Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Fuel Return Line Location?

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 Return Line Location?
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

flyboy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 6:15 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

We're planning on EFII, so we need a full-sized return line for both

sides.  Just now starting work on the fuel tank, and I'd like to get

this sorted before we get too far.  I've spent awhile searching, and

have only managed to find lots of places not to put the port for the

fuel return line.  Apparently it can interfere with both the wing spar

and the aileron return line.  Does anyone have a clear diagram of where

I can safely put it? A hint about which flange/fittings to buy would be

greatly appreciated as well.  Thanks in advance!



Berck

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 7:08 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Berck,



I am using an EFII system as well. Just a thought, but I put a normal L/R/Both/Off fuel valve on the supply side (AN6) and an AN6 size return line that Splits to each tank. After the "T" I put a simple Parker petroleum 1/4 turn ball valve on each side just before the tank. Now, I can shut one or the other return valves off, turn on the fuel pump, and transfer fuel on the ground. It can also be done in the air (with caution of course) to trim fuel. 



Note: I'm building a Bushcaddy not an rv10. 



I can send pics if you would like. 



Justin

 



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Apr 19, 2015, at 18:10, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 We're planning on EFII, so we need a full-sized return line for both

 sides.  Just now starting work on the fuel tank, and I'd like to get

 this sorted before we get too far.  I've spent awhile searching, and

 have only managed to find lots of places not to put the port for the

 fuel return line.  Apparently it can interfere with both the wing spar

 and the aileron return line.  Does anyone have a clear diagram of where

 I can safely put it? A hint about which flange/fittings to buy would be

 greatly appreciated as well.  Thanks in advance!

 

 Berck

Dave Saylor

Joined: 11 Jan 2015
Posts: 209
Location: GILROY, CA

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 7:36 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Hi Justin,

You are of course free to build whatever fuel system you like, but the one you described has some issues.

I think you'd be better off with a L-R-OFF duplex fuel valve that routes return fuel to the same tank you're burning from.Â  You're headed towards a scenario that makes it pretty easy to mismanage the fuel:

You could return to a full tank and waste fuel overboard;

You could unport an empty tank in "BOTH" and starve the engine;

You could turn off both return valves and...I don't know what, but it seems bad.

Please consider a simpler system.Â  Caution never goes as far as we think it will.

--Dave

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)> wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)>

 Berck,

 I am using an EFII system as well. Just a thought, but I put a normal L/R/Both/Off fuel valve on the supply side (AN6) and an AN6 size return line that Splits to each tank. After the "T" I put a simple Parker petroleum 1/4 turn ball valve on each side just before the tank. Now, I can shut one or the other return valves off, turn on the fuel pump, and transfer fuel on the ground. It can also be done in the air (with caution of course) to trim fuel.

 Note: I'm building a Bushcaddy not an rv10.

 I can send pics if you would like.

 Justin

 > On Apr 19, 2015, at 18:10, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

 >

 > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)>

 >

 > We're planning on EFII, so we need a full-sized return line for both

 > sides.Â  Just now starting work on the fuel tank, and I'd like to get

 > this sorted before we get too far.Â  I've spent awhile searching, and

 > have only managed to find lots of places not to put the port for the

 > fuel return line.Â  Apparently it can interfere with both the wing spar

 > and the aileron return line.Â  Does anyone have a clear diagram of where

 > I can safely put it? A hint about which flange/fittings to buy would be

 > greatly appreciated as well.Â  Thanks in advance!

 >

 > Berck

 >

 >

 >

 >

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

 Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 [b]

_________________
--Dave
KWVI

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?

Since he's building a high wing I don't think unporting on both is an issue.

But I agree with your other comments.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

flyboy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:48 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

I'm leaning toward a duplex valve, but I'm also considering two fuel

valves, one for the source and one for the return.  This isn't that

different than jets I've flown, and I think I can handle the

"complexity".  It's cheaper and it gives the advantage of being able to

transfer fuel, which might come in handy.  Regardless, none of the

answers so far tell me where to tap the return line:)

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:55 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Dave,

I understand your concern and welcome any ideas and thoughts that may be cause for issues.  The issues you brought up have been considered and here is what I have come up with.  Note that I have spoken with many others about this as well, but it doesnâ€™t mean that we arenâ€™t missing something.



The normal configuration (covered on the before take-off checklist) would be both return valves open and the fuel valve on both. The transfer of fuel during refueling operations (while the aircraft is on floats) is one reason for this setup, and the other is the ability to draw fuel from both tanks simultaneously.



â€œYou could return to a full tank and waste fuel overboardâ€ - This scenario could present itself, but would cause an over-pressure situation due to the vent size.  The digital engine monitor senses fuel pressure and sounds an audio and visual alarm when it is either too high or too low.



â€œYou could unport an empty tank into â€œBOTHâ€ and starve the engineâ€ - This scenario has also been tested. With one tank empty, one tank full, and the selector to â€œBOTHâ€, there was still full fuel pressure.  This may be due to the high-wing design and the fuel system plumbing called for by Robert Paisley of EFII. 



â€œYou could turn off both return valves andâ€¦ I donâ€™t know what, but it seems badâ€ - It would cause the fuel to back up at the valves, and the fuel pressure would increase to the maximum that the GL393 fuel pump would put out. This would be 105 PSI at 10 Gallons per hour.  Not sustainable, but not harmful to the injectors or fuel lines for short periods of time.  Again, the Engine Monitor will alarm when the fuel pressure begins to increase.  The fuel system has been tested to the fuel pump stall pressure of 115 PSI and found to have no leaks.



I fly C-130s and King Air 200s and they both have fuel systems that are far more complicated.  Flying aircraft will always require thought. With the duplex fuel valve, the pilot must remember to switch the fuel valves when it is necessary.  I like the idea of being able to operate in a normal scenario with the fuel valve on both, and have the fuel is return to both tanks.  If the situation arises, I can put the fuel where it is needed and I have a good monitoring system that will alert me if I make a mistake in the positioning of fuel valves. The return valves do not have a position that will cause the engine to quit turning.



Thoughts?



Thanks for your input.



Respectfully,



Justin



 	  Quote: 	
		  On Apr 19, 2015, at 7:30 PM, David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com (saylor.dave(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

Hi Justin,

You are of course free to build whatever fuel system you like, but the one you described has some issues.



I think you'd be better off with a L-R-OFF duplex fuel valve that routes return fuel to the same tank you're burning from.  You're headed towards a scenario that makes it pretty easy to mismanage the fuel:



You could return to a full tank and waste fuel overboard;



You could unport an empty tank in "BOTH" and starve the engine;



You could turn off both return valves and...I don't know what, but it seems bad.



Please consider a simpler system.  Caution never goes as far as we think it will.



--Dave



On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)>  Berck,  I am using an EFII system as well. Just a thought, but I put a normal L/R/Both/Off fuel valve on the supply side (AN6) and an AN6 size return line that Splits to each tank. After the "T" I put a simple Parker petroleum 1/4 turn ball valve on each side just before the tank. Now, I can shut one or the other return valves off, turn on the fuel pump, and transfer fuel on the ground. It can also be done in the air (with caution of course) to trim fuel.  Note: I'm building a Bushcaddy not an rv10.  I can send pics if you would like.  Justin   > On Apr 19, 2015, at 18:10, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote: > > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> > > We're planning on EFII, so we need a full-sized return line for both > sides.  Just now starting work on the fuel tank, and I'd like to get > this sorted before we get too far.  I've spent awhile searching, and > have only managed to find lots of places not to put the port for the > fuel return line.  Apparently it can interfere with both the wing spar > and the aileron return line.  Does anyone have a clear diagram of where > I can safely put it? A hint about which flange/fittings to buy would be > greatly appreciated as well.  Thanks in advance! > > Berck > > > >   =========== -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ===========  FORUMS - _blank">http://forums.matronics.com =========== b Site -           -Matt Dralle, List Admin. target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ===========    	




   	  Quote: 	
		  



class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

class="">http://forums.matronics.com

class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	


	




 [quote][b]

kearney

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 563

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:35 am Post subject: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?

Bereck



I had a similar setup to what your plans. Until a few months had a different engine (Subie) which I replaced with a IO540. I still use the return line for my purge valvle.



I used an Andair duplex valve that returns fuel to the originating tank. With full tanks, you will pump a lot of gas overboard if the tanks / return line is mismatched. Running dual lines to the tanks is not a problem.



I used an AN832 bulkhead union, mounted similar to that shown in the tank plans, to make the connection. I also a flange riveted to the inside of the tank to keep the union from turning when the nut is applied to the outside. Again see the tank plans. Lots of proseal made sure nothing leaked.

You probably want to mount the fitting high and to the aft of the tank so that you do not interfere with the sender. If possible, you should run a tube from the fitting through the first tank baffle so that the returned fuel is dumped into the second tank cell. This allows it to cool and mix with other fuel before being reused. All of this is best done before the tanks are sealed. If the aren't, you can do everything (except perhaps for the fuel line to the second cell) through the fuel sender hole, it is just a bit tricky. This is what I did - I wasn't able to get the fuel back to the second cell but only to outboard side of the first.



All my fuel lines in the tunnel were braided steel. Under the seats I had to go back to aluminum because of how the lines were run. My fuel filters are mounted in the wing roots - one for each tank.



I completely agree with Dave's recommendation -keep it simple! You don't want to put yourself in a position where a simple error can lead to heartache and a bent air frame.



Cheers



Les

carl.froehlich(at)verizon
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:53 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Berck,



I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when building in case I

ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached).  This is the same

location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.



Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the fitting in about

the same area as the vent line connection you should not have an issue.  I'd

keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel pick up -

should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as compared to the

hotter return fuel.  



Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?



Carl



--

fuel_sender.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

223.9 KB

Viewed:

11318 Time(s)

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:00 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Just keep in mind that what may be appropriate and work fine in a high 

wing aircraft is not suitable for a low wing aircraft. IMHO there is 

little to no need to transfer fuel between wings on a single engine 

aircraft. Managing fuel burn can easily keep the wings balanced, given 

that each wing only holds about 2.5 hours of fuel. The RV-10 wing 

arrangement is no place for a selector with a "both" position. It is too 

easy for someone scanning the archives of this list to get the wrong 

idea by a discussion of what works on a totally different airframe.



On 4/19/2015 9:50 PM, Justin Jones wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Dave,



 I understand your concern and welcome any ideas and thoughts that may 

 be cause for issues.  The issues you brought up have been considered 

 and here is what I have come up with.  Note that I have spoken with 

 many others about this as well, but it doesnâ€™t mean that we arenâ€™t 

 missing something.



 The normal configuration (covered on the before take-off checklist) 

 would be both return valves open and the fuel valve on both. The 

 transfer of fuel during refueling operations (while the aircraft is on 

 floats) is one reason for this setup, and the other is the ability to 

 draw fuel from both tanks simultaneously.



 â€œYou could return to a full tank and waste fuel overboardâ€ - This 

 scenario could present itself, but would cause an over-pressure 

 situation due to the vent size.  The digital engine monitor senses 

 fuel pressure and sounds an audio and visual alarm when it is either 

 too high or too low.



