Camit engines - anyone got one?

[jetjr]

LCH are a good thing however, firstly are expensive , do add weight and complexity.

 

My concern is that the heat issues are partly added to by poor fuel distribution, not sorted by LCH. They do make TBI but doubt its a 100%fix either and this needs new throttle cables and fitting mods.

 

I am very interested in developments from SDS with a almost bolt up Multipoint EFI kit....... Similar price to LCH I think

 

I have implemented air ram mods outlined by Jab USA, almost have it nailed, temps 100 to 105 one side 115-120 the other, max at 135 in steep extended climb to 7000 ft in 38 deg day, oil temp maxes at 90, runs below 80 in cruise, needs a thermostat

 

 

[Oscar]

JJ, CAMit are working on a combined upgraded oil pressure relief valve (a known finicky area on standard Jab engines) with a TOCA cooler take-off; I'm not sure whether it is in production status yet but it's certainly on the way. Ask Ian Bent at Natfly... Once again, it's a likely benefit of CAMit's research that will have 'flow-on' benefit: the requirement for extended idling to get the oil temp up initially will be significantly cut, and thus the possibility of one side of the engine not getting decent cooling airflow if you happen to be holding in a cross-wind situation will be - at least - reduced.

 

The possibility of an efi system on Jab engines is also tantalisingly closer than one thinks; I've seen a set of intakes with injector holders on them (ain't saying where..) on an engine destined for drone use. The intransigence of the authorities to accept that the possibility of modern electronics failing is, on balance, less of a general risk to flying than the problems of not having an efi installed is a bitch, in my opinion. Remove carby icing problems AND mixture control problems in one fell swoop just has to be (I think) a positive trade-off for the apparent vulnerability of electronics to electricity power supply issues, and it should be possible to provide independent back-up power to keep injectors running using a LiFePO4 battery for little weight and complexity. The progress here is likely to be slowed by convincing 'authorities' to accept a solution rather than any difficulties in actually producing a decent system.

 

 

[facthunter]

It wouldn't be hard to design a basic limp home system with 80% power max as a backup. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Pretty easy and cheap to use an entirely self-contained back-up using a megasquirt with one or a pair of suitable injectors in the plenum chamber, and I'd be surprised if you couldn't get decent duration from a simple and light LiFePO4 battery ( less than I kg). Plus, you can carry a spare injector for the main system for en-route replacement..

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Why not keep the carb as a backup?

 

Phil.

 

 

[Russ]

Carby,s etc, have served us well for umpteen yrs, why go and complicate things. "EFI" was in part, to lessen pollution, to increase power etc, we are bound by regulated max weights, and the 80.........120 hp most use, does the job just dandy.

 

My gyro is "EFI" , prob is, the slightest hiccup, is a nightmare to trace.....and folks can get a head shake from workshops because it,s an aeroplane install, they want nothing to do with it.

 

Carby,s .....easy as.

 

As to "limp home mode" if the ecu is not happy with a sensor input, limp home is about 20% power......at best. Yet to see aviation get you home on 20% avail power.

 

Keep it simple is my preferred.

 

 

[Oscar]

Why not keep the carb as a backup?Phil.

Yep, that's an option - you'd need to have two fuel systems though, one for the high pressure to the injectors, one low pressure to the carby. That's do-able, it's just a question, I think, of working out the best option(s).

 

Carby,s etc, have served us well for umpteen yrs, why go and complicate things. "EFI" was in part, to lessen pollution, to increase power etc, we are bound by regulated max weights, and the 80.........120 hp most use, does the job just dandy.My gyro is "EFI" , prob is, the slightest hiccup, is a nightmare to trace.....and folks can get a head shake from workshops because it,s an aeroplane install, they want nothing to do with it.

Carby,s .....easy as.

 

As to "limp home mode" if the ecu is not happy with a sensor input, limp home is about 20% power......at best. Yet to see aviation get you home on 20% avail power.

 

Keep it simple is my preferred.

I suggest that for peace of mind, one should assume that any problem with the primary fuel delivery system should be considered 'total loss', and a secondary system should be independent of the primary. We're getting reports of the 912 EFI system being a right cranky thing despite being dual-channel (or whatever they call it). No doubt Rotax will get that sorted, but my experience of 'German' (ok, they're Austrian, I know, I know) engineering is that it tends to assume that a 'clever' approach is preferable to a simple if less efficient one. Just a general observation from having worked on Porsche, BMW and Mercedes cars, a little bit.

