What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

FlyEFII System 32

karrelsj

Active Member
Figured I would start a thread for it because as I was making decisions I had a hard time finding information.

I have a RV10 (Flying) running a Lycoming Thunderbolt (horizontal sump), FM-300R, with dual FlyEFII System32. My firmware load is from the July 2020 timeframe and I am very happy with the setup. Starts are instant. Idle is smooth. In flight is powerful.
 
Comments?!

I too have the same system coming on my new engine and would like to hear what others are finding in normal daily operation...

Please chime in!
 
Efii

I am in phase 1 with my -10 and it is running a Barrett 540 with CAI and 9:1.

Starts instantly and is really smooth.

Currently working on tuning. Very intuitive and easily accomplished.

I really like the system!
 
System 32

Only 2 wires to connect before it's finished installing.
Expecting first start... well you know I wished it was yesterday...
Realistically hoping a first start this spring.
Will report back
 
"My Beebe"

I finished the upgrade from the Legacy to System 32 this summer in my RV-9A "My Beebe."
What a significant improvement in performance the 32 has made. I modified the Engine Control mount to include a mount for the Control Module and everything is in a nice convenient location there.
Tuning the system for my IO-320 engine was pretty much accomplished in one afternoon. But I'm still fine-tuning it to wring out every drop of fuel efficiency - without having to play with the Fuel Trim knob.
For my bird, I find it idles exceptionally well at 700 RPM, but if I take it down to 600 its not as smooth. That's with the Fuel Trim set as lean as possible.
Due to typical Oregon winter weather and into my ACI I've not been flying as much as I would like but really appreciate all the work Robert Paisley put into this system.
 
Sniffle valve or not??

Slight thread drift here...
With a System 32, Superior Cold Sump/horizontal intake.


Any chance of fuel pooling in the sump as with a conventional FI?
My understanding is no since the injectors are open/shut electronically.


So need for a sniffle valve or not??
 
No and No

No pooling. As you say, the injectors are electronically turned on for a specific period of time when the ignition is turned on.

The Sniffle Valve was part of the old legacy FI system, attached to the mechanical fuel pump. With the System 32 and electronically controlled injectors there's no need for a Sniffle Valve.

I started out with the Lycoming FI system. At 75 hours ripped that out and installed the old (SDS based FlyEFII EFI system). With 200 hours on that system I upgraded to the FlyEFII based System 32. Transition to the EFII system, both old and new were steps up in performance and efficiency.
One thing I noticed with the System 32 programming. Using Robert's suggested parameters you will automatically transition from Rich of Peak to Lean of Peak depending on power (MAP & RPM) settings. Without need for a switch to cause that to happen.

In my opinion and experience I suggest installing the system during build. Doing it after the aircraft is flying can be a bit challenging having to remove existing hardware, figuring out where you're going to mount the ECU and therefore the firewall pass-throughs while working around the firewall forward hardware. Still, I'm VERY glad I have it.
 
The sniffle valve is attached to the intake plenum, not the mechanical fuel pump. It serves two purposes, draining away fuel and oil which may run down from the intake ports, and draining water which may enter the plenum through the combustion air intake...notably rainwater in the case of tailwheel RVs.

Many users of the standard Lycoming horizontal sump eliminate the sniffle valve, as the intake plenum has significant volume. Although it can hold a good bit of liquid without real risk, care must be taken to not over-prime or otherwise introduce a LOT of fuel. That still leaves a requirement to divert or drain rainwater/wash water, which can be done with airbox design.

The plenum volume of the Superior manifold is tiny compared to the Lycoming horizontal sump, increasing all liquid risk. Although in theory the injector pintles rest closed and should not leak, there is still the water risk to consider. I would strongly advise a sniffle on a Superior manifold.

BTW, although very, very uncommon, in the automotive world sometimes injectors do leak, filling a cylinder with fuel and bending a rod on the subsequent startup. Got a picture of a bent 6.0L Chevy truck rod around here somewhere...
 
Interesting...

Dan, NOT an argument; when I followed the Van's installation manual and components with the old conventional FI system there was a call for a hole to be drilled in the firewall flange that was to hold the tube from the "Sniffle Valve" (their words) that was attached to the mechanical fuel pump. Thus my response above.
However, with the two FlyEFII FI systems there's no call for a sniffle valve at all. With a bit of experience starting the engine, I've found the risk of over fueling an engine (priming) is reduced. But indeed it can happen.
 
BTW, although very, very uncommon, in the automotive world sometimes injectors do leak, filling a cylinder with fuel and bending a rod on the subsequent startup. Got a picture of a bent 6.0L Chevy truck rod around here somewhere...

On the Porsche M96 engines as injectors age they leak down at shutdown. The fuel dribbles down into the bottoms of the cylinders which dilutes the oil and causes bore scoring.
 
Auto transition from ROP to LOP ?

Please educate me regarding the risks and benefits. I have one of those SWITCHES to accomplish the task.
 
Dan, NOT an argument; when I followed the Van's installation manual and components with the old conventional FI system there was a call for a hole to be drilled in the firewall flange that was to hold the tube from the "Sniffle Valve" (their words) that was attached to the mechanical fuel pump. Thus my response above.

I hear ya'. Do note most installations run a tube from the sniffle valve on the bottom of the intake system to an attach point at the base of the firewall.

An engine-driven fuel pump has a tell-tale vent, but the vent has no valve, just a micro-diameter restrictor insert. It also gets a hose to the base of the firewall.

However, with the two FlyEFII FI systems there's no call for a sniffle valve at all. With a bit of experience starting the engine, I've found the risk of over fueling an engine (priming) is reduced. But indeed it can happen.

I agree the fuel pooling risk is lessened with any EFI. However, here the OP asked about a sniffle on a Superior manifold, which has no real plenum volume or sump (see below). All pooled liquid is going straight to a cylinder. EFI or not, it needs a sniffle valve.
-
 

Attachments

  • SAP Intake.jpg
    SAP Intake.jpg
    106.9 KB · Views: 445
Last edited:
Rain water

the OP asked about a sniffle on a Superior manifold, which has no real plenum volume or sump (see below). All pooled liquid is going straight to a cylinder. EFI or not, it needs a sniffle valve.
-


Thanks Dan for your insight, very appreciated!!
I hadn't considered rain water...

Sorry for questionning what now seems evident, I just wish to fully understand.
The sniffle valve is closed when the engine is running so no draining when flying through rain.
Water pooling could then occur when parked outside, rain water entering through the cowl inlet, down the snorkel and into the sump???
Even though a 1/8" to 3/16" drain hole is at the lowest point in the snorkel??

Installing the sniffle would be at the arrow in the attached photo??
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6058.jpg
    IMG_6058.jpg
    460.2 KB · Views: 373
The sniffle valve is closed when the engine is running so no draining when flying through rain.

Correct, but nothing will pool in the manifold in flight, and the engine won't care about water fed into it as drops and vapor.

Water pooling could then occur when parked outside, rain water entering through the cowl inlet, down the snorkel and into the sump???
Even though a 1/8" to 3/16" drain hole is at the lowest point in the snorkel??

That is indeed the purpose of the drain hole...but it doesn't take much to clog the typical 1/8" opening. It's happened.

Installing the sniffle would be at the arrow in the attached photo??

Yes.
 
Correct, but nothing will pool in the manifold in flight, and the engine won't care about water fed into it as drops and vapor.



That is indeed the purpose of the drain hole...but it doesn't take much to clog the typical 1/8" opening. It's happened.



Yes.
Many thanks Dan, appreciate your time !
 
Just wanted to recognize Robert Paisley at EFII for outstanding customer service.

I had an ignition coil pack slowly fail on my RV-7. Symptoms were backfire, high EGT's (CHT's normal) occurring randomly. Mag (LEFT) EI (RIGHT) checks would be normal, then in pattern problem would move randomly from 1-2 cylinders at a time.

Robert recommended I check all electrical connectors and then sent me a new coil. That solved the problem.

He responded promptly to every email and phone call and stayed engaged until problem was solved. Thanks, Robert!
 
Just ordered a sys32... advice please!

Hello everyone,

I’m new to the forum and appreciate all of your wisdom I have read so far. I have a superior o360 a1b2 and will be installing a sys32 efi system. I was planning on dual earthx900 batteries installed behind the baggage area. Any thoughts on how the bus manager works and if the lithium batteries are a good idea would be very helpful. Also, I’m interested in using an auto alternator. So say Suzuki, others Toyota, etc. any thoughts there would also be great. Can’t wait to hear back! :)
 
Hello everyone,

I’m new to the forum and appreciate all of your wisdom I have read so far. I have a superior o360 a1b2 and will be installing a sys32 efi system. I was planning on dual earthx900 batteries installed behind the baggage area. Any thoughts on how the bus manager works and if the lithium batteries are a good idea would be very helpful. Also, I’m interested in using an auto alternator. So say Suzuki, others Toyota, etc. any thoughts there would also be great. Can’t wait to hear back! :)
Greg,
Not flying yet but others can better report on the Bus Manager.
All I can say is that it sure seems to manage well the system.
https://www.flyefii.com/products/bus-manager/

Don't hesite to condider the Bus Manager Accessory kit that includes switches, relays, contactors etc, that helps to integrate everything together.
Also, depending on your engine configuration, I used the Throttle Body Flange Adaptor to connect the Van's supplied snokel to the Throttle Body.
You will need a fuel return line from the engine to a Duplex valve and return fuel lines to both tanks.
http://www.andair.co.uk/product/duplex-fuel-selector-fs2020-d2/ is what I installed.
As for two batteries, it's best for redundancy on electrical dependant engines, and you want them on seperate electrical systems. The Bus Manager permits this.

However, two batteries in the rear means twice the big wirirng to the front.
I have a ETX900VNT (vented) in the rear and a ETX680 firewall forward, meaning shoter big wires for that battery, I used 2AWG...
I had the System 32 components installed on the engine by the engine builder and I did the rest
 
Last edited:
EFII

I have the System 32 installed and am flying.

My system is a dual alternator, dual battery, split bus system with crosstie.

I am using dual ETX900 batteries mounted aft.

I am also using the bus manager.

If you want to talk, feel free to PM me your number; easier to talk than text...
 
FLYEFII Power Schematic - Request review.

Hello,

I am posting my electrical schematic online for my FLYEFII system. I have simplified and made the changes as suggested by others that have seen this before. My mission is long distance flights up and down the East coast and occasionally to the West. I do plan on flying IFR but not at night nor hard IFR or in low ceiling conditions.

I do plan on making changes to the wiring that FLYEFII has supplied. I already have my engine and FLYEFII equipment. Those changes are as follows:

  • The injector power wires will be extended so each one runs to the engine bus but still fusible link protected

  • The coils will each be circuit breaker protected

I did not want one wire or one power terminal / screw to impact all the coils or all the injectors.

I am using a VPX-PRO for most other things except the engine power. All engine power will be wired outside the VPX-PRO

I plan on 2 EarthX batteries, each capable of starting the plane and each with the capability of being isolated. Normal flying will be done with only one battery connected to the system. Why, my thought process is that if an overvoltage condition or short occurs, the BMS system in the battery may shut down the battery. I don't want that happen to both at the same time. If one becomes shut down, I can try to correct the problem, and if willing try the other battery.

I have an emergency engine power capability dual fed from each battery and DIODE isolated. If weight and balance allows, I may move the second battery to the front and change the wiring around a bit so lower risk.

I modelled this off the Z101B model from Bob N and added the second battery. The FlyEFII system does not lend itself to a dual independent bus architecture. IT is also very similar to the FLYEFII Buss Manager design.

I welcome all suggestions or corrections. This design is holding up a bunch of other work that needs to be done, but it is very important I get it right.

The links below take you my web site for the diagrams.

Main Power Schematic ( shown with the batteries in the back and then the stations for placement moving to the right. : http://elstien.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Elstien-FlyEFII-Final-for-Review-V-1.0.png

Buss : http://elstien.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Elstien-FlyEFII-Final-BUS.png
 
Similar systems

I am using VPX, EFII and 2 Earth X so similar. It's a good set-up. Would not overcomplicate it. I am flying the 14 (Almost 200 hours now) and building the 10 now. I think you are going to need both batteries in the back for CG issues (Unless you want to carry weight in the baggage area) and besides they stay cooler back their. (Since there is positive airflow going aft you don't need to worry about outgassing if that would occur) By the way the ETX1200 has the same footprint as the 680 and 900 so would consider the 1200. My 900's in the 14 spin the prop with ease. Almost think I could fly on the batteries. :)

Good luck with the build completion !!
 
Michael,

It strikes me that you're adding a ton of complexity to solve issues with the battery technology you're targeting (the potential for it disconnecting itself). This is one of the reasons why I quickly discounted using these batteries for an electrically dependent application.

I know the more standard battery technologies weigh more, but it was a sacrifice I was willing to make. That same characteristic, along with what you say about the system not lending itself 100% to a true dual/dual architecture is what led me back to just using Z101 as is with a single battery and dual alternator setup.
 
Michael,

It strikes me that you're adding a ton of complexity to solve issues with the battery technology you're targeting (the potential for it disconnecting itself). This is one of the reasons why I quickly discounted using these batteries for an electrically dependent application.

I know the more standard battery technologies weigh more, but it was a sacrifice I was willing to make. That same characteristic, along with what you say about the system not lending itself 100% to a true dual/dual architecture is what led me back to just using Z101 as is with a single battery and dual alternator setup.

I think I'm in agreement with this, you're adding some complexity there that is not necessary.

I also run an electrically dependent aircraft, using the SDS system and full glass panel, and I am using a single ETX battery. My solution to the redundancy question was not to duplicate the batteries (power STORAGE) - but to duplicate the power SOURCE (alternators) with a backup alternator. Single bus architecture, keep it simple, but I have two sources of power to keep all the lights on, operating independently.
 
2 batteries

Someone weigh in on this but I was told that if a battery went Tango Uniform the alternators would not be able to produce power direct to the busses. That is why I went with the 2 battery system. (Also primary and back up alternators). Someone with more competent electron knowledge than me please help out. Somehow having 2 batteries with independent BMS systems provides some degree of comfort.
 
Someone weigh in on this but I was told that if a battery went Tango Uniform the alternators would not be able to produce power direct to the busses. That is why I went with the 2 battery system. (Also primary and back up alternators). Someone with more competent electron knowledge than me please help out. Somehow having 2 batteries with independent BMS systems provides some degree of comfort.

The answer is "it depends". And the only way to know for sure is to test it. And if the test goes wrong it is quite possible to let the smoke out of a lot of devices with zeroes and commas attached to them.

So, a "good" alternator and regulator setup will (should) be able to control voltage fairly well without a battery attached to the bus, IF the current draw required is fairly constant. When the current draw is very low, then any change in the current draw represents a fairly large percentage swing, and the results of the regulator trying to "catch up" with it can be quite dramatic. If the current draw is large, then any small changes are relatively minor and can be absorbed.

The only way to test this is to start your entire aircraft setup, then isolate the battery with the alternator still online. This is not possible if you are running the standard Cessna/Piper type split master bus switch, as turning off the battery also turns off the alternator field switch. But for those that have a different switch, or have two alternators, it may be possible. As mentioned above, if you "test" this and you are wrong, it's entirely possible that your alternator may put out several dozens of volts onto your bus for many milliseconds, long enough to cook sensitive and expensive electronics, as the regulator hunts up and down on the field current trying to match the voltage without a storage battery to damp the swings.

In my case, I performed the test quite by accident - I have dual alternators, the primary on a Cessna/Piper style split master, and the backup on a completely separate switch. Many times in cruise I will turn on the backup and kill the primary for a while, to make sure both are working as desired with no weakness. One day while in some turbulence at cruise, I did this and turned on my backup alternator, then reached for the "ALT" side of the split bus just as a good jolt of turbulence hit, and my finger hit the "BATT" side of the split master, shutting both of them off. Now my primary alternator was dead, and my battery was offline - but all my electron-driven items stayed happy. I was operating, quite accidentally, on my backup alternator without my battery online. Voltage was stable, current draw was stable, and it took me a few seconds to figure out what I had done before I fixed it. I immediately turned the master back on again and began to assess, and then breathe again. Total "test" time was about 20 seconds.

I have a non-standard fuel system with electric pumps, as well as a full glass panel - which means that in standard VFR cruise I draw about 21 amps of power, and in IFR mode at night it climbs to 31 with all lights on. My primary alternator is good for 60 amps and the backup is good for 40 - which means that at the time I performed my unintentional "test" I was pulling about 50 % load on the backup alternator (B&C vacuum pad). Apparently that was enough to give it some stability and the regulator was able to hold the voltage relatively stable. My electric fuel pump did not sag, my fuel pressure did not fall, my engine computer and EFIS's did not blink. I pulled a datafile from my Dynons and looked at the voltage trace, it varied from 13.4 to 14.7 at the extremes but settled at 13.9 within a few seconds and stayed there for the duration. It's important to note here that inductive or switching loads (like EFIS's or LED lights) are not going to help this situation - they will pull only the amount of power needed, and will draw fewer amps at a high voltage, causing instability in this situation. Stable non-inductive direct-drive resistance type loads, like standard filament lights or strobe power packs or electric fuel pumps, will draw more amps as the the voltage climbs and will damp the upward swing. I had both electric fuel pumps and filament-type nav lights active at the time which would help lend stability to the voltage swing.

I do not recommend anyone do this intentionally - I did not - but the results showed that a storage battery being online is not necessarily required, at least under some conditions, with some equipment.

YMMV. You heard this story on the internet from a guy you don't know. Don't do this.
 
Last edited:
Here’s what I was told, don’t shoot the messenger

Alternators put out half wave rectified AC power (not DC power). They need to be connected to a battery so the battery can smooth out the pulses into a DC supply.
If there is no battery present, you end up feeding AC power to all your electronics which may result in malfunction of any or all electronics.

This is what I think the previous post was saying. A EE friend who works for a Automobile OEM backed it up.
 
Alternators put out half wave rectified AC power (not DC power). They need to be connected to a battery so the battery can smooth out the pulses into a DC supply.
If there is no battery present, you end up feeding AC power to all your electronics which may result in malfunction of any or all electronics.

This is what I think the previous post was saying. A EE friend who works for a Automobile OEM backed it up.

An alternator has an integral diode/rectifier bridge that stripes off the waves (both of them - Pos and Neg) and produces a stable DC output. You DO NOT need a battery to convert AC to DC or to have a stable DC supply! You can get a bit of variation in voltage without the battery acting as a capacitor, but it is not significant or dangerous.

Most alternators need an external voltage source in order to produce power. However, once the alternator has started to produce power, it's own power production becomes the source of this power. You need an external power source to start up an alternator, but you don't need it to keep the alternator going once started. Permanent Magnet alternators (magnetic field is not generated from electricity, like traditional alternators) can have circuitry to self-start. See the B&C site for details.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Battery not needed ?

According to TJ at B&C the battery is needed and without one or if it goes off line might be interesting. Something about the alternator would continue to run but if load was shed the probability of exceeding 16 volts on the bus goes up and then the regulator shuts off the system never to restart. I’m relaying the message because I don’t want others to try and not be aware of the risk. As always we are experimental builders and need to decide what is an acceptable risk. I’d prefer not to perform this experiment intentionally or unintentionally. Hang in there batteries !!
 
regulator

From the Regulator Technical Manual:

"...The integrated Over-Voltage (OV) protection is set at a non-adjustable 16.25V (± 0.25V) on the LR3D-14, and 32.5V (± 0.5V) on the LR3D-28. When triggered, this protective response will cause the 5A field supply circuit breaker to open, thereby depriving the alternator of excitation voltage and causing it to drop off-line. The alternator will remain off-line until power is restored to the circuit by manually closing the 5A circuit breaker..."

So, if the OV trips, it will reset once the field breaker is reset.

Interesting note:

The new "D" model regulators have an over voltage threshold of 16.25 (+-.25 volts) opposed to the "C" model which was 16.0 (+- .2 volts).

From the EarthX site:

"...In the event of a charging system failure where the voltage increases to above 15.5V, the resistance to charging current increases, and above 16V the charging current is completely blocked. The time delay for this feature is 2 second to allow the aircraft alternator’s over voltage protection (crowbar circuit) to activate first..."

So, in the "C" version, the regulator OV protection should trip the field breaker in less than about 40 ms if it sees a voltage over 16.2 volts, worst case. The BMS on the earthx batteries should not disconnect for 2 full seconds, at 16.2 volts.

With the "D" version, the regulator OV should trip the field breaker at 16.5 volts (worst case), in less than 40 ms, while the BMS is still waiting 2 full seconds to disconnect. The question here is how long it takes for the voltage rise from 16 to 16.5 volts. If that time exceeds 2 seconds, then there is a potential for the BMS to disconnect PRIOR to the regulator OV tripping the field breaker.

It would seem that the solution would be to set the regulator OV threshold LOWER, say 15.8 (+/- .2v) when using this setup. This would virtually eliminate the potential for the BMS to disconnect prior to the OV crow bar...even in the worst case of 15.8+.2 volts.

I am currently talking to TJ about the feasibility of this idea.

As a data point, I never see above 14.7 volts in my Z-14 based system. It would seem that 15.8 as an OV threshold would be reasonable.
 
BnC Crow bar

Hello,

I also emailed with TJ about the needed , or not, for a battery to be online. He explained that technically a battery is not needed, without a battery, any changes in current draw could have more pronounced impacts on the regulated voltage, possibly causing problems. Much like was explained a few posts ago.

Yes, having them set the OV protection a bit lower may help.

What do we need to show our interest to BnC, assuming we all agree?

Michael
 
Actual emial from BnC TJ

With TJ's (from BnC) approval, I am supplying his email back to me. TJ did want me to note that this applies to BnC products. Other products may have different capabilities /values

Michael,

Thank you for contacting us with that good question.

In general terms, yes – there would need to be a battery in the circuit for an Alternator to function properly. In the scenario you’ve suggested, Alternator output would likely continue for a time, but the bus voltage would be less stable and the power quality would be diminished. Should a large bus load be removed during this condition, a voltage surge would likely result (due to the lack of a battery); and should this voltage excursion exceed 16.0V (approximately), that would cause the Regulator OV protection to shut down field excitation to the Alternator … with no means remaining to re-establish it given the absence of the battery.

I hope the above makes sense and is helpful. If you have any other questions, or if I can be of help to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards,

“TJ” Jenkins
B&C Specialty Products
 
Back
Top