Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Fuel Injected

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Fuel Injected - or Not
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Paul Valovich

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 75

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about building an airplane: it’s ok to change one’s mind.  

   

I’m about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a lot of research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision – a new 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. However, a buddy casually posed the question: “Why fuel injection?” and I realized that other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no compelling answer as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional cost and pump installation complexity.   

   

I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest,  CA); carb icing isn’t a compelling driver.  

   

So a question for all you old hands out there – Is fuel injection really worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?   

   

Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of why or why not?  

Paul Valovich  

Booger  

-8A QB

dan(at)rvproject.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:19 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Run LOP and fuel injection can "pay for itself" in  less time than TBO.  Beyond that, the savings are pure gravy.  Gas  isn't getting any cheaper, and the cost savings by burning 1-2 fewer gph is  increasing on a daily basis.  That is, the savings increase as gas prices  increase.

  

 To those who think the 200hp IO-360-A1B6 angle  valve engine "should" burn more fuel than smaller, less powered engines...I burn  about 7.5 gph at wide open throttle doing 170 KTAS.  Injected...wouldn't  have it any other way.

  

 You asked for opinions.  8^)

  

 )_( Dan

 RV-7 N714D (935 hours)

 http://www.rvproject.com

 [quote]   ---

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

 	  Quote: 	
		  So a question for all you old hands out there – Is fuel injection really worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not? 

  

 Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of why or why not? 	


 One benefit of Fuel Injection (FI) is the ability to run lean of peak.  That should

 save fuel but I cannot show that it is worth the additional cost.



 A reported drawback of FI is hard starting under hot conditions (supposedly

 after landing then starting a short time later).



 You did go with 180 HP which is good.  Whether it makes sense to go for

 more horsepower is another factor I cannot quantify.  However, given that I 

 could get more horsepower for the same cost of FI personally I would go 

 for the horsepower.



 Ron Lee

rv9jim(at)juno.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:56 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Paul,

        The main reason is fuel economy.  You can run lean of peak with

fuel injection and the best you can run is about 50 deg rick of peak with

a carburetor.  Fuel distribution with fuel injection can be almost dead

on where as carburetors can not do that.  With fuel costs the way they

are and not going to get any better, FI was the way I chose.   Plus if

you travel to places where carb heat is necessary - so comes the problems

associated with it.  Just my humble opinion.



Jim Nelson

IO-360

rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

For me:

   

  A smoother running engine and balanced fuel flow saving an immediate .5 GPH for the life of the engine. Now, all EGT's peak at the same time. This is a little work but easy to do. You can also able to run LOP. I have flown side by side with a carbureated RV-7 (I have an 8a injected) and used 2.0 GPH less than they did on a 3.5 hr flight one way. Oh, I also have dual EI so that helped. So I used 14 gallons less!!!!!! Also read ALL of John Deakins articles on running LOP. Might have to read them 3 times before it all sinks in but worth while in order to REALLY understand what goes on in a engine. So go here and sort through and read all articles "Pelicans Pearch"

   

  http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/list.html

   

   

   

  



"Valovich, Paul"  <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> wrote:

  [quote]  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />    st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }                Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about building an airplane: it’s ok to change one’s mind.

   

  I’m about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a lot of  research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision – a new 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. However, a buddy casually posed the question: “Why fuel injection?” and I realized that other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no compelling answer as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional cost and pump installation complexity. 

   

  I live in the Mojave (<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isn’t a compelling driver.

   

  So a question for all you old hands out there – Is fuel injection really worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not? 

   

  Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of why or why not?

  Paul Valovich

  Booger

  <div

rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

This is a better link to Deakins articles. Cut and paste?

   

  http://www.avweb.com/cgi-bin/texis/scripts/avweb-search/search.html?publication=avflash&publication=bizav&publication=avweb&query=john+deakin&Go.x=11&Go.y=6



   

  Scott in San Diego

   

   

   

  

"Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> wrote:

  [quote]  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />    st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }                Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about building an airplane: it’s ok to change one’s mind.

   

  I’m about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a lot of research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision – a new 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. However, a buddy casually posed the question: “Why fuel injection?” and I realized that other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no compelling answer as to why fuel injection  might be worth the additional cost and pump installation complexity. 

   

  I live in the Mojave (<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isn’t a compelling driver.

   

  So a question for all you old hands out there – Is fuel injection really worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?  

   

  Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of why or why not?