 

Going EFI is a value-judgement thing. There are undeniable benefits from using EFI: better fuel consumption ( i.e.: more range for the fuel load at MTOW), automatic compensation for varying fuel quality, even mixture supply to each pot, no icing problems. All of that makes for less engine management stress on the PIC and a happier life for the engine. There is a huge amount of experience now of EFI systems - I suspect that the incidence of EFI problems in motor vehicles is extremely rare in normal use. Is there ANY new, or recent, motor vehicle on the market that still uses carbies?

 

I grew up with carburettored cars, raced them and worked on them for many, many years. One thing I can say with some confidence is, that IF you have a problem with a carby - say, a needle circlip breaking, a slide jamming because of an errant strand of wire in a broken accelerator cable, a return spring breaking etc. - from an aircraft POV, you're on the ground to fix it just as much as you will be if the motherboard for an EFI system goes to Silicon Heaven. I know that I don't have the skills to diagnose and rectify problems with an EFI system whereas I think I do for most carburettors (well, Weber, Dellorto, Solex, S.U., Rochester and Holley, anyway - Bing is an adventure yet to be traversed), BUT: I'm not going to fly any more happily over tiger country with an engine with any of those attached, as I would with an engine with an EFI system.

 

Why? - simply because there are too many factors that can contribute to an aero-engine ceasing to turn the whirly bit out the front reliably anyway - of which an EFI system would be just ONE. I'm a glider pilot by experience, I don't trust noise to keep me aloft.

 

If one assumes that the noisy thing can cease to be noisy for any one of a considerable number of reasons and flies accordingly, then the EFI vs. Carburettor argument comes down to expected failure rate vs. advantages in non-failure mode. I believe that a decent EFI system has advantages that are seriously worth considering, and with the caveat that one should NOT assume that an EFI system will never fail, those advantages may well be very attractive.

 

 

[facthunter]

The limp home is a basic carb with no float or sophisticated idle system. easy get 80% Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

The technology available to the common man has streaked ahead of aviation, which is burdened by an overly-conservative attitude. We should be able to replace magnetos, carbies and brick-sized transponders with more efficient and more reliable equipment.

 

If CAMit could offer a good simple EFI option they'd have to expand the factory.

 

 

[deadstick]

 

 

 

[Yenn]

EFI has been used on a Jab engine years ago, by a one time member of this forum. He was an expert and said it took quite a bit of knowledge to set it up. I will see if I can fine one of his posts.

 

I have flown with EFI and I was very aware that it only took a lack of 12V power to stop the motor. Happier with a carby or probably a TBI, but as has been pointed out here full CHT and EGT for preference. My current plane has full gauges and it was easy to find one plug which was misfiring on the first run, because of over rich taxying.

 

 

[Oscar]

The technology available to the common man has streaked ahead of aviation, which is burdened by an overly-conservative attitude. We should be able to replace magnetos, carbies and brick-sized transponders with more efficient and more reliable equipment.If CAMit could offer a good simple EFI option they'd have to expand the factory.

It's a pretty damn good size of factory... some of the CNC machines are bigger than the caravan park unit my co-owner and I were staying at when rebuilding our engine at CAMit, and we had separate rooms..

 

 

[Blueadventures]

JJ, CAMit are working on a combined upgraded oil pressure relief valve (a known finicky area on standard Jab engines) with a TOCA cooler take-off; I'm not sure whether it is in production status yet but it's certainly on the way. Ask Ian Bent at Natfly... Once again, it's a likely benefit of CAMit's research that will have 'flow-on' benefit: the requirement for extended idling to get the oil temp up initially will be significantly cut, and thus the possibility of one side of the engine not getting decent cooling airflow if you happen to be holding in a cross-wind situation will be - at least - reduced.The possibility of an efi system on Jab engines is also tantalisingly closer than one thinks; I've seen a set of intakes with injector holders on them (ain't saying where..) on an engine destined for drone use. The intransigence of the authorities to accept that the possibility of modern electronics failing is, on balance, less of a general risk to flying than the problems of not having an efi installed is a bitch, in my opinion. Remove carby icing problems AND mixture control problems in one fell swoop just has to be (I think) a positive trade-off for the apparent vulnerability of electronics to electricity power supply issues, and it should be possible to provide independent back-up power to keep injectors running using a LiFePO4 battery for little weight and complexity. The progress here is likely to be slowed by convincing 'authorities' to accept a solution rather than any difficulties in actually producing a decent system.

