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 Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

mikeco_one(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:49 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

PLEASE TELL YOUR WEBMASTER TO TAKE ME OF THEIR LIST I DON"T KNOW HOW THEY GOT MY ADDRESS PLEASE I AM TRIED OF YOUR JUNK MAILS TO MY BOX PLEASE I DON"T WANT YOUR SPAM HERE.



 __________________________________________________

sisson(at)consolidated.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:54 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 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



Charlie,
	


 I was hoping someone would bring that up. When I had my engine on the 

S1S Pitt's, it had a diet of 93 octane (or whatever octane it was back 

then) Shell or Amoco. They finally went to an alcohol additive in this 

part of the Midwest and I quit using it. I have a bendix RSA and I 

couldn't tell any difference in 100 LL or  Shell or Amoco, absolutely 

none. I never had any adjustments or babying with it to keep it going. 

It goes like a Duracell rabbit



Phil, in Illinois            RV6  181RV

jmsears(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:00 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

 	  Quote: 	
		    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.


	


If one sticks with the spirit of the STCs, I found no fuel injected engines 

listed as approved for auto gas.  It could be that the fuel injection system 

is more prone to vapor locking.  I don't know.  I do know that I just looked 

at EAA's STC and found no engines starting with IO- in the list.  (I've 

always assumed IO means fuel injected; so, correct me if I'm wrong.  )  My 

list of engines from Petersen is pretty old; but, it shows none, either. 

That doesn't mean that the higher compression engines weren't shown, though. 

They just need more octane, as I've said before.



If one wants to experiment, which we all can do, one can use auto gas in a 

fuel injected engine.  However, I'm thinking there must have been a good 

reason for FI engines not being in the STCs.  I'm betting it's the fact that 

auto gas tends to vapor lock faster than 100LL.  If one runs auto gas over 

the top of a hot engine, would it not be more prone to vapor locking? 

Could be.  I'm not willing to spend the money on a FI engine only to find 

out I can't use auto gas, after all.  It would be most embarrasing to be 

flying along and have the engine quit due to vapor lock.  Hmmmm.  What would 

I tell my passenger, if I can find one brave enough to ride with me?  



 	  Quote: 	
		    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.


	


I hope Charlie is right.  If enough of you guys are willing to take the risk 

and run auto gas in FI engines, let us know how it's working out.  I may 

have to change my mind and buy a FI engine for my current project. 

Otherwise, I guess I'll be a big chicken and go with a carby.  I figure I 

can suffer a little bit on fuel economy and still be smiling every time I 

fill up my tanks with auto gas.  



Jim Sears in KY

EAA Tech Counselor

(20 years of flying with auto gas)

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:12 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

I'm learning a lot here so keep up the fl;ow if info.  My question is 

why the angle valve engines would be different than the parallel valves? 

 CR???

Linn

do not archive

Charlie Kuss wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

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

> 

>

> 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

 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

 http://wiki.matronics.com

rv8ch

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 250
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:08 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

 	  Quote: 	
		   If one wants to experiment, which we all can do, one can use auto gas in 

 a fuel injected engine.  However, I'm thinking there must have been a 

 good reason for FI engines not being in the STCs.  I'm betting it's the 

 fact that auto gas tends to vapor lock faster than 100LL.  If one runs 

 auto gas over the top of a hot engine, would it not be more prone to 

 vapor locking? Could be.  


	


My understanding is that by the time the fuel gets

close to the hot engine it is under quite a bit of pressure,

greatly reducing the chances of it turning to vapor.



During flight, vapor lock has the highest chance

of happening at the fuel pump inlet, where the fuel

pressure is lowest.



On the ground, the heat soaked cowl can cause fuel to

turn to vapor, but most FI systems either have a vapor

return line or are full fuel return systems.  This will

get fresh, cool fuel into the system under the cowl.



 	  Quote: 	
		   I hope Charlie is right.  If enough of you guys are willing to take the 

 risk and run auto gas in FI engines, let us know how it's working out.  

 I may have to change my mind and buy a FI engine for my current project. 

 Otherwise, I guess I'll be a big chicken and go with a carby.  I figure 

 I can suffer a little bit on fuel economy and still be smiling every 

 time I fill up my tanks with auto gas.  


	


If the fuel system is designed correctly, then the variables

are fuel volatility, fuel temperature and pressure (altitude).

You can buy a little fuel vapor lock testing kit that will

allow you to know the fuel's volatility before you take off.



  http://www.decalinchemicals.com/fueltester.html



Keeping the fuel cool and under positive pressure are the

main tricks to avoiding vapor lock.



-- 

Mickey Coggins

http://www.rv8.ch/

#82007 finishing

do not archive

_________________
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

 	  Quote: 	
		    I never had any adjustments or babying with it to keep it going. It goes 

 like a Duracell rabbit


	


That is the Energizer bunny/rabbit (TM)



Ron Lee



Do not archive

gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:01 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

I agree with Sherman.

   

  Carbs are very simple and less money to purchase and install. The 

gas savings for the F.I. is there but with careful leaning and power 

selection you can save money with a Carb. As far as LOP, some say 

they can achieve it with a Carb, others with F.I., no matter how 

hard they try have a hard time achieving smooth LOP operations. 

It is really a matter of money, FI cost more and the idea you will 

earn it back is may be the best reason, now with the higher gas 

prices. Than there is the other items you have come across such 

as no Carb ice and inverted flight capability. In the end FI has the 

most potential to be temperamental.  George 

   

   

   

  >From: Sherman Butler <lsbrv7a(at)yahoo.com (lsbrv7a(at)yahoo.com)>

 	  Quote: 	
		  

  >Is it self selecting? Perhaps people who want to experiment with

chaztuna(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Linn

  The 200 hp angle valve engines have a "hemi" style combustion 

chamber and higher compression ratio. It's only 8.7 to 1, but 

evidently the combination of the differing combustion chamber and 

extra compression has an effect.

For the carbureted folk, Superior's updraft sumps have a streamlined 

shape which splits the main air/fuel flow coming from the carb to the 

individual intake runners. This helps give a smoother idle and it is 

also an attempt to even out the air/fuel flow between the 4 

cylinders. This may help the guys with carbs lean more aggressively.

  With the "genuine" Lycoming sump/intake systems, there is a fair 

amount of variation in the fuel distribution. This is because:

#1 The sump is a casting. Castings do not always allow the 

manufacturer to maintain 100% dimensional accuracy from part to part. 

This issue is also present in the intake and exhaust ports of the 

cylinder head casting. Superior's Millenium II cylinders hold an 

advantage here, as they use the investment cast process and machine 

the combustion chamber and ports with CNC machines. This insures that 

the ports and combustion chambers do not vary.

  Folks like Lycon, offer "combustion chamber CCing" and port and 

polish services to correct the cast in flaws of other cylinders.

#2 Open the throttle and look up through the carb into the sump. The 

air/fuel path goes up and hits a flat wall. Without any streamlining 

to steer the fuel/air mixture, turbulence is caused. Combine issues 

#1 and #2 together, and you get variations in fuel/air flow from 

engine to engine. This is one of the main reasons why some carbureted 

engines can be leaned more than others.

Charlie

 	  Quote: 	

I'm learning a lot here so keep up the fl;ow if info.  My question 

is why the angle valve engines would be different than the parallel 

valves? CR???

Linn

do not archive

Charlie Kuss wrote:

>

>

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

>

>>

>>

>>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

>

>

>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

>http://wiki.matronics.com

>

chaztuna(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Hi Jim,

  I just checked EAA's web site. I note that they state:



 "Please note that our STC's are only for engines that are certified for the use of 80 octane fuel. Engines requiring 100 octane fuel must still use 100 octane avgas."



 I found the following link regarding Peterson Aviation's STCs for auto fuels. They do show that some models (8.5 to 1 CR) require the use of 91 octane auto fuel.  As Jim stated, all these models are carbureted.  Jim is correct here. 



 The STC'd use of auto fuel in certified fuel injected aircraft may be a vapor lock concern as Jim states. It may also simply be that the STCs were not pursued due to poor return on investment.  The IO-320-Bxx series of engines were not used on many aircraft. (Twin Comanches if memory serves me) Why waste the money to get the STC if the number of fleet aircraft using the engine won't recoup your investment and a reasonable return?



 The following is just my opinion, but I think that the physics back me up. Vapor lock occurs when the fuel boils in the lines.  Carbureted engine fuel pumps generate 1 to 5 psi. Bendix (aka Precision) and Airflow Performance fuel injected units use 19 to 34 psi ( 25 psi is nominal on 4 cylinder models) fuel pumps. Pressurizing a liquid will increase it's boiling point. Therefore, from the electric boost pump to the fuel servo, you should have about 25 psi. The servo modifies (reduces) this pressure, but it stays well above the 5 psi maximum of carbureted systems.  Once running, the FI system should be less likely to encounter vapor lock. Hot restarts are another issue.

  Jim may be correct that the issue is related to hot restarts on FI systems. With no pressure at start up, and the small steel lines going from the fuel distributor to the individual fuel injectors on top of the engine, this is a prime area for the fuel to boil. It may also boil at or near the mechanical pump.  However, since we are in the experimental category we are free to use/try this approach. If your system, be it Bendix or Airflow Performance exhibits hot restart problems, these can be solved with the addition of Airflow Performance's fuel purge valve. This valve allows the pilot to recirculate the heated fuel by means of the boost pump with the purge valve open. 

  We are free to stick with the simple, cheaper carburetor system,  or use the fuel injection system of our choice, with or without a purge valve.  Jim wants to err on the side of caution. I can't fault him for that.

  Another option is to simply build a fuel injected engine which uses the low compression 7.2 to 1 CR pistons. That means a 150 hp 320 cubic inch engine or a 168 hp 360 cubic inch engine.  You may be able to run with 87 octane fuel OR you may need to stick with the higher octane 91/93 octane high test to avoid vapor lock. Some or all of this lost power can be reclaimed by the use of electronic ignition and tuned 4 into 1 exhaust systems.

  I think that a low compression, parallel valve 360 cubic inch engine utilizing fuel injection (with or without purge valve as operational experience dictates), single electronic ignition, tuned 4 into 1 exhaust using 87 octane fuel would be the miser's delight!   I "guesstimate" that such an engine would still produce 176 to 180 hp. 

 Charlie Kuss



 



 

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net>



 

  	  Quote: 	
		   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. 	


 If one sticks with the spirit of the STCs, I found no fuel injected engines listed as approved for auto gas.  It could be that the fuel injection system is more prone to vapor locking.  I don't know.  I do know that I just looked at EAA's STC and found no engines starting with IO- in the list.  (I've always assumed IO means fuel injected; so, correct me if I'm wrong.  )  My list of engines from Petersen is pretty old; but, it shows none, either. That doesn't mean that the higher compression engines weren't shown, though. They just need more octane, as I've said before.

 

 If one wants to experiment, which we all can do, one can use auto gas in a fuel injected engine.  However, I'm thinking there must have been a good reason for FI engines not being in the STCs.  I'm betting it's the fact that auto gas tends to vapor lock faster than 100LL.  If one runs auto gas over the top of a hot engine, would it not be more prone to vapor locking? Could be.  I'm not willing to spend the money on a FI engine only to find out I can't use auto gas, after all.  It would be most embarrasing to be flying along and have the engine quit due to vapor lock.  Hmmmm.  What would I tell my passenger, if I can find one brave enough to ride with me?  



  	  Quote: 	
		   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. 	


 I hope Charlie is right.  If enough of you guys are willing to take the risk and run auto gas in FI engines, let us know how it's working out.  I may have to change my mind and buy a FI engine for my current project. Otherwise, I guess I'll be a big chicken and go with a carby.  I figure I can suffer a little bit on fuel economy and still be smiling every time I fill up my tanks with auto gas.  



 Jim Sears in KY

 EAA Tech Counselor

 (20 years of flying with auto gas) 



 



 

 Email Forum -

 

  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

 - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -

 

  http://wiki.matronics.com

 - List Contribution Web Site -

 -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

  http://www.matronics.com/contribution

jabowenjr(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

I live in the Pacific NW. I'm going with fuel injection to get away from 

carb ice, better engine performance and because I can. I just like it 

better.



Jim Bowen

RV-8 QB

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>

Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Fuel Injected - or Not

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:21:15 -0600

>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

jmsears(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

 	  Quote: 	
		   My understanding is that by the time the fuel gets

 close to the hot engine it is under quite a bit of pressure,

 greatly reducing the chances of it turning to vapor.



 During flight, vapor lock has the highest chance

 of happening at the fuel pump inlet, where the fuel

 pressure is lowest.



 On the ground, the heat soaked cowl can cause fuel to

 turn to vapor, but most FI systems either have a vapor

 return line or are full fuel return systems.  This will

 get fresh, cool fuel into the system under the cowl.




	


This sounds really good to me and makes sense; but, I just looked at 

Petersen's web site.  No IO engines listed.  I wonder why.



Jim in KY

do not archive

sisson(at)consolidated.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:33 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Ron Lee wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> (ronlee(at)pcisys.net) 

  

  

    	  Quote: 	
		   I never had any adjustments or babying with it to keep it going. It goes  like a Duracell rabbit 

   	
  

 That is the Energizer bunny/rabbit (TM) 

  

 Ron Lee 

  

 Do not archive   

  

  	
 

  I knew it was one of those rabbits..........

 

 

 Do not archive

Gary.A.Sobek

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 217
Location: SoCAL USA

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

I have a carb and fly with a lot of different RV.  The guys with Fuel 

Injection always burn less fuel than I do. It ranges from 0.5 GPH to 2.0 GPH 

less than I do to go the same speed.  I have seen a 200 HP FI RV-7 fly on my 

wing doing Formation Check Ride maneuvers (Steep pitch and bank lazy 8 type 

maneuvers) and burn LESS fuel than I did flying lead with constant power 

(2,100 RPM / 22 IN-Hg). We both full at the begining of the day and then 

filled up at the end of the day only to see him buy 2 gallons less gas than 

I did.



Yes the FI can sometimes be hard to start.  There are more carb out there 

and I have seen as many problems with carbs as I have FI.  Most of the FI 

problems that I have seen were because the owner / operator did NOT read the 

instruction manual and did not have it set up correctly.  One carb problem 

went on for a year and end up being a bad float that had fuel in in it.  One 

fuel injection problem was from a BAD fuel pump being replaced with the 

WRONG fuel pump.



The difference in the up front cost when compared to the cost of entire 

airplane is small.  Put in what YOU really want.  I would like FI but do not 

want to stop flying long enough to install it.  I would like to re-engine to 

a 180 and if / when I do, it will be FI.



As for Auto Fuel, I do not want to spend the time transporting it.  In the 

past 8.75 years of flying my RV, I have only been to ONE airport that had 

auto fuel.  There was a video clip a few years back where someone fueling 

their RV with auto fuel had static electricity ignite the fuel and you could 

see the flames on the wing.  They put the fire out before the airplane was 

damaged.

Gary A. Sobek

"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,

1,869 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA

http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com



 	  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?

>

klwerner(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Duracall (Jack-) Rabbits   EAT  these cute little pinky Energizer Bunny's for breakfast.  

  

 But we all got the idea of what  Phil was meaning to say in regards to Fuel Injection.

 [quote]   ---

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:48 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

RV6 Flyer wrote:



SNIP



 	  Quote: 	
		   As for Auto Fuel, I do not want to spend the time transporting it.  In 

 the past 8.75 years of flying my RV, I have only been to ONE airport 

 that had auto fuel.  There was a video clip a few years back where 

 someone fueling their RV with auto fuel had static electricity ignite 

 the fuel and you could see the flames on the wing.  They put the fire 

 out before the airplane was damaged. 


	


You can't blame that on auto fuel!!!  If the yo-yo (I know, I don't know 

him personally .... this isn't a personal atatack) had grounded his 

equipment properly the fire caused by static wouldn't be a problem. 

 Blitz keeps touting that they've never documented a fire starting from 

static using one of their red cans.  I refuel from a 32 gal. 

polypropylene barrel using a 12Vdc pump.  I have a ground cable attached 

to the pump (and 12V) ground that I clip on my exhaust pipes when 

pumping my own mogas.  I also use the clip to attach the ground to the 

pump handle when I fill it at the gas station.  And, before you ask, no, 

it's not approved by the NY fire Dept, and yes, it's a violation of the law.

Linn  ......... baring his soul for some unknown reason

do not archive ..... don't want the fuel police knocking on my door!!!



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Gary A. Sobek

 "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,

 1,869 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA

 http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com

bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

If you’re serious about having fuel injection for inverted flight, don’t forget the flop tube and inverted oil setup. The latter will cost you some pounds and dollars and space on the firewall.  

   

Pax,  

   

Ed Holyoke  

   

--

jmsears(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:59 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

 	  Quote: 	
		  > Blitz keeps touting that they've never documented a fire starting from 

> static using one of their red cans.  I refuel from a 32 gal.

 polypropylene barrel using a 12Vdc pump.  I have a ground cable attached to 
	


the pump (and 12V) ground that I clip on my exhaust pipes when pumping my 

own mogas.  I also use the clip to attach the ground to the pump handle when 

I fill it at the gas station.  And, before you ask, no, it's not approved by 

the NY fire Dept, and yes, it's a violation of the law.<<



I have a couple of nice polypropylene barrels; but, I've never used them.  I 

use the red 5 gallon cans because the barrels were going to be more 

inconvenient to use.  My truck's topper gets in the way of anything larger. 

I don't want to have to pull a trailer, either.  Anyway, I've read a couple 

of stories on the list about fires from pouring gas from cans.  I've been 

pouring gas into my airplanes for 20 years, into mowers for many more years, 

etc..  At no time have I grounded my cans to the item being filled other 

than maybe holding the nozzle to the filler hole while pouring the fuel.  So 

far, I've not encountered a fire.  Am I lucky?  Maybe; but, I have yet to 

win the lottery.  Wait a minute, one has to spend money on a lottery ticket 

to win that.  



I know accidents can happen; but, millions of the little red cans have been 

in use for many years.  As old as I am, I've had the little red cans around 

for as long as I can remember.  Other than what I've read on this list, I've 

never heard of anyone having a fire by pouring fuel from one of the little 

cans into anything.  To me, that means the risk is so small, and the 

incidents so isolated, that I'd be better off worrying about not overfilling 

the tank and making a mess.



I do touch the nozzle to the tank to bleed off anything that might be there, 

especially in winter when the air is dry; but, I'm not going to get bent out 

of shape worrying about starting a fire by pouring gas into my airplane. 

Call me stupid, if you wish.  You can join others who do.    I'm just 

reporting my experiences with it.



Jim Sears in KY

EAA Tech Counselor

do not archive

Ron Schreck

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 94
Location: Gold Hill, NC

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:58 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

Flow matching for  $1000!  Wow, what do they do for that kind of money.  I have AFP fuel  injection on my IO360 and paid a visit to AFP at KSPA.  If you live  anywhere near SC the trip is well worth the  $300 I paid to Don for an  afternoon of flight testing, nozzle balancing and FI education by his small but  very professional staff.  Four of them spent the better part of an  afternoon precisely balancing my system.  It took four test hops and they  even provided the data recorder in the back seat!  I don't know how you  could do the job on a test stand and I don't know why it should cost  $1000.

  

 Ron  Schreck

 RV-8 "Miss  Izzy"

 Gold Hill Airpark,  NC

  

  

             From:      "Vern W." <highflight1(at)gmail.com (highflight1(at)gmail.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  differenc

      e

       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  kee

      p

      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, bu

       t

      that's not an issue with a brand new engine  order.

      

       Vern

      RV7-A

       Houston, TX

panamared3(at)brier.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:32 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

If you want to fly inverted aerobatics, then fuel  injection is the way to go.

  

 On the other hand, hot starts and vapor lock are a  pain.

  

 Bob

 [quote]   ---

highflight1(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:36 am Post subject: Fuel Injected - or Not

The $1000 option charge is for "Port, Flow Match, Combustion Equalization"

 For me, I wanted a turn-key engine that was literally ready to fly (Mattituck even installed the two P-mags I sent them and did the factory run-in with them adjusted and installed).

  

 So, first, I didn't want to take delivery on my new engine and have to keep working on it, and second, it may be possible that the $1000 pays for more than just installing matched injectors.

  Either way, I'm happy.

  

 Mahlon from Mattituck sometimes frequents this forum so perhaps he could jump in and describe exactly what's done for the $1000 "Flow Matching" option that might be different than just changing out an injector or two. 

  

 Vern

 RV7-A

 Houston, TX  



 

 On 6/14/06, Ron Schreck <ronschreck(at)alltel.net (ronschreck(at)alltel.net)> wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		     Flow matching for $1000!  Wow, what do they do for that kind of money.  I have AFP fuel injection on my IO360 and paid a visit to AFP at KSPA.  If you live anywhere near SC the trip is well worth the  $300 I paid to Don for an afternoon of flight testing, nozzle balancing and FI education by his small but very professional staff.  Four of them spent the better part of an afternoon precisely balancing my system.  It took four test hops and they even provided the data recorder in the back seat!  I don't know how you could do the job on a test stand and I don't know why it should cost $1000. 

  

 Ron Schreck

 RV-8 "Miss Izzy"

 Gold Hill Airpark, NC

Display posts from previous:

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