VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > RV Firewall Forward Section > Traditional Aircraft Engines
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-03-2013, 02:54 PM
RV10inOz's Avatar
RV10inOz RV10inOz is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brisbane Qld. Aust.
Posts: 2,271
Default

Quote:
Extra cubes gives more power, whiles injection is more efficient than carburation I have seen no claimes for more power, so why are you so strong on this?
You answered your own question

And

Quote:
I figure that the fuel injection on my Rocket saved me almost $6K in 350 hours. That is the difference I saw between ROP and LOP operations.
If you are going to operate LOP it makes tuning the F/A ratio's possible, and if you are a ROP pilot you can run at the appropriate ROP setting on all cylinders using less overall fuel.

There is not an RV alive that is better with a carby. Not one!
__________________
______________________________

David Brown

DYNON Authorised Dealer and Installer


The two best investments you can make, by any financial test, an EMS and APS!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-03-2013, 04:36 PM
jongurley jongurley is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 94
Default

Thanks for the info so far guys good stuff, after hearing SmokyRay's info I'm leaning towards saving the money and going with a 0-320 with higher compression pistons. my partner previously built a RV7 with 0-320 160hp and catto prop with vetterman exhaust and could run with and outrun some 0-360's, the climb was alittle better on a 0-360 in most cases, but his plane with 0-0320 was LIGHT and flew so good and we are shooting for light, and his plane climbed GREAT so we don't really need the extra climb i guess.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-03-2013, 05:51 PM
Russ McCutcheon's Avatar
Russ McCutcheon Russ McCutcheon is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
Posts: 908
Thumbs up +1 for FI

I would go with the 9 to 1s which will cost you nothing during an O/H and spend the money on fuel injection, after running FI for the last 1400 hours since 2005 I would never have a carb again, the engine is much smoother and more efficient, also after you learn how to start it you won?t have any problems hot or cold, mine catches and runs on the first or second blade every time hot or cold. I bet a good FI cost half the price of that stroker kit.
__________________
Russ McCutcheon
@rv4welder on Facebook
russmccutcheon@gmail.com
We build many of your RV weldments.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-03-2013, 06:45 PM
jongurley jongurley is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 94
Default

Thx for info Russ, Yeh I got the FI down pat, sold my decathlon last year, been there and learnt about FI, but got it down pat.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-03-2013, 08:00 PM
dealfair dealfair is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: George West, TX
Posts: 567
Default

Hmmm, great info gents! I know Mel is pleased & happy with his 175 horse O-320.
__________________
Deal Fair
RV-4 (N34CB)
George West, TX (8T6)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-03-2013, 08:45 PM
hydroguy2's Avatar
hydroguy2 hydroguy2 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Townsend, Montana
Posts: 3,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jongurley View Post
.......my partner previously built a RV7 with 0-320 160hp and catto prop with vetterman exhaust and could run with and outrun some 0-360's, the climb was alittle better on a 0-360 in most cases.....
This is one place we miss Racer Bob Axsom. He would pull out all the SARL listings for RV Red (320 power) and RV blue(360 power). Then he would say, enter a SARL event to see what your 320 or 360 powered RV is really capable of doing.
__________________
Retired Dam guy. Life is good.
Brian, N155BKsold but bought back.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-03-2013, 09:29 PM
jongurley jongurley is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 94
Default

Im just telling you what I witnessed my self, lol. Thats why were stuck on a 0-320 with carb(simplicity) but thought the 340 would be interesting to inquire on but sounds like the 9-1 pistons would suite what we need. but it is great to hear everyones thoughts and opinions .
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-04-2013, 03:13 AM
N208ET N208ET is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St. Helens OR
Posts: 429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV10inOz View Post
You answered your own question

And



If you are going to operate LOP it makes tuning the F/A ratio's possible, and if you are a ROP pilot you can run at the appropriate ROP setting on all cylinders using less overall fuel.

There is not an RV alive that is better with a carby. Not one!
I disagree with that last line. Better is to be defined by the builder/pilot. Not everyone's mission is the same.

About the 340. I know very little about it but I would not go with that if I were looking to buy an engine. If I had a 320 I might look into upgrading, but buying an engine, why not go with a 360. There is very little weight gain and you can still run mogas. With the way the 100LL debate is going, I see GA getting hammered with whatever alternative they come up with. It would be great if it were cheaper but I really doubt it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-04-2013, 05:11 AM
RV10inOz's Avatar
RV10inOz RV10inOz is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brisbane Qld. Aust.
Posts: 2,271
Default

Quote:
I disagree with that last line. Better is to be defined by the builder/pilot. Not everyone's mission is the same.
Different mission has little to do with it. We could make the same comment about cars and drum brakes Vs Disc brakes. I struggle to find an RV mission that is better with a Carbed engine.

I am yet to read a thread where people are falling over themselves in a rush to convert IO-XXX to O-XXX.

A Piper Cub, yeah the old Carby engine is probably all it needs and there would be not a great deal to gain by having an injected one, but there was no mention in my previous post about cubs, just RV's.

I am happy enough that you disagree though.
__________________
______________________________

David Brown

DYNON Authorised Dealer and Installer


The two best investments you can make, by any financial test, an EMS and APS!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-04-2013, 07:15 AM
smokyray's Avatar
smokyray smokyray is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: TX32
Posts: 1,891
Default Induced induction...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV10inOz View Post
Different mission has little to do with it. We could make the same comment about cars and drum brakes Vs Disc brakes. I struggle to find an RV mission that is better with a Carbed engine.
David,
The original discussion was Stroker 0-340 modification comments for a simple HP increase. Fuel injection, as I mentioned earlier is a separate subject which could be argued either way in the same vein as Mags vs Electronic Ignition. So not to hijack the thread any more than it already has, I will add that the beauty of these airplanes is free choice. I believe the inputs for the Stroker mod were presented with good options thereafter. Nuff said...
V/R
Smokey

PS: I have been blessed to amass over 3500 hours in my two RV's and Rocket with all three types of fuel atomization over every conceivable type of terrain and long over-water jaunts. (Carb, Ellison TBI, Servo F.I.) I don't know how much RV experience with all three types you have, but I actually learned a few things in those 25 years.
The Carb actually has it's place in the induction spectrum. How? Lower cost and simplicity. It is also easier to start with fewer prop swings in the outback. If you are on a budget and want the lowest cost fuel atomization, the Carb is still King, and by a large margin. Is it the best and most modern efficient fuel induction system? No, but neither is the servo F.I. FADEC wins that argument with synchronized fuel injection and ignition. Get your wallet out though, it is spendy. So, a mission for the Carb is still there and knowing what I know about all three fuel atomization systems, my RVX has a Carb on it for the very reasons mentioned. Being an A&P I can also assure you Fuel Injection is higher maintenance and cost when things break.

Last edited by smokyray : 12-04-2013 at 07:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:27 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.