Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:24 AM - Re: Landing Gear Warning System (roddyeuropa@aol.com)
2. 08:32 AM - Re: Fuel Flow Meter (rampil)
3. 10:29 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Flow Meter (David Joyce)
4. 10:46 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Flow Meter (Dean Seitz)
5. 11:50 AM - Factory upholstery kit (Kelvin Weston)
6. 12:25 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Flow Meter (Jan de Jong)
7. 12:32 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Flow Meter (David Joyce)
8. 01:20 PM - Re: Fuel Flow Meter (rampil)
9. 01:30 PM - Re: Club clothing (Richard Holder)
10. 01:53 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Flow Meter (Jan de Jong)
11. 04:04 PM - Re: Factory upholstery kit (Keith Hickling)
12. 06:42 PM - Re: Factory upholstery kit (rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us)
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: Landing Gear Warning System |
Instead of a microswitch, I use a magnetic reed switch mounted on the centr
e console, with a small magnet embedded in the undercarriage latch. It has
the advantage of not restricting the latching in any way.
Roddy Kesterton
G-IKRK
-----Original Message-----
From: David Joyce <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk>
Sent: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:01
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Landing Gear Warning System
>
Ron, If it is reasonably current it has a wire for a U/C
warning which you can attach to a microswitch in the
indent where the U/C lever goes when locked. You shouldn't
need another one as well. regards, David
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:50:26 -0400
rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi David
>
>
> Ron, I would very seriously recommend putting in a
>SmartASS:
>
>
> We purchased a Smart ASS Mk 1 that will be installed:
>
>
> http://www.europaowners.org/main.php?g2_itemId=79836
>
>
> I forget if it has a UC warning input, if it does will
>probably use it as
> well as our warning system.
>
>
> Thx. for your INPUT!
>
>
> Ron Parigoris
>
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: | Re: Fuel Flow Meter |
Alan,
Floscan makes 3 models of the 201 sender for varying expected mean
flow rates of gasoline. The appropriate unit for the 914 is the 201A
model which handles 0.3 - 30 gal per hour.
If a jet is added, at least in my imagination of what a "jet" or orifice might
be, it will add turbulence and reduce accuracy of the flow turbine. I could
not find a reference to such an addition in the FloScan site. Further, in a
914 application, the meaningful flow regime is roughly 3 - 7 gal/hour, well
within the linear range of system. Does it really matter if the measured
flow rate at idle power (less than 2 gal/hr) is slightly off?
The only place where the flow rates are less than that is in the return line
to the tank. In my 912s application, the return flow is unmeasured, but
very small, since my measured forward flow rate are right at what Rotax
predicts in the manual. It is much less than the LAA posited rate of 0.8
gal/hr through the 0.35mm orifice.This was after I independently
calibrated my Floscan at three different flow rates. Perhaps the LAA
used a higher than Rotax max pressure head of 5 psi through the orifice?
The slight apparent increase in fuel flow rate (by not measuring the return
flow and subtracting it in the totalizer) seems to me a a safety feature.
BTW, any additional "jet" in the return line, if that is what you were
contemplating is a direct violation of the engine install instructions for the
914 which requires a low resistance path bach to the tank after the
pressure regulator.
The return flow rate situation with the 914 may be a bit different than
with the 912s, though the pressures and the return orifice are the same.
I recognize that if the LAA tells you that you must have return flow measured,
if measuring flow at all, you must comply.
It is just my opinion that trying to measure flow rates under 0.5 gal/hr will
be inherently inaccurate with the Floscan 201A in an aircraft environment
and isnot worth the trouble and expense. On the other hand, many
builders have this feature installed.
Best of luck!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408424#408424
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: | Re: Fuel Flow Meter |
Alan, I go along with that. My 914/twin Floscan set up has
worked nicely without any sort of jet. The only relevant
stipulation I can remember is that there should be a
reasonable length of fairly straight hose leading into
each Floscan as sharp corners will produce turbulence and
false readings. One of the key points with the Floscan I
believe is that even if its spinner jams it will not
significantly impede flow. It seems a bad idea to put
anything in the flow if you don't have to.
Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:31:34 -0700
"rampil" <ira.rampil@gmail.com> wrote:
><ira.rampil@gmail.com>
>
> Alan,
>
>Floscan makes 3 models of the 201 sender for varying
>expected mean
> flow rates of gasoline. The appropriate unit for the
>914 is the 201A
> model which handles 0.3 - 30 gal per hour.
>
> If a jet is added, at least in my imagination of what a
>"jet" or orifice might
> be, it will add turbulence and reduce accuracy of the
>flow turbine. I could
> not find a reference to such an addition in the FloScan
>site. Further, in a
> 914 application, the meaningful flow regime is roughly 3
>- 7 gal/hour, well
> within the linear range of system. Does it really matter
>if the measured
> flow rate at idle power (less than 2 gal/hr) is slightly
>off?
>
> The only place where the flow rates are less than that
>is in the return line
> to the tank. In my 912s application, the return flow is
>unmeasured, but
> very small, since my measured forward flow rate are
>right at what Rotax
> predicts in the manual. It is much less than the LAA
>posited rate of 0.8
> gal/hr through the 0.35mm orifice.This was after I
>independently
> calibrated my Floscan at three different flow rates.
>Perhaps the LAA
> used a higher than Rotax max pressure head of 5 psi
>through the orifice?
> The slight apparent increase in fuel flow rate (by not
>measuring the return
> flow and subtracting it in the totalizer) seems to me a
>a safety feature.
>
> BTW, any additional "jet" in the return line, if that is
>what you were
> contemplating is a direct violation of the engine
>install instructions for the
> 914 which requires a low resistance path bach to the
>tank after the
> pressure regulator.
>
> The return flow rate situation with the 914 may be a bit
>different than
> with the 912s, though the pressures and the return
>orifice are the same.
>
> I recognize that if the LAA tells you that you must have
>return flow measured, if measuring flow at all, you must
>comply.
>
> It is just my opinion that trying to measure flow rates
>under 0.5 gal/hr will
> be inherently inaccurate with the Floscan 201A in an
>aircraft environment
> and isnot worth the trouble and expense. On the other
>hand, many
> builders have this feature installed.
>
> Best of luck!
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408424#408424
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Un/Subscription,
>Forums!
>Admin.
>
>
>
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: Fuel Flow Meter |
The 914 does not have a low flow rate. It pumps around 20 gal per hour from the
tank and returns all of that minus what the engine used back to the tank. Feed
is around 20 gal/hr and return is about 15 gal/hr at cruise. At idle it's almost
20 gal/hr return.
---- David Joyce <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Alan, I go along with that. My 914/twin Floscan set up has
> worked nicely without any sort of jet. The only relevant
> stipulation I can remember is that there should be a
> reasonable length of fairly straight hose leading into
> each Floscan as sharp corners will produce turbulence and
> false readings. One of the key points with the Floscan I
> believe is that even if its spinner jams it will not
> significantly impede flow. It seems a bad idea to put
> anything in the flow if you don't have to.
> Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:31:34 -0700
> "rampil" <ira.rampil@gmail.com> wrote:
> ><ira.rampil@gmail.com>
> >
> > Alan,
> >
> >Floscan makes 3 models of the 201 sender for varying
> >expected mean
> > flow rates of gasoline. The appropriate unit for the
> >914 is the 201A
> > model which handles 0.3 - 30 gal per hour.
> >
> > If a jet is added, at least in my imagination of what a
> >"jet" or orifice might
> > be, it will add turbulence and reduce accuracy of the
> >flow turbine. I could
> > not find a reference to such an addition in the FloScan
> >site. Further, in a
> > 914 application, the meaningful flow regime is roughly 3
> >- 7 gal/hour, well
> > within the linear range of system. Does it really matter
> >if the measured
> > flow rate at idle power (less than 2 gal/hr) is slightly
> >off?
> >
> > The only place where the flow rates are less than that
> >is in the return line
> > to the tank. In my 912s application, the return flow is
> >unmeasured, but
> > very small, since my measured forward flow rate are
> >right at what Rotax
> > predicts in the manual. It is much less than the LAA
> >posited rate of 0.8
> > gal/hr through the 0.35mm orifice.This was after I
> >independently
> > calibrated my Floscan at three different flow rates.
