Specific Fuel Flow - LS Series

Discussion in 'Chevy' started by TXFlyGuy, Apr 1, 2017.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Apr 1, 2017 #1

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    439
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Based on reading various forums, Corvette, boating, etc., it would appear that we should plan on .38 to .50 pounds per hour per horsepower with our LS376-480.

    That is a wide range, for sure. With an ECU fuel injected engine, it is said we would be very efficient. Perhaps close to that .38 figure.

    What is your experience? I honestly don't know as this is all new to me!
     
  2. Apr 1, 2017 #2

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,974
    Likes Received:
    1,922
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Not had it dyno'ed yet?
     
  3. Apr 1, 2017 #3

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    439
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    It is at the dyno shop now. Still waiting as they have other "high dollar" customers in line ahead of us.
     
  4. Apr 17, 2017 #4

    rv7charlie

    rv7charlie

    rv7charlie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2014
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    176
    Location:
    Jackson
    Don't forget to tell them what MP & rpm you expect to operate at in cruise. Otherwise you may just get the 'corrected' max HP numbers.

    .38 sounds very optimistic; .50 sounds a bit pessimistic, at least for cruise power.
     
  5. Apr 17, 2017 #5

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    439
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Another figure provided by an operator of the LC9 327 Chevy is 4 gallons per hour, per 100 hp. In our case, that would be WOT and 3750 rpm (10,000' MSL). This would equate to 10 GPH fuel flow. Yes, that sounds extremely optimistic. At .45 it would be 18 GPH. There is no way that LS3 will burn that much in cruise. At least...I hope it won't suck fuel at that rate!
     
  6. Apr 17, 2017 #6

    rv7charlie

    rv7charlie

    rv7charlie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2014
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    176
    Location:
    Jackson
    Also remember that very few (and I mean *very* few) pilots have any of the tools required to actually compute HP levels correctly in any situation except on takeoff from a runway next to the beach, with a constant speed prop equipped a/c. All other conditions are wild speculation for almost everyone flying. Ask a Cessna 172 pilot about his fuel burn, & he's likely to give you a '75%' number running at 7500' & 2400 rpm. It ain't, and it can't be. I recently had an alternative engine supplier try to convince me that the GPH at 75% on that particular engine was a number that worked out to around .23 BSFC; better than the most efficient internal combustion engine on record (a giant marine engine that has cylinders big enough for 4 or 5 guys to stand on top of each piston, comfortably). No doubt he's a good machinist, but he's absolutely clueless about mother nature & physics.

    Reality is, your motor is going to burn about the same amount of fuel as any other engine that's flying in that plane, at the same climb rates and the same cruise speeds. You can compute the extra fuel it will use at increased climb rates using the flying weight of the plane & the rate of climb, and you can compute the extra fuel for faster cruise at a given altitude by the cube function of the speed ratio. All internal combustion engines are roughly the same, with noticeable but not huge improvements in BSFC in low power cruise when using computerized engine controls.

    BTW, which engine controller are y'all using? Hopefully it's not the automotive unit...
     
    BoKu and Pops like this.
  7. Apr 17, 2017 #7

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,479
    Likes Received:
    3,838
    Location:
    Australian
    You don't have to go far to find someone with experience ...

    Jeff Ackland's LS V8 powered P85 is equipped with an SDS EM-5 8D engine management system.

    http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
     
  8. Apr 17, 2017 #8

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    439
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    We are using the Link G4+ Xtreme ECU. It is currently flying with the V6 Honda, and the V8 Chevy with excellent reliability and programming capabilities.
    We will have the answer to fuel burn rates soon enough...July, 2017.
     
  9. Aug 2, 2017 #9

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    439
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    New LS3 now flying in a T-51 Mustang. Traveling to OSH, Bill saw fuel flow rates of .4 pounds per hour, per horse power. That was around 13 gph at 2900 rpm in cruise. We will have more data soon as Bill gets the ECU fine tuned.

    Check out the video...https://www.facebook.com/texastoye51/videos/2001651606781890/
     
  10. Aug 2, 2017 #10

    BoKu

    BoKu

    BoKu

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,353
    Likes Received:
    2,985
    Location:
    Western US
    If it comes to a betting pool, I'll put $10 on 0.42.

    --Bob K.
     
  11. Aug 2, 2017 #11

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,974
    Likes Received:
    1,922
    Location:
    North Carolina
    0.4 is suspiciously good, what did they do to it?
     
  12. Aug 2, 2017 #12

    rv7charlie

    rv7charlie

    rv7charlie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2014
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    176
    Location:
    Jackson
    But who'll be the arbiter?

    ;-)
     
    BoKu likes this.
  13. Aug 2, 2017 #13

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    439
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    That's 13 gph at 2900 rpm. No magic here!
     
  14. Aug 2, 2017 #14

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,974
    Likes Received:
    1,922
    Location:
    North Carolina
    It's gph vs hp that determines bsfc. Dyno shops are renowned for fudging hp figures...
     
    BJC likes this.
  15. Aug 2, 2017 #15

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    439
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    That is real time, real world consumption. The hp figure was taken straight from GMPP. Every dyno shop in the world will tell you that GM is way conservative in their numbers. The hot rod guys will tell you the same thing.
     
  16. Aug 2, 2017 #16

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,974
    Likes Received:
    1,922
    Location:
    North Carolina
  17. Aug 2, 2017 #17

    tspear

    tspear

    tspear

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    173
    Location:
    Oneida
    I was told GM and Ford were both sued years ago for inaccurate HP numbers. It cost them a small fortune at the time. Since then, the company culture has been to be conservative on power numbers. No idea if true.

    Tim
     
  18. Aug 2, 2017 #18

    tspear

    tspear

    tspear

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    173
    Location:
    Oneida
    GM Performance Parts
     
  19. Aug 2, 2017 #19

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,974
    Likes Received:
    1,922
    Location:
    North Carolina
    If the power figure you are using to calculate BSFC is 'way conservative' then your actual BSFC is less than 0.4, which is getting very hard to swallow for a mostly stock engine with a hot cam.
     
    BJC likes this.
  20. Aug 2, 2017 #20

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    439
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Stock LS3. No mods, not even a Hot Cam.
     

Share This Page



arrow_white