Any chance of you tubing Ian's information as that would be a good way to share the positive development he is producing. I don't have a jab engine but from my research over the past few years what we are hearing about his work is tremendous. RAA should have an award process each year for godd developments in our sport and Ian and his team should get one.

 

When I went to Nat fly in 2010 I sat in on the Jab service forum and made some notes about some mods people where doing that got good hours out of rebuilt heads and tappet clearances for solid lifters and this new Camit engine seems to be what pepole need. Cheers

 

Mike

 

 

[jetjr]

Older efi kits are made with various auto components and needed deep knowledge to make rhem go, guys who did got good results.

 

Aviation setups like SDS really dont need much in the way of sensors and isnt nearly as complex as automotive types. My understanding is that its a largely manual injection setup. Has a base program and manual adjustment for mixture. Only uses rpm and MAP to work.

 

Has high pressure pump and can be setup parrallel to factory fuel circut.

 

Theres a J200 in SA been running this setup for a while with carb as backup

 

Carb is attractive backup as can be totally without power and we all own them already so basically without cost

 

The EFI setup just uses a second fuel supply and maybe return line to header tank

 

Older J200/400 types had separate wing tank supplies and dual tap as std so pretty simple

 

Have a look at the website components are all laid out. Final base map and testing on 2200 will be done shortly. Manuals on kit coming soon too

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Have a look at the website components are all laid out. Final base map and testing on 2200 will be done shortly. Manuals on kit coming soon too

I'm in contact with Ross constantly and we met up here in China last year.

 

Good guy and very honest about his product and his competition and fields questions without bias much to his credit.

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes he is Bex, ive been emailing probably dim questions to him for some time and always recieve long well thought out answers

 

I did recommend he talk to Ian @Camit recently.

 

 

[facthunter]

I intend to be in the area about half through September, and would like to make an appointment with him. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I noticed this announcement elsewhere dated a week ago .....

 

We now have kits in stock for Jabiru 2200 and 3300 engines. Our systems have been flying on Jabiru engines since 2009 and on many other engine types for the past 20 years:

 

http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html Jabiru kits are pictured about 3/4 of the way down this page.

 

Installation does involve removing the induction tubes to weld the injector bosses in place.

 

I am happy to answer any questions you might have.

 

 

[Oscar]

Certainly, a very professionally done and attractive kit. If it were me thinking about installing one - and I'm very pro the idea - I'd be having a long chat to Ian Bent though first,simply because he knows better than anyone how changes do/can affect the engine in ways that may not be foreseen by anyone without his depth of knowledge. The old adage that a silly question costs less to answer than a silly mistake costs to fix applies here, and I am a firm believer in the principle of 'do it right and do it once'. If everyone who installs a CAMit engine communicates effectively with CAMit, then we'll all benefit from the rapid accumulation of knowledge about how to get the very best results and I for one would trust CAMit to provide the best distilled wisdom they can muster from users, which will be a far better and more reliable channel than 'paddock gossip'.

 

 

[jetjr]

A key problem for Jabiru (and Camit I expect) is the inability to certify (or factory support) an ECU like this one.

 

Means it would always be an add on for experimental use only, dramatically shrinking the market for it.

 

Also chicken and egg, Ian would need to see a few running and get feedback people want it before investing effort

 

$3500 parts, going to be ~$6000 fitted and thats a big step up for a $15-20 K engine too.

 

My numbers reckon it will justify itself in fuel use alone pretty easily, plus extended life and maintenance benefits

 

I have just seen some EGT numbers from a Camit engine and narrow spread is pretty impressive. Not sure whats been done in this area, there are some 3300 which just have good distribution. Shame mines not one of them.

 

 

[Oscar]

JJ, absolutely correct, the hoops that have to be jumped through to get any form of certification are not for the uncourageous..

 

Your distribution problem is interesting, but of course totally known with Jab. engines. I think - but am in no way sure - that there were some tweaks to the intake plenum done some time ago, but again, Ian Bent will have the answer. Whatever HAS been done to get even distribution can't be just a one-off result, has to be repeatable - but the trick is, as always, knowing what has made the difference!

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes none of the tweaks really worked very well, even higher cost like new plenums etc did little in sorting it out. Anything BUT repeatable!

 

I did ask Ian a while ago but dont think he had achieved much either.

