Private Pilots - why no Fuel Injection
 

Why don't the 172's and Pipers and Bonanzas et al. use fuel injection? All the Continentals and Lycomings I've seen use carburetors. Don't they have icing problems and all the other issues that plague old carburetors (stuck floats, jetting, altitude compensation)? Obviously this has all been figured out by A&P guys, but I'm curiou. With the ready availability of fuel injection, why not make the switch?

Some 172's do have FI. I believe Bonanza's have had it for many years, possibly as far back as the late 60's.

I think they like the reliability of a carb.

And airplane engines run mostly at one power setting.

The design of these engines are old...in the fifties...Aviation world is a very conservative one and there is also a direct link with $...But high perf. aircrafts got them...Cessna 182-185-206

Where are you guys getting your information? This is very common today. Many aircraft continue to use carb equiped engines but most new aircraft have FI for economy and reliability.

The new ones do.

Even with fuel injection, you can get venturi or inlet icing and still need to have some provision for addressing it (heat).

The carbuerated engines really aren't all that bad in any case.

What about altitude/pressure compensation. Isn't the F.I. more efficient over the range of altitudes experienced?

In my experence general avation does not seem to be driven by efficiency.
Jim

My fuel-injected airplane has a manual mixture control. It's efficiency is up to me.

Airplane engines typically spend most of their life at more or less, a fixed cruise power setting. As stated earlier, both fuel injected and carburated aircraft engines have a mixture control so that once at cruise altitude, the pilot can lean out the mixture to provide the best power/economy/altitude setting. Other than fuel injections ability to work while inverted (aerobatic airplanes), the only slight advantage tohaving fuel injection that I can think of, is that carburated engines typically have the intake plenum surrounded by hot oil to help atomize the fuel while fuel injected engines do not need to. I guess the ability to use "cold air" might be worth a very small amount of additional power available during short full power periods (take off and climb).

Heck, wasn't the Mooney PFM a 3.2 liter fuel-injected engine?

Both of my Continental engines (c85/O-200) have carbs but also has provisions to convert them to injected motors, and these are from the lates 1930’s If my O-200 was injected it would then be an IO-200

i fly FI C-172's... harder to start sometimes... but more power and better fuel econ.(imho)


anyone here fly the twin FADEC Jet-a sipping DA-42?

just two power levers left. takes all the fun outa it...:p

German Bf-109 (DB601 engine) Fuel injected inverted V-12 engine - back in 1938.

From Wiki:

General characteristics

* Type: 12-cylinder liquid-cooled supercharged 60° inverted Vee aircraft piston engine
* Bore: 150 mm (5.91 in)
* Stroke: 160 mm (6.30 in)
* Displacement: 33.9 L (2,070 in³)
* Length: 1,722 mm (68 in)
* Dry weight: 590 kg (1,320 lb)

Components

* Valvetrain: Two intake and two sodium-cooled exhaust valves per cylinder actuated via a single overhead camshaft per cylinder block.
* Supercharger: Gear-driven single-stage single-speed centrifugal type supercharger
* Fuel system: Fuel injection
* Oil system: Dry sump with one pressure and two scavenge pumps
* Cooling system: Liquid-cooled

Performance
* Power output:
o 865 kW (1,175 PS - 1,160 hp) at 2,500 rpm for takeoff
o 735 kW (1,000 PS - 985 hp) at 2,400 rpm for max continuous
* Specific power: 25.5 kW/L (0.56 hp/in³)
* Compression ratio: 6.9:1
* Specific fuel consumption: 0.27 kg/(kW·h) (0.45 lb/(hp·h))
* Power-to-weight ratio: 1.44 kW/kg (0.88 hp/lb)

The Mooney PFM was equipped with the 3.0L SC engine.

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure it was based on a 3.2 Carrera engine, but I could be wrong.

Must be a PITA to change a DME relay @ 25,000'...

Don't think you will find too many Mooneys at 25,000 ft, but funny none the less :D