. Its why they were so commonly, even today bypassed and vented to atmosphere.

 

Stuck or inoperative recirculation systems can reduce power by significant amounts and Ive had some stick randomly leaving ~ 30% power available.. Had this been in aircraft would have been VERY serious.

 

The reason why Aero engines are left in crude/dinosaur state is because the risk of this sort of malfunction doesnt outweigh benefit. Still using leaded fuel so enviro damage from oil vapour isnt relevant

 

We are all on the same page, theres some good tech in auto engines but plenty of it is not directly transferrable

 

Your oil capture system sounds OK, they are available online, Motion Aero and others and I have one if youd like it, a bit too long for top on my engine.

 

CAE have second crank breather in rear of engines and they have separator catch can coming, which achieves near nil loss Im told. Even Jabiru have another for sale, Rod claims nil oil use with it too- I have a spare one of these too if youd like it?

 

The "liquid" in standard catch can is often not what Id like headed back into sump. Plenty of water and other ugly stuff in there. Next oil is pretty cheap compared to risking an issue.

 

Unless you go downstream of carb, theres some very small ports in there which will ruin your day if full of oily residue. Messing with flow downstream in Jabirus can lead to uneven spread of fuel. Hope you have full EMS running. Of course you have Jabirus approval to tinker with LSA engine?

 

Totally agree with temp control but it can be done with air cooled just takes more setup effort. Metallurgy plays a big role.

 

Aero engines have significant cell testing, far more complex than 24hrs, Its a key reason why much of aero engine development is a aparantly such along way behind, simply costs too much - like hundreds of thousands$$ to run a cert test and not sure theres anywhere in Aus can do it (aside from DL )

 

Read through Jabiru/Camit threads and youll see it listed out. Thats for certification but many go through truncated version for ASTM type approval too. Oscar or Nev can tell you more no doubt.

 

 

[facthunter]

The valiant engine is one of the engines used in a Jeep. I have done a lot of headwork, in my life of working on interesting motors but engines these days can go their whole life without head removal. Every one that I've seen removed has significant carbon on the upside of the inlet valves and in the ports. so I'm not into putting crud into the intlet manifolds unless required to.

 

Paul I would fly happily in a Bleriot replica with a rotten 3 cylinder Anzani in it, but in an environment where engine failure wouldn't make headlines or damage the plane most times.

 

There's hardly any motor in an aircraft that's reasonably safe unless it's a jet looked after properly.

 

High revving motors sound crook and need redrives. 4 cylinder ones, LyCont's do a job but they're clunkers to an extent. Gypsy Queens are smooth but fail and are heavy. Big radials rumble in a lovely way and use lots of oil (and leak it on you and send you broke, when they stop) but they have the most character by a mile.

 

Looking after your motor is part of flying. Modern car engines stop if you go under power lines, and be honest Look at the latest turbo Rotax injected. Not sorted and owners will never be able to work on them or trouble shoot. and xxxxxy expensive. Nev

 

 

[Paul davenport]

Now this is more like it a real conversation. My working life has been generally speaking spent working on Japanese and european cars MAZDA (our dealership is Mazda and was the other two) PEUGEOT RENAULT with a fair amount of every thing else in the middle. I still spin nuts and I must say on the vast majority of the cars now worked on I just don't see the problems you have been talking about.it may have been so back in the 80 s and I can only report on what I saw but even then we had relatively little failure of emission equipment BUT it is not and has never been my intention to introduce emission equipment to aero engines (other than the infamous crank case vent system )

 

Nev I have heard about the infamous under the power pole stopping and stopping at other rf signal points but until someone gives me proof you know ,who what where and it can be replicated I will have to put it in the myth buster files to be conclusively confirmed or busted

 

Jet I don't think in my shop we ever tampered with a pcv system as we never saw problems with them that a wash and clean would not repair at the time of servicing and if some one presented a car for a road worthy with such a blatant modification it would not have passed ,EGR on the other hand was not so easy to check BUT in the cars we sold the failure was in the closed position no gasses passed to the combustion chamber. These failures are really red herrings as I am not suggesting we use them ( except for that pesky pcv)

 

The type of technology I really want used is the fuel injected ignition integrated systems where advance and mixture is tightly controlled and cruising at lower than 75 % would be more economical . CHT and EGT would be more even ac cros the engine operation range

 

Nev I know you and jet you think this is out of our reach but I have a little more confidence in the designers and technology

 

 

[jetjr]

You can buy a bolt on efi kit tomorrow, certainly never said it was out of reach. My problem was with the idea of PCV delivering much other than emissions benefits

 

EFI is out there now, few new engines come with it .

 

Problem is firstly pretty expensive, next it plainly raises few reliability problems. No doubt to me its part of the future but our point is that its benefits vs risks, and there are plenty.

 

A core part of aero reliability is electrical isolation, being no electricity needed to keep engine going. That may be caused by simple wiring issues, fire or battery or charging system failure. Its even today a common fault. Electrical problems also very common in auto applications too. Maybe in dealer environment - often newer vehicles, this isnt seen as often.

 

EFI needs power for ECU and pumps, without either you land, nicely or otherwise, end of story

 

Certified engines run mechanical injection, pretty hard to bolt on but it does exist. Its available on experimental guise in US. Doesnt bring full advantages of EFI but goes a fair way without electrical reliance

 

Normal EFI, using ECU and power can be bought from SDS in US, theres some good thrads on Avcomm anda few here run it too. Have to address redundancy with extra batteries or other carb backup. Weight becomes an issue too.

 

Seeing advanced results im surprised that perhaps results not as good as i expected but fuel savings would pay for it over time

 

All this is there for experimental applications and reality is thats a small portion of a very small market. Tough to justify R&D time upon

 

Also remember the accident rate in experimental classes is supposed to be quite bad so there are risks.

 

I thnk your asking manfacturers to follow this up, however they do take on some extra risk selling a complete EFI setup. Not many will swallow this in such a small market.

 

EGR, plenty fail in open position, even back to 80's and PCV too, the valve wears out and bypasses all the time. TD engines with faiIled EGR can even bypass boosted air along with soot and clog intakes and oil pretty quick,.

 

 

[Paul davenport]

I can only base my comments on personal observations . Cherry pick and leave out the stuff that we don't want NO EGR As I see it experimental will have to do the bulk of R&D so we can move forward . Some might say that's just what Jab have been doing all along