Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Fuel Flow Meter

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Alan Carter

Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 378
Location: Kent, England.

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:24 pm Post subject: Fuel Flow Meter

Hello ALL.

I spent to much money at the LAA Sywell show. At 67 I must be crazy considering the price of second-hand aircraft at the moment.

I purchased a MGL Flow meter, 2 Flowscan Senders, and line fittings,

An incredible £650, the final job will cost nearer a £1000, as I will need a few more bits and a new externally  mounted compass, as I need the panel compass hole for the new meter, and they tell me I will need new 8.33 radio in 4 years time, Crazy Country.

However, a couple Questions,

914 rubber fuel hose, what type and Where do I get this from,?

The instruction for the Flow scan senders, at low fuel flows ie the 914 it recommends installing a jet in the fuel line before the flow meter, no picture of this jet, no item number or price, just give a different K value to use,

Anybody know what this is all about.???!!!!!

Regards.

Alan

rampil

Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 870

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:31 am Post subject: Re: Fuel Flow Meter

Alan,



Floscan makes 3 models of the 201 sender for varying expected mean

flow rates of gasoline.  The appropriate unit for the 914 is the 201A 

model which handles 0.3 - 30 gal per hour.



If a jet is added, at least in my imagination of what a "jet" or orifice might

be, it will add turbulence and reduce accuracy of the flow turbine.  I could 

not find a reference to such an addition in the FloScan site.  Further, in a 

914 application, the meaningful flow regime is roughly 3 - 7 gal/hour, well

within the linear range of system. Does it really matter if the measured

flow rate at idle power (less than 2 gal/hr) is slightly off?



The only place where the flow rates are less than that is in the return line

to the tank.  In my 912s application, the return flow is unmeasured, but 

very small, since my measured forward flow rate are right at what Rotax

predicts in the manual. It is much less than the LAA posited rate of 0.8 

gal/hr through the 0.35mm orifice.This was after I independently 

calibrated my Floscan at three different flow rates. Perhaps the LAA 

used a higher than Rotax max pressure head of 5 psi through the orifice?  

The slight apparent increase in fuel flow rate (by not measuring the return 

flow and subtracting it in the  totalizer) seems to me a a safety feature.



BTW, any additional "jet" in the return line, if that is what you were 

contemplating is a direct violation of the engine install instructions for the

914 which requires a low resistance path bach to the tank after the

pressure regulator.



The return flow rate situation with the 914 may be a bit different than

with the 912s, though the pressures and the return orifice are the same.



I recognize that if the LAA tells you that you must have return flow measured, if measuring flow at all, you must comply. 



It is just my opinion that trying to measure flow rates under 0.5 gal/hr will

be inherently inaccurate with the Floscan 201A in an aircraft environment 

and isnot worth the trouble and expense. On the other hand, many

builders have this feature installed.



Best of luck!

_________________
Ira N224XS

davidjoyce(at)doctors.org
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:29 am Post subject: Fuel Flow Meter

Alan, I go along with that. My 914/twin Floscan set up has 

worked nicely without any sort of jet. The only relevant 

stipulation I can remember is that there should be a 

reasonable length of fairly straight hose leading into 

each Floscan as sharp corners will produce turbulence and 

false readings. One of the key points with the Floscan I 

believe is that even if its spinner jams it will not 

significantly impede flow. It seems a bad idea to put 

anything in the flow if you don't have to.

Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:31:34 -0700

  "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

<ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>

 

 Alan,

 

Floscan makes 3 models of the 201 sender for varying 

expected mean

 flow rates of gasoline.  The appropriate unit for the 

914 is the 201A 

 model which handles 0.3 - 30 gal per hour.

 

 If a jet is added, at least in my imagination of what a 

"jet" or orifice might

 be, it will add turbulence and reduce accuracy of the 

flow turbine.  I could 

 not find a reference to such an addition in the FloScan 

site.  Further, in a 

 914 application, the meaningful flow regime is roughly 3 

- 7 gal/hour, well

 within the linear range of system. Does it really matter 

if the measured

 flow rate at idle power (less than 2 gal/hr) is slightly 

off?

 

 The only place where the flow rates are less than that 

is in the return line

 to the tank.  In my 912s application, the return flow is 

unmeasured, but 

 very small, since my measured forward flow rate are 

right at what Rotax

 predicts in the manual. It is much less than the LAA 

posited rate of 0.8 

 gal/hr through the 0.35mm orifice.This was after I 

independently 

 calibrated my Floscan at three different flow rates. 

