X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1) with ESMTPS id 5095368 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:24:19 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.240.18.37; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,240,1312182000"; d="scan'208";a="571672282" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2011 12:23:25 -0700 Received: from [10.62.16.167] (ernestc-laptop.hq.netapp.com [10.62.16.167]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id p7HJNP6b029747 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 12:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E4C150D.6070508@nc.rr.com> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:22:53 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100623) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Dennis Haverlah Fuel System...or any others, for that matter. References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Al Wick wrote: > < I had the issue of a the pressurized lines being > < perfectly sealed. > > So, in the future, if you have a bad injector you don't want to know > about it? I'd want to be able to smell that fuel leak and replace the > defective injector. I would not want to mask it. > If it is leaking enough to make a difference, it'll show up in the EGT and it won't need 55psi to leave enough fuel in the manifold to raise a flag. > -al wick > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Ernest Christley > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2011 8:22 AM > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Dennis Haverlah Fuel System...or any > others, for that matter. > > Al Wick wrote: > > I'm really concerned for some of these fuel designs. The fuel > bleed has > > nothing to do with vapor lock. Virtually no effect at all. > > > > I don't know why others are doing it, but for me, the bleed has > nothing at all to do with vapor lock. Some > conversations have been mixed together, so I can see how that > could be the impression. The point of the pressure bleed > is to bleed off the pressure after shutdown. > > I have a strong, positive head pressure going into my pumps. > They, and the regulator, are about 8" directly below the > tank. Excess fuel goes back to the opposite side of the tank from > the pickup, and a single line goes forward to feed > the injectors. The fuel lines are arranged such that heat soaking > the lines to the point of boiling the gas will push > liquid fuel down hill and behind the firewall, isolating the > gaseous gas with its heat at the top of the line. Turning > the pumps on will pressurize the line to 55psi, returning most of > the gaseous fuel back to a liquid state. The ECM is > programmed for a longer clearing pulse on hot start. > > The point of the bleed is to allow fuel to move back to the tank. > I had the issue of a the pressurized lines being > perfectly sealed. The pressurized fuel was finding the path of > least resistance out, which just happened to be out the > injector and into the intake manifold where it sat as a little > puddle. Heat soaking the lines would not push liquid > fuel downhill and back behind the firewall. It would push more > fuel into the manifold. A puddle of gas sitting in a > composite manifold, just above a hot exhaust stack is just bad > mojo. A poorly sealed regulator allows the pressure to > bleed off in about 5 seconds (give or take), isolating the hot > fuel in front of the firewall, and keeping the rest cool > and out of the intake manifold. > > Got nuthin' to do with vapor lock. > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >