Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:12 AM - Re: secondary fuel pump (josok)
2. 03:25 AM - Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not (craig bastin)
3. 03:50 AM - Re: Aileron Trim servo (craig bastin)
4. 04:45 AM - Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not (Kingsley Hurst)
5. 10:44 AM - Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not (josok)
6. 11:41 AM - Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not (Roger Bull)
7. 11:54 AM - Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not (Gilles Thesee)
8. 12:12 PM - Can anyone recommend a cough mixture? (William Williams Wynne)
9. 12:20 PM - Re: Can anyone recommend a cough mixture? (rampil)
10. 12:48 PM - Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not (Laptop JR)
11. 03:13 PM - Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not ()
12. 03:21 PM - Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not ()
13. 03:37 PM - Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not ()
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: secondary fuel pump |
Folks,
Graham complained about flying scarobatics with a Europa. I wish i could think
of a word so nicely describing this and some other threads on the forum.
That said, it still is a good thing to use all available brain power to think of
possible failures and ways to prevent them. The last time i looked was fuel
starvation number one on the list of accidents in GA. In more then 50 % of these
cases, the tank was empty.
Which makes me strongly believe that the worst component of all is us, the pilot.
Consequently, i would prefer to check my own check valves for leaking or blocking.
Using check lists is one method. Not flying while not in condition is
another. Wish there was a pass/no pass button :-)
Regards,
Jos Okhuijsen
Visit - www.EuropaOwners.org
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not |
I guess i asked a good question here, Based on the too-ing and frow-ing
here i plan to stick with my original plan to parallel the system as far as
the engine, that way both pumps and gascolators can be tested and known to
be
working correctly, with flow sufficient to run the engine from either side
(main and reserve)
craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us
Sent: Monday, 10 December 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not
Hi Jos
"How do you calculate that?" (failure because of failed Andair 1 way
valve)
I will first mention that my 1988 R100GS BMW motorcycle with type 64 Bing
Carbs has a vacuum controlled valve that turns off fuel to carbs when
there is no vacuum. Let bike sit with MoGas with Stabil (fuel stablizer)
(with carbs run dry) and that valve glues itself closed! Valve is not too
unlike the Andair 1 way valves used by Europa on 914. A very light
pressure to open when working correctly, but 100PSI will not open if glued
shut. Carb cleaner and air can unstick, but almost unbelievable how it can
get so stuck. I have not heard of Andair 1 ways sticking opened or closed,
but my dart throw is sticking closed with MoGas use and sitting plane is
good possible failure.
OK here are some failures Europa 914 series with bypass and 2 filters (or
2 gasculators)**:
**Glue both valves shut, pump #1 on will have a hard time getting through
#2 pump that is off or failed (if both pumps on and they are working will
run OK)
**Glue both valves shut, if #1 pump fails or is off or #1 filter or
gasculator clogged, #2 pump will not provide
**#2 pump fails or is off and #1 valve stuck opened no fuel flow from pump
#1 will be supplied
**#1 pump fails or is off and #2 valve opened no flow from pump #2 will be
supplied
After fooling with system:
http://contrails.free.fr/engine_914_fuel_syst_test_en.php
Good idea to use P1 as primary pump, and good idea to be able to turn off
P1 and run just P2 to test system. If wired so P1 always running you could
not really test #1 valve or #2 filter or Gasculator.
I am using 2 Andair gasculators instead of supplied filters:
http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=Begin-06-2003&op=modlo
ad&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
See:
Album: 914 modular fuel system. Series with bypass, two Andair 375s.
Another very real failure is having an air leak in Gasculator or Filter!
On my system if I pushed up on one of the beautiful Stainless Steel Andair
bowl drains, just the tiniest bit, either pump #1, or #2 or both #1+#2
would far rather suck air than fuel and foam right away! Thats right, does
not matter Gasculator #1 valve or Gasculator #2 valve, a small leak will
kill fuel flow! Although nice drain, it still relies on an O-Ring to seal.
Worth a very close look before flight no fuel is leaking from those
Gasculator drains, and very careful monitor you have differential pressure
on both pumps, checking 1 pump at a time at high MP.
As one of my tests was to see and touch and feel for my self how the pumps
will perform with a suction head. I noticed that if you create a very
small air leak at either of the Gasculators, it is far more devistating
the greater the suction head. In other words full fuel and nose not too
high will be nowhere near as hard as low fuel level and high nose.
Ron P.
2:51 PM
2:51 PM
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aileron Trim servo |
yes i was of the same opinion that the tab ON the aileron while functional
is less desirable than
a servo on the system itself, and given the size of the ailerons compared to
a tab, only a millimeter
or so of adjustment should be needed to trim imbalances
craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick Stockton
Sent: Monday, 10 December 2007 1:13 PM
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Aileron Trim servo
I remember seeing this trim setup for another airplane and decided to do
the same for the Europa. I think it was on an RV-6 or 9. I tried looking
through my URL that I have saved, but could not find it. I don't think it
would be to hard to set it up. I'm working on the cockpit module now and
will be installing the aileron push rod in the next couple of weeks. That
was one of the mods I will be making. I did not like like the trim out on
the aileron and covered it back up. I'll sent you some of the pictures as I
start to work on it.
craig bastin <craigb@onthenet.com.au> wrote:
Can someone point me in the right direction to an article i saw (here i
think)
2:51 PM
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not |
Hello Ron,
You said :-
>Granted for most part it will not be a problem, but you can pretty easily
> get level I feel can be critical if you get an air leak, nose low during
> landing with low fuel, running on main of tank and right hand pattern
> would put outlet of Gasculator above fuel level.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, what is the significance of your reference
to the "right hand pattern" ?
I suspect you are saying that because you are turning to the right, the fuel
will move away from the fuel pick up in the tank ?
This will only happen if the turn is not balanced. A slipping turn to the
right will have the same effect as a skidding turn to the left and vice
versa as far as the fuel movement goes.
It the turn is balanced, irrespective of the direction of turn, the fuel
will stay in the same place as when flying with wings level.
Cheers
Kingsley
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not |
Craig,
For checking the fuel system i added fuel flow sensors in both feed and return
line, and the matronix controller to see fuel flow on the Dynon (or any other
fuel flow meter). Extra is a switch that takes the return flow sensor out of the
equation. The result on the fuel flow meter is the netto throughput of the
system. Part of the checklist is to check that switch and see that the fuel exceeds
120 liters per minute on each pump, and increases with 2 pumps. Any malfunction
or blockage will show up, taking the guessing out before flight.
Regards,
Jos Okhuijsen
Visit - www.EuropaOwners.org
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not |
I missed some of the correspondence on this subject, so I hope the following
is not repetitious:-
On the 914 engine, Rotax originally specified that the two electric pumps
should be in parallel. This was changed some years ago to the pumps being
in series. The reason for this is that two pumps both running in parallel
can produce more flow than the regulator can cope with, and the pressure can
then rise above the limit for the carburettors. With the pumps in series,
the volume of flow will be substantially the same with either one or both
pumps running (the pumps being more or less fixed displacement type).
Regards,
Roger Bull
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of craig bastin
Sent: 11 December 2007 11:11 am
Subject: RE: Europa-List: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not
I guess i asked a good question here, Based on the too-ing and frow-ing
here i plan to stick with my original plan to parallel the system as far as
the engine, that way both pumps and gascolators can be tested and known to
be
working correctly, with flow sufficient to run the engine from either side
(main and reserve)
craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us
Sent: Monday, 10 December 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not
Hi Jos
"How do you calculate that?" (failure because of failed Andair 1 way
valve)
I will first mention that my 1988 R100GS BMW motorcycle with type 64 Bing
Carbs has a vacuum controlled valve that turns off fuel to carbs when
there is no vacuum. Let bike sit with MoGas with Stabil (fuel stablizer)
(with carbs run dry) and that valve glues itself closed! Valve is not too
unlike the Andair 1 way valves used by Europa on 914. A very light
pressure to open when working correctly, but 100PSI will not open if glued
shut. Carb cleaner and air can unstick, but almost unbelievable how it can
get so stuck. I have not heard of Andair 1 ways sticking opened or closed,
but my dart throw is sticking closed with MoGas use and sitting plane is
good possible failure.
OK here are some failures Europa 914 series with bypass and 2 filters (or
2 gasculators)**:
**Glue both valves shut, pump #1 on will have a hard time getting through
#2 pump that is off or failed (if both pumps on and they are working will
run OK)
**Glue both valves shut, if #1 pump fails or is off or #1 filter or
gasculator clogged, #2 pump will not provide
**#2 pump fails or is off and #1 valve stuck opened no fuel flow from pump
#1 will be supplied
**#1 pump fails or is off and #2 valve opened no flow from pump #2 will be
supplied
After fooling with system:
http://contrails.free.fr/engine_914_fuel_syst_test_en.php
Good idea to use P1 as primary pump, and good idea to be able to turn off
P1 and run just P2 to test system. If wired so P1 always running you could
not really test #1 valve or #2 filter or Gasculator.
I am using 2 Andair gasculators instead of supplied filters:
http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=Begin-06-2003&op=modlo
ad&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
See:
Album: 914 modular fuel system. Series with bypass, two Andair 375s.
Another very real failure is having an air leak in Gasculator or Filter!
On my system if I pushed up on one of the beautiful Stainless Steel Andair
bowl drains, just the tiniest bit, either pump #1, or #2 or both #1+#2
would far rather suck air than fuel and foam right away! Thats right, does
not matter Gasculator #1 valve or Gasculator #2 valve, a small leak will
kill fuel flow! Although nice drain, it still relies on an O-Ring to seal.
Worth a very close look before flight no fuel is leaking from those
Gasculator drains, and very careful monitor you have differential pressure
on both pumps, checking 1 pump at a time at high MP.
As one of my tests was to see and touch and feel for my self how the pumps
will perform with a suction head. I noticed that if you create a very
small air leak at either of the Gasculators, it is far more devistating
the greater the suction head. In other words full fuel and nose not too
high will be nowhere near as hard as low fuel level and high nose.
Ron P.
2:51 PM
2:51 PM
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not |
Roger Bull a crit :
> The reason for this is that two pumps both running in parallel
> can produce more flow than the regulator can cope with, and the pressure can
> then rise above the limit for the carburettors. With the pumps in series,
> the volume of flow will be substantially the same with either one or both
> pumps running (the pumps being more or less fixed displacement type).
>
Roger,
Did you get this information through a reliable Rotax channel ?
I was under the impression that Rotax had followed one of the Pierburg
drawing, but failed to include check valves like is advisable in any
parallel setup. The peculiar new Rotax "series/parallel" setup seems a
variation on another Pierburg schematic.
Concerning the the flow with two pumps in parallel and regulator, the
measurements we took did not show the problem you are referring to.
Some info at
http://contrails.free.fr/engine_pierburg_en.php
FWIW,
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Can anyone recommend a cough mixture? |
Please can someone suggest a cure for my rough running Rotax 912UL. The
symptoms manifest as a noticeable pulsed vibration, about once a minute,
through the airframe, joystick and rudder pedals about 15 minutes after
start-up ie within five minutes after take-off and when revs come back
under 5,000. It is as if she is trying to clear her throat and it is a
little less noticeable if the fuel pump is running. I was lucky enough
to acquire her (a Mono classic) quite recently (kit 33). I have tried
the following:- new regulator, new spark plugs (the old ones looked
perfect), ohms tested HT leads, pressured tested cylinders (virtually
identical), balanced the carbs., removed stripped and pressure blown
carbs, drained fuel tanks and refuelled with Super unleaded. In case it
is relevant I cruise her at 4,800 rpm, at 2,000ft amsl which gives
approx 118kts burning 14+lph. Today for the first time I refuelled with
Avgas and was surprised to find that above 5,000 rpm the engine ran like
a sewing machine and only tried to go back to her bad old ways at 4,600
rpm and below. Please could someone point me in the right direction -
Thanks, Bill Wynne
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Can anyone recommend a cough mixture? |
It sounds to me like a case of old mogas.
Mogas has a number of very volatile additives which disappear
when it sits for a few weeks. The hypothesis is half confirmed
by smooth running with AVgas which does not out-date.
Try fresh mogas the next time you replenish and don't let it sit
too long before firing up.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=151720#151720
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not |
K
YOu are right on to it!
JR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kingsley Hurst" <hurstkr@redzone.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not
> <hurstkr@redzone.com.au>
>
> Hello Ron,
>
> You said :-
>>Granted for most part it will not be a problem, but you can pretty easily
>> get level I feel can be critical if you get an air leak, nose low during
>> landing with low fuel, running on main of tank and right hand pattern
>> would put outlet of Gasculator above fuel level.
>
> At the risk of sounding pedantic, what is the significance of your
> reference to the "right hand pattern" ?
>
> I suspect you are saying that because you are turning to the right, the
> fuel will move away from the fuel pick up in the tank ?
> This will only happen if the turn is not balanced. A slipping turn to the
> right will have the same effect as a skidding turn to the left and vice
> versa as far as the fuel movement goes.
> It the turn is balanced, irrespective of the direction of turn, the fuel
> will stay in the same place as when flying with wings level.
>
> Cheers
> Kingsley
>
>
> --
> 269.17.0/1180 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 2:51 PM
>
>
--
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not |
Hi Kingsley
"At the risk of sounding pedantic, what is the significance of your
reference to the "right hand pattern" ?"
I was trying to make a point that all can be well till a certain scenario
is met (raise Gasculator in relation to fuel level).
My Gasculators are behind the baggage bay bulkheads. Lower the nose with
flaps down as you would when landing and that would raise the Gasculators
in relation to fuel level. I mentioned right hand pattern, it is true if
you are in a bank coordinated Gs will be vertical, when getting into bank
if you didn't apply enough rudder and slipped a bit fuel would slosh a bit
lower than Gasculators. I remember early on in my flying that I had a
tendency to not boot enough rudder when flying a right pattern (and could
in fact uncover right tank pick up).
Ron P.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not |
Hi Jos
"For checking the fuel system i added fuel flow sensors in both feed and
return line, and the matronix controller to see fuel flow on the Dynon (or
any other fuel flow meter). Extra is a switch that takes the return flow
sensor out of the equation. The result on the fuel flow meter is the netto
throughput of the system. Part of the checklist is to check that switch
and see that the fuel exceeds 120 liters per minute on each pump, and
increases with 2 pumps. Any malfunction or blockage will show up, taking
the guessing out before flight."
Boy with 120 liter per minute flow (7,200 liters per hour), you could
shoot some fuel out the back for jet assisted take offs ;-)
I have not tested flow with fuel pressure regulator attached, but did put
restriction on outlet and with 2 pumps running, series with bypass, there
was only perhaps a small increase in flow, but there was an increase in
pressure (thumb on outlet was the instrument used).
What sort of % increase in flow are you seeing with 2 pumps running
compared to 1 running on your system??
Did you actually put diaphragm of fuel pressure regulator under pressure
as described in Rotax manual to simulate boost in airbox and lower
atmospheric pressure and measure that differential pressure (carb fuel
pressure above airbox pressure by approx. 2 to 5 PSI) and found that a
flow on ground of at least 120 liters per hour will satisfy?
If not what is significance to 120 liters per hour on 914??
Ron Parigoris
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Secondary Fuel Pump, correct or not |
Hi Gilles
"Concerning the the flow with two pumps in parallel and regulator, the
measurements we took did not show the problem you are referring to.
(differential pressure going above 5 PSI)"
Are the measurements you took differential pressure (carb fuel pressure
over airbox pressure) under worst case scenario for measuring too high a
pressure? Low manifold pressure and thick air? (in other words, not
simulating high altitude and high manifold pressure which is a test to
insure you have enough differential pressure).
Ron P.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|