Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:12:59 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-2087646@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=142.165.20.170; envelope-from=hjjohnson@sasktel.net
From: H & J Johnson <hjjohnson@sasktel.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] What's better than a Continental IO-550 fuel system?
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: en
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Priority: normal


I don't know if you've concidered this but, if it was me building an ES or a IV and I 
was looking for a engine for it, I'd be leaning towards a 20B rotary. It's basically the 
same engine  as a 13B [which came in all of the 80's & 90's Rx-7's] with an extra 
rotor, making it a three rotor. I would think 300hp should be no problem. There 
are Rv's flying w/ 2 rotors making over 200hp, adding the third rotor and the 
power is basically scaled linearly, making it around 300hp. They are light and super 
compact, and there a fair amount of 'off the shelf' item's one can buy to use in 
your FWF build, and more coming out all the time. There is also someone 
currently on the list who has a ES with a 20B and is very close to flying. 
I'll let him pipe up, if he so chooses.

Jarrett Johnson
235/320 55%


> 
> 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 
> enginefor 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> For archives and unsub 
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html