Return-Path: Received: from out008.verizon.net ([206.46.170.108] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 547399 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:24:13 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.170.108; envelope-from=finn.lassen@verizon.net Received: from verizon.net ([4.12.145.173]) by out008.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20041127162338.KAMB4287.out008.verizon.net@verizon.net> for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:23:38 -0600 Message-ID: <41A8AA0A.3030202@verizon.net> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:23:38 -0500 From: Finn Lassen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax; PROMO) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Bubbles in fuel line from pump - new valve References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020307040405080407000102" X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out008.verizon.net from [4.12.145.173] at Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:23:38 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020307040405080407000102 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not much more than 13 GPH. Of course if I upgrade to fuel injection and tuned intake that should increase. Can the explanation be that the sudden change in velocity/pressure caused by such a restriction cause the fuel to boil (evaporate)? Finn Dale Rogers wrote: >Is that really enough? What's your actual flow rate - not >just the burn rate - at "war emergency" power? I would >think that good engineering practice is to have a supply >capacity that exceeded that flow by about 20%. > >Dale R. >COZY MkIV #1254 > > > > >>From: Finn Lassen >>Date: 2004/11/27 Sat AM 10:16:52 EST >>To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" >>Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Bubbles in fuel line from pump - new valve >> >>That's right. Oddly enough it will gravity flow about 17 GPH through >>that hole. >> >>Finn >> >>Bulent Aliev wrote: >> >> >> >>>>The inlet hole to the flow sensor turbine is only 1/8" ! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Finn, are you saying that all the fuel going to the engine has to be sucked >>>through an 1/8" hole? If that's the case, this could be your problem? >>>Bulent >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >>> >>> > > > --------------020307040405080407000102 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not much more than 13 GPH.

Of course if I upgrade to fuel injection and tuned intake that should increase.

Can the explanation be that the sudden change in velocity/pressure caused by such a restriction cause the fuel to boil (evaporate)?

Finn

Dale Rogers wrote:

Is that really enough?  What's your actual flow rate - not 
just the burn rate - at "war emergency" power?  I would 
think that good engineering practice is to have a supply 
capacity that exceeded that flow by about 20%.

Dale R.
COZY MkIV #1254

From: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
Date: 2004/11/27 Sat AM 10:16:52 EST
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Bubbles in fuel line from pump - new valve

That's right. Oddly enough it will gravity flow about 17 GPH through 
that hole.

Finn

Bulent Aliev wrote:

The inlet hole to the flow sensor turbine is only 1/8" !

Finn, are you saying that all the fuel going to the engine has to be sucked
through an 1/8" hole? If that's the case, this could be your problem?
Bulent

 Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
 Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html

--------------020307040405080407000102--