> >Perhaps the LAA
> > used a higher than Rotax max pressure head of 5 psi
> >through the orifice?
> > The slight apparent increase in fuel flow rate (by not
> >measuring the return
> > flow and subtracting it in the totalizer) seems to me a
> >a safety feature.
> >
> > BTW, any additional "jet" in the return line, if that is
> >what you were
> > contemplating is a direct violation of the engine
> >install instructions for the
> > 914 which requires a low resistance path bach to the
> >tank after the
> > pressure regulator.
> >
> > The return flow rate situation with the 914 may be a bit
> >different than
> > with the 912s, though the pressures and the return
> >orifice are the same.
> >
> > I recognize that if the LAA tells you that you must have
> >return flow measured, if measuring flow at all, you must
> >comply.
> >
> > It is just my opinion that trying to measure flow rates
> >under 0.5 gal/hr will
> > be inherently inaccurate with the Floscan 201A in an
> >aircraft environment
> > and isnot worth the trouble and expense. On the other
> >hand, many
> > builders have this feature installed.
> >
> > Best of luck!
> >
> > --------
> > Ira N224XS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408424#408424
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Un/Subscription,
> >Forums!
> >Admin.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
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: | Factory upholstery kit |
Hi all
If anyone has the Europa supplied seat and upholstery kit, I would like some information
regarding the seats.
How well does the seat back cushion fit around the wing spar pins? and do the cushions
provide support in the lower back area?
I saw some examples of the seats at the LAA Rally a few weekends ago. The seat
base looks ok but the seat back looks like a very simple flat, slab-like arrangement.
On returning home and looking at the cockpit module, it would appear that the back
cushion will conflict with and cover the wing spar pins.
Has anybody experienced problems in this area?
In addition, I was also very aware of the change in angle of the cockpit module
front face. There is a tendency to think of this as a flat face but there is
actually quite a large change of angle. From sitting in the seat - something
I do quite a lot, with associated noises, etc, I have come to the conclusion
that any seat back cushion should follow the headrest angle down to the seat base.
Is that correct?
This would leave a triangular shaped void between the bottom of the seat back cushion
and the cockpit module. This would almost certainly need some additional
foam / support if bad backs were to be avoided. Anyone had any problems like
this?
--------
Regards
Kelv Weston
Kit 497
kelv@kdweston.biz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408442#408442
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: | Re: Fuel Flow Meter |
I saved a message by Jim Butcher on a blue-mountain-avionics forum where
he reported measuring a flow of 41 gph into a bucket. The Rotax 914
installation manual gives 30 gph as the rated flow for 1 pump at 300 hPa
(airbox at sea level pressure) to 25 gph at 1000 hPa (airbox at 16000'
with full boost). The second pump would increase this by a small amount.
Floscan 201A-6 seems marginal, 201B-6 seems better.
I bought from Floscan 2 of type 231 ("marine use only"), similar to
201B-6 but heavier (steel). And less expensive. And no fretting with
aluminium adapters...
Alan, if you have a 914 I believe you might get the 914 installation
manual - it has a flow graph for the pump (Pierburg E1F no. 7.21440.78.0).
And you might check out the Floscan website. There are 2 aviation pages.
Regards, Jan de Jong.
On 9/11/2013 7:45 PM, Dean Seitz wrote:
>
> The 914 does not have a low flow rate. It pumps around 20 gal per hour from the
tank and returns all of that minus what the engine used back to the tank. Feed
is around 20 gal/hr and return is about 15 gal/hr at cruise. At idle it's
almost 20 gal/hr return.
>
>
> ---- David Joyce <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Alan, I go along with that. My 914/twin Floscan set up has
>> worked nicely without any sort of jet. The only relevant
>> stipulation I can remember is that there should be a
>> reasonable length of fairly straight hose leading into
>> each Floscan as sharp corners will produce turbulence and
>> false readings. One of the key points with the Floscan I
>> believe is that even if its spinner jams it will not
>> significantly impede flow. It seems a bad idea to put
>> anything in the flow if you don't have to.
>> Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:31:34 -0700
>> "rampil" <ira.rampil@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <ira.rampil@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Alan,
>>>
>>> Floscan makes 3 models of the 201 sender for varying
>>> expected mean
>>> flow rates of gasoline. The appropriate unit for the
>>> 914 is the 201A
>>> model which handles 0.3 - 30 gal per hour.
>>>
>>> If a jet is added, at least in my imagination of what a
>>> "jet" or orifice might
>>> be, it will add turbulence and reduce accuracy of the
>>> flow turbine. I could
>>> not find a reference to such an addition in the FloScan
>>> site. Further, in a
>>> 914 application, the meaningful flow regime is roughly 3
>>> - 7 gal/hour, well
>>> within the linear range of system. Does it really matter
>>> if the measured
>>> flow rate at idle power (less than 2 gal/hr) is slightly
>>> off?
>>>
>>> The only place where the flow rates are less than that
>>> is in the return line
>>> to the tank. In my 912s application, the return flow is
>>> unmeasured, but
>>> very small, since my measured forward flow rate are
>>> right at what Rotax
>>> predicts in the manual. It is much less than the LAA
>>> posited rate of 0.8
>>> gal/hr through the 0.35mm orifice.This was after I
>>> independently
>>> calibrated my Floscan at three different flow rates.
>>> Perhaps the LAA
>>> used a higher than Rotax max pressure head of 5 psi
>>> through the orifice?
>>> The slight apparent increase in fuel flow rate (by not
>>> measuring the return
>>> flow and subtracting it in the totalizer) seems to me a
>>> a safety feature.
>>>
>>> BTW, any additional "jet" in the return line, if that is
>>> what you were
>>> contemplating is a direct violation of the engine
>>> install instructions for the
>>> 914 which requires a low resistance path bach to the
>>> tank after the
>>> pressure regulator.
>>>
>>> The return flow rate situation with the 914 may be a bit
>>> different than
>>> with the 912s, though the pressures and the return
>>> orifice are the same.
>>>
>>> I recognize that if the LAA tells you that you must have
>>> return flow measured, if measuring flow at all, you must
>>> comply.
>>>
>>> It is just my opinion that trying to measure flow rates
>>> under 0.5 gal/hr will
>>> be inherently inaccurate with the Floscan 201A in an
>>> aircraft environment
>>> and isnot worth the trouble and expense. On the other
>>> hand, many
>>> builders have this feature installed.
>>>
>>> Best of luck!
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Ira N224XS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408424#408424
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Un/Subscription,
>>> Forums!
>>> Admin.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Fuel Flow Meter |
Jan, I wonder whether he was measuring what came out of
the pump, rather than what came back through the return
hose with the engine not going,
once the fuel had gone through the pressure release
valve., which will be quite a bit less I guess.
Regards, David Joyce, G- XSDJ
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:24:13 +0200
Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong@casema.nl> wrote:
><jan_de_jong@casema.nl>
>
> I saved a message by Jim Butcher on a
>blue-mountain-avionics forum where he reported measuring
>a flow of 41 gph into a bucket. The Rotax 914
>installation manual gives 30 gph as the rated flow for 1
>pump at 300 hPa (airbox at sea level pressure) to 25 gph
>at 1000 hPa (airbox at 16000' with full boost). The
>second pump would increase this by a small amount.
>Floscan 201A-6 seems marginal, 201B-6 seems better.
> I bought from Floscan 2 of type 231 ("marine use only"),
>similar to 201B-6 but heavier (steel). And less
>expensive. And no fretting with aluminium adapters...
> Alan, if you have a 914 I believe you might get the 914
>installation manual - it has a flow graph for the pump
>(Pierburg E1F no. 7.21440.78.0).
> And you might check out the Floscan website. There are 2
>aviation pages.
> Regards, Jan de Jong.
>
> On 9/11/2013 7:45 PM, Dean Seitz wrote:
>><daseitz@cfl.rr.com>
>>
>> The 914 does not have a low flow rate. It pumps around
>>20 gal per hour from the tank and returns all of that
>>minus what the engine used back to the tank. Feed is
>>around 20 gal/hr and return is about 15 gal/hr at cruise.
>>At idle it's almost 20 gal/hr return.
>>
>>
>> ---- David Joyce <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk> wrote:
>>><davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk>
>>>
>>> Alan, I go along with that. My 914/twin Floscan set up
>>>has
>>> worked nicely without any sort of jet. The only relevant
>>> stipulation I can remember is that there should be a
>>> reasonable length of fairly straight hose leading into
>>> each Floscan as sharp corners will produce turbulence
>>>and
>>> false readings. One of the key points with the Floscan I
>>> believe is that even if its spinner jams it will not
>>> significantly impede flow. It seems a bad idea to put
>>> anything in the flow if you don't have to.
>>> Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:31:34 -0700
>>> "rampil" <ira.rampil@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <ira.rampil@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Alan,
>>>>
>>>> Floscan makes 3 models of the 201 sender for varying
>>>> expected mean
>>>> flow rates of gasoline. The appropriate unit for the
>>>> 914 is the 201A
>>>> model which handles 0.3 - 30 gal per hour.
>>>>
>>>> If a jet is added, at least in my imagination of what a
>>>> "jet" or orifice might
>>>> be, it will add turbulence and reduce accuracy of the
>>>> flow turbine. I could
>>>> not find a reference to such an addition in the FloScan
>>>> site. Further, in a
>>>> 914 application, the meaningful flow regime is roughly 3
>>>> - 7 gal/hour, well
>>>> within the linear range of system. Does it really matter
>>>> if the measured
>>>> flow rate at idle power (less than 2 gal/hr) is slightly
>>>> off?
>>>>
>>>> The only place where the flow rates are less than that
>>>> is in the return line
>>>> to the tank. In my 912s application, the return flow is
>>>> unmeasured, but
>>>> very small, since my measured forward flow rate are
>>>> right at what Rotax
>>>> predicts in the manual. It is much less than the LAA
>>>> posited rate of 0.8
>>>> gal/hr through the 0.35mm orifice.This was after I
>>>> independently
>>>> calibrated my Floscan at three different flow rates.
>>>> Perhaps the LAA
>>>> used a higher than Rotax max pressure head of 5 psi
>>>> through the orifice?
>>>> The slight apparent increase in fuel flow rate (by not
>>>> measuring the return
>>>> flow and subtracting it in the totalizer) seems to me a
>>>> a safety feature.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, any additional "jet" in the return line, if that is
>>>> what you were
>>>> contemplating is a direct violation of the engine
>>>> install instructions for the
>>>> 914 which requires a low resistance path bach to the
>>>> tank after the
>>>> pressure regulator.
>>>>
>>>> The return flow rate situation with the 914 may be a bit
>>>> different than
>>>> with the 912s, though the pressures and the return
>>>> orifice are the same.
>>>>
>>>> I recognize that if the LAA tells you that you must have
>>>> return flow measured, if measuring flow at all, you must
>>>> comply.
>>>>
>>>> It is just my opinion that trying to measure flow rates
>>>> under 0.5 gal/hr will
>>>> be inherently inaccurate with the Floscan 201A in an
>>>> aircraft environment
>>>> and isnot worth the trouble and expense. On the other
>>>> hand, many
>>>> builders have this feature installed.
>>>>
>>>> Best of luck!
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> Ira N224XS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408424#408424
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Un/Subscription,
>>>> Forums!
>>>> Admin.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Un/Subscription,
>Forums!
>Admin.
>
>
>
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: | Re: Fuel Flow Meter |
I defer to those with 914 experience!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408452#408452
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: Club clothing |
On 14/08/2013 09:27, Steven Pitt wrote:
> At the LAA Rally at Sywell, we hope to have some clothing
> for sale with the Club emblem (please see website under
> sales for the items expected to be on sale). If you would
> like to order personalised items, to include the Club logo
> and your aircraft registration, then I can arrange this
> and save you postage.
> Time is short so if anyone is interested contact me off
> list to arrange the order and you can save on postage. I
> need to order by this weekend to have them at Sywell.
> Pilot shirts are 15
> Fleeces are 16
> Polo shirts are 10
> Caps are 9
> See you at the show.
> Steve Pitt
> Chairman, Europa Club
> steven.pitt2@ntlworld.com
Hi Steve
Hope everything went well at Sywell - everything bar my
four polos !
Any plans to be passing this way in the near future ?
Richard
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: Fuel Flow Meter |
David, "I measured actual fuel flow (ran pump into a bucket) and
determined it is 41 gph."
The maximum operating flow through the forward flow sensor would be
slightly smaller than 41 gph - the difference between 300 hPa and 0 hPa
in the pump diagram is between 1 and 2 gph.
I agree that the return flow is 0 (engine off) to 10 gph (115%) smaller
than the forward flow.
Regards, Jan de Jong
On 9/11/2013 9:32 PM, David Joyce wrote:
> <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk>
>
> Jan, I wonder whether he was measuring what came out of the pump,
> rather than what came back through the return hose with the engine not
> going,
> once the fuel had gone through the pressure release valve., which will
> be quite a bit less I guess.
> Regards, David Joyce, G- XSDJ
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:24:13 +0200
> Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong@casema.nl> wrote:
>>
>> I saved a message by Jim Butcher on a blue-mountain-avionics forum
>> where he reported measuring a flow of 41 gph into a bucket. The Rotax
>> 914 installation manual gives 30 gph as the rated flow for 1 pump at
>> 300 hPa (airbox at sea level pressure) to 25 gph at 1000 hPa (airbox
>> at 16000' with full boost). The second pump would increase this by a
>> small amount.
>> Floscan 201A-6 seems marginal, 201B-6 seems better.
>> I bought from Floscan 2 of type 231 ("marine use only"), similar to
>> 201B-6 but heavier (steel). And less expensive. And no fretting with
>> aluminium adapters...
>> Alan, if you have a 914 I believe you might get the 914 installation
>> manual - it has a flow graph for the pump (Pierburg E1F no.
>> 7.21440.78.0).
>> And you might check out the Floscan website. There are 2 aviation pages.
>> Regards, Jan de Jong.
>>
>> On 9/11/2013 7:45 PM, Dean Seitz wrote:
>>>
>>> The 914 does not have a low flow rate. It pumps around 20 gal per
>>> hour from the tank and returns all of that minus what the engine
>>> used back to the tank. Feed is around 20 gal/hr and return is about
>>> 15 gal/hr at cruise. At idle it's almost 20 gal/hr return.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---- David Joyce <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk>
>>>>
>>>> Alan, I go along with that. My 914/twin Floscan set up has
>>>> worked nicely without any sort of jet. The only relevant
>>>> stipulation I can remember is that there should be a
>>>> reasonable length of fairly straight hose leading into
>>>> each Floscan as sharp corners will produce turbulence and
>>>> false readings. One of the key points with the Floscan I
>>>> believe is that even if its spinner jams it will not
>>>> significantly impede flow. It seems a bad idea to put
>>>> anything in the flow if you don't have to.
>>>> Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:31:34 -0700
>>>> "rampil" <ira.rampil@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <ira.rampil@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Floscan makes 3 models of the 201 sender for varying
>>>>> expected mean
>>>>> flow rates of gasoline. The appropriate unit for the
>>>>> 914 is the 201A
>>>>> model which handles 0.3 - 30 gal per hour.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a jet is added, at least in my imagination of what a
>>>>> "jet" or orifice might
>>>>> be, it will add turbulence and reduce accuracy of the
>>>>> flow turbine. I could
>>>>> not find a reference to such an addition in the FloScan
>>>>> site. Further, in a
>>>>> 914 application, the meaningful flow regime is roughly 3
>>>>> - 7 gal/hour, well
>>>>> within the linear range of system. Does it really matter
>>>>> if the measured
>>>>> flow rate at idle power (less than 2 gal/hr) is slightly
>>>>> off?
>>>>>
>>>>> The only place where the flow rates are less than that
>>>>> is in the return line
>>>>> to the tank. In my 912s application, the return flow is
>>>>> unmeasured, but
>>>>> very small, since my measured forward flow rate are
>>>>> right at what Rotax
>>>>> predicts in the manual. It is much less than the LAA
>>>>> posited rate of 0.8
>>>>> gal/hr through the 0.35mm orifice.This was after I
>>>>> independently
>>>>> calibrated my Floscan at three different flow rates.
>>>>> Perhaps the LAA
>>>>> used a higher than Rotax max pressure head of 5 psi
>>>>> through the orifice?
>>>>> The slight apparent increase in fuel flow rate (by not
>>>>> measuring the return
>>>>> flow and subtracting it in the totalizer) seems to me a
>>>>> a safety feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, any additional "jet" in the return line, if that is
>>>>> what you were
>>>>> contemplating is a direct violation of the engine
>>>>> install instructions for the
>>>>> 914 which requires a low resistance path bach to the
>>>>> tank after the
>>>>> pressure regulator.
>>>>>
>>>>> The return flow rate situation with the 914 may be a bit
>>>>> different than
>>>>> with the 912s, though the pressures and the return
>>>>> orifice are the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recognize that if the LAA tells you that you must have
>>>>> return flow measured, if measuring flow at all, you must
>>>>> comply.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is just my opinion that trying to measure flow rates
>>>>> under 0.5 gal/hr will
>>>>> be inherently inaccurate with the Floscan 201A in an
>>>>> aircraft environment
>>>>> and isnot worth the trouble and expense. On the other
>>>>> hand, many
>>>>> builders have this feature installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best of luck!
>>>>>
>>>>> --------
>>>>> Ira N224XS
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408424#408424
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Un/Subscription,
>>>>> Forums!
>>>>> Admin.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Un/Subscription,
>> Forums!
>> Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Factory upholstery kit |
Hi Kevin,
I used the factory upholstery kit. I made a triangular wedge shaped piece of
stiff foam rubber to fill in the lower part of the seatback so that in
continues the slope of the upper seatback. This is fixed to the seatback
with velcro. I made a cutout for the wingpins, and these are then
effectively in a recess in this foam and behind the seatback cushion, so
they do not protrude into the cushion. The result is quite comfortable.
I can't find a photo of the actual foam wedge at the moment, but attach a
photo showing the velcro on the seatback where it attaches.
Regards,
Keith.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Kelvin Weston" <kelv@kdweston.biz>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 6:50 AM
Subject: Europa-List: Factory upholstery kit
>
> Hi all
>
> If anyone has the Europa supplied seat and upholstery kit, I would like
> some information regarding the seats.
>
> How well does the seat back cushion fit around the wing spar pins? and do
> the cushions provide support in the lower back area?
>
> I saw some examples of the seats at the LAA Rally a few weekends ago. The
> seat base looks ok but the seat back looks like a very simple flat,
> slab-like arrangement.
> On returning home and looking at the cockpit module, it would appear that
> the back cushion will conflict with and cover the wing spar pins.
> Has anybody experienced problems in this area?
>
> In addition, I was also very aware of the change in angle of the cockpit
> module front face. There is a tendency to think of this as a flat face
> but there is actually quite a large change of angle. From sitting in the
> seat - something I do quite a lot, with associated noises, etc, I have
> come to the conclusion that any seat back cushion should follow the
> headrest angle down to the seat base. Is that correct?
>
> This would leave a triangular shaped void between the bottom of the seat
> back cushion and the cockpit module. This would almost certainly need
> some additional foam / support if bad backs were to be avoided. Anyone
> had any problems like this?
>
> --------
> Regards
>
> Kelv Weston
> Kit 497
> kelv@kdweston.biz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=408442#408442
>
>
>
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: Factory upholstery kit |
Hi Kelv
If anyone has the Europa supplied seat and upholstery kit, I would like
some information regarding the seats.
We purchased Factory seat cushions. This was I think in 2007. The fit was
not great. I don't know if Europa changed dimensions since then.
Here is a link to how my cushions fit when I first got them, you can see
the spacer I made out of blue foam and Balsa, you can see how I mutilated
the supplied cushion foam. I sent back to Europa and they modified the
covers and location of velcro and now all is well, except that my bird is
not yet flying.
Note that I have long wings too, so the balsa and blue foam will allow
for airbrake cable routing as well:
http://www.europaowners.org/main.php?g2_itemId=86921
Ron Parigoris
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! --
|