X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Steven W. Boese" Received: from [104.47.42.96] (HELO NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.2c1) with ESMTPS id 9594542 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 18:56:35 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=104.47.42.96; envelope-from=SBoese@uwyo.edu DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uwy.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-uwyo-edu; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=nAFlrF9TGv15lO8OS2jWylChWCuryf1EWQNla8qubm8=; b=RLMONlXkU8vRh0PFCHdG9BQAtPqCPdkzKJxA4R2hfR33B7eu49XM7fgCg4esLEzO18gxCNR5RAOHcK1JfINuqOJs81g4/wVD/fmfo5a3JecsW/tzLCr0XoWM/oXrffYNL0mDWr/QlonmBX1Lkd12FbLcUeAIlylKAmIjXjhxy4Q= Received: from DM2PR0501MB908.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.173.18) by DM2PR0501MB907.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.173.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.991.4; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 22:56:15 +0000 Received: from DM2PR0501MB908.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.173.18]) by DM2PR0501MB908.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.173.18]) with mapi id 15.01.0991.013; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 22:56:15 +0000 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel system peer review Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel system peer review Thread-Index: AQHSopX3EiTIVKVYX0iXdwrnzTTQLKGf5xIS Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 22:56:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: lancaironline.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lancaironline.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=uwyo.edu; x-originating-ip: [69.146.90.23] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;DM2PR0501MB907;7:jSKzlSb8+tzQCKWZhJYmaiEF9GgKGHuM/ijdmLh0cgaCOedOVZRNY09MPaxiP1zem7xbu9iAQD2szdxgLBUtXvDH4ozDgfm+ZcHIc/Cutl8VIOhA+qaKd9I+IXYDnlVgK8m7ZOtyVNy5LQ/+Q1tZo/kWG5QmlahM5f+TEAg1lY8EUCOB6zqnz3+c4uvV7nywcUksn12+R5soNCXtc/IcrEcAUv4Tl7ItsUsx4rl3woKI8V7bMuzWoZsq793Q2RPaamScfVPnUrfmuAlncOdo+wsiaGD/hA/sDXgCtRRRUdUQNipyc8wEDIFaybXvnW7NNVxHJzSyhQ4T19b/+bUpHg== x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b3655312-0232-491c-171e-08d470ad7a75 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075);SRVR:DM2PR0501MB907; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123558025)(20161123560025)(6072148);SRVR:DM2PR0501MB907;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DM2PR0501MB907; x-forefront-prvs: 02530BD3AA x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019020)(39450400003)(279900001)(24454002)(377454003)(6306002)(54896002)(80792005)(6506006)(606005)(50986999)(86362001)(19627405001)(189998001)(9686003)(25786009)(33656002)(19625305001)(236005)(76176999)(5890100001)(55016002)(6116002)(99286003)(3846002)(53546009)(102836003)(77096006)(122556002)(110136004)(6246003)(81166006)(8936002)(8676002)(38730400002)(2906002)(2900100001)(5660300001)(88552002)(6436002)(54356999)(74316002)(7696004)(7906003)(2950100002)(966004)(6916009)(53936002)(3280700002)(229853002)(3660700001)(66066001)(7736002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:DM2PR0501MB907;H:DM2PR0501MB908.namprd05.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;MLV:sfv;LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM2PR0501MB90835862AA3C7029F3FCC17B93D0DM2PR0501MB908na_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: uwyo.edu X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Mar 2017 22:56:15.1318 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f9cdd7ad-825d-4601-8e9c-a325e02d52da X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR0501MB907 --_000_DM2PR0501MB90835862AA3C7029F3FCC17B93D0DM2PR0501MB908na_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Charlie, I forgot to mention that the engine never missed a beat the entire time tha= t the transfer pump test was made. Steve ________________________________ From: Rotary motors in aircraft on behalf of = Steven W. Boese Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 4:52:53 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel system peer review Charlie, I installed a system similar to your proposed diagram on my test stand toda= y. I used one gerotor fuel injection pump taking fuel from a separate sour= ce and tee'd it into the line between the fuel pressure regulator and the d= ead-ended fuel rail. When this pump was turned on, the fuel pressure in th= e rail increased by about 8 psi (that setup uses 5/16 OD steel tubing so th= e pressure increase with -6 tubing would most likely be less). When the in= let to that transfer pump was unported, the fuel pressure returned to norma= l at which time I turned the transfer pump off. With the transfer pump tur= ned off, there was a dribble of fuel coming out of the that pump's inlet. = Apparently, that pump does not completely stop the reverse flow of fuel thr= ough it when there is pressure in the fuel rail. As a result, when the inl= et to the transfer pump was placed back below the level in the auxiliary so= urce and the pump was turned back on, it immediately began pumping fuel int= o the pressurized line. Any air drawn into the pump had been purged back o= ut the pump's inlet. If your transfer pump has the same imperfect check valve action, your propo= sed system appears to work fine in spite of my air lock reservations. Your= selector valve with the "off" position would prevent long term reverse flo= w of fuel through the transfer pump when it is shut off. FWIW Steve Boese ________________________________ From: Rotary motors in aircraft on behalf of = Charlie England Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 2:55:54 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel system peer review I did consider it, but that would mean 3 xfer pumps instead of 1+backup. I'= d still need a pair of injection pumps. In the same vein, I considered the = little turbine style in-tank pumps for that purpose, but then I'd need a po= sitive shutoff valve for the aux tanks. I also considered them for injectio= n pumps (lighter, smaller, lower power consumption) but they're actually ha= rder to mount with any configuration flexibility and I'd again need a separ= ate positive cutoff (gerotor pumps are positive cutoff when not running). Thanks, Charlie On 3/21/2017 10:33 AM, Ernest Christley wrote: At the point you're at, what would be the downside to simply putting a pump= in each tank, and using a rotary switch to select? Having the main tank w= ith the return wired in with the ignition, so that it is always running to = avoid the return overfilling the tank. On Mar 20, 2017 5:26 PM, Charlie England wrote: 1st, let me define my delivery architecture. I like Tracy's idea of feeding= the engine from one tank, and transferring aux tanks to the main tank. I u= nderstand the downside of being unable to switch tanks, but many a/c (inclu= ding turbines) supply from one tank, so that's my choice. It avoids the nee= d for a duplex fuel selector, which I like. Effectively, I have 3 'aux' tan= ks, and I'm using the stock (3 inlet) Van's RV fuel selector to feed redund= ant transfer pumps in parallel. I know that most have a separate return port in their tank(s) for regulator= return. With my need for aux transfer, my original plan was to 'T' the aux= transfer line into the regulator return line, which I'm pretty sure has be= en done before. I'm currently working on installing both injection pumps in the fuel tank, = conceptually similar to standard auto practice for the last couple of decad= es: no risk of vapor lock with the added bonus of a very clean installation= . The regulator will be in the wingroot, just outside the tank, with the ma= nifold pressure line running to that location for pressure control. (Deadhe= ading fuel to the fuel rail has been done on both cars and a/c successfully= ; I believe it's an option on the new SDS system being marketed to Lyc driv= ers now.) The recent thread on fuel pressure changes while running both injection pum= ps got me thinking. If it's typical to see only a couple of PSI change when= running both pumps, has anyone considered running the transfer line into t= he regulator? The reason I'm considering this is twofold. It provides a 'fi= nal option' for short term fuel delivery if both injection pumps are lost, = and, because the regulator is in the wingroot, I would need to run only one= fuel line to the supply tank. I'll be using gerotor style transfer pumps (positive displacement) and the = aux selector has an 'off' position, so backflow won't be an issue. A quick & dirty sketch is attached, diagramming the idea. There would never be more than 2 pumps running at any time, since transfers= would only happen in cruise flight. Can anyone poke holes in this arrangem= ent? Charlie -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.= html --_000_DM2PR0501MB90835862AA3C7029F3FCC17B93D0DM2PR0501MB908na_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Charlie,


I forgot to mention that the engine never missed a beat the entire time = that the transfer pump test was made.


Steve

From: Rotary motors in airc= raft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> on behalf of Steven W. Boese <f= lyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 4:52:53 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel system peer review
 

Charlie,


I installed a system similar to your proposed diagram on my test stand t= oday.  I used one gerotor fuel injection pump taking fuel from a = separate source and tee'd it into the line between the fuel pressure regula= tor and the dead-ended fuel rail.  When this pump was turned on, the fuel pressure in the rail increased by about 8 psi= (that setup uses 5/16 OD steel tubing so the pressure increase with -6 tub= ing would most likely be less).  When the inlet to that transfer pump = was unported, the fuel pressure returned to normal at which time I turned the transfer pump off.  With the tra= nsfer pump turned off, there was a dribble of fuel coming out of the that p= ump's inlet.  Apparently, that pump does not completely stop the rever= se flow of fuel through it when there is pressure in the fuel rail.  As a result, when the inlet to the transfer pump w= as placed back below the level in the auxiliary source and the pump was tur= ned back on, it immediately began pumping fuel into the pressurized li= ne.  Any air drawn into the pump had been purged back out the pump's inlet.


If your transfer pump has the same imperfect check valve action, your pr= oposed system appears to work fine in spite of my air lock reservations.&nb= sp; Your selector valve with the "off" position would preven= t long term reverse flow of fuel through the transfer pump when it is shut off.  


FWIW


Steve Boese  

From: Rotary motors in airc= raft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> on behalf of Charlie England <f= lyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 2:55:54 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel system peer review
 
I did consider it, but that would mean 3 xfe= r pumps instead of 1+backup. I'd still need a pair of injection pumps. = In the same vein, I considered the little turbine style in-tank pumps for t= hat purpose, but then I'd need a positive shutoff valve for the aux tanks. I also considered them for injection pump= s (lighter, smaller, lower power consumption) but they're actually harder t= o mount with any configuration flexibility and I'd again need a separate po= sitive cutoff (gerotor pumps are positive cutoff when not running).

Thanks,

Charlie

On 3/21/2017 10:33 AM, Ernest Christley wrote:
At the point you're at, what would be the downside to sim= ply putting a pump in each tank, and using a rotary switch to select?  = ;Having the main tank with the return wired in with the ignition, so that i= t is always running to avoid the return overfilling the tank.

On Mar 20, 2017 5:26 PM, Charlie England <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
1st, let me define my delivery architecture. I like Tracy's idea of fe= eding the engine from one tank, and transferring aux tanks to the main tank= . I understand the downside of being unable to switch tanks, but many a/c (= including turbines) supply from one tank, so that's my choice. It avoids the need for a duplex fuel select= or, which I like. Effectively, I have 3 'aux' tanks, and I'm using the stoc= k (3 inlet) Van's RV fuel selector to feed redundant transfer pumps in para= llel. 

I know that most have a separate return port in their tank(s) for regu= lator return. With my need for aux transfer, my original plan was to 'T' th= e aux transfer line into the regulator return line, which I'm pretty sure h= as been done before.

I'm currently working on installing both injection pumps in the fuel t= ank, conceptually similar to standard auto practice for the last couple of = decades: no risk of vapor lock with the added bonus of a very clean install= ation. The regulator will be in the wingroot, just outside the tank, with the manifold pressure line runni= ng to that location for pressure control. (Deadheading fuel to the fuel rai= l has been done on both cars and a/c successfully; I believe it's an option= on the new SDS system being marketed to Lyc drivers now.)

The recent thread on fuel pressure changes while running both injectio= n pumps got me thinking. If it's typical to see only a couple of PSI change= when running both pumps, has anyone considered running the transfer line i= nto the regulator? The reason I'm considering this is twofold. It provides a 'final option' for short term f= uel delivery if both injection pumps are lost, and, because the regulator i= s in the wingroot, I would need to run only one fuel line to the supply tan= k.

I'll be using gerotor style transfer pumps (positive displacement) and= the aux selector has an 'off' position, so backflow won't be an issue.

A quick & dirty sketch is attached, diagramming the idea.

There would never be more than 2 pumps running at any time, since tran= sfers would only happen in cruise flight. Can anyone poke holes in this arr= angement? 

Charlie

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.=
net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html

--_000_DM2PR0501MB90835862AA3C7029F3FCC17B93D0DM2PR0501MB908na_--