×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft
2

Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

(OP)
Structural here that does a little flying once in a while and I have a question.

Every general aviation (GA) plane I have flown uses a carburetor.  The pilot always has to worry about ice and the need for carburetor heat.  If you read the accident reports - many are probably from carburetor ice.  Typical scenario - dew point and temperature are close and pilot states "Engine suddenly quit when I pulled back on the  power".  Down he/she goes.

With fuel injection found on almost every auto engine - why is it not used on GA aircraft??

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

... because most of the engines in GA aircraft are very old designs.

Heck, a lot of the GA aircraft are pretty old full stop because of the drop in production due to liability issues.

That said, there has been effort to put diesal's into GA aircraft, to avoid needing the special fuel amongst other reasons, and if memory serves they'd have to be injected.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

(OP)
Very good point that I hadn't thought about.

The latest thing I flew was brand new w/ a Rotax normally aspirated - but Rotax is a relatively small company and has just not produced that many GA powerplants.

Everything else was from '60s and '70s

Thanks
 

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

Economics

Both fuel injection and carburetors have existed in the GA marketplace for as long as I have been in it - early 1970's. More expensive airplanes are generally fuel injected and less expensive airplanes are carbureted. Back in the 1980's we would remove the carburetor from Lycoming O-320's and bolt on a RSA fuel injector. Very easy and worked well. Costs (including approval costs) made it uneconomical.  

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

(OP)
Figures... I just see so many "icing" crashes... makes you wonder??

Dumb design or dumber pilots.

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

Mooney Aircraft actually had a Certificated Porsche flat six, complete with Bosch electronic fuel injection, and fan cooling. It failed miserably in the market place.

The fuel injection systems in certificated aircraft are dead simple, compared to current automobile systems. Teledyne Continental has moved a little further into this century, with the IOF-240 Fadec engine. MAP sensors on each cylinder, coil-on-plug with variable timing, Electronic ignition, ECU controlled fuel metering & so forth. A real hair puller when it's broke, though; especially for an old moss-back such as myself!

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

I had a carburetor ice detector installed in the late 1970's and flew several thousand hours with it and it worked; so the technology has existed for a long time. Tried to sell them without success. An old adage in the aircraft parts industry: "safety doesn't sell"

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

There are injected avgas GA piston engines.  And the new diesel GA piston engines are all direct injected.

But as KENAT points out, the GA piston engine market is fairly limited and comes with huge product liability financial burdens.  A few years back, a guy I know in the GA aircraft business told me that the manufacturer's product liability cost with a typical new  piston engine was around $9000.  That's probably about 25% of the sales price.

Definitely not a good business to get into.

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

Gara has been circumvented in some court findings, by the legal "theory" that if ANY parts have been replaced on the product since "new", the GARA clock essentially starts over, (along with the liability)

An example: An engine that has had spark plugs replaced (normally at 300 hrs of operation) has it's "liability" renewed basically forever.

Think this was the intent of Congress?

It's being appealed in several venues.  

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

Almost all the newer ones are injected.  I never flown a carburated C-172.  Our 152's at the flight school are carburated but everything else is injected. Our 172's, arrow's, senicas are all injected.  

I seem to find more injected aircraft than carburated any more?  It seems the pre-1990's are more commonly carburated tho?

What do you fly?  2-seaters?  Light sports?  Perhaps in the light sport's carburated is more common but about all the four-seaters that I've seen, built after early 90's are injected.  

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

I have to believe that even in light general aviation the carbs must be going away.  The carb manufactures are almost gone.  Fuel injection has been at 100% penetration in automotive for industrialized nations for years, it is near 100% for motorcycles.  Even single cylinder MX bikes are fuel injected now.  Garden tractors and boats are fuel injected (not 100%).  About the only new spark ignition internal combustion engines left with carbs are leaf blowers, string trimmers and the like.

Do new general aviation engines have to meet any exhaust emissions requirements?  If so, the first thing to go is the carb.

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

Hi Mike... The FAA will not let you change a certified aircraft engine that came with a carburetor to a fuel injected one.. Also you can't put that modefacation into a certified aircraft that came with a carburetor.. As it goes with Card-ice..just keep your eye on the EGT gauge and when it moves down.. pull carb-heat..  I have had carb-ice on start up at Truckey CA: at 6:00 AM.  and carb-ice over Cottonwood AZ. at 8,500' under broken clouds in December and all the times I was able to keep that old continental ticking over..  It is the pilot's responsibly to fly safe.    ... The Knightflyer!

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

Knightflyer,

Are you saying the FAA will not consider an STC application for a fuel injection modification on an engine that originally came with a carb?

Or are you saying that since it would be an FAA Major alteration, you cannot do it if the substantiating data is not approved by the FAA?   

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

I disagree with Knightflyer, having been involved in the STC'ed installation of a fuel injected TCM IO-520 in an older Cessna 182, that was originally equipped with a carb engine. It was a bit labor intensive, requiring the installation of fuel injector bypass lines back to the fuel tank, and the installation of a small "header tank" aft of the firewall, under the cabin floor, which had to be vented through the original fuel vent system. A high/low pressure electric fuel pump was required, along with all the wiring mods, switches, circuit breakers, annunciatior lamps, etc.Lots of plumbing inside the aircraft, a new fuel flow indication system, & so forth.

Frankly, I don't see the payback, but it wasn't my money.

I could probably dig up the STC if anyone is really interested.  

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

HI Kontiki99  I read your bio. # one ..The answer is NO! The FAA will consider any appropriate paperwork application. Getting an answer back w/field approval is almost.impossible..  # TWO>> You know that any major alteration on anything must have field approval along with the 337,( along with an STC) The form, down at the bottom has to be signed off by the FAA.  What I said was that its cheaper to buy the existing STC , (if any for model and type)> Than!, try to re-invent the old Wheel..I don't want to make anyone up set! But I would love to replace my 0-360's carburetor with a injection system, But it does not make financial sense . Good job MIKE>> it looks like you realy started something with you simple statement.  Thanks, Knightflyer.

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

HI: Thruthefence. I don't think you disagree with me at all.. It sounds like we are on the same page when it comes to changing out the carb. for an injection system..  Of course there are STC'S out there but its not cost effective to make the change.. For example... The price for the STC, engine and work to put an 0-360 into a 172 Cessna is more than $40,000. I have the STC! on MY P172D which has an old 0-360 with a New (2010) Hartzel constant speed prop.. but I have a carb!!!My Skyhawk was one of the original four that received the original STC that converts the six cylenders to the four cylender 0-360 Back when the STC was for the CESSNA 175.  Any way it okay to have good conversation about anything that has to do with airplanes..If there is an STC.. buy it! Just don't try to get your own NEW STC. The cost is out of sight.. I am currently working on finishing my new oiling system for old continentals . and I have been told my people in the know that getting approval for it will be next to impossible.. Thanks.. Knightflyer

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

Knightflyer and thruthefence,
Are you guys saying that the one time not for resale STC is dead?
B.E.

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

Not at all, but the field approval process has become very cumbersome, & time consuming. Nearly the same as certificating an aircraft.

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

As to older Cessna'a... 172N (1979) is carbed.  The primer lock occasionally sticks and doesn't lock (uh why is the engine running rough, and I'm burning 15 gph?). No I would never do that!

Old STC's were straight forward through the local FSDO Office, uh these days it is simpler and faster to build your own plane (Experimental).   

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

The field approval process isn't dead, but has detailed restrictions as listed in Order 8900.1 Volume 4 Chapter 9. Changes of the sort discussed here i.e. carburetor to fuel injection would at the very least require support from a DER, if it would even be considered for a field approval. As a one time STC, it would still require a fair amount of engineering that would include runs to verify cooling, power output, and relaibility. Most likely have to put the airplane in Experimental R&D to verify the design, then Experimental Show Compliance to verify compliance with all relavent regulations, then finally back to standard.

Just to move the paperwork thru the FAA ACO would take at least 6 months based on my experiance. The costs would be far more than the value added.

As for fuel injection in general aviation, Continental had the A-50-5J certified back in 1938. Continental had all the small engines from the 50 hp to the C-90 certified with fuel injection, and there is an STC to put fuel injection on the O-200. Problem is that the High, Excello, and American Bosch injectors weren't known for reliability.

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

I could use some updating here, as I have been out of the GA (General Aviation) world for about 20+ years.  I have been commercial aircraft, FAR Part 25 for a long time now.

Please correct me if I err any where in my spiel below, and keep in mind I am only asking about GA right now:

The theory behind a field approval and an STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) is that the field approval and the STC require the same amount of research, testing, analysis and engineering design as the original manufacturer had to do to get the TC (Type Certificate), except that the field approval and the STC need only apply that rigor to the changes proposed, not to the unaffected portion of the aircraft and systems.  Thus the airworthiness of the aircraft after a field approval or an STC is as thoroughly verified as it was when the aircraft was delivered by the manufacturer under the TC.  (The STC can be applied to multiple aircraft, the field approval is a one-off approval).  

So much for the theory.  Now in the old days, the actual engineering, analysis, testing and research for a field approval or an STC typically did not approach the level of the manufacturer's efforts that resulted in the TC...in fact it rarely came close.

Fast forward to today...I get the impression that the research, analysis, engineering and testing for a field approval or an STC today in the GA world more closely approaches what the original manufacturer had to accomplish to get the TC.

So if I am correct, in the GA world the field approval and the STC process require more of what the theory says should be done.  While I don't believe the field approval and STC yet  match the level of effort for a TC, I do believe the FAA has demanded that the field approval and the STC come a lot closer to the original TC effort.

If I am wrong about the state of FAA approvals in the GA world of today as compared to decades ago, I look forward to being enlightened by my peers on this forum.

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

debodine,
You are close in your concept of how it is "supposed to" work. I think the real problem lies in the fragmented organization of the FAA. TC and STC projects go thru Aircraft Certification, and Field Approvals go through Flight Standards. Likewise, it all depends on what ACO or FSDO you have to submit your project to. Unfortunatly there is little standardization within the FAA when it comes to these types of projects. I've seen STCs issued that you scratch your head and wonder if any engineering was done, and I've seen Field Approvals that have a mountain of engineering data to support it and still have trouble getting it approved. Since Flight Standards came out with the Order 8900.1 referenced above, the field approval process seems to be better providing you can find an inspector willing to sign his name to it. I can't say the same for the STC process.

Overall, it shouldn't matter if it is a TC, STC, or Field Approval, the ame level of rigor should be applied. In the Field Approval, you may not have to produce the same level of documentation, but you still need to show compliance with the certification regulations. The regulations in questionar the certification basis of the original product, so if itwas originally certified under the CARs, you only need to show compliance to those older regulations (with a few exceptions)

RE: Why Not Fuel Injected GA Aircraft

dgapilot, thanks for the feedback.  Regarding your last point about showing compliance, I understand what you are saying.  Very often we are able to write our certification plans to show compliance to the FAR amendment levels applicable at the time of the aircraft manufacture/delivery.  But as you correctly implied, sometimes the FAA will require a later amendment level regardless of the manufacture/delivery date.  A good example would be flammability, and another would be emergency egress.  Those are two areas where it is common for us to show compliance to later amendment levels.

I previously mentioned my background being commercial FAR Part 25 for the last 20 years.  I work for an organization whose bread and butter is our ability to design major alterations.  Our experience and attention to detail allows us to obtain FAA approvals with confidence and speed.  Thus, I am not at all irritated when the FAA begins to demand that STC candidates must more closely approach the rigor applied by the original manufacturer, as that tends to move some of our less thorough competition out of our market.  clown

Having been out of GA for so long, I cannot say with certainty that such "tightening up" is really needed in the GA world or not.

I recall hearing early in my engineering career concerning designs that skirt the edges of compliance a statement from an "old hand" that such designs "...are perfectly safe until they fail...", usually followed by the old adage, "You get what you pay for."

Again thanks for catching me up to my old GA world.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources