What's new
Van's Air Force

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

IO-540 EFI

rv6ejguy

Well Known Member
Here's a couple photos of the head mounted injector option for parallel valve Lycomings on a mockup engine (test fitting the hard line layout). This particular setup will eventually be going on a supercharged IO-540 in a Rocket.

efi5401_zpsbnjdms7r.jpg


efi5402_zpsfdsuqtcb.jpg


Development will begin soon on a solution for angle valve Lycomings.
 
This looks fantastic. Is there any advantage to this system versus the fuel rail system aside from ease of installation? Are there any performance trade offs or hot start issues?
 
Rumors abound!

I heard about this from a certain Canadian pilot who races at Reno.. I hope you are not adding the normal Lyc hot start problem to an electronic version? The higher pressure in this system will allow this setup to work OK after a 15min fuel stop and heat soak?

Don't forget to support the lines per the Lyc AD.

ATTA BOY ROSS!:D

Carry on!
Mark
 
The hard lines will be supported in 2 places per line. This is larger tubing than what's used on Bendix type systems as well.

Installation is easier than drilling holes in the intake runners and stringing the fittings and short hoses together. Ease of installation is the main advantage and probably even better cold starting as well.

I don't believe there will be any hot start issue here since the fuel pressure is 40-50 psi vs. 1-2 psi on a Bendix. This substantially raises the boiling point of the fuel. At this time though, we're only recommending 100LL use until we get more results from hot weather testing in the Southern US.

Special materials were chosen for the part that screws into the head to reduce heat transfer on shutdown and we're using an injector with a stainless body as well.
 
Last edited:
As I understand the system (and Ross can correct me), at idle and or with the engine just prior to restart (power on), the fuel is going to be bypassing back to the tank like crazy. The fuel block is not only going to be flushed with cool fuel in seconds after power on, the whole system is going to be at 50+ PSI.

Yes, I think it is reasonable to assume that the individual injector lines are going to get warm after shutdown, but unlike the mechanical systems, they are going to maintain that same 50+ PSI even with power off. Not much chance for vapor to form at that pressure.

Edit: Ross beat me to it.

As an aside, I recently broke open a fuel rail on one of my car projects. The engine has been out of the car for years and the intake manifold sitting on my bench nearly as long. When I cracked the fuel line open, it was STILL pressurized with fuel after years in storage.
 
Last edited:
So those are Bosch style injectors in some sort of machined housing? Does it require a mod to the existing (1/8 NPT IIRC) injector port? Would love to see that as an option on a 4 cylinder Lycoming if it proves out. Not super crazy about the injector adaptation on the intake tubes and resultant plumbing a la EFII.
 
So those are Bosch style injectors in some sort of machined housing? Does it require a mod to the existing (1/8 NPT IIRC) injector port? Would love to see that as an option on a 4 cylinder Lycoming if it proves out. Not super crazy about the injector adaptation on the intake tubes and resultant plumbing a la EFII.

Correct, these are a Pico type (very small) electronic injector with a narrow spray pattern. No mods required on parallel valve engines- take the pipe plug or Bendix type injector out, screw these in, done.

BTW the Eagle EMS runs much lower pressure at idle than we do. Nobody was asking if those worked well after a hot shutdown...
 
So those are Bosch style injectors in some sort of machined housing? Does it require a mod to the existing (1/8 NPT IIRC) injector port? Would love to see that as an option on a 4 cylinder Lycoming if it proves out. Not super crazy about the injector adaptation on the intake tubes and resultant plumbing a la EFII.

Cruising the SDS website shows that a 4 banger system has been released as well.

And like you, I always thought the weld in bosses was kind of a kludge.

Direct replacement of the existing screw in injectors is a big leap... Props to Ross for making true bolt on EFI work.
 
We ran Bill Beaton's new IO-540 at Aerosport Power last week with SDS EFI. This had the new top mount injector bosses and 80mm billet throttle body replacing the old mechanical injection setup.

540bill1_zpstra8kawb.jpg


540billl2_zps1ndbmkol.jpg


Note the new, wider pulley to drive the supercharger. (not installed for break in).

We ran one set of plugs off the SDS EM-5 ECU and the other off an SDS CPI unit.

No hot start issues so far.
 
Last edited:
Top Coil Mount

We just finished another new CNC'd part for 540 engines. This is a bracket to mount the coil pack to the top, rear case bolts. It allows the top plug wires to stay inside the baffling for a cleaner installation.

540topcoilmt_zpsrhtkaw7y.jpg


It's applicable to both the SDS EM-5 engine management systems and the CPI stand alone ignition systems.

We have a similar mount for 4 cylinder systems.
 
Could you please explain the relationships I see on this sdsi website... SDSEFI seems like its own product, but then they refer you to EFII (flyefi.com) which looks really similar but I thought was its own product, and then also you have this CPI stuff on the sdsi website, and again it seems similar. Personally I am interested in the EFII ignition only, but I can't differentiate between SDS, EFII, CPI, it all seems like the same company, or maybe not.
 
Could you please explain the relationships I see on this sdsi website... SDSEFI seems like its own product, but then they refer you to EFII (flyefi.com) which looks really similar but I thought was its own product, and then also you have this CPI stuff on the sdsi website, and again it seems similar. Personally I am interested in the EFII ignition only, but I can't differentiate between SDS, EFII, CPI, it all seems like the same company, or maybe not.


Search FADEC?, post #19, explains all this. Basically we are the manufacturer of all the electronics. EFII is a customer of ours who buys the ECUs and some other bits from us. We have our own line parts/ kits for Lycoming, Rotax, Jabiru, Conti etc.

The CPI is our own stand alone EI. The EM-5 is the EFI with EI combined.
 
...Personally I am interested in the EFII ignition only, but I can't differentiate between SDS, EFII, CPI....

if you are looking at EI only, take a good hard look at the CPI line before you pull the trigger. CPI is a fantastic product and just keeps getting better.
 
found your post 19, I guess that sums it up, thanks.

cpi looks interesting toolbuilder. I was following your thread, and saw your plane at Inyokern. I don't want to play around much with the curves much. Cpi and efii both look like good solutions.
 
Dont let the fact that the CPI is completely adjustable drive you to think you have to dream up your own curve. The info Ross has in the CPI instructions is quite adequate, and there are enough of us running these things now that you can just copy a curve and be pretty close. I've emailed my curve out to a few people, in fact.
 
We enter a conservative base timing curve taking into account the fuel used (Mogas or 100LL) and engine compression ratio. The advance switch on the CPI or EM-5 allows you to add a programmable amount of timing advance for LOP or high altitude operation or can be used as an octane selector if you run both Mogas and 100LL.

cpi10_zpsqpag8dpg.jpg


Here's what the CPI advance switch window looks like above. Program the amount you want and when you flick the miniature toggle switch on the panel, this would instantly add an additional 7 degrees at all rpm/ MAP ranges.

4294_zpszlgzjm4b.jpg


Here's the same window on the EM-5 programmer

As Mike's flight testing showed, this feature can add several knots when running LOP.
 
Last edited:
6 Cylinder Fuel Trim

Just an update on progress on new SDS EFI features for 6 cylinder engines: Software is complete and we're finishing bench testing on the individual cylinder fuel trim option this week and will be continuing with engine testing after that before going on to further engine testing later in August.

This will be a twin ECU board offering, with backup and a new relay switching box to go with the system. We believe that this option will be available sometime in September if all goes smoothly.

Along the same timetable, we'll be finishing the CNC'd production top case mount fuel blocks for Lycomings.

This last piece will complete the basic EFI/ EI mechanical kit parts for PV and AV Lycoming 540 engines with 80mm billet throttle body, top injector mounts, 3 choices of coil pack mounts, mag covers, fuel pump cover, 2 choices of fuel blocks, dual fuel pump module, dual board ECU, single or dual Hall sensor body with mount, short and long reach plug adapters and air and CHT sensor mounts.

Advance/ LOP switches are standard on all aviation EM-5 systems as are Tefzel harnesses, custom made to your length specs (pins and connectors installed or left off for easier firewall passage if you wish).

Along with the fuel trim option, we have an optional integral fuel flow output, eliminating Red Cubes, dual ECUs can have a optional single programmer which accesses both ECUs and easily toggles between them and finally, optional PC data logging from the primary ECU for tuning and troubleshooting assistance.

We have one final software/hardware feature which is under development which hopefully can be retrofitted to all EM-5 ECUs. Can't talk much about that one at the moment until further test results are in.
 
Last edited:
Hi Ross,

Very exciting, looking forward to the " zero gami spread " that this system will deliver.
The economy improvement that Dave Saylor ( on his 4 cylinder ) is reporting is very encouraging.

Cheers
 
Supercharged Rocket Running Today

We we running up Bill Beaton's mighty supercharged Rocket today with the SDS EFI and CPI. What a beast!

Hopefully I can post some photos and vid links soon with Bill's permission.
 
Looking out my office window here, I see Bill is up in his Rocket overhead, breaking in his new engine. Has a distinct sound with the supercharger on there. Sounds good!
 
When I have time between work and having fun flying, I'll post some info on how much I've enjoyed the EFII system and how awesome it is in my 10. I think it'll be clear why it's the best, most reliable, easy to use option out there. And it's only getting better...
Having hooked up both types of systems, the plumbing for the EFII fuel rail is simpler that the bendix style, and the simple fact is the EFII injectors are in the most otimum location. I'm usually a max of 12-15 degrees max CHT spread across all 6 cylinders.
 
When I have time between work and having fun flying, I'll post some info on how much I've enjoyed the EFII system and how awesome it is in my 10. I think it'll be clear why it's the best, most reliable, easy to use option out there. And it's only getting better...
Having hooked up both types of systems, the plumbing for the EFII fuel rail is simpler that the bendix style, and the simple fact is the EFII injectors are in the most otimum location. I'm usually a max of 12-15 degrees max CHT spread across all 6 cylinders.

John, are you suggesting that the EFII method of welding the injector bosses into the induction tubes facing "backwards" against the induction flow is superior to the SDS direct mount injectors featured in this thread?

If so, I'd like to see the comparison test results you have.
 
We have one final software/hardware feature which is under development which hopefully can be retrofitted to all EM-5 ECUs. Can't talk much about that one at the moment until further test results are in.

I wonder if it's what I'm hoping it is? ;)
 
John, are you suggesting that the EFII method of welding the injector bosses into the induction tubes facing "backwards" against the induction flow is superior to the SDS direct mount injectors featured in this thread?

If so, I'd like to see the comparison test results you have.

I am indeed... The EFII system is very well engineered by someone with more experience on fuel and ignition in the real world than anyone on this forum... The key is "real world" experience. Not just what works on paper. If there was. A better way, it would have been done that way.
This was backed up by, who I believe to be one of the best hands on and highly respected engine builders out there... Hence, what's in my plane.
 
I am indeed... The EFII system is very well engineered by someone with more experience on fuel and ignition in the real world than anyone on this forum... The key is "real world" experience. Not just what works on paper. If there was. A better way, it would have been done that way.
This was backed up by, who I believe to be one of the best hands on and highly respected engine builders out there... Hence, what's in my plane.

Glad you are so pleased with your EFII system (which we build most of the electronic components for BTW) but you might want to check your facts.

All OEMs place the injectors facing towards the port- Lycoming, Continental, Toyota, GM, Honda, Ford etc. Are all these engineers and tens of millions of engines wrong?

Lycoming with their own IE2 FADEC system placed the injectors in the ports, facing the valves. Also in error?

My company has been doing EFI and EI for over 20 years, nearly 10,000 controllers in the field, dozens of world records and race wins, millions of hours collectively and over 425,000 flight hours to date on Lycoming, Continental, Jabiru, Rotax, Franklin, LOM, Honda, Suzuki, Subaru, GM etc. Doubt if anyone else comes close to that "Real World" experience...

Our first EFI Lycoming customer flew 19 years ago.
 
Last edited:
We try to make all dreams come true. Tell us what features you'd like to see and we'll always give it some thought.

Either tying the LOP switch to a second fuel map (programmed in advance), or to a closed-loop "economy" mode for LOP that maintains a specified fuel-air ratio based off the O2 sensor. I realize the second has some challenges with fault detection, limits, and dealing with sensor misbehavior/failure.

My ideal would be not having to touch the mixture knob at all for normal operations, once the ECU is fully programmed and tweaked. Just a "normal/economy" switch.
 
Either tying the LOP switch to a second fuel map (programmed in advance), or to a closed-loop "economy" mode for LOP that maintains a specified fuel-air ratio based off the O2 sensor. I realize the second has some challenges with fault detection, limits, and dealing with sensor misbehavior/failure.

My ideal would be not having to touch the mixture knob at all for normal operations, once the ECU is fully programmed and tweaked. Just a "normal/economy" switch.

With leaded fuel, running off the O2 in closed loop mode would not be reliable. That will have to wait for unleaded Avgas.

There is one more feature under development which will help make operation more automatic, with just leaning to your desired EGT using the knob and throwing the advance switch. We hope to flight test this near month end and should be able to implement on all EM-5s soon after that.

Anything totally automatic would involve closed loop control with targeted AFR rpm/load points plus a lot of diagnostic code to identify a bad O2 sensor.
 
I am indeed... The EFII system is very well engineered by someone with more experience on fuel and ignition in the real world than anyone on this forum..

...do you mean aside from Ross - the guy who developed and supplies EFII with the key hardware that makes that magic happen?

As for the injectors facing backwards and far from the port as the "optimum location", I guess that remains to be seen. I'm betting that placing the injector in the port, aimed at the valve like Lycoming and virtually every other injected engine on the planet is probably a better solution.

But even if the performance turns out to be exactly the same, the direct replacement injector mounts Ross developed are clearly a more elegant engineering solution. I have a set of these and they are like fine jewelry compared to the Rube Goldberg stuff that EFII sticks with. Thank goodness we have manufacturers fighting for the consumers dollar, otherwise we'd never see advances like this.
 
Last edited:
We try to make all dreams come true. Tell us what features you'd like to see and we'll always give it some thought.

A single dual channel user programmable CPI so two ignitions could be adjusted using one programmer/controller as opposed to two.
 
We try to make all dreams come true. Tell us what features you'd like to see and we'll always give it some thought.


Smaller control unit. Preferable one that would fit in a 2.xx inch round hole. If you had that right now i would remove my electronic ignitions. I have no room in my cockpit for 2 of your current control units.
 
Smaller control unit. Preferable one that would fit in a 2.xx inch round hole. If you had that right now i would remove my electronic ignitions. I have no room in my cockpit for 2 of your current control units.

Wouldn't hurt if color and style complimented current Garmin, Dynon, and GRT equipment.

Hey, lime green sticks out. I'm just sayin' ;)
 
Smaller control unit. Preferable one that would fit in a 2.xx inch round hole. If you had that right now i would remove my electronic ignitions. I have no room in my cockpit for 2 of your current control units.

I'll second this!
 
I'd like to point out that while the CPI display is handy to use, you really don't need to touch or look at it again once programmed. My intent was to burry mine behind the panel once flight test was complete.

And if talking about the EM-5 CPU as used in this thread, there is a single, remote controller that mounts in a standard instrument hole available. But it too is not required once the programming is done.
 
A single dual channel user programmable CPI so two ignitions could be adjusted using one programmer/controller as opposed to two.

The 4 cylinder CPI will support 2 coils today. It even has an A and a B mode for end of runway "mag check". I am planning to go with a single brain/dual coil system when I get my Pitts. You drop off the "fully" redundant scale with this configuration, but each of us should weigh our own risks.
 
Thanks for the ideas. We've tossed around repackaging the CPI components into a more square package with harness exiting the rear and may do that once we recoupe the original development costs.

We based the CPI on an existing design and stock OTS parts to keep the costs down, bring it to market quickly and judge market popularity.

To have redundant controllers in one package would certainly take repackaging but it's something we'd consider in the future. We did something similar with the EM-5 aircraft programmer where we stacked a 2nd board on top to be able to access dual ECU boards.

Color change, we could do as well.

There's a practical consideration to size. I don't think 2.25 gives enough real estate for the display and buttons of useful size. Might have to be a bit bigger.

The EM-5 panel mount programmer will likely stay as is for some time. We have to try to remain price competitive and there are lots of parts on the shelf which we paid for already.

These things are still made in small quantities compared to Dynons or Garmin products. We don't have the economies of scale that they do and the pricing of the electronics is far below them as well so production costs are a major consideration. That being said, we try to respond to what the market is asking for in relatively short timetables.

Lots of planning goes into new designs and features before the next board runs are in motion.
 
Thanks for the ideas. We've tossed around repackaging the CPI components into a more square package with harness exiting the rear and may do that once we recoupe the original development costs.

We based the CPI on an existing design and stock OTS parts to keep the costs down, bring it to market quickly and judge market popularity.

To have redundant controllers in one package would certainly take repackaging but it's something we'd consider in the future. We did something similar with the EM-5 aircraft programmer where we stacked a 2nd board on top to be able to access dual ECU boards.

Color change, we could do as well.

There's a practical consideration to size. I don't think 2.25 gives enough real estate for the display and buttons of useful size. Might have to be a bit bigger.

The EM-5 panel mount programmer will likely stay as is for some time. We have to try to remain price competitive and there are lots of parts on the shelf which we paid for already.

These things are still made in small quantities compared to Dynons or Garmin products. We don't have the economies of scale that they do and the pricing of the electronics is far below them as well so production costs are a major consideration. That being said, we try to respond to what the market is asking for in relatively short timetables.

Lots of planning goes into new designs and features before the next board runs are in motion.

Ross,

Do you have a "Panel Layout Template" like the one Garmin uses (http://www8.garmin.com/aviation/pdfs/G3X_106_display.pdf) for the current CPI rectangle device you're producing?


It's difficult to find enough real estate on my RV-8 panel to mount one user programmable CPI yet alone two.

AX-O's idea of a smaller round instrument would be great as well.

A different color option would be good.
 
The 4 cylinder CPI will support 2 coils today. It even has an A and a B mode for end of runway "mag check". I am planning to go with a single brain/dual coil system when I get my Pitts. You drop off the "fully" redundant scale with this configuration, but each of us should weigh our own risks.

I like the fully redundant option.

Here is what I am thinking. You've done this already so I appreciate any advise you or others might provide.

Can redundancy be achieved by using one Pmag, without EI Commander, and one CPI?

How much performance is compromised using the Pmag/CPI combo, is it measurable?

My electrical system is basic. One alternator, one battery. I really don't want complexity here such as a second alternator/second battery.

I have a Titan IO-360 with two Slicks.

I am a daytime VFR pilot. Missions include cross country flight over high rocky terrain.

My panel has very limited space. Probably not enough for a CPI.

This is thread drift. My apologies. I can ask these questions on another thread if you wish.
 
Ross,

Do you have a "Panel Layout Template" like the one Garmin uses (http://www8.garmin.com/aviation/pdfs/G3X_106_display.pdf) for the current CPI rectangle device you're producing?


It's difficult to find enough real estate on my RV-8 panel to mount one user programmable CPI yet alone two.

AX-O's idea of a smaller round instrument would be great as well.

A different color option would be good.

We do, comes with the unit when you order the panel mount hardware. Is a CNC'd aluminum plate which you can scribe the panel with and pilot drill the mounting holes.

Mounting 2 can be challenging in lots of panels for sure. More depth would reduce the mounting area.
 
I like the fully redundant option.

Here is what I am thinking. You've done this already so I appreciate any advise you or others might provide.

Can redundancy be achieved by using one Pmag, without EI Commander, and one CPI?

How much performance is compromised using the Pmag/CPI combo, is it measurable?

My electrical system is basic. One alternator, one battery. I really don't want complexity here such as a second alternator/second battery.

I have a Titan IO-360 with two Slicks.

I am a daytime VFR pilot. Missions include cross country flight over high rocky terrain...

There is a lot to talk about in this one post, but I think it really boils down to two core concepts for your mission:

1. Do a trade anaysis to determine if adding a small dedicated ignition battery is better/worse than sticking with a self powered ignition on one side. Things to consider are overall cost, weight, efficiency and reliability of the aircraft as a system. You can crunch the numbers any way you want but in the end, your comfort level is the driver.

2. Can a mixed ignition system be adjusted/programmed in such a way as to achieve the same optimized ICP as a dual CPI? This is something I don't know. But an earlier thread on the subject got me thinking about perfoming a test to see if I can achieve the same cruise performance on a single ignition as I can with two. In other words, can I manipulate the start of the ignition event from a single plug and regain optimal ICP? I have been looking for good enough conditions to try this out but the air has been too rough lately. As soon as I collect some data, I'll post.
 
Last edited:
Here are a couple of photos of the supercharger setup on Bill Beaton's Rocket. Test flying is proceeding as weather permits. Slowly working out the bugs, hopefully in time for Reno.

bill%20001_zpstm2ybzgb.jpg


bill%20002_zpsg1ppjhnd.jpg
 
That's quite a prop extension on an already extended hub Hartzell...

Got any pictures of the cowl?

I have started my EFI installation, so I'm looking forward to hearing some performance numbers from this beast (not that my little 260 is going to compare...)
 
Prop Extension

That's quite a prop extension on an already extended hub Hartzell...

Got any pictures of the cowl?

I have started my EFI installation, so I'm looking forward to hearing some performance numbers from this beast (not that my little 260 is going to compare...)

I probalbly have a picture of Bill's plane with the cowling on. I'll post it if I have time to dig it up. I agree, there is a lot of potential load on the nose of that crankshaft between the extended hub prop, the extension, AND the centrifugal blower drive...

Skylor
 
Bending loads through the extra moment would be the bigger concern. The radial load from the supercharger drive is tiny percentage compared to typical firing loads on the bearings.

It's all very experimental however...

Here's a video link of it running a couple weeks back. Note the smooth note with EFI and the cool supercharger sounds.

https://youtu.be/jHp2poqf_Bs
 
Last edited:
Bill is at Reno after a big push in the last week to conquer some issues which cropped up with the supercharger drive system. Kudos to Bill Beaton (owner, pilot and wrench turner), Ralph Inkster (creator and crew chief) and Jim Dyck (fabricator/ welder extraordinaire) who all put in some long hours near the end to make it happen.

Hope all goes well and we'll see some qualification speeds in the next day or so.
 
Last edited:
Despite a number of electrical/charging issues and a dead stick landing, :eek: Bill posted some 281+ mph laps. Not bad for that straight wing.
 
Last edited:
Lots 'o charging system issues and a complete revamp of that on the ramp.

Pre-race preparation and testing helps assure success at the races and Bill had little time for that. The effects of which are showing now.

The crew was really tired after many long days are were making some errors in hookups to the electronics which made them miss some races. Bill was also involved in the new slalom event which I think made him miss some race heats.

I should get an update tonight.
 
Race results

Bill participated in the new "Match Race" demonstration format, so sacrificed the first 2 days of racing for this event. His 281 mph qualifying time will place him somewhere in the middle of Silver for his first race appearance (for this year) at Reno. Prepare for some "Harrasment of Glass" (airplanes) Saturday!
 
Back
Top