 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mark.shimei(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:35 am Post subject: fuel system |
 |
|
I use the fuel system(almost) everyone seems to avoid......metal feed line from top of the tank to the bottom(no holes on bottom of tank) clear fuel line,squeze bulb,plastic fuel filter(like Johns) and a rectangle pulse pump.
Had this on a Phantom for 7 years and almost 300hrs(tank and engine 4' apart vertically) did my share of loops and rolls and NEVER HAD A FUEL PROBLEM.Took tank out occasionally to remove sediment and what little water might have gotten in there,Mr. Funnel works well.Changed fuel lines every 2 yrs or so,when they got opaque or started to get hard.
Plane was 103 compliant.No electric start,minimal instruments,no brakes.
My Ultrastar is set up the same way,also 103 compliant.60 hrs since may this year.I think John H has more ; )
Mark in Florida.......flame suit on!!!!!
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:40 am Post subject: fuel system |
|
|
Mark
It is too bad we feel that we will get blasted for sharing ideas. My first airplane, a Weedhopper that I built also, had the same fuel system. I never had any fuel system problems but I did have many others. If you have to have a top of the tank feed system I think the metal tube is a good idea. It isn't as likely to be hurt by the fuel.
When I flew certified GA airplanes they all had bottom feed tanks with finger strainers, gascolators and drain valves. Low wing airplanes also had boost pumps because the tanks were low also. By trial and error certified GA airplanes evolved to be safer using these and many other standard systems. Yes aerobatic airplanes use top feed tanks with flop tube pick ups but is a compromise to keep from sucking air when inverted.
There is nothing wrong with your fuel system in fact it is a improvement over systems some people have invented. I just feel that where possible we should try to try to take advantage of the lessons learned in the evolution of aircraft design. There are certainly reasons such as cost and aircraft configuration where you may want to deviate from these proven designs be aware changes are a compromise.
The argument that bottom tanks using the rubber bushing system might leak is a concern but properly done most find them leak free. The down side of the the top feed tanks is that they have more potential (most never do but....) of a problem that would cause a forced landing. Weighed against a bottom feed leak that can be detected and fixed on the ground I would think the safer choice is bottom feed.
My concern is that the chest pounding of some might lead others to follow a less safe design thinking it is the safest.
The choice is yours.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
