|
|
|
Gary,
Interesting.
In the 320, the wire exiting the wing probe travels
downward as it is penetrating the BL50 rib. The outboard wing to
stub wing joint is sealed with white bathtub caulk - appropriate for this
location. The trailing edge at the rear spar is not sealed because
of deduced wheel well airflow. It is possible that splash from the
wheel could possibly make its way around the mid-stub wing rib and possibly to
the almost hidden probe end. I will look into this and make such a
result even less likely. You are right - the header tank and its probe
are, uh, less exposed to the problems you mentioned.
I will happily report (or the NTSB will) any case where the systems I am
using in my experimental airplane misinforms me so badly that I ignore the
Gestalt of all data and human senses and run out of fuel.
See my response to Bob.
Scott Krueger
PS "Science" has also led us to the Copenhagen Conference and its
output ;<)
In a message dated 1/5/2010 10:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time,
casey.gary@yahoo.com writes:
Scott,
No, we're talking about the same thing. The device uses a simple
oscillator with the variable element being the capacitance in the RC network.
Therefore, the frequency varies inversely with level. The total
capacitance is fairly small, but not too small. As long as the DE of the
fuel is consistent, the electronic components don't drift or change with
temperature or supply voltage, there are no stray capacitance issues, and no
water is present the sensor will work very well. The header tank is
probably a good application since it is in a relatively constant temperature
dry environment. In the IV/ES wing tank application what would happen if
the wing/fuselage joint were to leak just above the sensor and wires?
Water could find its way into the electronics, which aren't sealed, and
that would create a large error or even total failure.
The comments are based on science and the design of the sensor, not
experience. As Bob suggested, if one were using experience alone the
total field population isn't enough. Perhaps if there were 100 million
out there, then maybe. In summary, our comments(if I can speak for Bob),
are that the design and construction of the sensors don't justify total faith
in their accuracy or reliability. They're adequate, but I would like to
see better.
Gary
Bob and Gary,
I have no idea how the capacitance probes you talk
about work. Here is how the VM Fuel system probes work:
There are three wires emanating from the probe.
One is ground. One is a regulated 5 VDC to the probe. One
carries a square wave frequency output from the probe that varies with the
interaction of the fluid level on the probe. For
Example, the 17 gallon wing tanks go from about 7500 counts at
empty to 4500 counts at full. The header setup got to be quite different
- VM said the min probe length was about 14" - I wanted my header
indicator to be very accurate and the probe vertical - that meant it was
only 8" long. The fuel computer could not handle frequencies above
20,000. So, after studying some simple circuits from some books at Radio
Shack, I built a CMOS frequency divider with Schmidt triggers to clean up the
square wave - it is just a bulge in the connecting cable. Piece of cake
- the header frequencies run between 12000 and 18000 and are very accurate
(calibrated by 1/2 gallons). The probes do not seem to be affected by
radio frequencies - of course, I am not looking at fuel level gauges during
radio transmissions.
Oh well, you use your experience and I'll use
mine.
Scott Krueger
Lancair 320
PS The wing tank calibrations are so close that if I
had to switch to a more modern display that only shows two tanks instead of
the three I can see now, I could switch the wing output to one tank display
and leave the header on the other.
|
|