Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:10 AM - carb or fuel injection? turbo? (T22)
2. 09:57 AM - Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? (Noel Loveys)
3. 11:20 AM - Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? (John Grosse)
4. 12:24 PM - Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? ()
5. 02:21 PM - Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? (NYTerminat@aol.com)
6. 03:59 PM - Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? (Grant Piper)
7. 04:57 PM - Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? (Noel Loveys)
8. 05:17 PM - Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? (Southern Reflections)
9. 07:10 PM - Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? (Kelly McMullen)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | carb or fuel injection? turbo? |
Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator versus fuel injection?
How about adding a turbo? Lycoming's website for 360 engines (see link below)
lists the turbocharged injected engine at 800hours (40%) less TBO plus 100lbs
additional weight for only 20HP gained.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | carb or fuel injection? turbo? |
Could it be that the turbo is designed primarily to maintain full power at
altitude? Or possibly to allow the engine to operate at far greater
altitudes.
Consider also the removal of carb heat and the possibility of icing.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of T22
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 1:38 PM
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
>
>
> <stone37house-airplane@yahoo.com>
>
> Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator
> versus fuel injection? How about adding a turbo? Lycoming's
> website for 360 engines (see link below) lists the
> turbocharged injected engine at 800hours (40%) less TBO plus
> 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP gained.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? |
Injected eliminates carb heat issues and almost all induction icing
issues. It's also more efficient and seems to be pretty much universal
on higher performance engines although it is more expensive. On a IO-360
the turbocharging is actually turbo-normalizing which means that it
allows you to develop more horsepower at higher altitudes. The only
stock turbochargers I'm aware of have a fixed waste gate which is not
particularly effective. There is an stc'd turbo charger made by Rajay
for the IO-360 that is much better but it's also about $10,000 last time
I looked several years ago. There are also substantially higher
maintenance costs associated with turbo charging although I think your
800 hour TBO is probably on the turbo and not the entire engine.
The bottom line for me was that a turbo might be worth the added expense
and complexity if you live in the mountains of the West or regularily
fly out there but not for me living in the flat lands of the Midwest. If
I did get a turbo it would not be the one with a fixed waste gate. I'd
spend the bucks for a Rajay.
just my 2 cents.
John
T22 wrote:
>
>Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator versus fuel injection?
How about adding a turbo? Lycoming's website for 360 engines (see link below)
lists the turbocharged injected engine at 800hours (40%) less TBO plus 100lbs
additional weight for only 20HP gained.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | carb or fuel injection? turbo? |
John et al,
I would note that if you like to fly high the turbo/super will
help you get there faster with reduced power loss and consistent climb.
Even if you live in the east or mid-west there is a cost to the climb.
My old Piper with the O-320 was a great plane, but you'd spend the weeks
paycheck in fuel getting to 10k and if it was the middle of summer,
you'd have to flatten out every 10-15 so you wouldn't melt the heads.
There are plenty of advantages and, as John said a cost to turbo
systems. I am building a Lancair Legacy and will use a supercharged
Subaru. Superchargers have their own pros and cons. The greatest
advantage of the supercharger is the no-lag response and minimal heat
issues. On the turbo systems, the exhaust system is complex and ouch -
it gets very hot which leads to shorter life and more $$$ on exhaust
pipe. If you go with the Subaru turbo, you can actually loose the
exhaust system and just use a short pipe.
The people with the most experience in Lycoming turbos' has to
be Lancair. You just don't buy these of the shelf. They will sell you a
TNIO-390X with for 40k. All of their machine work is done on the
premises. They do great work. My Subaru which will also put out 210-220
HP FWF is about $25k.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Grosse
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
Injected eliminates carb heat issues and almost all induction icing
issues. It's also more efficient and seems to be pretty much universal
on higher performance engines although it is more expensive. On a IO-360
the turbocharging is actually turbo-normalizing which means that it
allows you to develop more horsepower at higher altitudes. The only
stock turbochargers I'm aware of have a fixed waste gate which is not
particularly effective. There is an stc'd turbo charger made by Rajay
for the IO-360 that is much better but it's also about $10,000 last time
I looked several years ago. There are also substantially higher
maintenance costs associated with turbo charging although I think your
800 hour TBO is probably on the turbo and not the entire engine.
The bottom line for me was that a turbo might be worth the added expense
and complexity if you live in the mountains of the West or regularily
fly out there but not for me living in the flat lands of the Midwest. If
I did get a turbo it would not be the one with a fixed waste gate. I'd
spend the bucks for a Rajay.
just my 2 cents.
John
T22 wrote:
>--> <stone37house-airplane@yahoo.com>
>
>Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator versus fuel
>injection? How about adding a turbo? Lycoming's website for 360
>engines (see link below) lists the turbocharged injected engine at
>800hours (40%) less TBO plus 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP
>gained.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
>
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? |
In a message dated 7/6/2007 3:25:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
longg@pjm.com writes:
The people with the most experience in Lycoming turbos' has to
be Lancair. You just don't buy these of the shelf. They will sell you a
TNIO-390X with for 40k. All of their machine work is done on the
premises. They do great work. My Subaru which will also put out 210-220
HP FWF is about $25k.
Is that for the Eggenfeller package?
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? |
I would like to add that another option is an Ellison Throttle Body Injector
'carburettor'. If well set up, you can lean as well as FI without the
cost, weight and complexity of FI. The CAFE Mooney runs an IO-360-A1B6
with an Ellison rather than FI. Check their 'site for details. An
Ellison also means only a low pressure fuel pump is needed, thus less cost
again, and no fuel return line is needed, so plumbing is easier also. Carb
heat is recommended with them, but they are less susceptible to icing than a
standard carb, and you need/should have alternate air with FI anyway.
Just to be clear, FI as used on aircraft is not EFI as used on cars. FI is
all mechanical.
Grant Piper
----- Original Message -----
From: "T22" <stone37house-airplane@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 2:07 AM
Subject: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
> <stone37house-airplane@yahoo.com>
>
> Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator versus fuel
> injection? How about adding a turbo? Lycoming's website for 360 engines
> (see link below) lists the turbocharged injected engine at 800hours (40%)
> less TBO plus 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP gained.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | carb or fuel injection? turbo? |
Is the Ellison system also what used to be referred to as a pressure
carburettor?
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Grant Piper
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:29 PM
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
>
>
> <grant.piper@bigpond.com>
>
> I would like to add that another option is an Ellison
> Throttle Body Injector
> 'carburettor'. If well set up, you can lean as well as FI
> without the
> cost, weight and complexity of FI. The CAFE Mooney runs an
> IO-360-A1B6
> with an Ellison rather than FI. Check their 'site for details. An
> Ellison also means only a low pressure fuel pump is needed,
> thus less cost
> again, and no fuel return line is needed, so plumbing is
> easier also. Carb
> heat is recommended with them, but they are less susceptible
> to icing than a
> standard carb, and you need/should have alternate air with FI anyway.
>
> Just to be clear, FI as used on aircraft is not EFI as used
> on cars. FI is
> all mechanical.
>
> Grant Piper
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "T22" <stone37house-airplane@yahoo.com>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 2:07 AM
> Subject: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
>
>
> > <stone37house-airplane@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator
> versus fuel
> > injection? How about adding a turbo? Lycoming's website
> for 360 engines
> > (see link below) lists the turbocharged injected engine at
> 800hours (40%)
> > less TBO plus 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP gained.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? |
If you are running a subaru, and thinking about supercharger you should talk
to Ron at RAM ,If anybody knows supercharging a subaru it would be Ron..
Joe N101HD 601 XL
----- Original Message -----
From: <longg@pjm.com>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
>
> John et al,
> I would note that if you like to fly high the turbo/super will
> help you get there faster with reduced power loss and consistent climb.
> Even if you live in the east or mid-west there is a cost to the climb.
> My old Piper with the O-320 was a great plane, but you'd spend the weeks
> paycheck in fuel getting to 10k and if it was the middle of summer,
> you'd have to flatten out every 10-15 so you wouldn't melt the heads.
> There are plenty of advantages and, as John said a cost to turbo
> systems. I am building a Lancair Legacy and will use a supercharged
> Subaru. Superchargers have their own pros and cons. The greatest
> advantage of the supercharger is the no-lag response and minimal heat
> issues. On the turbo systems, the exhaust system is complex and ouch -
> it gets very hot which leads to shorter life and more $$$ on exhaust
> pipe. If you go with the Subaru turbo, you can actually loose the
> exhaust system and just use a short pipe.
> The people with the most experience in Lycoming turbos' has to
> be Lancair. You just don't buy these of the shelf. They will sell you a
> TNIO-390X with for 40k. All of their machine work is done on the
> premises. They do great work. My Subaru which will also put out 210-220
> HP FWF is about $25k.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Grosse
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 2:17 PM
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
>
>
>
> Injected eliminates carb heat issues and almost all induction icing
> issues. It's also more efficient and seems to be pretty much universal
> on higher performance engines although it is more expensive. On a IO-360
>
> the turbocharging is actually turbo-normalizing which means that it
> allows you to develop more horsepower at higher altitudes. The only
> stock turbochargers I'm aware of have a fixed waste gate which is not
> particularly effective. There is an stc'd turbo charger made by Rajay
> for the IO-360 that is much better but it's also about $10,000 last time
>
> I looked several years ago. There are also substantially higher
> maintenance costs associated with turbo charging although I think your
> 800 hour TBO is probably on the turbo and not the entire engine.
>
> The bottom line for me was that a turbo might be worth the added expense
>
> and complexity if you live in the mountains of the West or regularily
> fly out there but not for me living in the flat lands of the Midwest. If
>
> I did get a turbo it would not be the one with a fixed waste gate. I'd
> spend the bucks for a Rajay.
>
> just my 2 cents.
>
> John
>
> T22 wrote:
>
>>--> <stone37house-airplane@yahoo.com>
>>
>>Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator versus fuel
>>injection? How about adding a turbo? Lycoming's website for 360
>>engines (see link below) lists the turbocharged injected engine at
>>800hours (40%) less TBO plus 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP
>>gained.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo? |
No. Pressure carbs were most commonly used on Bonanzas. They are a
very sophisticated carb that functions like an altitude compensated
throttle body injection.
Several erroneous pieces of info already mentioned.
The difference between a 180hp O-360 and 200 hp IO-360 is about 35
lbs, not 100. The injected engine will run LOP, most with stock
injectors. A carb won't without some extra effort to vaporize the fuel
and that takes heat, which reduces power. The difference in TBO is
ZERO, NADA,ZIP. Both are 2000 hour TBO. The difference in power is
most felt for takeoff and climb, much less in cruise.
A throttle body injection like the Ellison is susceptible to throttle
icing, and won't have as good mixture distribution as a port injection
system like the Bendix. Bendix system is very simple, no user
adjustments beyond idle speed and mixture, minimal maintenance, very
reliable.
KM
A&P/IA
On 7/6/07, Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> Is the Ellison system also what used to be referred to as a pressure
> carburettor?
>
> Noel
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > Grant Piper
> > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:29 PM
> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
> >
> >
> > <grant.piper@bigpond.com>
> >
> > I would like to add that another option is an Ellison
> > Throttle Body Injector
> > 'carburettor'. If well set up, you can lean as well as FI
> > without the
> > cost, weight and complexity of FI. The CAFE Mooney runs an
> > IO-360-A1B6
> > with an Ellison rather than FI. Check their 'site for details. An
> > Ellison also means only a low pressure fuel pump is needed,
> > thus less cost
> > again, and no fuel return line is needed, so plumbing is
> > easier also. Carb
> > heat is recommended with them, but they are less susceptible
> > to icing than a
> > standard carb, and you need/should have alternate air with FI anyway.
> >
> > Just to be clear, FI as used on aircraft is not EFI as used
> > on cars. FI is
> > all mechanical.
> >
> > Grant Piper
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "T22" <stone37house-airplane@yahoo.com>
> > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 2:07 AM
> > Subject: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
> >
> >
> > > <stone37house-airplane@yahoo.com>
> > >
> > > Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator
> > versus fuel
> > > injection? How about adding a turbo? Lycoming's website
> > for 360 engines
> > > (see link below) lists the turbocharged injected engine at
> > 800hours (40%)
> > > less TBO plus 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP gained.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|