|
-
POSTING RULES

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

04-22-2015, 10:31 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 26
|
|
Fuel Injection - What are Your Thoughts ?
Fuel Injection - should I want that ? Why or why not ?
__________________
Save Money - Outsource Congress !!!
|

04-22-2015, 11:12 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lake Havasu City AZ
Posts: 2,393
|
|
Fuel Injection
Fuel injection on a four cylinder Lycoming can result in as much as 1 gallon/hour less fuel consumption than a carburetor. Exactly how much depends on the intake system and carb.
Fuel distribution is much better on injected engine allowing better leaning and loan of peak operation. Many carbs do not permit lean of peak, some do.
|

04-22-2015, 11:22 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
|
|
Costs
If you were buying new, a carb. used to be much cheaper than fuel injection. With experimental FI systems now available the extra cost difference for FI is getting smaller.
The no core price for a rebuilt MA-4-5 carb is $1800...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...elyccarbs1.php
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
|

04-22-2015, 12:40 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Delta, CO/Atlin, BC
Posts: 2,391
|
|
No carb ice.
When I built my engine (2007) at a Superior build school, the price differential was only a few hundred dollars, so well worth the cost at that time. Assuming I'm saving 1/2 gallon/hour by running LOP, so far I've saved 350 gallons x $3.00/gallon (very conservative fuel cost estimate) or north of $1000. YMMV.
Greg
__________________
Greg Arehart
RV-9B (Big tires) Tipup @AJZ or CYSQ
N 7965A
|

04-22-2015, 01:36 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Royse City, TX
Posts: 143
|
|
I have flown several carb'ed RVs and the #1 issue I always see is un-even fuel distribution as displayed by a 4 point CHT / EGT indication system, especially at partial throttle. Usually at W/O throttle the CHT/ EGT split is fairly even, anything less than that may cause a "front / rear" split. The 1/2 cylinders can run as much 300 deg cooler EGT than the 3/4 cylinders, which run hot anyway, at certain throttle plate positions. One has to wonder how healthy that is for the engine and how much power is being made in such a condition. The issue of O-360 sumps on O-320 engines and the corresponding lip just above the carb may also contribute to the un-even fuel distribution. With a carb, the fuel is introduced at one central point, the carb. Irregularities in the induction system can result in un-even flow. With F/I, the fuel is injected directly at the cylinder, resulting in very consistent CHT/EGT and the ability to run LOP. I have been very happy with the AFP FM series of F/I units. Once you understand the purge valve, hot starts are simple and reliable. No carb ice issues and the ability to pull sustained negative G are also in favor of the F/I system. Initial build cost and simplicity of installation seem to favor the Carb, but the long term fuel efficiency and safety (carb ice) seem to favor the F/I system.
|

04-22-2015, 05:13 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,412
|
|
I opted for Don Rivera's Airflow Performance FM-150, my first ever fuel injected Lycoming. I'm not having any starting problems commonly attributed to mechanical fuel injected aircraft, and the way it operates when running is better in every regard.
I did operate a Mazda Rotary engine in my RV-8 for a while, the automotive style electronic injection has a lot going for it. Simple Digital Systems, and EFII are 2 examples.
My son Peter installed a Rotec TBI in his RV-4 so he could fly upside down. It's often called an injector, but I call it a Diaphram Demand carb. It runs very well, and in our case has very even fuel distribution.
I don't reject any of these fuel systems, even the Marvel carb has benefits.
But I am happy with the FM-150 and will stick with it.
__________________
Scott Emery
http://gallery.eaa326.org/v/members/semery/
EAA 668340, chapter 326 & IAC chapter 67
RV-8 N89SE first flight 12/26/2013
Yak55M, and the wife has an RV-4
There is nothing-absolute nothing-half so much worth doing as simply messing around with Aeroplanes
(with apologies to Ratty)
2019
|

04-22-2015, 09:12 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: West Fargo, ND
Posts: 1,073
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WA85
I have flown several carb'ed RVs and the #1 issue I always see is un-even fuel distribution as displayed by a 4 point CHT / EGT indication system, especially at partial throttle. Usually at W/O throttle the CHT/ EGT split is fairly even, anything less than that may cause a "front / rear" split. The 1/2 cylinders can run as much 300 deg cooler EGT than the 3/4 cylinders, which run hot anyway, at certain throttle plate positions. One has to wonder how healthy that is for the engine and how much power is being made in such a condition. The issue of O-360 sumps on O-320 engines and the corresponding lip just above the carb may also contribute to the un-even fuel distribution. With a carb, the fuel is introduced at one central point, the carb. Irregularities in the induction system can result in un-even flow. With F/I, the fuel is injected directly at the cylinder, resulting in very consistent CHT/EGT and the ability to run LOP. I have been very happy with the AFP FM series of F/I units. Once you understand the purge valve, hot starts are simple and reliable. No carb ice issues and the ability to pull sustained negative G are also in favor of the F/I system. Initial build cost and simplicity of installation seem to favor the Carb, but the long term fuel efficiency and safety (carb ice) seem to favor the F/I system.
|
This issue above can be addressed relatively simply, as I did with a tapered insert fabricated after the fact by manufacturer and installed by me later, as others have done. Why the engine builders don't do this out of the gates, or fix this issue entirely, is beyond me...
Back to the question; the carb is simple. Which is what I like most about it. Sure, I would like to have FI, but thinking through that installation, plumbing, electrical etc. was time/money I chose to avoid. Still like the simplicity of the carb. Fires up every time, no primer installed either.
__________________
Derek Hoeschen
EAA Tech Counselor
RV-9A #92103 - N803DK
G3X, Superior XO-320, Dual Pmags, Catto 3B
www.mykitlog.com/dbro172/
1974 Bellanca Super Viking - N16AW - Flying
RV-8 #83565 - N184DK - building
1968 Mooney M20C - N6801N - Sold
1956 C-182 - N744W - Sold
|

04-23-2015, 05:14 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,628
|
|
Aerobatics?
FI runs in any orientation. A carbureted engine will quit under zero or negative G operation. This makes the choice simple for me. YMMV.
__________________
Ron Schreck
IAC National Judge
RV-8, "Miss Izzy", 2250 Hours - Sold
VAF 2021 Donor
|

04-23-2015, 08:37 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Mahomet, Illinois
Posts: 2,195
|
|
I elected for Fuel Injection from the get-go when ordering my engine. It was one of the best decisions I made (... right along with the LSEI ignition on the R. side.) I would not change that decision under any circumstance. There's nothing complicated about the Bendix-style injection, and as others said, it will let you run LOP and save significant fuel over the life of the aircraft. In my case, the difference between running 50 degrees LOP and 75 degrees ROP is 20% fuel savings. Nothing to sneeze at.  The FI pays for itself pretty quickly.
__________________
Terry Ruprecht
RV-9A Tip-up; IO-320 D2A
S. James cowl/plenum
(Dues paid thru Nov '18)
|

04-23-2015, 09:08 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,652
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbro172
... Sure, I would like to have FI, but thinking through that installation, plumbing, electrical etc. was time/money I chose to avoid. Still like the simplicity of the carb. Fires up every time, no primer installed either.
|
There's nothing wrong with a carb if it fits the mission of the aircraft, but I'm trying to figure out your comment about the FI system being more complex? Same fuel valve, same number of fuel lines to the engine, same filter, same number of electric boost pumps (1). To what are you attributing the extra time?
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.
Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI
RV-8 - SDS CPI
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
1984 L39C
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
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 03:12 AM.
|