If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
o and io engines
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
o and io engines
Robert M. Gary wrote:
For the Lyc 360, the difference is 20 horsepower. -Robert But that's not a universal truth. In fact, there are sometimes different HP ratings for the same major engine major series... IO-470's for example come in different HP ratings based on the suffix (an IO-470-C is like 240HP, where an -H gets 260). |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
o and io engines
On 4-May-2006, "Robert M. Gary" wrote: Ok, I'm still confused. The O-360 engine puts out 180hp on 9gal hr. The IO-360 puts out 200 hp on 10 gal/hr. The difference between the two is just that that IO-360 is fuel injected. So how is it that you can say "And slightly less fuel burn than if it had a carburetor". That certainly doesn't seem to be the case here. In my limited experience with an O-360 in an Archer I generally planned on burning very close to 10 GPH at 75% (of 180 hp), running as lean as possible for smooth engine operation. In our Arrow with an IO-360, I burn about the same, or maybe just a tiny bit more, at 75% (of 200 hp). The IO-360 thus has a lower specific fuel consumption (the per-hour fuel flow required per hp produced). Reason: I think the main one is that the better fuel distribution on the FI engine allows operation with a leaner mixture. -Elliott Drucker |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
o and io engines
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
o and io engines
wrote)
The IO-360 thus has a lower specific fuel consumption (the per-hour fuel flow required per hp produced). Reason: I think the main one is that the better fuel distribution on the FI engine allows operation with a leaner mixture. Curious - If approval from the FAA was NOT a factor: How difficult, practical, expensive, etc, would it be to convert an O to an IO? What all would be involved? What would go, what would stay, etc? Thanks. Montblack |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
o and io engines
The main reason the IO engine is more efficient is the compression ratio is
higher. The compression ratio is in the numerator of the efficiency formula, so there is a direct relationship. Karl ATP CFI ETC "Curator" N185KG "Montblack" wrote in message ... wrote) The IO-360 thus has a lower specific fuel consumption (the per-hour fuel flow required per hp produced). Reason: I think the main one is that the better fuel distribution on the FI engine allows operation with a leaner mixture. Curious - If approval from the FAA was NOT a factor: How difficult, practical, expensive, etc, would it be to convert an O to an IO? What all would be involved? What would go, what would stay, etc? Thanks. Montblack |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Home Built Aircraft - Alternative Engines - Geo/Suzuki | OtisWinslow | Home Built | 1 | October 12th 05 02:55 PM |
Book Review: Converting Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft , Finch | Paul | Home Built | 0 | October 18th 04 10:14 PM |
P-3C Ditches with Four Engines Out, All Survive! | Scet | Military Aviation | 6 | September 27th 04 01:09 AM |
Engines and Reliability | Dylan Smith | Piloting | 13 | June 30th 04 03:27 PM |
Accident Statistics: Certified vs. Non-Certified Engines | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 23 | January 18th 04 05:36 PM |