NOTE: Since I have created this concept, it has been shown to NOT be feasible. This project will not work. If you put any non-certified device on your airplane, then you can ONLY fly it as a research and development craft, having to get an approval for each flight from the FAA, where each flight must be shown to be for research and development.

I had though that you could simply move the airplane to the experimental category at that point, and use it within the experimental restrictions (which prohibit commercial use), but as it turns out this is not the case.

So, this project is not feasible without removing my airplane from any sort free-flight status... which is not acceptable to me.

I have spoken to a few expeerts, though, and they say that savings of the 10% to 15% range are acheived with variable-timing ignition.

austin

THE SITUATION

I currently fly a Cessna-400 (really, a Columbia 400, the company was bought by Cessna) and it is a GREAT bird.

BUT, like ALL the single-engine props, it is powered by an engine that is a technological throwback to 1950.

This engine is the Continental TSIO-550. It is a 550 cubic inch, twin-turbo engine that spins at 2600 rpm to make 310 hp. It has a MAGNETO ignition system that provides FIXED timing. This is NOT very efficient, because the spark comes out at the exact same time in the cycle, no matter the flight conditions and engine speed. This makes for an engine that is tricky to start (the spark is happening to soon) and not optimal at full power (the spark is happening too late). This sub-optimal spark-timing results in an engine that does not perform as well as it could.

I should point out that people have been using better, computer-controlled ignition on HOMEBUILTS for years. So, it is POSSIBLE do build a better system, but Lycoming, Continental, Cessna, Mooney, Piper, and Cirrus have simply NOT taken the steps necessary to actually build and deliver it with their new aircraft.

I don't know why this is, and I don't know how MUCH better the engine in these planes could be, but I want to find out, and I want to TELL everyone once I do.

SO, my goal is to:

1: Document the exact performance of the engine in my 2009 Cessna-400, and tell you just what that performance is.

2: Install the latest ignition, fuel-metering, and any other fairly safe and proven technologies that are available in the aftermarket to improve engine performance, and then document the modified engine, telling you just what the performance of the modified engine is.

3: Go to Lycoming, Continental, Cessna, Mooney, Piper, Cirrus, and YOU, and tell you all the engine that we COULD be flying.

Hopefully, if I take these steps publicly, it will raise awareness of how good an engine we COULD have, and hopefully speed adoption of these technologies in the marketplace.

Of course, I will be putting NON-certified engine parts on the plane, so we will throw an 'Experimental' label on it, which is of course fine.

My goal is to make engines more efficient, fleet-wide, to save fuel. The tiny way that I can help with this is to show a before-after case with my airplane, and document it for the world to see, so that we can move forwards to more efficient engines in the very very very near future. After 50 years of near-stagnation in the engine technology of light planes, I don't really feel too out-of-line trying to push us forwards a little now.

(NOTE: This MAY be impossible for me to accomplish... simply adding an 'Experimental' label to an airplane may not allow me to fly it anywhere, any time, I like, since I am not the builder of the airplane... I will be talking to the FAA about this shortly, and let you know what I learn in that area, as well).

THE AIRPLANE AS IT IS CERTIFIED

I will be test-flying my plane shortly to document the performance EXACTLY, but for now, here are round numbers:

3400 pound flying-weight, ISA day:

Climb, from 1,000 to 15,000 ft MSL: 120 knots, 2600 rpm, 40 gallons per hour (mixture full-rich): 1,100 fpm.

Cruise, 17,000 ft: 2400 rpm, 31" manifold pressure, 65 degrees lean of peak: 17.0 gallons per hour, 193 knots.

This performance is LOWER than the book, for sure. This is because my propeller is a bit chopped up from sand (they were re-paving the runway at Bend, OR, when I picked up the plane, and the prop was a bit chopped up from the blowing sand right from the very first flight), and, as well, I have aftermarket titanium leading edges for de-ice (which cost me maybe 5 knots) and vents for the on-board air-conditioning (which cost me maybe another 5 knots).

So, the dinged prop, modified wing leading-edge with de-ice gear, and air conditioning conspire to cost me maybe 15 knots in speed. I know this because I GET 193 knots where the BOOK SAYS I should get 208 knots!

We need for these imperfections to NOT confuse our test-results, but this is no problem at all: I simply won't touch the anything ELSE on the airplane during the engine-mods, so we can be sure that we see the exact change on the airplane due to the engine mods ALONE! This scientific method will let us really see what it is possible to do to improve engine efficiency.

THE AIRPLANE AS GOOD AS IT CAN BE

??!!?!?

I don't know the answer to that question yet! As of Jan 1, 2010, (this writing) I have not decided who shall do the engine-mods, or what those engine-mods shall be, exactly.

I have emails in to a small handful of companies that are well-known to install more efficient accessories, including ignition systems, in engines like mine, and am waiting to hear back now. Check back at this page from time to time to see my findings.

If you know of a company or person that is extremely knowledgeable about these matters, and could do the improvements to the Continental TSIO-550, let me know who they are, and I will contact them! My goal is to carefully document everything that is done to the engine, and the performance after each modification, and document it for the world to see, to push engine technology forwards.