  Paul Valovich

  Booger

  -8A QB 

  <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:

sbuc(at)hiwaay.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Valovich, Paul wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about 

 building an airplane: it’s ok to change one’s mind.

 

  

 

 I’m about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a 

 lot of research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision – 

 a new 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. 

 However, a buddy casually posed the question: “Why fuel injection?” and 

 I realized that other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no 

 compelling answer as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional 

 cost and pump installation complexity.


	




Your friend is a very perceptive fellow!



After nine years of watching, building, maintaining, inspecting, and 

flying RV's, it has been my observation that those pilots with fuel 

injection spend more time and money getting their planes to operate the 

way they want them to than the carbed pilots. I have yet to hear one of 

them volunteer how much money they are saving on fuel.



The carburator guys just bolt on the engine and go flying.  



I'm not implying one system is better than the other, just offering my 

observations.



Sam Buchanan (RV-6, 748 hrs)

jmsears(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

 	  Quote: 	
		   Your friend is a very perceptive fellow!



 After nine years of watching, building, maintaining, inspecting, and 

 flying RV's, it has been my observation that those pilots with fuel 

 injection spend more time and money getting their planes to operate > the 

 way they want them to than the carbed pilots. I have yet to hear > one of 

 them volunteer how much money they are saving on fuel.



 The carburator guys just bolt on the engine and go flying.  



 I'm not implying one system is better than the other, just offering my > 

 observations.




	


I tend to echo Sam's observations.



If a reason for justifying the cost of fuel injection is the fuel savings 

one will have, one is missing a good deal.  If one really wants to save 

money on fuel costs, auto gas has a much higher savings rate than maybe a .5 

gallon savings per hour of 100LL.  At 8gph of fuel, that equates to about $2 

per hour savings on 100LL.  Local mogas prices allow me about $10.50 savings 

with the same 8 gallons.  In 2000 hours of flying, that could equate to $21K 

in savings.  Whoah!   That would go a long way toward the price on another 

engine, if one invests the savings.  Of course, one who doesn't favor using 

mogas might see the fuel injection system as the better approach; but, 

taking the savings on the carby and fuel to the bank works well for my 

wallet.



I just wonder which system has more problems.  It seems I see more folks 

having fuel injection systems worked on than I do with carbys.  That's not 

to say that they have more problems.  It's just that I've observed more fuel 

injection systems being worked on as I've visited the local FBO's shop.  If 

I'm right, maybe the predicted savings using a fuel injected engine would be 

eaten up by the costs of maintaining it?  Just a thought.



I guess I like the simplicity of the carb and will stick with that for 

myself.  Each of us has his own ways to justify the system used.  Pick the 

one that works best for you.



Jim Sears in KY

EAA Tech Counselor

tedd(at)vansairforce.org
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

An even better URL for Pelican's Perch:



	http://tinyurl.com/lej9v



---



Tedd McHenry

Surrey, BC, Canada

RobHickman(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:29 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

 	  Quote: 	
		  

  	


 

 My RV-4 has an Aerosport Power IO-360B1B and it has worked perfectly for  the last 400+ hours.  The plane starts very easy when it is cold and has  not been a problem when it is hot.  I have never run a battery down trying  to get it to start.

  

 A good friend has an O-320 from Powersport with a carb and no primer in his  RV-6a.  It is a total pain to start when it is cold.  He has run the  battery down a number of times trying to get it to start.

  

 Sam Buchanan wrote:

 The carburator guys just bolt on the engine and go flying.  

  

 you forgot...

  

 After they install and connect a heat muff for carb heat, carb heat control  cable, primer hoses, primer pump, carb temp sensor, carb temp sensor wiring,  ....

  

 The reason I chose fuel injection:

  

 1. No carb heat

 2. I had been in an RV and it would sputter when we were down side  up.

 3. I had been told that Fuel Injection would tolerate water in the fuel  better.

  

 Rob Hickman

 N401RH  RV-4

tn3639(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Seems like with the higher fuel pressure one could run Mogas without the 

vapor lock problem thus saving more $$$$. I have heard of hot start problems 

with FI but I have a carb and have no problems starting hot or cold. I would 

like to use Mogas but am afraid of vapor lock so I stick with 100LL.



Scott



 	  Quote: 	
		  So a question for all you old hands out there - Is fuel injection really

worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?



Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis

of why or why not?



Paul Valovich



Booger



-8A QB

alexpeterson(at)earthlink
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

 	  Quote: 	
		   Your friend is a very perceptive fellow!

 

 After nine years of watching, building, maintaining, inspecting, and 

 flying RV's, it has been my observation that those pilots with fuel 

 injection spend more time and money getting their planes to 

 operate the 

 way they want them to than the carbed pilots. I have yet to 

 hear one of 

 them volunteer how much money they are saving on fuel.

 

 The carburator guys just bolt on the engine and go flying.  

 

 I'm not implying one system is better than the other, just 

 offering my 

 observations.

 

 Sam Buchanan (RV-6, 748 hrs)


	


Well, clearly there will be disagreements on this thread.  I have no clue

about the actual percentage of users which have trouble with carbs vs FI,

but I do know that I burn less fuel with my Airflow Performance FI than most

carb equipped planes do.  A noticable amount less.  I have flown many, many

hours side by side with other RV's, on long cross country flights, and at

cruises in the 155 - 160 knot TAS range, where I burn between 1 and 2

gallons per hour less (this is at MAP's of about 22", 2300 rpm, relatively

low percent power, maybe 58 to 60%). How many of you cruise with fuel flows

of 7.1 to 7.3 gph, at 155 to 160 ktas?  Most carbs cannot be run, even with

electronic ignition (a big factor), in the LOP region.  I do not have much

experience with my plane in the 75% power regime, but the differences would

be expected to be even greater there, since keeping the engine out of the

"red zone" (higher cht's, among other nasty combustion effects) is more

important there, and tends to spread the LOP/ROP fuel flows even more.



Even at 1 gph savings, it equates to something like $3000 worth of fuel at

today's prices that I've saved up to now in 759 hours of flying my RV.



I would welcome flying side by side with anyone wanting hard data,

particularly where so many variables are involved.



For those building and trying to decide, I simply have offered another

viewpoint.



Alex Peterson

RV6-A N66AP 759 hours

Maple Grove, MN

jpl(at)showpage.org
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

But Alex, you also have a very well-crafted airplane.  I wonder if  

some of your gas savings is because you have a lower drag airplane  

than some of the folks you compare against.



Everything adds up.  I have no doubt some of the savings is from the  

FI.  But I bet some of it's coming from other aspects of your airplane.



-Joe



do not archive



On Jun 12, 2006, at 8:15 PM, Alex Peterson wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>



 Well, clearly there will be disagreements on this thread.  I have  

 no clue

 about the actual percentage of users which have trouble with carbs  

 vs FI,

 but I do know that I burn less fuel with my Airflow Performance FI  

 than most

 carb equipped planes do.  A noticable amount less.

lsbrv7a(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Is it self selecting? Perhaps people who want to experiment with FI chose FI. That is why I am planning on FI.

  

Do Not archive

  After nine years of watching, building, maintaining, inspecting, and flying RV's, it has been my observation that those pilots with fuel injection spend more time and money getting their planes to operate the way they want them to than the carbed pilots. 

Sherman Butler

RV-7a Wings

Idaho Falls

 __________________________________________________

michele.delsol(at)microsi
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:44 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Another reason for FI would be if you do any negative G aerobatics – I believe that float style carburetted engines cannot cope with negative Gs. Please someone correct me if I am wrong.  

   

Michele  

RV8 – Fuselage  

PS – negative Gs does not have to be the wrenching loops and turns one sees at air shows, it can be as simple as just flying straight upside down, or not doing +G figures quite as well as one should.  

   

         

  

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich, Paul

 Sent: lundi 12 juin 2006 20:33

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Fuel Injected - or Not  

  

   

Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about building an airplane: it’s ok to change one’s mind.  

   

I’m about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a lot of research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision – a new 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. However, a buddy casually posed the question: “Why fuel injection?” and I realized that other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no compelling answer as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional cost and pump installation complexity.   

   

I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isn’t a compelling driver.  

   

So a question for all you old hands out there – Is fuel injection really worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?   

   

Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of why or why not?  

Paul Valovich  

Booger  

-8A QB

jmsears(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:07 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

 	  Quote: 	
		  > A good friend has an O-320 from Powersport with a carb and no primer in 

> his RV-6a.  It is a total pain to start when it is cold.  He has run the 

> battery down a number of times trying to get it to start.<<


	


I've never understood not having a primer.  The engine can be harder to 

start and could cause one to have an engine fire.  I have a primer system 

and have never run a battery down, even when it's really cold.



 	  Quote: 	
		  >you forgot...


	


After they install and connect a heat muff for carb heat, carb heat control 

cable, primer hoses, primer pump, carb temp sensor, carb temp sensor wiring, 

....<<



Excuse me; but, I don't have a carb temp sensor and wiring.  I do have the 

primer and carb heat.  Both were easy to install.  Since I've never had to 

use the carb heat on either of my Lycoming powered airplanes, I don't 

consider carb ice a major problem for the engines.  The Continental I had on 

my C172 was another matter.  



 	  Quote: 	
		  > The reason I chose fuel injection:

1. No carb heat
	


2. I had been in an RV and it would sputter when we were down side up.

3. I had been told that Fuel Injection would tolerate water in the fuel 

better.<<



I guess these are good reasons for this contributor; but, none make me jump 

up and take notice.  As I said, carb ice hasn't been a problem for my 

Lycomings.  Since I try to keep the top side up, during flights, I don't 

have the sputter problems.  One who prefers to fly upside down (and have 

everything in the cabin trying to go through the canopy) may want fuel 

injection, though.  I try to keep water out of my fuel systems and have 

never had problems with water in my fuel.  Sure, I do get some out of the 

sumps, from time to time; but, I've never had an engine fail because of 

water in the gas.  That's with my using mogas, as well.  



Jim Sears in KY

EAA Tech Counselor

highflight1(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:10 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

The original poster is deciding on whether to order his new engine with or without FI, not convert an existing engine.

 I don't know about Aerosport, but I bought a brand new TMX-IO360 w/Airflow Performance FI from Mattituck (it arrived just last week) and the difference in price BETWEEN the standard carb engine and going to the AFP FI was only $700. 

  

 For me, that was a no brainer going with the FI at that price difference because of the already mentioned advantages. In fact, I went one step further and paid the additional $1000 for the "Flow Matching" option that gives you the ability to lean very exactingly by the engines ability to keep all four cylinders running at the same fuel flow. 

  

 So even at the additional $1700 for the way I went, it was still a no brainer. 

  

 I admit that if were actually flying with a carbed engine, I would probably seriously wonder if I wanted to spend more than $3000 to change it over, but that's not an issue with a brand new engine order.

  

 Vern

 RV7-A

 Houston, TX



 

 On 6/12/06, Valovich, Paul <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com (pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com)> wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		      

Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about building an airplane: it's ok to change one's mind. 

  

I'm about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a lot of research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision – a new 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. However, a buddy casually posed the question: "Why fuel injection?" and I realized that other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no compelling answer as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional cost and pump installation complexity.   

  

I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isn't a compelling driver. 

  

So a question for all you old hands out there – Is fuel injection really worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?   

  

Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of why or why not? 

Paul Valovich 

Booger 

-8A QB

jmsears(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:11 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

 	  Quote: 	
		  > Well, clearly there will be disagreements on this thread.  I have no clue 

> about the actual percentage of users which have trouble with carbs vs FI, 

> but I do know that I burn less fuel with my Airflow Performance FI than 

> most carb equipped planes do.  A noticable amount less.  I have flown 

> many, many hours side by side with other RV's, on long cross country 

> flights, and at cruises in the 155 - 160 knot TAS range, where I burn 

> between 1 and 2 gallons per hour less (this is at MAP's of about 22", 

> 2300 rpm, relatively low percent power, maybe 58 to 60%). How many of you 

> cruise with fuel flows

of 7.1 to 7.3 gph, at 155 to 160 ktas?  Most carbs cannot be run, even with 
	


electronic ignition (a big factor), in the LOP region.  I do not have much 

experience with my plane in the 75% power regime, but the differences would 

be expected to be even greater there, since keeping the engine out of the 

"red zone" (higher cht's, among other nasty combustion effects) is more 

important there, and tends to spread the LOP/ROP fuel flows even more.<<



Alas, my little 150hp engine will not pull my -6A at those speeds at the 

altitudes I fly at.  With that, I do fly at 75% power, most of the time.  At 

that setting, it gets about 8gph on a cross country flight.  If I pull mine 

back to a lesser setting, of say 2300 rpms, mine will also get better fuel 

usage per hour.  I've gotten as low as 6gph while taking up Young Eagles.  I 

use 2200 rpms for that.  Granted, I can't use the LOP method for leaning; 

but, my use of mogas doesn't require major changes in my flying habits to 

save money.



 	  Quote: 	
		  > Even at 1 gph savings, it equates to something like $3000 worth of fuel 

> at today's prices that I've saved up to now in 759 hours of flying my 

> RV.<<


	


That's fairly substantial and something most of us could have if we throttle 

back from 75% power.  My savings during that same period would be at least 

$6K on mogas while flying at 75% power.  That's knowing I'd be saving at 

least a dollar per gallon over the cost of 100LL, on average.  Today, it's 

$1.31 per gallon difference.



Alex obviously has it worked out so that he saves a little money on his 

flying.  He may also have a very clean airplane.  Mine isn't; so, I do have 

drag that make mine a little slower.  I don't care because I get to build 

more time in my airplane, that way.  I kinda like that.  Mogas allows me to 

afford it.  That's an option not available to FI engines.



Jim Sears in KY

EAA Tech Counselor

mstewart(at)iss.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:56 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Vern you paid $1000 for flow matching?  

Holy Cow!  

That’s outrageous.  

Worst case of having to do 2 iterations of nozzles would have cost you $100 on a 4 banger. I suppose if you did not have a good engine monitor for all cylinders then you would be stuck paying this if you wanted it. But man, that’s a big nut to swallow. I wrote a small article on flow matching here: http://www2.mstewart.net:8080/super8/nozzles/index.htm  

   

I was surprised to read the post about Inj being more maint. Prone. I certainly have not experienced that myself or with anyone I know. My experience has been the opposite. Ice(inj wins), inverted(inj wins), economy (inj wins), ease of installation (no carb heat and cables), and maint(inj wins in my experience) were the reasons I went injected twice.  

   

Best,  

Mike  

Do not archive  

   

   

   

         

  

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W.

 Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:00 AM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Fuel Injected - or Not  

  

     

The original poster is deciding on whether to order his new engine with or without FI, not convert an existing engine.  

    

I don't know about Aerosport, but I bought a brand new TMX-IO360 w/Airflow Performance FI from Mattituck (it arrived just last week) and the difference in price BETWEEN the standard carb engine and going to the AFP FI was only $700.   

    

   

    

For me, that was a no brainer going with the FI at that price difference because of the already mentioned advantages. In fact, I went one step further and paid the additional $1000 for the "Flow Matching" option that gives you the ability to lean very exactingly by the engines ability to keep all four cylinders running at the same fuel flow.   

    

   

    

So even at the additional $1700 for the way I went, it was still a no brainer.   

    

   

    

I admit that if were actually flying with a carbed engine, I would probably seriously wonder if I wanted to spend more than $3000 to change it over, but that's not an issue with a brand new engine order.  

    

   

    

Vern  

    

RV7-A  

    

Houston,  TX

 

    

    

On 6/12/06, Valovich, Paul <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com (pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com)> wrote:         

Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about building an airplane: it's ok to change one's mind.  

   

I'm about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a lot of research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision – a new 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. However, a buddy casually posed the question: "Why fuel injection?" and I realized that other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no compelling answer as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional cost and pump installation complexity.   

   

I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest,  CA); carb icing isn't a compelling driver.  

   

So a question for all you old hands out there – Is fuel injection really worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?   

   

Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of why or why not?  

Paul Valovich  

Booger  

-8A QB

chaztuna(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:56 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

At 06:59 AM 6/13/2006, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



snipped



Alex obviously has it worked out so that he saves a little money on 

his flying.  He may also have a very clean airplane.  Mine isn't; 

so, I do have drag that make mine a little slower.  I don't care 

because I get to build more time in my airplane, that way.  I kinda 

like that.  Mogas allows me to afford it.  That's an option not 

available to FI engines.



Jim Sears in KY

EAA Tech Counselor


	


Jim

  What makes you think that FI engines can not use Mogas? If you are 

referring to the angle valve 200 hp models, you are correct. However, 

any parallel valve engine (320, 360 or 540) using 7.2 to 1 or 8.5 to 

1 pistons CAN use Mogas. Those engines using 8.5 to 1 pistons (160 hp 

320s, 180 hp 360s and 230 hp 540s) will require using premium (91 

octane or better) Mogas.

  The 200 hp crowd is out of luck with Mogas. However, I suspect 

anyone willing to spend the extra money and sacrifice 20+ pounds of 

payload (due to the added weight of the angle valve engine) don't 

really care about economy, like you and I.

  Fuel injection, electronic ignition, 4 into 1 tuned exhaust with 

mogas will yield the best economy.

Charlie Kuss

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum