engine. With my previous 320 engine, I had to play around at different rpms
and power setting, depending on altitude, to find the sweet spot for maximum
efficiency. That would result in at least a .5 gph saving over the lean
until rough method. It cruised easily at 7 or 7.5 gph, even 5 if I was just
tooling around the lake, and sight seeing. This is on amphibs.
Then with my new 360 I was very pleasantly surprised to find that it was
even more economical than my 320, even though much more powerful. I save at
least .5 gph at the same speed, or get an extra 5 mph at the same fuel flow.
I have EI on one side, and that seems to really help lean it more
aggressively without running rough even with the carb. Also I have the
Superior sump intake which is supposed to be better at fuel distribution to
each cylinder. Again, this one cruises comfortably at 7 or 7.5, and just
goes a little faster at that fuel flow than before.
So I for one, don't always buy the argument that a bigger engine uses more
fuel. It depends also on whether it is EI and/or FI. And these old Lycosaur
design engines are a lot more fuel efficient than some people think.
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Sent: November 14, 2008 11:10 AM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 0-200 MOTOR MOUNT
I've heard guys say this many times and it is no doubt true in some
circumstances. The other side seems to be that the same guys rarely
seem to cruise at such low power. I think it is a combination of
roughness from one cylinder going lean first, plug fouling from low
temperatures, or maybe they just like to go fast?? My neighbor's 0-320
just won't run smoothly below 8+ gph. Anyway I wouldn't count on being
able to do it with a carb, standard intake system, and magnetos. I
believe that matched injectors, one or two electronic ignitions with
advance, and mogas will all help at low power.
Ken
Keith Leitch wrote:
Sorry, I don't mean to get off track on your post. If you have an
O-200 I can understand your question. But as far as the others, I
personnally don't see much sense in using the O-235/IO-240 unless you
have access to one for cheap. I have an O-235 L2C I had thought about
installing in my Rebel (whenever I get to that point) but after
looking at the weight vs. the O-320 it is sensless to me. May as well
use the O-320 and if you are worried about fuel....that little thing
called the throttle can easily be pulled back. I recently was on a 5+
hour tour with a bunch of Super Cubs and I was flying my O-300
powered 172. Flying at their speeds I burn a little over 5 gph. I
guess what I am trying to say is it is nice to have the HP when you
need it....just don't have to use it all the time if you are
concerned with fuel prices. I am waiting for Ron to get his Jabiru
powered Rebel flying so I can get a report. :) The power to weight
ratio may be an option for me since I will be on floats/skis the
majority of the time. Keith R661
-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
