X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Charlie England" Received: from mail-pg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.83.49] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.2c1) with ESMTPS id 9596652 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 11:11:04 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.125.83.49; envelope-from=ceengland7@gmail.com Received: by mail-pg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id w20so7020299pgc.0 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:11:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=s/MHJqt/NXt1DHo3XNH3rktfo1MWaUjcBbczpC8Fup8=; b=CSZtxWYz3Se6eN/+3tWlu8qnXA3jkuGr2AVhprwMhW++vaGAg9YC6vwizD8WSUzPMY FyhCp0LHYrS7KYdSQo9UX1u0dwuWsZQvgRVxGTjri9bEAvr3CWi2VpbtgX8rCSmD/P0w AiAL1o3ez2uxYk6y2iJJScfUnSHWmEhAdnC6mQx/hiTnKN9sHyWMLJHAbZyPRj+hPS9F oSF7zEk7lR1ILsgD+DsvtgHT3zNzXSDc4yQdxqCYEOTGr6+UHYMeKu9w9B9LE54Wh1t9 clyFGyjDbI9fOE5KkhbPwGmHTJZpylEqJyyT4FkSYt/R8Ln+4cmmSovnBG+EMj1zQo6o hNpg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=s/MHJqt/NXt1DHo3XNH3rktfo1MWaUjcBbczpC8Fup8=; b=rLaKdX1YNBZcxT4I+0+ZBKwovxH/4HuQ6T404mpNUzzu7kX2dVDZSOK6U/PDs0rj7C XfbnlKXb9BHS1pJi/5mB2KN7mRK2oy0EGMfHtIURGydRSe0e54cv4ykvclWxgQpzuo5G lBAdftzZzDsB7SSCIdeqnqUn7LTMpejR6ogizPDxdnC6dW7iWh2+feO3HUQBDN9yuZrj JS9F2uJr+lQLOz9H8QVwuYBOb6f0qRfS6qsJdXPGz5iStxNvi/JAOv2uYkxWUnQex0zp Xj1tlgveOiyfulF4I60jE8N+EHrvtqqEeREnbQ+TIPRfuzL9SRDnDPrBMpJcYvCK3Wmv eW3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3pwWqI8x8kLXybuQJjQGGaFJf1AQ2FeX4TEX1LkTffQdlcr9wqKMdopjZrjs3o/CLfBV787WsLdUd1Mw== X-Received: by 10.98.68.199 with SMTP id m68mr47872843pfi.31.1490195445253; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:10:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.128.83 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:10:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:10:44 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel system peer review To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0be1b0290d33054b532add --94eb2c0be1b0290d33054b532add Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I got it. Welcome to the list! Tell us more about your neural interface. Will it fly your plane? :-) Charlie On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Gary Abel wrote: > Can you tell me if you receive this message I signed up for this group but > haven't been able to post anything thank you > > Sent from my embedded neural interface. > > On Mar 22, 2017, at 06:35, Charlie England > wrote: > > That is very interesting! I'd have thought there would at least be some > stumbling while the xfer pump was pumping air, or running very rich while > rail pressure was 8psi above normal. > > In your test setup, was the regulator at the fuel rail ('looped' from rail > back to tank), or near the supply tank, with a 'dead head' run to the fuel > rail? > > Many thanks for running the test; I'd almost decided to go back to > 'conventional' plumbing. Now I'm back in analysis paralysis... > > BTW, are you flying the Renesis yet? > > Charlie > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Steven W. Boese < > flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote: > >> 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 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 >> today. I used one gerotor fuel injection pump taking fuel from a separate >> source and tee'd it into the line between the fuel pressure regulator 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 tubing 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 transfer >> pump turned 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 through it when there is pressure in the fuel rail. As a result, when >> the inlet to the transfer pump was placed back below the level in the >> auxiliary source and the pump was turned back on, it immediately began >> pumping fuel into the pressurized line. 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 >> proposed system appears to work fine in spite of my air lock reservations. >> Your selector valve with the "off" position would prevent long term reverse >> flow 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 positive shutoff valve for the aux tanks. I also considered them for >> injection pumps (lighter, smaller, lower power consumption) but they're >> actually harder to mount with any configuration flexibility and I'd again >> need a separate 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 with 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 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 selector, which I like. Effectively, I >> have 3 'aux' tanks, and I'm using the stock (3 inlet) Van's RV fuel >> selector to feed redundant 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 been 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 >> decades: 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 manifold pressure line running to that location for pressure >> control. (Deadheading 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 drivers now.) >> >> The recent thread on fuel pressure changes while running both injection >> 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 >> into the regulator? The reason I'm considering this is twofold. It provides >> a 'final 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 >> arrangement? >> >> Charlie >> >> >> -- >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> >> >> > --94eb2c0be1b0290d33054b532add Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I got it. Welcome to the list!

Tell us = more about your neural interface. Will it fly your plane? :-)

<= /div>
Charlie

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Gary Abel <flyrotary@lancai= ronline.net> wrote:
Can you tell me if you receive this message I signed up for= this group but haven't been able to post anything thank you

Sen= t from my embedded neural interface.

On Mar 22, 2017, at 06:3= 5, Charlie England <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

That is very interesting! I'd= have thought there would at least be some stumbling while the xfer pump wa= s pumping air, or running very rich while rail pressure was 8psi above norm= al.=C2=A0

In your test setup, was the regulator at the f= uel rail ('looped' from rail back to tank), or near the supply tank= , with a 'dead head' run to the fuel rail?=C2=A0

Many thanks for running the test; I'd almost decided to go back = to 'conventional' plumbing. Now I'm back in analysis paralysis.= ..

BTW, are you flying the Renesis yet?

Charlie

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Steven W. Boese <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

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 aircraft &= lt;flyrota= ry@lancaironline.net> on behalf of Steven W. Boese <flyrotary@lancaironline= .net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 4:52:53 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel system peer review
=C2=A0

Charlie,


I installed a system similar to your proposed diagram on my test stand t= oday.=C2=A0 I used one gerotor fuel injection pump taking fuel=C2=A0from a = separate source and tee'd it into the line between the fuel pressure re= gulator and the dead-ended fuel rail.=C2=A0 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).=C2=A0 When the inlet to that transfer pump = was unported, the fuel pressure returned to normal at which time I turned the transfer pump off.=C2=A0 With the tra= nsfer pump turned off, there was a dribble of fuel coming out of the that p= ump's inlet.=C2=A0 Apparently, that pump does not completely stop the r= everse flow of fuel through it when there is pressure in the fuel rail.=C2=A0 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,=C2=A0it immediately began pumping fuel into the pressurized li= ne.=C2=A0=C2=A0Any air drawn into the pump had been purged=C2=A0back 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.=C2= =A0 Your selector valve with the "off" position would=C2=A0preven= t long term reverse flow of fuel through the transfer pump when it is shut off.=C2=A0=C2=A0


FWIW


Steve Boese=C2=A0=C2=A0

From: Rotary motors in aircraft &= lt;flyrota= ry@lancaironline.net> on behalf of Charlie England <flyrotary@lancaironline= .net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 2:55:54 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel system peer review
=C2=A0
I did consider it, but that would mean 3 xfer pump= s 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 pu= rpose, 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 hard= er to mount with any configuration flexibility and I'd again need a sep= arate 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?= =C2=A0 Having the main tank with 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 <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
1st, let me define my delivery architecture. I like Tracy's idea o= f feeding 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 se= lector, which I like. Effectively, I have 3 'aux' tanks, and I'= m using the stock (3 inlet) Van's RV fuel selector to feed redundant tr= ansfer pumps in parallel.=C2=A0

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= ' the aux transfer line into the regulator return line, which I'm p= retty sure has been done before.

I'm currently working on installing both injection pumps in the fu= el tank, 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 ins= tallation. 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 op= tion 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 ch= ange when running both pumps, has anyone considered running the transfer li= ne into the regulator? The reason I'm considering this is twofold. It provides a 'final option' for shor= t term fuel delivery if both injection pumps are lost, and, because the reg= ulator is in the wingroot, I would need to run only one fuel line to the su= pply 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 tran= sfers would only happen in cruise flight. Can anyone poke holes in this arr= angement?=C2=A0

Charlie

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



--94eb2c0be1b0290d33054b532add--