Perhaps the LAA 

 used a higher than Rotax max pressure head of 5 psi 

through the orifice?  

 The slight apparent increase in fuel flow rate (by not 

measuring the return 

 flow and subtracting it in the  totalizer) seems to me a 

a safety feature.

 

 BTW, any additional "jet" in the return line, if that is 

what you were 

 contemplating is a direct violation of the engine 

install instructions for the

 914 which requires a low resistance path bach to the 

tank after the

 pressure regulator.

 

 The return flow rate situation with the 914 may be a bit 

different than

 with the 912s, though the pressures and the return 

orifice are the same.

 

 I recognize that if the LAA tells you that you must have 

return flow measured, if measuring flow at all, you must 

comply. 

 

 It is just my opinion that trying to measure flow rates 

under 0.5 gal/hr will

 be inherently inaccurate with the Floscan 201A in an 

aircraft environment 

 and isnot worth the trouble and expense. On the other 

hand, many

 builders have this feature installed.

 

 Best of luck!

 

 --------

 Ira N224XS

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408424#408424

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Un/Subscription,

Forums!

Admin.

daseitz(at)cfl.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:46 am Post subject: Fuel Flow Meter

The 914 does not have a low flow rate. It pumps around 20 gal per hour from the tank and returns all of that minus what the engine used back to the tank. Feed is around 20 gal/hr and return is about 15 gal/hr at cruise. At idle it's almost 20 gal/hr return.

---- David Joyce <davidjoyce(at)doctors.org.uk> wrote: 

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Alan, I go along with that. My 914/twin Floscan set up has 

 worked nicely without any sort of jet. The only relevant 

 stipulation I can remember is that there should be a 

 reasonable length of fairly straight hose leading into 

 each Floscan as sharp corners will produce turbulence and 

 false readings. One of the key points with the Floscan I 

 believe is that even if its spinner jams it will not 

 significantly impede flow. It seems a bad idea to put 

 anything in the flow if you don't have to.

 Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ

 

 

 On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:31:34 -0700

   "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 > 

 ><ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>

 > 

 > Alan,

 > 

 >Floscan makes 3 models of the 201 sender for varying 

 >expected mean

 > flow rates of gasoline.  The appropriate unit for the 

 >914 is the 201A 

 > model which handles 0.3 - 30 gal per hour.

 > 

 > If a jet is added, at least in my imagination of what a 

 >"jet" or orifice might

 > be, it will add turbulence and reduce accuracy of the 

 >flow turbine.  I could 

 > not find a reference to such an addition in the FloScan 

 >site.  Further, in a 

 > 914 application, the meaningful flow regime is roughly 3 

 >- 7 gal/hour, well

 > within the linear range of system. Does it really matter 

 >if the measured

 > flow rate at idle power (less than 2 gal/hr) is slightly 

 >off?

 > 

 > The only place where the flow rates are less than that 

 >is in the return line

 > to the tank.  In my 912s application, the return flow is 

 >unmeasured, but 

 > very small, since my measured forward flow rate are 

 >right at what Rotax

 > predicts in the manual. It is much less than the LAA 

 >posited rate of 0.8 

 > gal/hr through the 0.35mm orifice.This was after I 

 >independently 

 > calibrated my Floscan at three different flow rates. 

 >Perhaps the LAA 

 > used a higher than Rotax max pressure head of 5 psi 

 >through the orifice?  

 > The slight apparent increase in fuel flow rate (by not 

 >measuring the return 

 > flow and subtracting it in the  totalizer) seems to me a 

 >a safety feature.

 > 

 > BTW, any additional "jet" in the return line, if that is 

 >what you were 

 > contemplating is a direct violation of the engine 

 >install instructions for the

 > 914 which requires a low resistance path bach to the 

 >tank after the

 > pressure regulator.

 > 

 > The return flow rate situation with the 914 may be a bit 

 >different than

 > with the 912s, though the pressures and the return 

 >orifice are the same.

 > 

 > I recognize that if the LAA tells you that you must have 

 >return flow measured, if measuring flow at all, you must 

 >comply. 

 > 

 > It is just my opinion that trying to measure flow rates 

 >under 0.5 gal/hr will

 > be inherently inaccurate with the Floscan 201A in an 

 >aircraft environment 

 > and isnot worth the trouble and expense. On the other 

 >hand, many

 > builders have this feature installed.

 > 

 > Best of luck!

 > 

 > --------

 > Ira N224XS

 > 

 > 

 > 

 > 

 > Read this topic online here:

 > 

 > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408424#408424

 > 

 > 

 > 

 > 

 > 

 > 

 > 

 >Un/Subscription,

 >Forums!

 >Admin.

 > 

 > 

 >

jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:25 am Post subject: Fuel Flow Meter

I saved a message by Jim Butcher on a blue-mountain-avionics forum where 

he reported measuring a flow of 41 gph into a bucket. The Rotax 914 

installation manual gives 30 gph as the rated flow for 1 pump at 300 hPa 

(airbox at sea level pressure) to 25 gph at 1000 hPa (airbox at 16000' 

with full boost). The second pump would increase this by a small amount.

Floscan 201A-6 seems marginal, 201B-6 seems better.

I bought from Floscan 2 of type 231 ("marine use only"), similar to 

201B-6 but heavier (steel). And less expensive. And no fretting with 

aluminium adapters...

Alan, if you have a 914 I believe you might get the 914 installation 

manual - it has a flow graph for the pump (Pierburg E1F no. 7.21440.78.0).

And you might check out the Floscan website. There are 2 aviation pages.

Regards, Jan de Jong.



On 9/11/2013 7:45 PM, Dean Seitz wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 The 914 does not have a low flow rate. It pumps around 20 gal per hour from the tank and returns all of that minus what the engine used back to the tank. Feed is around 20 gal/hr and return is about 15 gal/hr at cruise. At idle it's almost 20 gal/hr return.

 ---- David Joyce <davidjoyce(at)doctors.org.uk> wrote:

> 

>

> Alan, I go along with that. My 914/twin Floscan set up has

> worked nicely without any sort of jet. The only relevant

> stipulation I can remember is that there should be a

> reasonable length of fairly straight hose leading into

> each Floscan as sharp corners will produce turbulence and

> false readings. One of the key points with the Floscan I

> believe is that even if its spinner jams it will not

> significantly impede flow. It seems a bad idea to put

> anything in the flow if you don't have to.

> Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ

> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:31:34 -0700

>    "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> wrote:

>> 

>> <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>

>>

>> Alan,

>>

>> Floscan makes 3 models of the 201 sender for varying

>> expected mean

>> flow rates of gasoline.  The appropriate unit for the

>> 914 is the 201A

>> model which handles 0.3 - 30 gal per hour.

>>

>> If a jet is added, at least in my imagination of what a

>> "jet" or orifice might

>> be, it will add turbulence and reduce accuracy of the

>> flow turbine.  I could

>> not find a reference to such an addition in the FloScan

>> site.  Further, in a

>> 914 application, the meaningful flow regime is roughly 3

>> - 7 gal/hour, well

>> within the linear range of system. Does it really matter

>> if the measured

>> flow rate at idle power (less than 2 gal/hr) is slightly

>> off?

>>

>> The only place where the flow rates are less than that

>> is in the return line

>> to the tank.  In my 912s application, the return flow is

>> unmeasured, but

>> very small, since my measured forward flow rate are

>> right at what Rotax

>> predicts in the manual. It is much less than the LAA

>> posited rate of 0.8

>> gal/hr through the 0.35mm orifice.This was after I

>> independently

>> calibrated my Floscan at three different flow rates.

>> Perhaps the LAA

>> used a higher than Rotax max pressure head of 5 psi

>> through the orifice?

>> The slight apparent increase in fuel flow rate (by not

>> measuring the return

>> flow and subtracting it in the  totalizer) seems to me a

>> a safety feature.

>>

>> BTW, any additional "jet" in the return line, if that is

>> what you were

>> contemplating is a direct violation of the engine

>> install instructions for the

>> 914 which requires a low resistance path bach to the

>> tank after the

>> pressure regulator.

>>

>> The return flow rate situation with the 914 may be a bit

>> different than

>> with the 912s, though the pressures and the return

>> orifice are the same.

>>

>> I recognize that if the LAA tells you that you must have

>> return flow measured, if measuring flow at all, you must

>> comply.

>>

>> It is just my opinion that trying to measure flow rates

>> under 0.5 gal/hr will

>> be inherently inaccurate with the Floscan 201A in an

>> aircraft environment

>> and isnot worth the trouble and expense. On the other

>> hand, many

>> builders have this feature installed.

>>

>> Best of luck!

>>

>> --------

>> Ira N224XS

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Read this topic online here:

>>

>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408424#408424

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Un/Subscription,

>> Forums!

>> Admin.

>>

>>

>>

>

davidjoyce(at)doctors.org
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:32 am Post subject: Fuel Flow Meter

Jan, I wonder whether he was measuring what came out of 

the pump, rather than what came back through the return 

hose with the engine not going,

once the fuel had gone through the pressure release 

valve., which will be quite a bit less I guess.

Regards, David Joyce, G- XSDJ

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:24:13 +0200

  Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

<jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>

 

 I saved a message by Jim Butcher on a 

blue-mountain-avionics forum where he reported measuring 

a flow of 41 gph into a bucket. The Rotax 914 

installation manual gives 30 gph as the rated flow for 1 

pump at 300 hPa (airbox at sea level pressure) to 25 gph 

at 1000 hPa (airbox at 16000' with full boost). The 

second pump would increase this by a small amount.

Floscan 201A-6 seems marginal, 201B-6 seems better.

 I bought from Floscan 2 of type 231 ("marine use only"), 

similar to 201B-6 but heavier (steel). And less 

expensive. And no fretting with aluminium adapters...

 Alan, if you have a 914 I believe you might get the 914 

installation manual - it has a flow graph for the pump 

(Pierburg E1F no. 7.21440.78.0).

 And you might check out the Floscan website. There are 2 

aviation pages.

 Regards, Jan de Jong.

 

 On 9/11/2013 7:45 PM, Dean Seitz wrote:

> 

><daseitz(at)cfl.rr.com>

>

> The 914 does not have a low flow rate. It pumps around 

>20 gal per hour from the tank and returns all of that 

>minus what the engine used back to the tank. Feed is 

>around 20 gal/hr and return is about 15 gal/hr at cruise. 

>At idle it's almost 20 gal/hr return.

> ---- David Joyce <davidjoyce(at)doctors.org.uk> wrote:

>> 

>><davidjoyce(at)doctors.org.uk>

>>

>> Alan, I go along with that. My 914/twin Floscan set up 

>>has

>> worked nicely without any sort of jet. The only relevant

>> stipulation I can remember is that there should be a

>> reasonable length of fairly straight hose leading into

>> each Floscan as sharp corners will produce turbulence 

>>and

>> false readings. One of the key points with the Floscan I

>> believe is that even if its spinner jams it will not

>> significantly impede flow. It seems a bad idea to put

>> anything in the flow if you don't have to.

>> Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ

>>

>>

>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:31:34 -0700

>>    "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> wrote:

>>> 

>>> <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>

>>>

>>> Alan,

>>>

>>> Floscan makes 3 models of the 201 sender for varying

>>> expected mean

>>> flow rates of gasoline.  The appropriate unit for the

>>> 914 is the 201A

>>> model which handles 0.3 - 30 gal per hour.

>>>

>>> If a jet is added, at least in my imagination of what a

>>> "jet" or orifice might

>>> be, it will add turbulence and reduce accuracy of the

>>> flow turbine.  I could

>>> not find a reference to such an addition in the FloScan

>>> site.  Further, in a

>>> 914 application, the meaningful flow regime is roughly 3

>>> - 7 gal/hour, well

>>> within the linear range of system. Does it really matter

>>> if the measured

>>> flow rate at idle power (less than 2 gal/hr) is slightly

>>> off?

>>>

>>> The only place where the flow rates are less than that

>>> is in the return line

>>> to the tank.  In my 912s application, the return flow is

>>> unmeasured, but

>>> very small, since my measured forward flow rate are

>>> right at what Rotax

>>> predicts in the manual. It is much less than the LAA

>>> posited rate of 0.8

>>> gal/hr through the 0.35mm orifice.This was after I

>>> independently

>>> calibrated my Floscan at three different flow rates.

>>> Perhaps the LAA

>>> used a higher than Rotax max pressure head of 5 psi

>>> through the orifice?

>>> The slight apparent increase in fuel flow rate (by not

>>> measuring the return

>>> flow and subtracting it in the  totalizer) seems to me a

>>> a safety feature.

>>>

>>> BTW, any additional "jet" in the return line, if that is

>>> what you were

>>> contemplating is a direct violation of the engine

>>> install instructions for the

>>> 914 which requires a low resistance path bach to the

>>> tank after the

>>> pressure regulator.

>>>

>>> The return flow rate situation with the 914 may be a bit

>>> different than

>>> with the 912s, though the pressures and the return

>>> orifice are the same.

>>>

>>> I recognize that if the LAA tells you that you must have

>>> return flow measured, if measuring flow at all, you must

>>> comply.

