A question for repeat offenders

[Don]

I've heard a couple of people say that repeat offenders tend to build a simpler airplane the second time around. I'm at the stage of having my engine built and I've got to decide between fuel injection or a carburator. This question is particulary aimed at those of you who are repeat offenders (you've made the decision a second time based on experience) but I'm interested in anyone thoughts (flying, building, or still dreaming). My engine will be an ECI 340 Stroker and I'm looking at using ECIs fuel injection, which requires a fuel return line (complexity). The cost difference is about $2000. I'll also have do some cowling work (and Van's isn't being helpful, unfortunately) due to horizontal induction and I'll need to modify my already build fuel tanks. The plusses seem to be no carb ice issues, a smoother running engine, and perhaps better fuel economy. With the ECI fuel injection I also get about 8 more horse power due to their cold air induction.

Don

[Kahuna]

I went more complicated on my 8.
Go with the FI.

Best,

[f1rocket]

As a repeat offender, you tend to not make the simple more complicated than it needs to be, that's for sure. I went with FI on mine, but it's a IO-540. Same for Kahuna. Build what you want for the reasons you want. The FI system allows you to tune the injectors to run LOP, which means less fuel costs and less engine wear. I don't know about the specific system you've mentioned but I like FI better than carb.

[Steve Sampson]

I built a -9A and now a -4. The -4 is simpler and will be better for it. Steve.

[sf3543]

My RV8 is more complex than my RV6 was.
I now have FI versus carb. For the difference in price, you might be hard pressed to ever save the cost through fuel economy unless you fly a lot.
I went with the Horiz FI because I did not want to put a scoop on the cowling.
In my opinion, it's just personal preference.

[Ironflight]

I am not a repeat offender (yet), but the thought has crossed my mind.....

I really think that the choice of FI versus Carb has more to do with what you want out of the particular airplane. The Valkyrie has a carburetor, but anyone that has seen the panel and systems would hardly call the rest of it "simple" (although it seems simple to me!).

If I were to start something like a -3, with the intent to really build an aerobatic bug to go flitting around in, I would probably keep the cockpit and systems much more simple (not a traveling machine) - but would seriously consider FI for the inverted capability. The -8 is a good all-around machine that I wanted to be reliable, and easy to work on - and for me, that means a carb, as my FI education is sorely lacking....

All personal choice, and the selection process (for us anal engineers) can be pretty complex.

Paul

[RV7ator]

I stayed with a carb on the second -7. Idiot simple device, low pressures, cheap (compared to FI) life cycle cost, parts are readily available anywhere, anytime. FI for me doesn't bring enough to the party to bother with it. The O-360-A1A Ly-Con built is an ECi clone with Lyc cylinders, dynoing 205 hp after an hour in their test cell using slave mags; I'll be installing P-mags so expect even more. It has 8.5:1 compression, old style yet cert cam (Lyc derated the newer part number), Superior flow divider alum sump. $900 for port/polish/flow balance is the big upper.

FI helps in some edgy regimes, but if you're not going there or care about the last 1% ...?

That concept extends even more so to the panel. One $10K fire-breathing EFIS that can tell you tomorrow's stock market results isn't worth it unless you use it. And will all these newbie companies and soon-to-be-surpassed products be around 10 years from now? Heck, 5 years. KISS is much more appreciated as you live with your airplane. Anyone can endure a few more hours of initial install complication and debugging, but if it constantly wants attention, you keep referring to the operation manual, and you'd rather be flying, KISS.

John Siebold

[Mel]

Out of all the airplanes I've built; ALL have manual trim, manual flaps (those that have flaps), simple panels, and carburetors. Most have fixed pitch props. Only 2 have had auto pilots (and one of those has been removed). My next airplane will be the same! Can you guess I like the KISS principle?

[svanarts]

I built an RV-4 that I tried to keep as simple and stock as possible. Caburetor, wood prop, plane jane O320-D2A engine. I'm building an RV-7 now and am still going to try to keep it as simple as possible. I am opting for a few more luxuries in this one like autopilot and a CS prop. But it's going to be a XP-360 engine with a good ol' carburetor on it.

[Chino Tom]

I'm a fan of the carb and am repeating that option on the -8A. Simple to set up and maintain. Easy to start everywhere and all at less cost. The rest of the plane will be less complicated (depends on your definition) than my -6 but not neccessarily cheaper. All electric, ACS EFIS w/engine monitor (instead of steam gages and vacuum system in the -6), circuit breaker switches where ever possible (excuse my desire for fewer wires and simplicity Aero Electric fans) but still redundantcy with needle ball and airspeed, tru trak auto pilot and battery back up for the efis. Always missed a second comm in my six, so am installing an SL-30 w/glideslope (but still only one comm radio, have an icom handheld for backup) so i can moniter the standby freq. Xponder and a 496 finish the panel. The panel will look empty compared with the six.
My RV-6 has been reliable and trouble free for 8 years. It has been a constant and ongoing desire of mine to make things like inspection plates (like on the rear wall of the forward baggage compartment) and easily replaceable C/B switches (just in case ) all during the contstruction of the -8A so that this plane is just as reliable and trouble free as the -6.