|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

10-07-2014, 04:37 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 431
|
|
My Barrett IO-540/EFII Dyno testing
What REALLY happened at Barrett.
Just the facts. My opinions are just that and spelled out accordingly.... 
Now that the details of the tests are out, I wanted to do a write up about my Barrett Engine/Dyno/EFII testing and break in we did back in June. My other write-up got sidetracked onto the tests. If you subscribe to Kitplanes, which most of you do, it’s in the latest issue (Nov 2014)
-First, a quick backstory on how I ended up where I was (and am). It’s obviously no surprise that I ended up choosing Barrett Precision to build my engine, so that doesn’t need any explanation. Plus, they are 95 miles from where we are building the plane, so it was nice to be able to see the shop prior to our purchase and pick the engine up ourselves.
Literally the engine was decided from day one. That left me trying to figure out the ignition system. This was a task I did not take lightly. First, as I have only been a pilot for a couple years, I researched magnetos and their technology, went and talked to my local A&P about the service and maintenance of them. Armed with that info I started seeing what else was out there.
I came to realize, there were not that many other options:
Mags: Pros and Cons… in my mind, I wasn’t going to put 100 year old technology in a 2015 plane. Just My Opinion. Yes, they are self-powered, but that’s the only thing going for them.
P-Mags, not an option for a 6 cylinder engines then or now (as far as I know, plus, seems like a weird way to do it)
-That leaves Electronic Ignition: Which the only real negative is the need to have an external power supply to fire it. Which, to be honest, with current battery, alternator and electrical technology, is a pretty marginalized factor. I had already planned on having a redundant electrical system, so not much to change. My current system has 2 PC680s and a single 70amp Alternator. I may add a backup alternator later after some testing. At the moment I don’t think I will need it. I designed my system with an “Essential Bus” switch, which is actually a LOAD SHEDDING switch. Should there be any sort of electrical issue, one flip of the switch and I can drop down to one screen, one com, one ECU etc. (the particulars are still a work in progress with much consulting with people above my pay grade)
-I looked at Lightspeed. I called Allen Barrett and asked his 2 cents. When he told me they had issues with Lightspeed ignitions and refused to work with them, I of course became worried. So, I called Klause. Let’s just say the conversation did not leave me feeling warm and fuzzy.
-More research brought me to EFII. I liked what I read. Again, a call to the MAN building my engine. Allen said they done one or two EFII installations on 4 cyl engines, liked the product and had a few more in production including a 540 like mine. All the research seemed to add up. I found that EFII/Protek Performance were just a short hop up from me in San Diego to Cable Airport. I decided, it’s an important decision, I want to see for myself the product, the facility, the people behind the scenes…
That info is spelled out in this write up:
http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...d.php?t=108661
I had made up my mind on the ignitions system and had planned on going with the standard Airflow Performance mechanical fuel injection. (Don’t get me wrong, Airflow Performance makes a very nice product and Don is super knowledgeable and friendly, in fact he spend about 30 minutes on the phone explaining the basics of fuel injection 101 to me last year…) However, once I learned that already having the ECU put me half way there, it wasn’t hard to realize the benefits of a full EFII set up. Mainly, not having to deal with the mixture. LESS PILOT WORKLOAD is always nice especially in IMC, in which this plane will surely end up. The options you have for mapping the fuel curve are great. You can get max horsepower when you want it, lean in cruise and have the mixture return, all automatically without having to do anything. No pilot error of flying into detonation…
So… that’s the decision factors FOR ME… your results and findings may vary…
At Barrett for the testing on the Dyno. As it turns out, Allen for some reason was having a heck of a time getting their stock Bendix fuel servo and spider to run properly. I flew out on a Monday night, with Tuesday supposed to be just playing with the EFII set up before packing it up and taking it home. Turns out they spent part of the weekend and most of the day Monday just getting the Bendix set up going.
I arrived at Barrett Tuesday morning to see and hear my engine running (On Mags and Mech Fule Inj), it sounded great. It was a good crew, Allen and Monty Barrett, Robert Paisley from EFII and Dan Horton to do the write-up for Kitplanes, and my beautiful custom painted freshly built IO-540. I was like a kid in a candy store.
So, Robert was primarily there to get BPE up to speed on his system and leave them with a set up so when clients wanted an EFII set up, they could actually install it and dyno it there. Leaving the ECU and a few other parts to stay permanently at Barrett. Well, due to the lack of time available for Robert to catch a plane, and me and my in-laws (Shayne and Phyllis McDaniel, this is plane #4 for them, definitely repeat offenders) set to leave with the engine the next day, we had a very short time to rip one system off and get the next one installed. Literally a few hours. We all pitched in, literally about 5 of us doing whatever we could to get it done.
We got the EFII system installed, however, for the fuel system, we (as a team) made a big no-no. Apparently, due to the set up of fuel flow calculations on the Barrett dyno, returning the fuel from the fuel rail back to the tank wasn’t an option. So, since we didn’t have time to fab up new hoses and modify the system, we had to return the fuel into the system just before the pump. (side note: if you didn’t know, in an electronic fuel injection system, much more fuel is sent to the injectors, with much more unused needing to return back to the tank. It’s literally a loop, just like in a car). So, we actually ended up setting the system up NOT ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURERS GUIDELINES…. Robert had just given us a lesson on how NOT to do that earlier that morning, but it was the only option to get the system running in a short time frame. WE didn’t really over think it, it was just what needed to happen to get the engine running.
__________________
John Walker
RV-10 N265WD
"Miss Whiskey Delta"
BPE IO-540, FULL EFII
KMYF, San Diego, Ca.
KEOS, Neosho, MO
Crew Chief
Grove Aero Super Legacy Reno Racer,
twin turbo, IO-540,
full EFII management system!
Race Coordinator STOL Drag coming to Reno, 2019
"so I got that going for me... which is nice."
|

10-07-2014, 04:38 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 431
|
|
The results:
The big one that we were all watching was of course the WOT HP reading. It showed a slight DECREASE in HP with the EFII set up? Which left more than myself scratching our head going ?That just doesn?t seem possible?. Throughout most of the other data points showed similar HP to the Mags/Mechanical set up, but better fuel economy.
What I did notice (I shot video of it running on EFII, but I didn?t shoot video during the first run on Mags) was that the engine ran noticeably smoother on EFII. And I do mean both visually and audibly. The first run, the exhaust housing above the engine had a tiny shimy, on the EFII, nothing, not a flinch, smooth like butter, and it started quickly and easily.
So, it was getting late, we shut the engine down, having collected the data and everybody went off for the night. The next morning, we arrived at the shop to dismantle everything that had to come off the engine and prep it for travel in the truck to it?s new home. That?s when we got an email and call from Robert, now in Texas at Titan to perform a similar test. He pointed out the flaw in the set up and that that had to explain the system not performing properly. At that point, we couldn?t do it again as the engine was mostly packed up.
-Here?s my 2 cents, and that?s about what it?s worth so take it for that. But it is my engine, and I was there.
Robert?s explanation sure seemed to make sense. Hot bubbly fuel getting pumped back into the system is a bad thing? everybody knows that. So, in my mind the results of THIS test will always have an * by them. The EFII set up was A: not set up properly, B, set up quickly and not tuned, vs the Bendix system that had 2 full days getting set up?I wish we had done a third test with the mechanical fuel injection and the EFII ignition to just get an ignition apples to apples comparison.
Plus, I personally have spoken to about 6 EFII owners that were flying before switching over. Some just ignition, some both ignition and fuel. In EVERY CASE, they reported improvements. Not only in actual numbers (Faster TAS, GS and better fuel economy) but in literally being able to FEEL the difference in their plane. Including Danny Riggs with a Barrett IO-540 saying ?it feels like it?s on speed now!!? Which led me to believe that our results had to have been somewhat flawed. (again, the engine is producing PLENTY of HP either way, so I?m not too worried about it)
To Cap it all off, Robert, followed up with me two days later after his tests at Titan on an IO 360. At Titan?s dyno they had different fuel set up so he was able to plumb the system correctly. The EFII system performed as expected, increase in HP and Torque, better fuel economy.
All of the above leads me to believe that our test results got scewed, We?ll never know for sure, unless we do it again. (Which we will?..stay tuned)
__________________
John Walker
RV-10 N265WD
"Miss Whiskey Delta"
BPE IO-540, FULL EFII
KMYF, San Diego, Ca.
KEOS, Neosho, MO
Crew Chief
Grove Aero Super Legacy Reno Racer,
twin turbo, IO-540,
full EFII management system!
Race Coordinator STOL Drag coming to Reno, 2019
"so I got that going for me... which is nice."
|

10-07-2014, 05:30 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Luis Obispo
Posts: 199
|
|
Love the facts......thanks
Bluelable,
I also read the article Dan wrote in Kitplanes and found it most odd. I run engines everyday here at Titan and our experience is that EFii is everything Robert claims both on the dyno and in my aircraft. I have done direct comparison with Efii and traditional injection and electronic ignition and there is really no comparison. Max power is only slightly higher on Efii but every other aspect of operation is by far better, smoother, and more efficient.
I have raced the system at Reno and installed it on everything from 340, 360, 370, 409, GTSIO-520 race engine for my NXT. We are finishing up our R540 and I can't wait to run it based on my experience with getting the 6 cylinder Continental running.
Thanks again for setting the story straight... 
|

10-07-2014, 05:32 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 431
|
|
Forgot the best part
__________________
John Walker
RV-10 N265WD
"Miss Whiskey Delta"
BPE IO-540, FULL EFII
KMYF, San Diego, Ca.
KEOS, Neosho, MO
Crew Chief
Grove Aero Super Legacy Reno Racer,
twin turbo, IO-540,
full EFII management system!
Race Coordinator STOL Drag coming to Reno, 2019
"so I got that going for me... which is nice."
|

10-07-2014, 07:28 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,218
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless
Bluelable,
I also read the article Dan wrote in Kitplanes and found it most odd. I run engines everyday here at Titan and our experience is that EFii is everything Robert claims both on the dyno and in my aircraft. I have done direct comparison with Efii and traditional injection and electronic ignition and there is really no comparison. Max power is only slightly higher on Efii but every other aspect of operation is by far better, smoother, and more efficient.
I have raced the system at Reno and installed it on everything from 340, 360, 370, 409, GTSIO-520 race engine for my NXT. We are finishing up our R540 and I can't wait to run it based on my experience with getting the 6 cylinder Continental running.
Thanks again for setting the story straight... 
|
What wasn't "straight" about the story in Kitplanes?
I find it hard to challenge the results of a test where the rules were clear and everyone involved accepted the conditions beforehand.
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
|

10-07-2014, 07:36 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Victoria, Canada
Posts: 2,251
|
|
Well, I guess we saw this coming.
It didn't make sense to me that the EFII would not match the mag system in horsepower. One would assume similar max HP but more efficiency with the EFII. Looks like the EFII System was not getting enough fuel flow. The mag system, however, was using an RSA-10 servo rather than a stock RSA-5 and this allows more airflow and more fuel flow.
However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The ball is in the EFII court.
__________________
===========
V e r n. ====
=======
RV-9A complete
Harmon Rocket complete
S-21 wings complete
Victoria, BC (Summer)
Chandler, Az (Winter)
|

