NC Bill Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Is the injected engine "ready for prime time"? I realize the fuel savings are there, as is the initial engine investment, but beyond those items what are the benefits and drawbacks to adopting either engine? Would greatly look forward to hearing from the several experienced a&ps who frequent ctflier based on their experiences to date. TIA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Fuel savings, but upfront costs are higher and a bit heavier. Over the life of the engine it is worthwhile, but if you don't fly much, there's really no huge benefit over the carbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 I think if you do the math, you have to run the engine well past TBO to recoup the additional engine cost of the injected model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Fuel isn't the only thing I'm considering. Carb work isn't cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Is the injected engine "ready for prime time"? I realize the fuel savings are there, as is the initial engine investment, but beyond those items what are the benefits and drawbacks to adopting either engine? Would greatly look forward to hearing from the several experienced a&ps who frequent ctflier based on their experiences to date. TIA! The CTLSi is the better aircraft and engine. Notice all the talk on the site about carb problems. You have none of that with the 912iS engine. The sport upgrade also has arguably more torque than the older engines. There is no difference between the CTLS and CTLSi airframe, but the avionics in the CTLSi are more up-to-date. Also, the CTLSi has an electric trim toggle switch which is one of the most used pieces of equipment on the plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NC Bill Posted April 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I am more interested in engine reliability, complexity, parts availability, ease of servicing, etc. Not just whether you will fly enough to pay for the fuel savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Fuel isn't the only thing I'm considering. Carb work isn't cheap. Neither is fuel injection work. I don't think there is enough data to claim better reliability for the new engine. And the electrical system is more complex to support it, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 The BING's on the carbureted models certainly have quirks, but are a known quantity and easy to work on. Fuel injection is more efficient, and undoubtedly the future, but getting it worked on if and when something's not right can be problematical - shops with the right equipment are few and far between. Stuck in Podunk, KY, with a plane that won't start, the carbs would be far easier to tinker with. Just something to consider. It's far too simplistic to say one is "better" than the other at this juncture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 But you'll never know the joy of resolving Lane A and Lane B conflicts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 But you'll never know the joy of resolving Lane A and Lane B conflicts! No such thing....after 250 hours in the CTLSi I saw the enunciators come on once....an egt sensor fail. It was replaced 150 hours ago and the plane has been flawless since. I will miss the FD CTLSi...it always started right up..sipped fuel...and never missed a beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Neither is fuel injection work. I don't think there is enough data to claim better reliability for the new engine. And the electrical system is more complex to support it, too. How often does fuel injection work come along? I'm asking honestly. Basically, when I say carb work, I'm referring to the couple hours spent on carb teardown for that annoying inspection every 200 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I was jokingly referring to this: http://flightdesign.com/files/Safety%20Alert/PZ76006001_01.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GravityKnight Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Good fuel injection doesn't require a lot of work or maint. Fuel filters/fuel pumps/ injectors can be issue places. Generally the ECU's are very reliable (though I have no experience with Rotax fuel injection personally). FI is very trouble free generally, and works great in varying environment (altitude, temp, etc.) However.. if and when there is a problem, it's going to be expensive on one of these. Quite a few people are capable of taking the carbs off and cleaning them / rebuilding at least most of it etc. (whether they should or not might be another issue), but not many can dig into the FI system. If something does need to be tweaked you have to wait for Rotax to flash the code on the ECU etc. It's the weight of the FI setup that bothers me... economy is great, but no real extra power to speak of, and the money and weight... ehh... (is there any dyno graphs comparing the i to the uls?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul m Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Engine works great. Smoother starts, more fuel efficient. Is it worth the weight and extra cost? I would have to say no. The biggest issue though is the false alarms. Lane lights that come on, fuel pressure sensors that momentarily warn etc. It's like living with a hypochondriac. To be fair, I get this kind of stuff with the electronics in the plane as well. I figure it's the price to pay as an early adopter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 How often does fuel injection work come along? I'm asking honestly. Basically, when I say carb work, I'm referring to the couple hours spent on carb teardown for that annoying inspection every 200 hours. That was my point, nobody knows yet on these new engines. They are probably pretty reliable, but anybody who has played around with EFI systems knows that clogged or failed injectors, sensor issues, and other gremlins do happen. And as I mentioned, the more complex electrical system and requirement for power to maintain function adds more wrinkles. A complete electrical failure is inconvenient with carbs, it's an engine failure emergency with fuel injection. A friend of mine a few weeks ago lost all power in his 582-powered Avid. The only problem it caused was he couldn't tell me on the radio what had happened. The fuel injection will probably end up being more reliable than the carbs. But that doesn't mean it will be less expensive to operate. Even if repairs are less frequent, maintenance might still be more expensive since there are fewer qualified mechanics and I'm guessing any parts will cost more money and procedures will be more in-depth. But again, all speculation until they have been in the field a good while in large numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 The biggest issue though is the false alarms. Lane lights that come on, fuel pressure sensors that momentarily warn etc. It's like living with a hypochondriac. Ha, that's funny. You know, I sometimes wonder to what degree some of these "simple" airplanes might be a bit over instrumented. More information is generally better...but not when, as you point out, it actually generates spurious information that increases workload! My CTSW has the minimum engine instrumentation. Single CHT, Oil temp, Oil pressure, Voltmeter, and a Tach. I sometimes wish I had more instruments, but mine seem adequate and I never get worried over fuel pressure being a little low, or one CHT a bit higher than others, or other minutia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 The 912iS engine has it's own gremlins. It just isn't well published. Shhhhhh! There's a big SB coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 There "leading edge" and there's "bleeding edge". Guess which one is best avoided. But once mature, fuel injection is de facto better. The question becomes: at what point is it mature enough that the upside outweighs the downside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Engine works great. Smoother starts, more fuel efficient. Is it worth the weight and extra cost? I would have to say no. The biggest issue though is the false alarms. Lane lights that come on, fuel pressure sensors that momentarily warn etc. It's like living with a hypochondriac. To be fair, I get this kind of stuff with the electronics in the plane as well. I figure it's the price to pay as an early adopter. You should not be seeing flickering enunciators or any other electrical problem...If you are you should have it looked at... The quality problems at Flight Design in the Ukraine emerged over the last couple of years and did result in some specific problems that need to be fixed under warranty as soon as you can get it done. Our panel was completely redone by Lone Mountain...under warranty. The symptom was a buzz in the headset which was there from day one. When finally deeply diagnosed it turned out to be a rats nest of cut wires, poor connections and even some wrong connections behind the panel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 There are big bore kits and fuel injection kits for the 912ULS. call Ronnie Smith of South Mississippi. he does them both and is the US leader in installations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul m Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Ha, that's funny. You know, I sometimes wonder to what degree some of these "simple" airplanes might be a bit over instrumented. More information is generally better...but not when, as you point out, it actually generates spurious information that increases workload! My CTSW has the minimum engine instrumentation. Single CHT, Oil temp, Oil pressure, Voltmeter, and a Tach. I sometimes wish I had more instruments, but mine seem adequate and I never get worried over fuel pressure being a little low, or one CHT a bit higher than others, or other minutia. yeah....Dave at FDUSA once told me, and I'm paraphrasing, pay attention to the direction of travel not the actual value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 There are big bore kits and fuel injection kits for the 912ULS. call Ronnie Smith of South Mississippi. he does them both and is the US leader in installations. I thought you were not a fan of such modifications...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I thought you were not a fan of such modifications...? Probably because he doesn't feel the need to use them. The biggest problem with mods, is obviously mfg warranty issues! Personally, I wouldn't mind the injection mod, but I'd be happy with just using throttle body injection. It would be the simplest change to the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Never said that. If you have an SLSA then yes you can't do it or make modifications. Do whatever you want as an ELSA as the cost for your experiment is on the owner and I don't have the same legal obligations at annual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Fair enough. Do you think the big bore kits affect longevity/reliability, or not so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.