>>>

>>> It is just my opinion that trying to measure flow rates

>>> under 0.5 gal/hr will

>>> be inherently inaccurate with the Floscan 201A in an

>>> aircraft environment

>>> and isnot worth the trouble and expense. On the other

>>> hand, many

>>> builders have this feature installed.

>>>

>>> Best of luck!

>>>

>>> --------

>>> Ira N224XS

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Read this topic online here:

>>>

>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408424#408424

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Un/Subscription,

>>> Forums!

>>> Admin.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>

 

 

Un/Subscription,

Forums!

Admin.

rampil

Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 870

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:20 pm Post subject: Re: Fuel Flow Meter

I defer to those with 914 experience!

_________________
Ira N224XS

jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:53 pm Post subject: Fuel Flow Meter

David, "I measured actual fuel flow (ran pump into a bucket) and 

determined it is 41 gph."

The maximum operating flow through the forward flow sensor would be 

slightly smaller than 41 gph - the difference between 300 hPa and 0 hPa 

in the pump diagram is between 1 and 2 gph.

I agree that the return flow is 0 (engine off) to 10 gph (115%) smaller 

than the forward flow.

Regards, Jan de Jong



On 9/11/2013 9:32 PM, David Joyce wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <davidjoyce(at)doctors.org.uk>



 Jan, I wonder whether he was measuring what came out of the pump, 

 rather than what came back through the return hose with the engine not 

 going,

 once the fuel had gone through the pressure release valve., which will 

 be quite a bit less I guess.

 Regards, David Joyce, G- XSDJ

 On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:24:13 +0200

  Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl> wrote:

> 

>

> I saved a message by Jim Butcher on a blue-mountain-avionics forum 

> where he reported measuring a flow of 41 gph into a bucket. The Rotax 

> 914 installation manual gives 30 gph as the rated flow for 1 pump at 

> 300 hPa (airbox at sea level pressure) to 25 gph at 1000 hPa (airbox 

> at 16000' with full boost). The second pump would increase this by a 

> small amount.

> Floscan 201A-6 seems marginal, 201B-6 seems better.

> I bought from Floscan 2 of type 231 ("marine use only"), similar to 

> 201B-6 but heavier (steel). And less expensive. And no fretting with 

> aluminium adapters...

> Alan, if you have a 914 I believe you might get the 914 installation 

> manual - it has a flow graph for the pump (Pierburg E1F no. 

> 7.21440.78.0).

> And you might check out the Floscan website. There are 2 aviation pages.

> Regards, Jan de Jong.

>

> On 9/11/2013 7:45 PM, Dean Seitz wrote:

>> 

>>

>> The 914 does not have a low flow rate. It pumps around 20 gal per 

>> hour from the tank and returns all of that minus what the engine 

>> used back to the tank. Feed is around 20 gal/hr and return is about 

>> 15 gal/hr at cruise. At idle it's almost 20 gal/hr return.

>>

>>

>> ---- David Joyce <davidjoyce(at)doctors.org.uk> wrote:

>>> 

>>> <davidjoyce(at)doctors.org.uk>

>>>

>>> Alan, I go along with that. My 914/twin Floscan set up has

>>> worked nicely without any sort of jet. The only relevant

>>> stipulation I can remember is that there should be a

>>> reasonable length of fairly straight hose leading into

>>> each Floscan as sharp corners will produce turbulence and

>>> false readings. One of the key points with the Floscan I

>>> believe is that even if its spinner jams it will not

>>> significantly impede flow. It seems a bad idea to put

>>> anything in the flow if you don't have to.

>>> Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ

>>>

>>>

>>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:31:34 -0700

>>>    "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> 

>>>> <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>

>>>>

>>>> Alan,

>>>>

>>>> Floscan makes 3 models of the 201 sender for varying

>>>> expected mean

>>>> flow rates of gasoline.  The appropriate unit for the

>>>> 914 is the 201A

>>>> model which handles 0.3 - 30 gal per hour.

>>>>

>>>> If a jet is added, at least in my imagination of what a

>>>> "jet" or orifice might

>>>> be, it will add turbulence and reduce accuracy of the

>>>> flow turbine.  I could

>>>> not find a reference to such an addition in the FloScan

>>>> site.  Further, in a

>>>> 914 application, the meaningful flow regime is roughly 3

>>>> - 7 gal/hour, well

>>>> within the linear range of system. Does it really matter

>>>> if the measured

>>>> flow rate at idle power (less than 2 gal/hr) is slightly

>>>> off?