10-07-2014, 08:45 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 431
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright
What wasn't "straight" about the story in Kitplanes?
I find it hard to challenge the results of a test where the rules were clear and everyone involved accepted the conditions beforehand.
|
Kyle,
I think what Kevin is referring to is the set up story. I was just relaying all the facts. Which were, we all had plane tickets and deadlines. Robert and I flying in from parts of Southern California, Dan coming in from Alabama, and my in-laws coming from Mo. As you can imagine, just coordinating it with all of us was a pain to begin with. We all had schedules. The "plan", as best I know, was for the engine to be running on Mags/Mech Monday morning, do the runs, collect data, then Monday afternoon switch over to the EFII set up, then have Tuesday to tune the system, train Barrett and us, then Wed break it down to take home. Well, as you can read, that didn't happen. It turned more into a reality show type deadline racing the clock. The EFII system literally got slapped on, ran for about 5 minutes before the runs to take data were done. Hence the improper set up.
That's what I think Kevin means by "straight".....
__________________
John Walker
RV-10 N265WD
"Miss Whiskey Delta"
BPE IO-540, FULL EFII
KMYF, San Diego, Ca.
KEOS, Neosho, MO
Crew Chief
Grove Aero Super Legacy Reno Racer,
twin turbo, IO-540,
full EFII management system!
Race Coordinator STOL Drag coming to Reno, 2019
"so I got that going for me... which is nice."
|

10-07-2014, 08:58 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,766
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlittle
Well, I guess we saw this coming.
It didn't make sense to me that the EFII would not match the mag system in horsepower. One would assume similar max HP but more efficiency with the EFII. Looks like the EFII System was not getting enough fuel flow. The mag system, however, was using an RSA-10 servo rather than a stock RSA-5 and this allows more airflow and more fuel flow.
However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The ball is in the EFII court.
|
Comparative dyno testing is best done by changing only one variable at a time (the scientific method) to judge relative change. Having a smaller servo in place on one test pretty much does not allow one to draw valid conclusions about anything. I am assuming here that the -10 has a larger throttle plate than the -5 but couldn't find any specs.
Increased airflow matched with increased fuel flow usually equals more power.
Bluelabel already covered the return plumbing mod which was certainly not a good idea if one wants to make valid comparisons. Properly plumbed, the EFII system has vast reserves of fuel available at the port (like enough for over 500 hp).
Repeat the test with the same servo and proper fuel system plumbing. Let the results tell the story then.
Last edited by rv6ejguy : 10-07-2014 at 09:01 PM.
|

10-07-2014, 10:45 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ga
Posts: 662
|
|
One factor at a time....uggggg.
OFAT (scientific method) is 19th /20th century stuff long abandoned by top quality experts. Today it's a DOE (design of experiment) set up as a fractional factorial or if money and time allows, a full factorial experiment. Either way, you learn so much more besides which variables are significant, but also if there are interactions between and within variables. All this while in a shorter timeframe and lower cost. (Interactions is really good info, and pretty common. OFAT will make you go broke before you get enough information about interactions)
Either way, all this publicity should be good for all parties assuming we can fail to reject the null hypothesis. (Null would be EFII is better,  . )
Cj
Quote:
Originally Posted by rv6ejguy
Comparative dyno testing is best done by changing only one variable at a time (the scientific method) to judge relative change. Having a smaller servo in place on one test pretty much does not allow one to draw valid conclusions about anything. I am assuming here that the -10 has a larger throttle plate than the -5 but couldn't find any specs.
Increased airflow matched with increased fuel flow usually equals more power.
Bluelabel already covered the return plumbing mod which was certainly not a good idea if one wants to make valid comparisons. Properly plumbed, the EFII system has vast reserves of fuel available at the port (like enough for over 500 hp).
Repeat the test with the same servo and proper fuel system plumbing. Let the results tell the story then.
|
__________________
Craig
RV-3 Sold
RV-4 Sold
RV-6a Sold
RV-9 IO-360 CS, Built and Flying
Aerostar 600A, Family Hotrod
|

10-08-2014, 06:56 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Luis Obispo
Posts: 199
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright
What wasn't "straight" about the story in Kitplanes?
I find it hard to challenge the results of a test where the rules were clear and everyone involved accepted the conditions beforehand.
|
Interesting use of word "Rules". I thought the objective was to fairly compare and then put out to the community solid information, not to disprove a new technology. We know traditional systems work great, but to think nothing new can be developed is silly. Imagine if anything else you have purchased recently would have stopped being developed 25 years ago.
Imagine general aviation without Vans and the experimental community. Ist time we put the same enthusiasm into engine development as we have put into airframes and avionics. Oh, I am.... 
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:43 AM.
|