 

I do know lots of hours has gone into sorting this problem out with little result. By design, having plenum end fed by basic carb isnt a good position to start with in getting even flows.

 

Isnt a new issue auto makers struggled for years getting carb plenums and runners working right, if their R&D budget couldn't sort it out what hope does Jabiru or Camit have?

 

Auto makers love multipoint EFI as many of these issues including average design, poor grade fuel, cold starts, altitude and hot weather problems just disappear.

 

I still believe much of Jabiru failures can be linked to detonation and overtemp running. EFI solves much of it.

 

 

[Oscar]

Yes, it's a PITA; with multi-point EFI and EGT monitoring mixture control, it should be possible to get very close to the button for all pots. If we didn't need to keep our beastie 55-reg I think I'd be looking at EFI right now; as I said earlier, the official (FAA etc.) attitude to electronic EFI seem to me to be based on 'possible' failure, rather than looking at the broader picture of relative likelihood of failure of the EFI in the context of the alternatives..

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Are you flying a test bed or an aeroplane? Seriously, IF you have to do this you might consider employing a flight engineer. The DC6 had full ignition analysis in flight as on long trips a fault could produce a failure if the engine was not shut down early. Our aircraft shouldn't require this degree of monitoring in flight.Another effect is the possibility of indicator failure. Is the engine or the INDICATION the problem? On most 582's it is fairly rare to have both EGT gauges working at any point in time.

If your engine develops vibration or rough running in flight , get it on the ground ASAP... If you fly over what you can land on it will be better for you. Mechanical failures usually happen unannounced , and NO FUEL is probably the most common cause of the engine going quiet, if normal servicing is done on the engine...Nev

Get a 503 ... both EGTs work most of the time, and I've never had a coolant leak!

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Yep, that's an option - you'd need to have two fuel systems though, one for the high pressure to the injectors, one low pressure to the carby. That's do-able, it's just a question, I think, of working out the best option(s).

 

I suggest that for peace of mind, one should assume that any problem with the primary fuel delivery system should be considered 'total loss', and a secondary system should be independent of the primary. We're getting reports of the 912 EFI system being a right cranky thing despite being dual-channel (or whatever they call it). No doubt Rotax will get that sorted, but my experience of 'German' (ok, they're Austrian, I know, I know) engineering is that it tends to assume that a 'clever' approach is preferable to a simple if less efficient one. Just a general observation from having worked on Porsche, BMW and Mercedes cars, a little bit.

 

Going EFI is a value-judgement thing. There are undeniable benefits from using EFI: better fuel consumption ( i.e.: more range for the fuel load at MTOW), automatic compensation for varying fuel quality, even mixture supply to each pot, no icing problems. All of that makes for less engine management stress on the PIC and a happier life for the engine. There is a huge amount of experience now of EFI systems - I suspect that the incidence of EFI problems in motor vehicles is extremely rare in normal use. Is there ANY new, or recent, motor vehicle on the market that still uses carbies?

 

I grew up with carburettored cars, raced them and worked on them for many, many years. One thing I can say with some confidence is, that IF you have a problem with a carby - say, a needle circlip breaking, a slide jamming because of an errant strand of wire in a broken accelerator cable, a return spring breaking etc. - from an aircraft POV, you're on the ground to fix it just as much as you will be if the motherboard for an EFI system goes to Silicon Heaven. I know that I don't have the skills to diagnose and rectify problems with an EFI system whereas I think I do for most carburettors (well, Weber, Dellorto, Solex, S.U., Rochester and Holley, anyway - Bing is an adventure yet to be traversed), BUT: I'm not going to fly any more happily over tiger country with an engine with any of those attached, as I would with an engine with an EFI system.

 

Why? - simply because there are too many factors that can contribute to an aero-engine ceasing to turn the whirly bit out the front reliably anyway - of which an EFI system would be just ONE. I'm a glider pilot by experience, I don't trust noise to keep me aloft.

 

If one assumes that the noisy thing can cease to be noisy for any one of a considerable number of reasons and flies accordingly, then the EFI vs. Carburettor argument comes down to expected failure rate vs. advantages in non-failure mode. I believe that a decent EFI system has advantages that are seriously worth considering, and with the caveat that one should NOT assume that an EFI system will never fail, those advantages may well be very attractive.

Look, if we were MEANT to use EFI, Kugelfischer wouldn't have made mechanical fuel injection for petrol engines!