>>>>

>>>> The only place where the flow rates are less than that

>>>> is in the return line

>>>> to the tank.  In my 912s application, the return flow is

>>>> unmeasured, but

>>>> very small, since my measured forward flow rate are

>>>> right at what Rotax

>>>> predicts in the manual. It is much less than the LAA

>>>> posited rate of 0.8

>>>> gal/hr through the 0.35mm orifice.This was after I

>>>> independently

>>>> calibrated my Floscan at three different flow rates.

>>>> Perhaps the LAA

>>>> used a higher than Rotax max pressure head of 5 psi

>>>> through the orifice?

>>>> The slight apparent increase in fuel flow rate (by not

>>>> measuring the return

>>>> flow and subtracting it in the  totalizer) seems to me a

>>>> a safety feature.

>>>>

>>>> BTW, any additional "jet" in the return line, if that is

>>>> what you were

>>>> contemplating is a direct violation of the engine

>>>> install instructions for the

>>>> 914 which requires a low resistance path bach to the

>>>> tank after the

>>>> pressure regulator.

>>>>

>>>> The return flow rate situation with the 914 may be a bit

>>>> different than

>>>> with the 912s, though the pressures and the return

>>>> orifice are the same.

>>>>

>>>> I recognize that if the LAA tells you that you must have

>>>> return flow measured, if measuring flow at all, you must

>>>> comply.

>>>>

>>>> It is just my opinion that trying to measure flow rates

>>>> under 0.5 gal/hr will

>>>> be inherently inaccurate with the Floscan 201A in an

>>>> aircraft environment

>>>> and isnot worth the trouble and expense. On the other

>>>> hand, many

>>>> builders have this feature installed.

>>>>

>>>> Best of luck!

>>>>

>>>> --------

>>>> Ira N224XS

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Read this topic online here:

>>>>

>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408424#408424

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Un/Subscription,

>>>> Forums!

>>>> Admin.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

> Un/Subscription,

> Forums!

> Admin.

>

Alan Carter

Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 378
Location: Kent, England.

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:40 am Post subject: Re: Fuel Flow Meter

Hello All.

Sorry but I may have got into a bit of a muddle over this.

1. At LAA Show Rotax Stand, said the flow rate being pumped around the system on a 914 was about 100 Ltr/Hr.and my sender could cope with measuring up to  136 an hour.

Does not fit in with what the Forum are saying, but maybe the bods on the Rotax Stand have it wrong.  



2. On Advice from the Rotax Stand, and the MGL Stand, I purchased the

Flowscan  "A" model 0 to 30 gallons and hour, ("B" modal was 0 to 60 Gph) for larger engines.



3. The MGL instructions referring to installing these  in line Jets before the sender, which it clearly states, but give no information on,

I believe may be only relating too, and with installing a MGL Flow Sender,!!

However I think the whole lot is very poor with the instruction, and what Sender to use.



Rotax Stand, Rotax don,t approve of any Flow sender being install in the fuel line,



Regards .

Alan

rparigoris

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 797

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:02 am Post subject: Fuel Flow Meter

Hi Group 

 	Curiosity question, has anyone had a Flowscan fuel flow sender fail because of stale auto fuel? Somehow I think I remember pulses are created optically, not magnetically and was always wondering if stale fuel would cloud the optics. If the optics do cloud, is there any procedure to clean? 

 	Ron Parigoris    [quote][b]

Alan Carter

Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 378
Location: Kent, England.

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:33 am Post subject: Re: Fuel Flow Meter

Hi All.

MGL. Instructions. It is highly recommended a small jet is installed on engines with low fuel flows.

The sender is delivered with a small jet that can be installed in the flow senders inlet, Installation of this jet is recommended with engine with fuel flows less than 30 gal/Hr, this would apply to most small 2 stroke and 4 stroke engines.

The FF-1 is shipped with the fuel flow sender calibration set for the jet installation, in a good installation you can expect an accuracy of +- 3% you can calibrate the sender yourself to a higher degree of accuracy if you desire.



So it the FF-1 , mentioned here, so what about other makes of senders,

does this only apply to the FF-1 ?????



Alan

Paul M 383

Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 97
Location: United Kingdom

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:53 am Post subject: Re: Fuel Flow Meter

Maybe try the MGL Knowledge Base http://www.mglavionics.com/kb/ or ask the MGL people if they have install instructions specifically for the Floscan sensor?



HTH

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum