X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:36:41 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from global.delionsden.com ([66.150.29.112] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTPS id 2086816 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:04:13 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.150.29.112; envelope-from=n103md@yahoo.com Received: from bmackey by global.delionsden.com with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HvqUM-00021l-36 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:03:30 -0400 Received: from 69.12.132.145 ([69.12.132.145]) (SquirrelMail authenticated user bmackey) by www.bmackey.com with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 01:03:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <2314.69.12.132.145.1181117010.squirrel@www.bmackey.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 01:03:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What's better than a Continental IO-550 fuel system? From: "bob mackey" X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - global.delionsden.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lancaironline.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [32015 2012] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - yahoo.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: I wrote: >>If I needed a big 6-cylinder engine for my aircraft, I would not choose a fuel-injected Continental.<< George Braly asks: > So which large bore six cylinder engine would you select - - and why > do you think it is "better" ? I have not been shopping for a 6-cylinder engine. I have been reading what Lancair builders have to say about theirs. For reasons that have been thoroughly discussed already, I am convinced that the Continental fuel-injection system is a bad design. If I were shopping for an engine for my Legacy / LIV / LIVP, I would consider... a) Continental (T)IO-550 with a separate fuel-pressure regulation system so that flawed system only has to deal with one fuel pressure. Better because I can leave the fuel pump running and not have the engine quit. b) Continental xO-550 (where x is some fuel delivery system other than the stock Continental). Better because the fuel mixture is determined by the fuel need (e.g. MAP and RPM). c) Lycoming IO-540, which has a fuel injection system that is more closely based on right parameters. Better because it is readily available, fits the space, and has a fuel injection system that doesn't suck as badly. d) Some other ~300 HP engine... possibly a Subaru H-6 with a turbo or supercharger. That would be an adaptation of the Eggenfellner Subaru package for the RV-10. Better because it has much better fuel flow control, is smoother, and is less expensive, but is electricity dependent and heavy. e) Maybe by the time I build a bigger Lancair, there will be a good firewall-forward package based on the Chevy LS series aluminum V8 engines. Better? I don't know. If I were building an aircraft that needed an engine in this range, those are the choices I would consider initially. With further research something else might appear better. George - I applaud all that you have done to improve fuel economy, the fuel distribution in aircraft engines, and to improve the state of understanding among pilots and mechanics. PRISM is another step in the right direction. Perhaps GAMI could profitably fit a better injection system to a Continental engine and make it a better engine.