 â€œYou could unport an empty tank into â€œBOTHâ€ and starve the engineâ€ - 

 This scenario has also been tested. With one tank empty, one tank 

 full, and the selector to â€œBOTHâ€, there was still full fuel pressure. 

  This may be due to the high-wing design and the fuel system plumbing 

 called for by Robert Paisley of EFII.



 â€œYou could turn off both return valves andâ€¦ I donâ€™t know what, but it 

 seems badâ€ - It would cause the fuel to back up at the valves, and the 

 fuel pressure would increase to the maximum that the GL393 fuel pump 

 would put out. This would be 105 PSI at 10 Gallons per hour.  Not 

 sustainable, but not harmful to the injectors or fuel lines for short 

 periods of time.  Again, the Engine Monitor will alarm when the fuel 

 pressure begins to increase.  The fuel system has been tested to the 

 fuel pump stall pressure of 115 PSI and found to have no leaks.



 I fly C-130s and King Air 200s and they both have fuel systems that 

 are far more complicated.  Flying aircraft will always require 

 thought. With the duplex fuel valve, the pilot must remember to switch 

 the fuel valves when it is necessary.  I like the idea of being able 

 to operate in a normal scenario with the fuel valve on both, and have 

 the fuel is return to both tanks.  If the situation arises, I can put 

 the fuel where it is needed and I have a good monitoring system that 

 will alert me if I make a mistake in the positioning of fuel valves. 

 The return valves do not have a position that will cause the engine to 

 quit turning.



 Thoughts?



 Thanks for your input.



 Respectfully,



 Justin

> On Apr 19, 2015, at 7:30 PM, David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com 

> <mailto:saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>> wrote:

>

> Hi Justin,

>

> You are of course free to build whatever fuel system you like, but 

> the one you described has some issues.

>

> I think you'd be better off with a L-R-OFF duplex fuel valve that 

> routes return fuel to the same tank you're burning from.  You're 

> headed towards a scenario that makes it pretty easy to mismanage the 

> fuel:

>

> You could return to a full tank and waste fuel overboard;

>

> You could unport an empty tank in "BOTH" and starve the engine;

>

> You could turn off both return valves and...I don't know what, but it 

> seems bad.

>

> Please consider a simpler system.  Caution never goes as far as we 

> think it will.

>

> --Dave

>

> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Justin Jones 

> <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com <mailto:jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>> wrote:

>

>     

>     <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com <mailto:jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>>

>

>     Berck,

>

>     I am using an EFII system as well. Just a thought, but I put a

>     normal L/R/Both/Off fuel valve on the supply side (AN6) and an

>     AN6 size return line that Splits to each tank. After the "T" I

>     put a simple Parker petroleum 1/4 turn ball valve on each side

>     just before the tank. Now, I can shut one or the other return

>     valves off, turn on the fuel pump, and transfer fuel on the

>     ground. It can also be done in the air (with caution of course)

>     to trim fuel.

>

>     Note: I'm building a Bushcaddy not an rv10.

>

>     I can send pics if you would like.

>

>     Justin

>     > On Apr 19, 2015, at 18:10, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com

>     <mailto:flyboy(at)gmail.com>> wrote:

>     >

>     > 

>     <flyboy(at)gmail.com <mailto:flyboy(at)gmail.com>>

>     >

>     > We're planning on EFII, so we need a full-sized return line for

>     both

>     > sides.  Just now starting work on the fuel tank, and I'd like

>     to get

>     > this sorted before we get too far.  I've spent awhile

>     searching, and

>     > have only managed to find lots of places not to put the port

>     for the

>     > fuel return line.  Apparently it can interfere with both the

>     wing spar

>     > and the aileron return line.  Does anyone have a clear diagram

>     of where

>     > I can safely put it? A hint about which flange/fittings to buy

>     would be

>     > greatly appreciated as well.  Thanks in advance!

>     >

>     > Berck

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     ===========

>     -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

>     ===========

>     FORUMS -

>     _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

>     ===========

>     b Site -

>               -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

>     target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

>     ===========

>

>

> *

>

> class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

> class="">http://forums.matronics.com

> class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

>

> *



 *

 *

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:16 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

I think I'm flying Phase 1 in the first RV-10 with the full EFII system. I'm not sure how much fuel gets returned to the tank, but it is significant. We have a double stack Andair selector so it returns to the same tank that it is pulling from. I wouldn't have it any other way. It is so easy to do it this way that returning to one tank all the time, or having to process which tank you are pulling from and returning to would, IMHO, way over complicate things. 



As for the fuel return location, we put it forward in the bay and up fairly high. It's just a bulkhead fitting with a nut and ProSeal to seal it. If the tanks were open, we might have put in an NPT female bung instead, but this works just fine. 



There has been no problem at all with fuel vapor lock. I don't think it is necessary to return the fuel to the second bay. My fear if doing that would be the possibility of getting low on fuel and starting to suck air because you are dumping the fuel too far outboard. I don't know the exact effect, but it would expect that would effectively reduce your useable fuel level even more than it does by returning it to the first bay. 



Btw, the EFII system does add a lot of necessary complexity, dual bus, dual alternators, dual electric fuel pumps, dual ECU's, etc. It took a while to get up the nerve to be the test pilot on it. New airframe, new engine, new style ignition and injection system, etc. I will say, however, that it has been absolutely rock solid stable for all 10 hours so far. I need to put 15-20 more hours on it the week after Sun-N-Fun, but that shouldn't be a problem. In my mind, the jury is still out on the system, but they are starting to trickle in with a not-a-bad-system verdict. 



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

352-427-0285

jesse(at)saintaviation.com



Sent from my iPad



[quote] On Apr 20, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> wrote:

 

 Berck,

 

 I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when building in case I

 ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached).  This is the same

 location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.

 

 Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the fitting in about

 the same area as the vent line connection you should not have an issue.  I'd

 keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel pick up -

 should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as compared to the

 hotter return fuel.  

 

 Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?

 

 Carl

 

 --

flyboy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:04 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Carl- thanks so much for the picture.Â  I'll plan on the same location.Â  As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet, and probably won't until we source an engine.Â  Hoping available systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition setups.



Jesse- Thanks for the heads up.Â  Glad to hear that one is flying already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not using it.Â  I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me.Â  This is, I think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery system from the 1950's.



Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc, would be greatly appreciated.

As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered "overly complex." Â It's the difference of switching two valves instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations.Â  Sure, it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate knowledge of the fuel return tank.Â  I'm not really concerned about it either way.Â  The only reason to want to transfer fuel would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around.Â  Since I won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return tank if I wind up with two valves.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net (carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net)> wrote:

[quote]Berck,

 

 I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when building in case I

 ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached).Â  This is the same

 location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.

 

 Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the fitting in about

 the same area as the vent line connection you should not have an issue.Â  I'd

 keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel pick up -

 should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as compared to the

 hotter return fuel.

 

 Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?

 

 Carl

 

 --

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:41 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

I think you're kidding yourself if you think there is no mixture to worry about. I spend more time on the mixture knob so far than I do on the mixture control with a standard system. It's possible that once you get things all tuned up the way you want them you may not use it as much, but I really don't use it that much on a standard system either. I lean a little as I climb, then I set power, rpm and fuel flow for cruise. 

I would imagine if you are burnin 12gph, you are probably returning at least that much to the tank, if not more. I wouldn't want to have to mess with picking a return tank separate from a feed tank. There are warnings when your fuel in a tank gets low, but I don't know of a warning saying your tank is getting too full. If you get busy or get bored and aren't managing fuel with a normal system, you will get something yelling at you saying you're getting into the red on the draw tank, but it won't happen if you start to pump it overboard through the return tank vent. 

I agree that electric ignition is tried and true in cars, but so far there are a total of 10 fleet hours in the RV-10 with a full EFII system and thousands and thousands with mags and standard fuel injection. Far from a no-brainier in my book unless you are talking the other way around. 



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

352-427-0285

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)

Sent from my iPad



On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]Carl- thanks so much for the picture.  I'll plan on the same location.  As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet, and probably won't until we source an engine.  Hoping available systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition setups.



Jesse- Thanks for the heads up.  Glad to hear that one is flying already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not using it.  I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me.  This is, I think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery system from the 1950's.



Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc, would be greatly appreciated.

As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered "overly complex."  It's the difference of switching two valves instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations.  Sure, it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate knowledge of the fuel return tank.  I'm not really concerned about it either way.  The only reason to want to transfer fuel would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around.  Since I won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return tank if I wind up with two valves.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net (carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net)> wrote:

[quote]Berck,

 

 I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when building in case I

 ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached).  This is the same

 location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.

 

 Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the fitting in about

 the same area as the vent line connection you should not have an issue.  I'd

 keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel pick up -

 should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as compared to the

 hotter return fuel.

 

 Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?

 

 Carl

 

 --

flyboy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:17 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Oh, I just realized you meant the EFII-supplied mixture knob...Â  Which means that programming a solid fuel hands-off fuel map takes some time?



On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]Since the fuel is metered directly at the injectors by the ECU, why do you have to mess with the mixture knob?Â  The EFII website says, "Automatic mixture control (no mixture knob to fool with)", but you're saying that's not entirely true?Â  Is the issue that you're compensating for a lack of initial ECU programming by altering the fuel pressure until the you get the programming dialed in?Â  Since the system has a MAP and IAT sensor, it seems like it should be able to meter correctly without any input from the pilot.Â  It doesn't look like Â the EFII includes an oxygen sensor, though?



Any idea if there are plans to fly this plane on automotive gasoline?

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)> wrote:

[quote]I think you're kidding yourself if you think there is no mixture to worry about. I spend more time on the mixture knob so far than I do on the mixture control with a standard system. It's possible that once you get things all tuned up the way you want them you may not use it as much, but I really don't use it that much on a standard system either. I lean a little as I climb, then I set power, rpm and fuel flow for cruise.Â 

I would imagine if you are burnin 12gph, you are probably returning at least that much to the tank, if not more. I wouldn't want to have to mess with picking a return tank separate from a feed tank. There are warnings when your fuel in a tank gets low, but I don't know of a warning saying your tank is getting too full. If you get busy or get bored and aren't managing fuel with a normal system, you will get something yelling at you saying you're getting into the red on the draw tank, but it won't happen if you start to pump it overboard through the return tank vent.Â 

I agree that electric ignition is tried and true in cars, but so far there are a total of 10 fleet hours in the RV-10 with a full EFII system and thousands and thousands with mags and standard fuel injection. Far from a no-brainier in my book unless you are talking the other way around.Â 



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

[url=tel:352-427-0285]352-427-0285[/url]

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)

Sent from my iPad



On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:





[quote]Carl- thanks so much for the picture.Â  I'll plan on the same location.Â  As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet, and probably won't until we source an engine.Â  Hoping available systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition setups.



Jesse- Thanks for the heads up.Â  Glad to hear that one is flying already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not using it.Â  I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me.Â  This is, I think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery system from the 1950's.



Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc, would be greatly appreciated.

As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered "overly complex." Â It's the difference of switching two valves instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations.Â  Sure, it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate knowledge of the fuel return tank.Â  I'm not really concerned about it either way.Â  The only reason to want to transfer fuel would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around.Â  Since I won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return tank if I wind up with two valves.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net (carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net)> wrote:

[quote]Berck,

 

 I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when building in case I

 ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached).Â  This is the same

 location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.

 

 Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the fitting in about

 the same area as the vent line connection you should not have an issue.Â  I'd

 keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel pick up -

 should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as compared to the

 hotter return fuel.

 

 Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?

 

 Carl

 

 --

carl.froehlich(at)verizon
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:40 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

WRT auto fuel, while the injection system may be ok with it the rest of the system is problematic if you are unable to get ethanol free premium unleaded.Â  If you can get this fuel the IO-540 D4A5 is already approved for its use. 

 

Years ago a â€œEFII likeâ€ company wanted to use my RV-8A as a beta for their single lever electronic fuel injection system.Â  After a lot of research it became obvious that how I wanted to run the plane (LOP to my set point) was not possible â€“ I would have only whatever the software wanted me to have for mixture.Â  That and they wanted a boat load of cash for the system and my testing/fixing time for free killed any interest I had.

 

Perhaps this EFII product has advanced from that of my experience.Â  On the ignition side, Iâ€™ll be bolting on the new 200 series P-mags in June (I hope).Â  I have a lot of hours with P-mags on the RV-8A and they have performed flawlessly.

 

Any ballpark number on what this system will cost?

 

Carl

 

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Berck E. Nash

Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 12:55 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?



 

Since the fuel is metered directly at the injectors by the ECU, why do you have to mess with the mixture knob?  The EFII website says, "Automatic mixture control (no mixture knob to fool with)", but you're saying that's not entirely true?  Is the issue that you're compensating for a lack of initial ECU programming by altering the fuel pressure until the you get the programming dialed in?  Since the system has a MAP and IAT sensor, it seems like it should be able to meter correctly without any input from the pilot.  It doesn't look like  the EFII includes an oxygen sensor, though?



Any idea if there are plans to fly this plane on automotive gasoline?

 

 

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)> wrote:

I think you're kidding yourself if you think there is no mixture to worry about. I spend more time on the mixture knob so far than I do on the mixture control with a standard system. It's possible that once you get things all tuned up the way you want them you may not use it as much, but I really don't use it that much on a standard system either. I lean a little as I climb, then I set power, rpm and fuel flow for cruise. 



 



I would imagine if you are burnin 12gph, you are probably returning at least that much to the tank, if not more. I wouldn't want to have to mess with picking a return tank separate from a feed tank. There are warnings when your fuel in a tank gets low, but I don't know of a warning saying your tank is getting too full. If you get busy or get bored and aren't managing fuel with a normal system, you will get something yelling at you saying you're getting into the red on the draw tank, but it won't happen if you start to pump it overboard through the return tank vent. 



 



I agree that electric ignition is tried and true in cars, but so far there are a total of 10 fleet hours in the RV-10 with a full EFII system and thousands and thousands with mags and standard fuel injection. Far from a no-brainier in my book unless you are talking the other way around. 

Jesse Saint



Saint Aviation, Inc.



[url=tel:352-427-0285]352-427-0285[/url]



jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)



 



Sent from my iPad

On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]

Carl- thanks so much for the picture.  I'll plan on the same location.  As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet, and probably won't until we source an engine.  Hoping available systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition setups.



Jesse- Thanks for the heads up.  Glad to hear that one is flying already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not using it.  I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me.  This is, I think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery system from the 1950's.



Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc, would be greatly appreciated.

 



As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered "overly complex."  It's the difference of switching two valves instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations.  Sure, it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate knowledge of the fuel return tank.  I'm not really concerned about it either way.  The only reason to want to transfer fuel would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around.  Since I won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return tank if I wind up with two valves.

 

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net (carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net)> wrote:

Berck,



I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when building in case I

ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached).  This is the same

location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.



Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the fitting in about

the same area as the vent line connection you should not have an issue.  I'd

keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel pick up -

should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as compared to the

hotter return fuel.



Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?



Carl



--

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:04 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Right, but there are still mixture settings that differ for different cruise powers and economy versus high speed cruise, just like any engine. 



Jesse SaintSaint Aviation, Inc. 

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)

C: 352-427-0285

F: 815-377-3694

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]Oh, I just realized you meant the EFII-supplied mixture knob...  Which means that programming a solid fuel hands-off fuel map takes some time?



On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]Since the fuel is metered directly at the injectors by the ECU, why do you have to mess with the mixture knob?  The EFII website says, "Automatic mixture control (no mixture knob to fool with)", but you're saying that's not entirely true?  Is the issue that you're compensating for a lack of initial ECU programming by altering the fuel pressure until the you get the programming dialed in?  Since the system has a MAP and IAT sensor, it seems like it should be able to meter correctly without any input from the pilot.  It doesn't look like  the EFII includes an oxygen sensor, though?



Any idea if there are plans to fly this plane on automotive gasoline?

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)> wrote:

[quote]I think you're kidding yourself if you think there is no mixture to worry about. I spend more time on the mixture knob so far than I do on the mixture control with a standard system. It's possible that once you get things all tuned up the way you want them you may not use it as much, but I really don't use it that much on a standard system either. I lean a little as I climb, then I set power, rpm and fuel flow for cruise. 

I would imagine if you are burnin 12gph, you are probably returning at least that much to the tank, if not more. I wouldn't want to have to mess with picking a return tank separate from a feed tank. There are warnings when your fuel in a tank gets low, but I don't know of a warning saying your tank is getting too full. If you get busy or get bored and aren't managing fuel with a normal system, you will get something yelling at you saying you're getting into the red on the draw tank, but it won't happen if you start to pump it overboard through the return tank vent. 

I agree that electric ignition is tried and true in cars, but so far there are a total of 10 fleet hours in the RV-10 with a full EFII system and thousands and thousands with mags and standard fuel injection. Far from a no-brainier in my book unless you are talking the other way around. 



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

[url=tel:352-427-0285]352-427-0285[/url]

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)

Sent from my iPad



On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:





[quote]Carl- thanks so much for the picture.  I'll plan on the same location.  As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet, and probably won't until we source an engine.  Hoping available systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition setups.



Jesse- Thanks for the heads up.  Glad to hear that one is flying already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not using it.  I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me.  This is, I think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery system from the 1950's.



Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc, would be greatly appreciated.

As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered "overly complex."  It's the difference of switching two valves instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations.  Sure, it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate knowledge of the fuel return tank.  I'm not really concerned about it either way.  The only reason to want to transfer fuel would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around.  Since I won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return tank if I wind up with two valves.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net (carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net)> wrote:

[quote]Berck,

 

 I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when building in case I

 ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached).  This is the same

 location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.

 

 Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the fitting in about

 the same area as the vent line connection you should not have an issue.  I'd

 keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel pick up -

 should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as compared to the

 hotter return fuel.

 

 Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?

 

 Carl

 

 --

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:47 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

I assume you are aware that leaded fuel such as 100LL will destroy an 

oxygen sensor in less than one tank of fuel?

I seriously doubt that the EFII system and the dual everything required 

to ensure it has power to work will save enough fuel to have a payback 

in any reasonable time frame. Mixture management on conventional fuel 

injection with magnetos is childs play once you get the system 

delivering equal fuel mixture to each cylinder. While autos are using 

less gas and producing more power, they are doing it with higher 

compression ratios, knock sensors and thousands of hours of dyno time. 

Most of the incremental benefit comes from electronic ignition, not 

electronic timed fuel injection. Feel free to experiment, but don't 

expect to get equal power on half the gas, or half the workload, for 

equal investment.



On 4/20/2015 9:55 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:

[quote] Since the fuel is metered directly at the injectors by the ECU, why do 

 you have to mess with the mixture knob?  The EFII website says, 

 "Automatic mixture control (no mixture knob to fool with)", but you're 

 saying that's not entirely true?  Is the issue that you're 

 compensating for a lack of initial ECU programming by altering the 

 fuel pressure until the you get the programming dialed in?  Since the 

 system has a MAP and IAT sensor, it seems like it should be able to 

 meter correctly without any input from the pilot.  It doesn't look 

 like  the EFII includes an oxygen sensor, though?



 Any idea if there are plans to fly this plane on automotive gasoline?





 On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com 

 <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com>> wrote:



     I think you're kidding yourself if you think there is no mixture

     to worry about. I spend more time on the mixture knob so far than

     I do on the mixture control with a standard system. It's possible

     that once you get things all tuned up the way you want them you

     may not use it as much, but I really don't use it that much on a

     standard system either. I lean a little as I climb, then I set

     power, rpm and fuel flow for cruise.



     I would imagine if you are burnin 12gph, you are probably

     returning at least that much to the tank, if not more. I wouldn't

     want to have to mess with picking a return tank separate from a

     feed tank. There are warnings when your fuel in a tank gets low,

     but I don't know of a warning saying your tank is getting too

     full. If you get busy or get bored and aren't managing fuel with a

     normal system, you will get something yelling at you saying you're

     getting into the red on the draw tank, but it won't happen if you

     start to pump it overboard through the return tank vent.



     I agree that electric ignition is tried and true in cars, but so

     far there are a total of 10 fleet hours in the RV-10 with a full

     EFII system and thousands and thousands with mags and standard

     fuel injection. Far from a no-brainier in my book unless you are

     talking the other way around.



     Jesse Saint

     Saint Aviation, Inc.

     352-427-0285 <tel:352-427-0285>

     jesse(at)saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com>



     Sent from my iPad



     On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com

     <mailto:flyboy(at)gmail.com>> wrote:



>     Carl- thanks so much for the picture.  I'll plan on the same

>     location.  As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet,

>     and probably won't until we source an engine. Hoping available

>     systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates

>     it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition

>     setups.

>

>     Jesse- Thanks for the heads up.  Glad to hear that one is flying

>     already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After

>     seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not

>     using it.  I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical

>     system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic

>     ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so

>     electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me.  This is, I

>     think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to

>     use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an

>     airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery

>     system from the 1950's.

>

>     Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc,

>     would be greatly appreciated.

>

>     As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems

>     a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered

>     "overly complex."  It's the difference of switching two valves

>     instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations.  Sure,

>     it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more

>     complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate

>     knowledge of the fuel return tank.  I'm not really concerned

>     about it either way.  The only reason to want to transfer fuel

>     would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground

>     quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around.  Since I

>     won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture

>     control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return

>     tank if I wind up with two valves.

>

>     On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich

>     <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net <mailto:carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>>

>     wrote:

>

>         Berck,

>

>         I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when

>         building in case I

>         ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached).  This

>         is the same

>         location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.

>

>         Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the

>         fitting in about

>         the same area as the vent line connection you should not have

>         an issue.  I'd

>         keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel

>         pick up -

>         should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as

>         compared to the

>         hotter return fuel.

>

>         Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?

>

>         Carl

>

>         --

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 1:18 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

I purchased the dual ecu 4cyl system for $5970 with shipping. 



 



On Apr 20, 2015, at 09:37, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net (carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net)> wrote:

[quote]  <![endif]-->   <![endif]-->

WRT auto fuel, while the injection system may be ok with it the rest of the system is problematic if you are unable to get ethanol free premium unleaded.  If you can get this fuel the IO-540 D4A5 is already approved for its use. 

 

Years ago a â€œEFII likeâ€ company wanted to use my RV-8A as a beta for their single lever electronic fuel injection system.  After a lot of research it became obvious that how I wanted to run the plane (LOP to my set point) was not possible â€“ I would have only whatever the software wanted me to have for mixture.  That and they wanted a boat load of cash for the system and my testing/fixing time for free killed any interest I had.

 

Perhaps this EFII product has advanced from that of my experience.  On the ignition side, Iâ€™ll be bolting on the new 200 series P-mags in June (I hope).  I have a lot of hours with P-mags on the RV-8A and they have performed flawlessly.

 

Any ballpark number on what this system will cost?

 

Carl

 

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Berck E. Nash

Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 12:55 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Return Line Location?



 

Since the fuel is metered directly at the injectors by the ECU, why do you have to mess with the mixture knob?  The EFII website says, "Automatic mixture control (no mixture knob to fool with)", but you're saying that's not entirely true?  Is the issue that you're compensating for a lack of initial ECU programming by altering the fuel pressure until the you get the programming dialed in?  Since the system has a MAP and IAT sensor, it seems like it should be able to meter correctly without any input from the pilot.  It doesn't look like  the EFII includes an oxygen sensor, though?



Any idea if there are plans to fly this plane on automotive gasoline?

 

 

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)> wrote:

I think you're kidding yourself if you think there is no mixture to worry about. I spend more time on the mixture knob so far than I do on the mixture control with a standard system. It's possible that once you get things all tuned up the way you want them you may not use it as much, but I really don't use it that much on a standard system either. I lean a little as I climb, then I set power, rpm and fuel flow for cruise. 



 



I would imagine if you are burnin 12gph, you are probably returning at least that much to the tank, if not more. I wouldn't want to have to mess with picking a return tank separate from a feed tank. There are warnings when your fuel in a tank gets low, but I don't know of a warning saying your tank is getting too full. If you get busy or get bored and aren't managing fuel with a normal system, you will get something yelling at you saying you're getting into the red on the draw tank, but it won't happen if you start to pump it overboard through the return tank vent. 



 



I agree that electric ignition is tried and true in cars, but so far there are a total of 10 fleet hours in the RV-10 with a full EFII system and thousands and thousands with mags and standard fuel injection. Far from a no-brainier in my book unless you are talking the other way around. 

Jesse Saint



Saint Aviation, Inc.



[url=tel:352-427-0285]352-427-0285[/url]



jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)



 



Sent from my iPad

On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]

Carl- thanks so much for the picture.  I'll plan on the same location.  As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet, and probably won't until we source an engine.  Hoping available systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition setups.



Jesse- Thanks for the heads up.  Glad to hear that one is flying already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not using it.  I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me.  This is, I think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery system from the 1950's.



Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc, would be greatly appreciated.

 



As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered "overly complex."  It's the difference of switching two valves instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations.  Sure, it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate knowledge of the fuel return tank.  I'm not really concerned about it either way.  The only reason to want to transfer fuel would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around.  Since I won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return tank if I wind up with two valves.

 

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net (carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net)> wrote:

Berck,



I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when building in case I

ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached).  This is the same

location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.



Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the fitting in about

the same area as the vent line connection you should not have an issue.  I'd

keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel pick up -

should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as compared to the

hotter return fuel.



Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?



Carl



--

flyboy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:26 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Carl, your return line seems to be in the same general vicinity as

these, and they say they have spar interference?



http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=122839



How were you able to be sure that yours cleared the spar?  Am I just

looking at this wrong?



Berck

carl.froehlich(at)verizon
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:27 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Don't know.  I never used the purge return.  The fitting is capped off with

an AN cap in the event I ever want to use it.  As the plane is flying this

must not have been a problem.  Taking the plane down for conditional

inspection next month so I'll look.  I do note that the photos from the

Van's Air Force link have the return line further aft than I do.  That said,

there is no reason not to place the return line fitting more forward on the

rib to make sure - like just forward of the fuel sender and about center on

the rib.  Just make sure you mind the aileron connecting arm.



Carl



--

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:08 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

The wide band O2 sensors will eventually burn out due to lead fowling. They are pricey, and it does not happen in less than one tank of 100LL.  There are many guys that have used them for tuning and removed them when they are done with them.  Not a good idea to keep them in as they will eventually burn out completely. If you plan on changing your fuel map, I would HIGHLY suggest using a wide band sensor and a display to ensure your AFR (air fuel ratio) is not getting to lean.  The stoichiometric ratio for a natural aspirated engine is 14.7:1  It is safer in our aircraft engines to run them at 13.7:1 and thats what the EFII systemâ€™s stock fuel map is programed to provide.  Another indicator of the AFR is EGT, but other things can affect EGT, so the safe bet while tuning is to use a wide band O2 sensor and an AFR gauge to display the correct number to ensure you donâ€™t get too lean.

The EFII system for me, was a cost benefit to overhauling what I currently had.  An RSA5 fuel injection overhaul, new fuel pump, new mags, wires, plugs etcâ€¦ would have been at or above the cost of acquisition of the EFiI system.  I have heard nothing but good from this system and Robert Paisley from ProTec Performance has been nothing short of a rockstar with his customer service.  I would agree that more benefit comes from the EI than the fuel injection, but by modulating the injectors, they are seeing gains on the dyno with the Electronic Fuel Injection over the mechanical injection.  Also of note, the Lycoming hot start issue disappears with the EFII fuel injection.  Mixture management is simple with the EFII system due to the programed fuel map they have in the ECUs.  It reads the Manifold pressure, RPM, Throttle position sensor, and comes up with the fuel demand for the engine regardless of altitude.  There is NO MAF sensor in this system. It uses a similar sensor in the throttle body.  If you wish to trim fuel to change the EGTs, you can do so with the mixture rheostat, or you can do it by reprograming the ECUsâ€™ fuel mapping.  Takes some programing knowledge and the software, but itâ€™s not hard to do. Robert Paisley and or SDS can help with this as well.  There is significant fuel savings with this system, but as Kelly stated, it is not half the fuel.

Robert has his EFII system on numerous aircraft that race in the Reno air races, as well as many many happy customers flying the complete system.  The ECUs are SDS ECUs and have hundreds of thousands of hours tested on them. The fuel pumps are automotive type, and there are 2 of them. Tons of proving time on the fuel pumps as well.  The Coils are similar (if not the same) as the one from a Subaru Impreza. Again, hundreds of thousands of hours on the coils as well.  The spark plugs are iridium automotive plugs and are a fraction of the price as an aircraft plug and out perform them as well.  I feel perfectly safe with the EFII system in my aircraft, and would recommend them to anyone who wants a traditional aircraft engine with a modern fuel and ignition system.

Hope this helps!

Justin

On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> wrote:

[quote] 

 I assume you are aware that leaded fuel such as 100LL will destroy an oxygen sensor in less than one tank of fuel?

 I seriously doubt that the EFII system and the dual everything required to ensure it has power to work will save enough fuel to have a payback in any reasonable time frame. Mixture management on conventional fuel injection with magnetos is childs play once you get the system delivering equal fuel mixture to each cylinder. While autos are using less gas and producing more power, they are doing it with higher compression ratios, knock sensors and thousands of hours of dyno time. Most of the incremental benefit comes from electronic ignition, not electronic timed fuel injection. Feel free to experiment, but don't expect to get equal power on half the gas, or half the workload, for equal investment.

 On 4/20/2015 9:55 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:

> Since the fuel is metered directly at the injectors by the ECU, why do you have to mess with the mixture knob?  The EFII website says, "Automatic mixture control (no mixture knob to fool with)", but you're saying that's not entirely true?  Is the issue that you're compensating for a lack of initial ECU programming by altering the fuel pressure until the you get the programming dialed in?  Since the system has a MAP and IAT sensor, it seems like it should be able to meter correctly without any input from the pilot.  It doesn't look like  the EFII includes an oxygen sensor, though?

> 

> Any idea if there are plans to fly this plane on automotive gasoline?

> 

> 

> 

> 

> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com>> wrote:

> 

>    I think you're kidding yourself if you think there is no mixture

>    to worry about. I spend more time on the mixture knob so far than

>    I do on the mixture control with a standard system. It's possible

>    that once you get things all tuned up the way you want them you

>    may not use it as much, but I really don't use it that much on a

>    standard system either. I lean a little as I climb, then I set

>    power, rpm and fuel flow for cruise.

> 

>    I would imagine if you are burnin 12gph, you are probably

>    returning at least that much to the tank, if not more. I wouldn't

>    want to have to mess with picking a return tank separate from a

>    feed tank. There are warnings when your fuel in a tank gets low,

>    but I don't know of a warning saying your tank is getting too

>    full. If you get busy or get bored and aren't managing fuel with a

>    normal system, you will get something yelling at you saying you're

>    getting into the red on the draw tank, but it won't happen if you

>    start to pump it overboard through the return tank vent.

> 

>    I agree that electric ignition is tried and true in cars, but so

>    far there are a total of 10 fleet hours in the RV-10 with a full

>    EFII system and thousands and thousands with mags and standard

>    fuel injection. Far from a no-brainier in my book unless you are

>    talking the other way around.

> 

>    Jesse Saint

>    Saint Aviation, Inc.

>    352-427-0285 <tel:352-427-0285>

>    jesse(at)saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com>

> 

>    Sent from my iPad

> 

>    On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com

>    <mailto:flyboy(at)gmail.com>> wrote:

> 

>>    Carl- thanks so much for the picture.  I'll plan on the same

>>    location.  As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet,

>>    and probably won't until we source an engine. Hoping available

>>    systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates

>>    it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition

>>    setups.

>> 

>>    Jesse- Thanks for the heads up.  Glad to hear that one is flying

>>    already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After

>>    seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not

>>    using it.  I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical

>>    system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic

>>    ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so

>>    electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me.  This is, I

>>    think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to

>>    use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an

>>    airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery

>>    system from the 1950's.

>> 

>>    Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc,

>>    would be greatly appreciated.

>> 

>>    As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems

>>    a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered

>>    "overly complex."  It's the difference of switching two valves

>>    instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations.  Sure,

>>    it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more

>>    complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate

>>    knowledge of the fuel return tank.  I'm not really concerned

>>    about it either way.  The only reason to want to transfer fuel

>>    would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground

>>    quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around.  Since I

>>    won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture

>>    control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return

>>    tank if I wind up with two valves.

>> 

>>    On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich

>>    <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net <mailto:carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>>

>>    wrote:

>> 

>>        Berck,

>> 

>>        I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when

>>        building in case I

>>        ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached).  This

>>        is the same

>>        location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.

>> 

>>        Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the

>>        fitting in about

>>        the same area as the vent line connection you should not have

>>        an issue.  I'd

>>        keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel

>>        pick up -

>>        should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as

>>        compared to the

>>        hotter return fuel.

>> 

>>        Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?

>> 

>>        Carl

>> 

>>        --

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

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