Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:04 AM - painting (Tex Mantell)
2. 04:58 AM - Fuel Injected Jabiru 3300 (stay@caithness.com.au)
3. 05:50 AM - Re: painting (Kayberg@aol.com)
4. 06:04 AM - Re: Fuel Injected Jabiru 3300 (Kayberg@aol.com)
5. 06:32 AM - Re: Fuel Injected Jabiru 3300 (Brian Whittingham)
6. 09:35 AM - Re: Fuel Injected Jabiru 3300 (Kayberg@aol.com)
7. 11:08 AM - Re: Fuel Injected Jabiru 3300 (Johnny Thompson)
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 |
|
I will be painting this spring and have been trying to figure out how to
support the fuse so I can rotate it as I paint. The front can be
supported by the motor mount, but I have not determined how to support
the Tail. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Tex
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: | Fuel Injected Jabiru 3300 |
All this talk about performance and earlier questions from
contributors about carbies leads me to pass on the fact that
a local South Australian Jabiru aircraft owner has developed
his own fuel injected Jab 3300. While he is rather coy
about the performance, it's very clear he's obtaining
significant increase in power at much lower fuel
consumptions using pretty ordinary automotive parts.
Computerised parts allow easy tuning.
He generates lots of interest wherever he flies when people
realise what's under the hood. Sounds amazing too! Clearly
not in production as it's only his personal alterations and
he obviously knows what he's doing, but it begs the question
why Jabiru themselves haven't gone down this pathway.
Maintenance simplicity and/or cost?
>From memory I think he claims about a 15% improvement in
power with a 20% reduction in fuel consumption, but don't
hold me to these numbers. His 3300 delivers the grunt
required with the economy of a 2200.
Thought you guys talking comparisons with others might be
interested.
Cheers, Paul Smith.
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 |
|
In a message dated 1/21/2008 7:05:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
wb2ssj@earthlink.net writes:
I will be painting this spring and have been trying to figure out how to
support the fuse so I can rotate it as I paint. The front can be supported by
the motor mount, but I have not determined how to support the Tail. Any
suggestions would be appreciated. Tex
We just have a rack that allows a large tube to fit into the large hole in
the tail. Since we dont paint with the elevators or rudder on, it is fairly
easy to rotate.
We use an automotive engine stand bolted to the engine mount (with the
engine off). That has a control that allows the locking of the rotation.
Doug Koenigsberg
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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: | Re: Fuel Injected Jabiru 3300 |
Can you see the look on my face?
15% more power on 20% less fuel.....but we have only his word for it.
It is generally hard to make something LESS complicated than a carb. It is
easy to make a MORE complicated and more prone to fail system.
Also, if you burn 5 gal per hour with a carb, then you would burn 4 gal per
hour with his system...by my math, which is a little shakey. So for the
saving of 1 gal per hour (or less) someone must be willing to spend a whole lot
more on something that is all ready expensive, the engine.
There is a long history of people who did not understand that air-cooled
engines are also fuel-cooled. They were rewarded with early engine failures
and the transfer of good metal into scrap.
I do understand that by controlling certain aspects of fuel flow greater
economies can be achieved IN WATER COOLED ENGINES. I dont know of any
production autos that still use a true carb. I just think the application to
aircraft
engines is an uphill fight with questionable returns.
Doug Koenigsberg
In a message dated 1/21/2008 8:00:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
stay@caithness.com.au writes:
All this talk about performance and earlier questions from
contributors about carbies leads me to pass on the fact that
a local South Australian Jabiru aircraft owner has developed
his own fuel injected Jab 3300. While he is rather coy
about the performance, it's very clear he's obtaining
significant increase in power at much lower fuel
consumptions using pretty ordinary automotive parts.
Computerised parts allow easy tuning.
He generates lots of interest wherever he flies when people
realise what's under the hood. Sounds amazing too! Clearly
not in production as it's only his personal alterations and
he obviously knows what he's doing, but it begs the question
why Jabiru themselves haven't gone down this pathway.
Maintenance simplicity and/or cost?
>From memory I think he claims about a 15% improvement in
power with a 20% reduction in fuel consumption, but don't
hold me to these numbers. His 3300 delivers the grunt
required with the economy of a 2200.
Thought you guys talking comparisons with others might be
interested.
Cheers, Paul Smith.
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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: | Fuel Injected Jabiru 3300 |
I did talk to the Jabiru factory in Australia about a defense company who m
odified the Jabiru 3300 with twin turbos and electronic fuel injection. Th
ey claimed 200hp output in this configuration. The factory guys didn't kno
w of the project, but said it was certainly attainable with those modificat
ions. Again though, he said they keep expense down, maintenance down, and
another biggie was keeping weight down. Still, an interesting thought of a
200hp aircraft engine weighing in around 200 lbs! If you could ever make
it reliable enough it'd definately be a Lycoming and Continental challenger
. Brian W.
From: Kayberg@aol.comDate: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:01:26 -0500Subject: Re: Ligh
tning-List: Fuel Injected Jabiru 3300To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Can you see the look on my face?
15% more power on 20% less fuel.....but we have only his word for it.
It is generally hard to make something LESS complicated than a carb. It i
s easy to make a MORE complicated and more prone to fail system.
Also, if you burn 5 gal per hour with a carb, then you would burn 4 gal per
hour with his system...by my math, which is a little shakey. So for the
saving of 1 gal per hour (or less) someone must be willing to spend a whole
lot more on something that is all ready expensive, the engine.
There is a long history of people who did not understand that air-cooled en
gines are also fuel-cooled. They were rewarded with early engine failures
and the transfer of good metal into scrap.
I do understand that by controlling certain aspects of fuel flow greater ec
onomies can be achieved IN WATER COOLED ENGINES. I dont know of any produc
tion autos that still use a true carb. I just think the application to air
craft engines is an uphill fight with questionable returns.
Doug Koenigsberg
In a message dated 1/21/2008 8:00:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, stay@caith
ness.com.au writes:
All this talk about performance and earlier questions fromcontributors abou
t carbies leads me to pass on the fact thata local South Australian Jabiru
aircraft owner has developedhis own fuel injected Jab 3300. While he is ra
ther coyabout the performance, it's very clear he's obtainingsignificant in
crease in power at much lower fuelconsumptions using pretty ordinary automo
tive parts. Computerised parts allow easy tuning.He generates lots of inter
est wherever he flies when peoplerealise what's under the hood. Sounds amaz
ing too! Clearlynot in production as it's only his personal alterations and
he obviously knows what he's doing, but it begs the questionwhy Jabiru them
selves haven't gone down this pathway. Maintenance simplicity and/or cost?>
>From memory I think he claims about a 15% improvement inpower with a 20% re
duction in fuel consumption, but don'thold me to these numbers. His 3300 d
elivers the gruntrequired with the economy of a 2200.Thought you guys talki
ng comparisons with others might beinterested.Cheers, Paul Smith.
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
_________________________________________________________________
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
http://biggestloser.msn.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: Fuel Injected Jabiru 3300 |
In a message dated 1/21/2008 9:33:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dashvii@hotmail.com writes:
I did talk to the Jabiru factory in Australia about a defense company who
modified the Jabiru 3300 with twin turbos and electronic fuel injection. They
claimed 200hp output in this configuration. The factory guys didn't know of
the project, but said it was certainly attainable with those modifications.
Again though, he said they keep expense down, maintenance down, and another
biggie was keeping weight down. Still, an interesting thought of a 200hp
aircraft engine weighing in around 200 lbs! If you could ever make it reliable
enough it'd definately be a Lycoming and Continental challenger. Brian W.
I can understand getting 200 hp out of the engine with turbocharging, fuel
injection and running rich. I would just note that the 3300 requires
attention to cooling airflow at 120 hp. I would think that nearly doubling the
horsepower would quadruple the cooling problems. I would expect them to use
liquid cooled heads, much like VW conversions of high hp.
Again, any fool can make simple designs complex. It makes more sense to
increase the engine overall size if you want 200 hp. If you have ever lifted
Lycon parts, you cant help but think there is a lighter way to do this.
Dk
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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: | Re: Fuel Injected Jabiru 3300 |
About 15 years ago I installed a home made injection system using Ford
and other manufacture parts onto a VW Revemaster years ago. I also
installed a modified automotive electronic ignition. It did make the
engine more responsive, better fuel economy (did not ever check actual
rate on this model since I was 3.5 GPH) and short takeoffs.. I liked
it. Now, would I do it again, probably not. Reasons are reliability,
complicated, not nearly as airworthy as the carb was, cost was high. The
system is still in the aircraft today. I am often called by the new
owner to troubleshoot the system once a year. I provided the new owner
with a throttle body to replace the system as too much can go wrong
without knowledgeable preventive maintenance.
Like any electronic ignition and fuel ejection system on certified
aircraft it performs better and will use less fuel. My main problem was
the aircraft electrical system could not keep up with the electrical
requirements. I had dual electric pumps to provide the higher fuel
pressure. If I lost electrical power I became a glider (never happened).
I did install a backup battery that would work for about 30 minutes.
With what is available today it can be a lot safer. This is why we call
it experimental.
Enjoy Johnny Thompson N8WN
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! --
|