Bearhawk Aircraft Bearhawk Tailwheels LLC Eric Newton's Builder Manuals Bearhawk Plans Bearhawk Store

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Header tank design and location

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    There is some pretty good discussion of this in Glastar service bulletin 43. Apparently they use only rear tank pickups and mandate two small header tanks to preclude air getting into fuel feeds.

    Comment


    • #47
      Personally, I don't think anything I've said should (or even "could") be construed as arguing against Zzz's desire for an EFI engine versus a carbureted one. EFI is more efficient, burns less fuel, can often be run LOP for even more fuel efficiency – though sometimes requiring tuned injectors for LOP operation. I have personally experienced some issues with difficulty re-starting at hot Lycoming engine, due to vapor lock following a "quick-turnaround" fuel stop. But that was with the stock Lycoming fuel injection system – not the one Zzz is talking about using. Even the "stock" Continental fuel injection design uses a fuel return line (as do several aftermarket EFI vendors), and there is apparently far less likelihood of vapor-lock in those engines that circulate excess fuel back to the tank(s). Turning on the fuel boost pump for a few seconds pushes cooler fuel through the lines, displacing the "gas" bubbles (vaporized fuel) from those lines pretty quickly. It's a far more elegant and pilot-friendly design than Lycoming's...

      But if I go the EFI route, with a goal of not pushing the design envelope while adding a fuel return line (or lines to both tanks with a duplexing fuel valve) would be to use both fuel pickup points as Bob designed them to deliver the fuel to the fuel pump(s), and then add a 3rd port to the tank for the return line, as someone else discussed earlier in this thread. That would seem to eliminate any possibility of unporting a fuel pickup in pretty much any "normal" attitude, while also providing a port for the returned fuel. Yeah, you're going to have to run a 3rd fuel line, but that seems like small potatoes to me...

      But let's assume I really didn't want to run that 3rd line for return fuel... Again using information gathered at the OSH seminar on fuel system design, it would seem reasonable to use a header tank of sufficient size to support a full throttle run for a reasonable period. And if I do that, the return fuel could go to the header tank. It doesn't take a LOT of fuel to cool the returning fuel – even if it contained "vapor lock" bubbles... A few gallons would be plenty to cool it below vapor lock state. The sizing of the header tank is more about the fuel demands of the engine than solving the vapor lock issue...

      Personally, I think the additional weight of a header tank would likely offset the additional weight of running a third fuel return line, so I probably would not use a header tank, due to the increased risk and maintenance requirements. But that is an admittedly personal bias against carrying fuel inside the fuselage – or at least any more than HAS to be there because of the fuel lines... (I've read way too many NTSB reports about post-accident fires caused by ruptured fuselage and/or header tanks. If I put one in my plane, it would have to be pretty stout!)

      But even with a header tank, the flow from the wings to the header tank is likely to be gravity feed, with no intermediate pumps. The electric boost pump is used to supply sufficient pressure to keep the engine running in the event the "other" pump (which may be engine-driven or electric) quits, right? So that pump would be located downstream from the header tank, between the header and the engine. The fuel lines would still need to be able to supply sufficient volume of fuel to the header tanks to sustain an engine running at full power. If it cannot, you have to add a "boost pump" before the header tank (even more complexity and maintenance issues).

      I like Bob's KISS fuel system design... But then, I'll probably wind up using a "boring" carburetor for cost and maintenance reasons... LOL
      Jim Parker
      Farmersville, TX (NE of Dallas)
      Patrol Quick-Build Serial # P312

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by JimParker256 View Post

        But if I go the EFI route, with a goal of not pushing the design envelope while adding a fuel return line (or lines to both tanks with a duplexing fuel valve) would be to use both fuel pickup points as Bob designed them to deliver the fuel to the fuel pump(s), and then add a 3rd port to the tank for the return line, as someone else discussed earlier in this thread. That would seem to eliminate any possibility of unporting a fuel pickup in pretty much any "normal" attitude, while also providing a port for the returned fuel. Yeah, you're going to have to run a 3rd fuel line, but that seems like small potatoes to me...
        It doesn’t eliminate the possibility of unporting, it increases it. If you have a fuel pump cycling fuel at 40GPH and gravity can only feed that pump at 30GPH, then you nose down with minimal fuel, the rear port can come unported, and instead of simply not providing fuel like in a carb system, the pump will draw air into the system.

        Originally posted by JimParker256 View Post
        Personally, I think the additional weight of a header tank would likely offset the additional weight of running a third fuel return line, so I probably would not use a header tank, due to the increased risk and maintenance requirements. But that is an admittedly personal bias against carrying fuel inside the fuselage – or at least any more than HAS to be there because of the fuel lines... (I've read way too many NTSB reports about post-accident fires caused by ruptured fuselage and/or header tanks. If I put one in my plane, it would have to be pretty stout!)
        I would way rather have the fuel system inside the fuselage than outside because if it’s outside, it’s WAY more prone to rupture in a crash. Consider builders that run fuel lines or pumps under the tubing in the tunnel. If the airplane has a crash that wipes the gear off, you will have a ruptured fuel system. I’m planning for my fuel pump to go under the pilot seat and nothing extending below the floor. I figure the same cage that is protecting me can protect my fuel system.

        Originally posted by JimParker256 View Post
        But even with a header tank, the flow from the wings to the header tank is likely to be gravity feed, with no intermediate pumps. The electric boost pump is used to supply sufficient pressure to keep the engine running in the event the "other" pump (which may be engine-driven or electric) quits, right? So that pump would be located downstream from the header tank, between the header and the engine. The fuel lines would still need to be able to supply sufficient volume of fuel to the header tanks to sustain an engine running at full power. If it cannot, you have to add a "boost pump" before the header tank (even more complexity and maintenance issues).
        Gravity fed to a header tank only needs to average what the engine is consuming. If gravity isn’t enough, it has to be not enough for a fair bit of time, and if there is a brief unport in the main tank, it won’t cause air in the system.

        Originally posted by JimParker256 View Post

        I like Bob's KISS fuel system design... But then, I'll probably wind up using a "boring" carburetor for cost and maintenance reasons... LOL
        Bobs design is great for carbs and for lycoming injection which has no return. It’s probably not sufficient for return type fuel systems with continentals or EFI. Those systems demand much more fuel to be flowing. If I was building one, I’d probably use a duplex valve, return to tank, and build two 1.5”x10” round tubing header tanks with 1/2 on one side and 3/8 on the other, and put one on each line between the front and rear mains and the T under the door jam, then use 1/2” line between the mains and the small header tank. That would hold almost a gallon per side, be very well protected under the door jam, and would be very hard to unport, while maintaining Bob’s simple system.

        The pump would have to suck enough fuel to empty two 1.5x10” columns of fuel, along with 3 ft of 1/2 tubing faster than the engine can use it before it sucks air. I think I like that way more than 3/8 lines when dealing with a fast pump and the engine at idle.

        That said, ill probably run lycombing injection, and know that mogas might not work in my airplane.

        Schu
        Last edited by schu; 05-16-2018, 08:03 AM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Schu;
          I was thinking about something similar. Build mini header tanks into each gravity fed line. Still thinking about it. I have seen a few EFI installations where I think fuel heating is also much less of an issue. The fuel divider is mounted aft of the engine. Should transfer much less heat to the return fuel.

          Comment


          • #50
            Interesting discussion... Hopefully no one is thinking anyone is mad at anyone – we're all just trying to learn together, right?

            Originally posted by schu View Post
            It doesn’t eliminate the possibility of unporting, it increases it. If you have a fuel pump cycling fuel at 40GPH and gravity can only feed that pump at 30GPH, then you nose down with minimal fuel, the rear port can come unported, and instead of simply not providing fuel like in a carb system, the pump will draw air into the system.
            I don't understand that statement. If you're only using the aft pickup point, it will unport in a nose-down attitude anyway. That's kind of the entire reasoning behind having both front and rear pickup points... Yes, one of the other could unport, but not both. And with both front and rear points, when one of them unports, you've still got a column of fuel from the other one to the "y" in the fuel line, and all the way to the pump. Last time I took a fluid dynamics course (admittedly MANY years ago) I understood that the mass of the fuel being greater than the mass of air would result in the pump pulling "fuel" rather than air.

            But you're absolutely right that if you have a pump drawing 40 GPH and a supply line that can only deliver 30 GPH, you're going to have an issue. That's why the fuel flow test is required for certified airplanes, and is a REALLY good idea for experimentals. (It's also why it might be a good idea to use 1/2" fuel lines if you really need that much fuel supplied...)

            Originally posted by schu View Post
            I would way rather have the fuel system inside the fuselage than outside because if it’s outside, it’s WAY more prone to rupture in a crash. Consider builders that run fuel lines or pumps under the tubing in the tunnel. If the airplane has a crash that wipes the gear off, you will have a ruptured fuel system. I’m planning for my fuel pump to go under the pilot seat and nothing extending below the floor. I figure the same cage that is protecting me can protect my fuel system.
            I agree with your position on fuel lines below the "safety cage" and am still struggling with the idea of having the gascolator mounted where Bob's design suggests. It seems like the gascolator would be the first thing to break off, and that would unleash a flood of fuel from the lines (assuming they're still intact). My "gravity feed" Citabria has a fuel drain way back behind the baggage area (low point in the fuel supply while on the ground), as well as a gascolator at the bottom of the firewall (engine side), and all the lines run between the floorboards and the "cage"... Seems more "protected" from a gear failure that way.

            But the fuel in the wings versus in the fuselage thing is something that reading NTSB reports might change your mind about... I know I changed my thinking on this topic after reading a bunch of them. I wish I still had the reference(s), but it was many years ago, and the link was lost in a hard drive crash... The thing is that fuel is only one third of the equation when it comes to fire. You also need oxygen (which will pretty much always be there) and something to ignite the fuel vapor... Outside the fuselage, there are very few things that can create the spark necessary to start the fire going. Within the fuselage, you have batteries, wires, switches, generators, and all sorts of other things that can spark the fire... The NTSB post-crash fire accident reports where the plane had gas tanks in the fuselage were sobering... Lots of examples of the fuel catching fire and – key point – fatally burning the occupants before they could safely evacuate from an otherwise survivable crash.

            By the way, that whole "post-crash evacuation" thing is the key reason I'm building my Patrol with doors on both sides (seaplane version) even though I'll probably never put it on floats. Hopefully, with doors on both sides, I can evacuate away from the fire... Unless I REALLY have a bad day, and manage to rupture both wing tanks, after crashing into a field of flint...

            (As total aside – I knew a pilot in Brazil who crashed three airplanes into the jungle, and sheared both wings off the plane each time. Once he even managed to shear both wings and the tail section, just aft of the cabin. All three times, he survived with only bruises and very minor cuts. No fires Amazing...)

            Originally posted by schu View Post
            Bobs design is great for carbs and for lycoming injection which has no return. It’s probably not sufficient for return type fuel systems with continentals or EFI. Those systems demand much more fuel to be flowing. If I was building one, I’d probably use a duplex valve, return to tank, and build two 1.5”x10” round tubing header tanks with 1/2 on one side and 3/8 on the other, and put one on each line between the front and rear mains and the T under the door jam, then use 1/2” line between the mains and the small header tank. That would hold almost a gallon per side, be very well protected under the door jam, and would be very hard to unport, while maintaining Bob’s simple system.

            The pump would have to suck enough fuel to empty two 1.5x10” columns of fuel, along with 3 ft of 1/2 tubing faster than the engine can use it before it sucks air. I think I like that way more than 3/8 lines when dealing with a fast pump and the engine at idle.
            Probably why someone else suggested upgrading Bob's design by using 1/2" tubing through the entire system for the non-Lycoming EFI solution. Doubtful that even an IO-540 could use more fuel than a 1/2" line can deliver... (But the fuel flow test would confirm that one way or the other...)

            Originally posted by schu View Post
            That said, ill probably run lycombing injection, and know that mogas might not work in my airplane.
            Schu
            So, will you still use the mini header tanks you described under the door jamb area? I'm trying to visualize that, but I'm building a Patrol and it's pretty crowded under there, with rudder cables, flap cables, and aileron cables, not to mention the throttle cable for the back seat, and the fuel lines themselves... Have to ponder that one a bit.

            As I said earlier, interesting discussion...
            Jim Parker
            Farmersville, TX (NE of Dallas)
            Patrol Quick-Build Serial # P312

            Comment


            • #51
              Jim;
              I totally agree with the threat of fire, and the gascolator being so vulnerable, but like someone said, light planes are designed to fly, not crash. If you use a true header tank then the normal fuel lines are more than adequate as they are not "feeding" 40 gph. Only what the engine is consuming.

              Comment


              • Mark Goldberg
                Mark Goldberg commented
                Editing a comment
                There have been ground loops in Bearhawks where the gear collapsed. But I do not recall that anyone has ever sheared off the gascolator on the belly. Mark

            • #52
              This subject has spiked my interest in the last few weeks as I put our Rebel floatplane into the trees on a go-around. The only reason I'm alive is because God must have more for me to do! I walked away but the pastor who was with my broke his femur You can see more at http://thesteidingers.com/blog/2018/05/rebel-accident/). Climbing out from a low pass to check for wires, etc I was turning from cross-wind to downwind. Because the creek was narrow, I had to climb out over the trees. The motor didn't falter, it just stopped dead. What happened? why would a reliable Lycoming O-320 just quit dead? The fuel design in a murphy Rebel has just one port in each tank. Initially it was about in the middle and connected to the fuel sight gauges. A bulletin called for the exit to be separated from the sight gauge and moved farther back. Our Rebel had no header tank, just gravity and with the 150% flow test completed.

              On this particular day we had taken off with a little more fuel in the right tank. After talking off, I closed the left tank and was burning fuel from the right to equalize. A storm came up so I descended fairly quickly, did a high pass and then a lower pass about 250 feet off the water to check for power lines running across the river. First mistake, waiting to do my landing checklist until i was in the pattern instead of when I approached my landing site. As soon as it quit I immediately remember the left tank but only had time to open the valve-- I'm guessing I had about 10 seconds to shove the stick forward and land in the forest. No time to try and re-start. I had 30 litters in the left tank and 25 in the right at the time of the accident (verified by sight and our fuel flow meter). I was using my right tank, I was in a left turn and if you are in a coordinated turn (see Mark's post in this thread) the fuel should not flow away from the port, but even if it would have, it would have flowed down to that port. I have flown and done hundreds of landings in this plane with the above fuel scenario. After some research, two things I see were different this time. ONE; I was not using both tanks. I can't remember ever approaching a landing site when I wasn't on BOTH. TWO: This was not a "planned" approach. The storm was coming so I descended steeper than normal. What do I think happened? The fuel tank is integral, so there are quite a few obstacles (ribs, etc) that keep the fuel from "quickly" un-porting the single exit. However, because of my longer, steeper descent, I think the fuel might have had time to flow around / through the obstacles to the front of the tank. I believe it became un-ported and when I powered up and climbed there was air in the line. If this had happened in my other approaches, because of an un-coordinated turn for example, it would not have happened to both tanks. Therefore the tank not un-ported would have pushed the air out of the other line (see Jim's last post). What we've learned. Either have two ports in each tank or a header tank. I'm still not sure how the Cessna 150's get by with only one port (if I remember correctly, the larger Cessna models have two, but I believe the smaller models only have one).

              Comment


              • MattS
                MattS commented
                Editing a comment
                We had completed the bulletin and the port was separated from the sight gauge.

              • Bdflies
                Bdflies commented
                Editing a comment
                Glad you're here to relate that episode to us! What you described is the real bugaboo about experimenting with fuel systems. When problems arise, they pop up FAST and at the worst possible times.

              • Peter Bishton
                Peter Bishton commented
                Editing a comment
                Matt you are lucky to be alive. Looking at the blog and photos the aircraft destroyed. God has other plans as you said. Peter b
                4 place scratch build Australia

            • #53
              Originally posted by JimParker256 View Post
              Interesting discussion... Hopefully no one is thinking anyone is mad at anyone – we're all just trying to learn together, right?
              No hard feelings of any kind here. I think this is a good discussion to have, for many reasons. So that people know that messing with the fuel system has very serious consequences if you don't get it right. So that people understand that there is more to it than it appears. So that people can make sound choices for their engine/mission configuration.

              Originally posted by JimParker256 View Post
              I don't understand that statement. If you're only using the aft pickup point, it will unport in a nose-down attitude anyway. That's kind of the entire reasoning behind having both front and rear pickup points... Yes, one of the other could unport, but not both. And with both front and rear points, when one of them unports, you've still got a column of fuel from the other one to the "y" in the fuel line, and all the way to the pump. Last time I took a fluid dynamics course (admittedly MANY years ago) I understood that the mass of the fuel being greater than the mass of air would result in the pump pulling "fuel" rather than air.

              But you're absolutely right that if you have a pump drawing 40 GPH and a supply line that can only deliver 30 GPH, you're going to have an issue. That's why the fuel flow test is required for certified airplanes, and is a REALLY good idea for experimentals. (It's also why it might be a good idea to use 1/2" fuel lines if you really need that much fuel supplied...)
              That is my point. What makes sense for a non-return fuel system does't necessarily make sense for something that's pulling 40gph with a pump.

              Originally posted by JimParker256 View Post
              But the fuel in the wings versus in the fuselage thing is something that reading NTSB reports might change your mind about... I know I changed my thinking on this topic after reading a bunch of them. I wish I still had the reference(s), but it was many years ago, and the link was lost in a hard drive crash... The thing is that fuel is only one third of the equation when it comes to fire. You also need oxygen (which will pretty much always be there) and something to ignite the fuel vapor... Outside the fuselage, there are very few things that can create the spark necessary to start the fire going. Within the fuselage, you have batteries, wires, switches, generators, and all sorts of other things that can spark the fire... The NTSB post-crash fire accident reports where the plane had gas tanks in the fuselage were sobering... Lots of examples of the fuel catching fire and – key point – fatally burning the occupants before they could safely evacuate from an otherwise survivable crash.

              By the way, that whole "post-crash evacuation" thing is the key reason I'm building my Patrol with doors on both sides (seaplane version) even though I'll probably never put it on floats. Hopefully, with doors on both sides, I can evacuate away from the fire... Unless I REALLY have a bad day, and manage to rupture both wing tanks, after crashing into a field of flint...

              (As total aside – I knew a pilot in Brazil who crashed three airplanes into the jungle, and sheared both wings off the plane each time. Once he even managed to shear both wings and the tail section, just aft of the cabin. All three times, he survived with only bruises and very minor cuts. No fires Amazing...)
              I totally understand why you wouldn't want a header tank in the cockpit, makes sense. But in an IO continental or EFI engine, you need to be very careful to make sure the pumps are fed. If I had to choose between having fuel in the cockpit and starving the pump, I know which one I would pick.... the one that cessna picked with the 185.

              Originally posted by JimParker256 View Post

              Probably why someone else suggested upgrading Bob's design by using 1/2" tubing through the entire system for the non-Lycoming EFI solution. Doubtful that even an IO-540 could use more fuel than a 1/2" line can deliver... (But the fuel flow test would confirm that one way or the other...)

              So, will you still use the mini header tanks you described under the door jamb area? I'm trying to visualize that, but I'm building a Patrol and it's pretty crowded under there, with rudder cables, flap cables, and aileron cables, not to mention the throttle cable for the back seat, and the fuel lines themselves... Have to ponder that one a bit.

              As I said earlier, interesting discussion...
              It doesn't matter if the engine can use more fuel than the fuel lines can supply, it matters if the fuel pump that is cycling the fuel through the injectors and back into the tank can use more fuel than the fuel lines supply. I would bet that Whee's idea of using 1/2" fuel line will probably work fine, my tiny header tank idea just goes further to ensure that there is fuel, at the cost of having a little bit in the cockpit with you.

              As for me, I was stuck between using a dual electric pump with return to tank setup and the standard plans, here is why:

              Building the plans fuel system with an engine driven pump, and boost pump to an Airflow Performance Injector will probably mean I can't run mogas. The reason is because there is a low pressure area behind the engine pump that is hot and would probably vapor with mogas. (Ever notice there isn't any IO lycomings in the certified world with a mogas STC?) By using dual electric pumps and return excess fuel to tank, I no longer have this problem because the fuel is moved back to the tank where it's cooled, and because the hot fuel is pressurized.

              I eventually decided to bag it and just do the standard non-return lycoming injection setup because I already have a boost pump and valve and didn't want to start over again. I figure I'll carefully test running 50/50 on a hot day by using 50/50 in one tank and 100LL in the other and switching between them at altitude. If I can fully demonstrate it works, then I might go that route.

              As for those thinking, why not just run a carb? Well, fuel injection lets me tune the injectors for lean of peak operations, which seriously cuts down on fuel.

              As for those thinking, what about FI hot restarts? Well, with AFP, you can have the purge valve dump to the input from the left tank, and select the right tank, and hit the boost pump and all of the hot fuel is displaced making hot restarts no big deal.

              Here is some basic cost analysis:

              1. Carbs are cheap, but I can't run as lean as FI. I suspect the difference is 1-2 GPH.

              2. Mechanical FI allows me to run lean, but I'll probably need some 100LL in the system and can't run straight mogas.

              3. Electronic FI allows me to run lean AND mogas, but the cost is in the $8k range and the way that SDS does individual cyl fuel trimming isn't ideal, and the EFII system32 system isn't out yet/brand new. In other words, in my opinion, EFI is just now catching up to FI as far as lean of peak operations, and there is a lot more plumbing.

              Which is cheapest to operate? It's probably close enough to a wash for me to just run #2 and be happy. Besides, I'm sick of second guessing myself, I want to fly!

              Comment


              • Bcone1381
                Bcone1381 commented
                Editing a comment
                I have a better understanding now of why Mogas and Bedix FI are not generally compatible. Thanks Schu.

            • #54
              Scshu;
              Your comment on SDS's individual fuel trim? Your thoughts about why you don't like it?

              MFI and a couple of electronic ignitions is just as expensive, or more, than full EFI/EI. Rebuilt carb and 2 rebuilt magnetos are cheap to buy, but the mags would need to be rebuilt 3 times to get to TBO, and the carb probably at least once, unless you fly a BUNCH. Running LOP should save 3-4000 gallons between TBO's. Rebuilt carbs and magnetos are cheap to buy, but I think they are the most expensive over the course of the life of the engine. By far.

              If you are building a complicated IFR airplane, the electrical system is the same for EFI or a carb. If you are building a simple VFR airplane (me), EFI increases the electrical cost/complexity. I have a hard time justifying it other than I simply prefer it. But I do prefer it.

              Comment


              • #55
                Right now I am leaning towards a header tank under the front seats. Maybe just under the right seat, with the fuel pumps under the left. I get access to all fuel components, plus the elevator cable adjustment. It is contained within the fuselage, at the strongest place on the whole fuselage.

                Comment


                • #56
                  Originally posted by svyolo View Post
                  Scshu;
                  Your comment on SDS's individual fuel trim? Your thoughts about why you don't like it?

                  MFI and a couple of electronic ignitions is just as expensive, or more, than full EFI/EI. Rebuilt carb and 2 rebuilt magnetos are cheap to buy, but the mags would need to be rebuilt 3 times to get to TBO, and the carb probably at least once, unless you fly a BUNCH. Running LOP should save 3-4000 gallons between TBO's. Rebuilt carbs and magnetos are cheap to buy, but I think they are the most expensive over the course of the life of the engine. By far.

                  If you are building a complicated IFR airplane, the electrical system is the same for EFI or a carb. If you are building a simple VFR airplane (me), EFI increases the electrical cost/complexity. I have a hard time justifying it other than I simply prefer it. But I do prefer it.
                  It's not really a big deal, but the SDS EM-5 doesn't appear to be able to control more than 4 individual injectors. For a standard single EM-5 install it's no problem because everything is batch fired, but that isn't going to get it done if you want all of your cyls to peak at the same fuel flow and thus be table to run 50* lean of peak. So the way the SDS does this right now is they have you wire two EM-5's in, with an injector relay box with one EM-5 controlling three cyls, and the other EM-5 controlling the other three. Should one EM-5 fail, then you flip the switch and the good EM-5 batch fires everything:

                  http://www.sdsefi.com/dual6ecurev3.pdf

                  It works fine, but in the end is really a work-around so SDS is working on a new system, and the EFII guys have a new system too, which means being an early adopter.

                  So for me, I'm going to stick to mechanical injection, and in the future I might install electric ignition. Here is why:

                  1. I already have a boost pump and fuel valve and don't want to replace it.
                  2. I already have overhauled mags bolted to the engine.
                  3. I don't think that EFI really buys you much over mechanical injection as the smoothness is largely from the ignition, and tuning gami injectors is dead simple.
                  4. I don't want to play with fuel trim, injection duty cycle curves, and figuring what tuning numbers make my EFI system report correct fuel flow to my EFIS.
                  5. I want a big red knob, as everybody knows what it does and how to work it.
                  6. Less wires and hoses.
                  7. No need to deviate from the standard BH fuel system.
                  8. Well proven in the field for LOTS and LOTS of RV airplanes.

                  Mostly I just want to get into the air and have the parts.

                  schu

                  Comment


                  • #57
                    Schu;
                    I like to make rational decisions instead of what I want. Usually rational wins out. In the case of MFI vs EFI, I think MFI is good enough for me, but I am much more comfortable working with EFI. For me MFI is a box of parts I don't understand. The cost of MFI and dual EI's is similar to EFI/EI.

                    I think I could have been happy with either, but in the end I am more I EFI's box of parts more than MFI's. Electrically I don't mind a few extra wires as i am good at that part and I will make it reliable. I only don't like the extra plumbing. More precisely, I don't like plumbing!!!!!

                    Comment


                    • #58
                      Originally posted by svyolo View Post
                      Schu;
                      I like to make rational decisions instead of what I want. Usually rational wins out. In the case of MFI vs EFI, I think MFI is good enough for me, but I am much more comfortable working with EFI. For me MFI is a box of parts I don't understand. The cost of MFI and dual EI's is similar to EFI/EI.

                      I think I could have been happy with either, but in the end I am more I EFI's box of parts more than MFI's. Electrically I don't mind a few extra wires as i am good at that part and I will make it reliable. I only don't like the extra plumbing. More precisely, I don't like plumbing!!!!!
                      No problem, svyolo., I reference Post #55... Realize, that making rational decisions is resulting in a compromise....the header tank being placed under the seats.

                      I am doing MFI with Bob's original fuel system design due to the issues I am reading about here. My conclusions mirror almost exactly with what schu described. But please allow me to offer what I think might be a reasonable design improvement....way off from Bob's design. So its worth what you are paying for it.

                      I would feel more comfortable if a +5 gallons header tank was placed aft of the bulkhead with a "Not full" sensor in it, gravity fed by only the aft fuel tank bungs. Highly unlikely that a 5 gallon header tank could be emptied during descent to landing with the aft tank bungs unported....plus it increases fuel capacity. It can have 1 return line running back to it and have a simple on-off fuel valve. it removes fuel lines, removes fittings, and connections. It becomes almost a C-150 fuel system from the operators point of view. Sucking air problem is eliminate, its in a safer location.

                      Doing pattern work on almost empty main tanks would be no worry. Every landing would fill the header back up in seconds. If one ran the main tanks dry, VFR fuel reserves are in the still in the header.

                      Note this popular maxim, from Saint-Exupery:

                      ..perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away...

                      I look up to you who go the EFI, but I am not there yet.
                      Brooks Cone
                      Southeast Michigan
                      Patrol #303, Kit build

                      Comment


                      • #59
                        Brooks;
                        Aft of what bulkhead? The cargo bulkhead? I am going to think about your idea.

                        Comment


                        • #60
                          So Brooks, I take it that you're planning on an electric pump at the rear header tank. That pump will run on low at all times, except high boost for starting - maybe takeoff/landing also.

                          A tank behind the baggage bulkhead will be well below the engine driven pump, on takeoff. You have to treat such an installation as one would view a low wing, injected aircraft.

                          Bill

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X