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

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

who said anything about certification I did not

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 .

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

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 .

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

Yes you are right no oil leak on the ground ,also no oil under car,no oil leak on belly of ac. Modern ideas tend to have a flow on effect to efficiencies goodness me wouldn't we all like to use less fuel ,car manufacturers were dragged kicking and screaming to use modern ideas and now they boast about efficiencies and power increases using less fuel. One small step for ,well you get the picture I am sure,but to do nothing ensures we go backwards

I am sorry I cannot accept this excuse, it was what the car manufacturers used some years ago when close loop crank case vent systems were introduced now it's accepted practice and it is not the reason motors wear out . I understand we will never have the economy of scale production that the auto trade has but to ignore advances is to doom us the way of GA . A correctly designed system would would not go astray .

Automotive applications RECYCLE oil after it has been separated from the the blow by gasses ,only under extreme short drive situations does the oil go milky , as long as oil is kept hot (usually not a problem for our engines) . I suspect moisture is a problem in the catch can as it draws moisture in after engine is turned off and oil is cooling down. Why don't we have a crank case vent system much like the auto engines ,catch cans would not be required and quite possible engines would use less oil as the baffle (vapour separator) in the system would allow oil to drain back to sump

What about fitting an automotive brake line locker to one side brake apply brakes turn on locker (12 volt operation) release brakes and that side stays locked on and you turn about the locked wheel Turn off locker and taxi on using brakes as per normal

Yes same here starts well on Lh and cranks for some time on rh before starting . Now for something completely different has any one wired 2 cht probes to the one guage Lh/rh rear cylinder through a switch ?