X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao12.cox.net ([68.230.241.27] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.4) with ESMTP id 888302 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:05:51 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.27; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.7.14.39]) by fed1rmmtao12.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20051219170304.TIOY17437.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:03:04 -0500 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel filter selection Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:05:09 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c604be$5e6c48d0$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6047B.504B79D0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6047B.504B79D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ernest wrote: > Summit has another filter that looks nearly identical that goes down to=20 35 microns, with a stainless steel mesh screen. It isn't rated for as=20 much flow, but it still borders on the ridiculously high for our=20 application. I'm going to install one of those after the pumps, and one=20 of the PRM-81794 before. The PRM will insure the fuels clean and dry,=20 and the other will catch any pieces that come loose from the pump. I=20 feel very comfortable with that design. =20 I may also install one of the glass filter that go inline with the hose, = putting it forward of the firewall. They're only $10 and it would give=20 me a decent preflight check that nothing has gone horribly wrong=20 upstream while I wasn't looking. Is that sound reasoning? ------------------- =20 My philosophy is that you put a water/debris trap, or sump, upstream = from the pump; but nothing much finer than a screen door screen. The last = thing you want is pressure drop upstream from the pump, and a fine filter with = a bit of dirt in it could definitely cause a vapor lock. The PRM-81794 = claims filtering down to 2 microns, and pressure capability of 90 psi. That = says "downstream from the pump" to me. =20 Al ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6047B.504B79D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ernest wrote:

>

Summit has another filter that looks nearly identical that goes down to

35 microns, with a stainless steel mesh screen. It isn't rated for as =

much flow, but it still borders on the ridiculously high for our =

application. I'm going to install one of those after the pumps, and one =

of the PRM-81794 before. The PRM will insure the fuels clean and dry, =

and the other will catch any pieces that come loose from the pump. I =

feel very comfortable with that design.

I may also install one of the glass filter that go inline with the hose, =

putting it forward of the firewall. They're only $10 and it would give =

me a decent preflight check that nothing has gone horribly wrong =

upstream while I wasn't looking. Is that sound reasoning?

-------------------<= /p>

My philosophy = is that you put a water/debris trap, or sump, upstream from the pump; but nothing = much finer than a screen door screen. The last thing you want is = pressure drop upstream from the pump, and a fine filter with a bit of dirt in it could definitely cause a vapor lock. The PRM-81794 claims filtering down = to 2 microns, and pressure capability of 90 psi. That says = “downstream from the pump” to me.

<= /font>

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6047B.504B79D0--