---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 09/07/17: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 07:37 AM - Fuel selector valve (Curtis Groote) 2. 07:48 AM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Kelly McMullen) 3. 11:26 AM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Rene) 4. 03:08 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Bob Turner) 5. 03:28 PM - Re: Re: Fuel selector valve (Rene) 6. 03:36 PM - Re: Re: Fuel selector valve (Tim Olson) 7. 04:32 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Bob Turner) 8. 07:39 PM - Re: Re: Fuel selector valve (Kelly McMullen) 9. 08:27 PM - Fuel PSI Fluctuations - Update (Phillip Perry) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 07:37:29 AM PST US From: Curtis Groote Subject: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve Has anyone replaced their standard Van's fuel selector valve with an Andair fuel selector valve? Why would one want to do that? What is the part number? Thanks. Curtis Groote ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:48:04 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve From: Kelly McMullen A lot of builders have chosen the Andair valve. There were reports at one time of the Vans valve failing early, and I believe it got redesigned. The Andair valve is well built, more aircraft quality than the Vans valve. IMHO, the stock mounting location is too high in the tunnel, regardless of the brand. You want to minimize the elevation changes from wing to boost pump to reduce chances of an air or vapor blockage. It takes some effort to make the fuel line bends to get the valve as low as possible in the tunnel, but I believe it reduces chances blockage, and reduces amount of suction needed to get fuel from wings to the pump. On 9/7/2017 7:36 AM, Curtis Groote wrote: > > Has anyone replaced their standard Van's fuel selector valve with an Andair fuel selector valve? Why would one want to do that? What is the part number? Thanks. > > > Curtis Groote > > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 11:26:16 AM PST US From: "Rene" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve 1. If I remember HS physics (70's for me), the rise and drop of the line will not really affect how much suction is needed to pull the fuel except to overcome the friction of the longer line. Don't think it matters either way and I am just saying this because it interest me. I do think limiting the number of fuel connections and length of fuel lines has its positive safety benefits. 2. I have mine in stock location. I was kit 322 and did that part of the build in 2006 I think, early builder. I have had no problems with the valve. But if I was doing that part of the build again, I would go with the Andair valve. Having it lower in the tunnel would help with the aft heat duct routing also. I think it is a much nicer valve. Rene' 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 8:46 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve A lot of builders have chosen the Andair valve. There were reports at one time of the Vans valve failing early, and I believe it got redesigned. The Andair valve is well built, more aircraft quality than the Vans valve. IMHO, the stock mounting location is too high in the tunnel, regardless of the brand. You want to minimize the elevation changes from wing to boost pump to reduce chances of an air or vapor blockage. It takes some effort to make the fuel line bends to get the valve as low as possible in the tunnel, but I believe it reduces chances blockage, and reduces amount of suction needed to get fuel from wings to the pump. On 9/7/2017 7:36 AM, Curtis Groote wrote: > > Has anyone replaced their standard Van's fuel selector valve with an Andair fuel selector valve? Why would one want to do that? What is the part number? Thanks. > > > Curtis Groote > > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 03:08:34 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fuel selector valve From: "Bob Turner" rene(at)felker.com wrote: > 1. If I remember HS physics (70's for me), the rise and drop of the line will not really affect how much suction is needed to pull the fuel except to overcome the friction of the longer line. Don't think it matters either way and I am just saying this because it interest me. I do think limiting the number of fuel connections and length of fuel lines has its positive safety benefits. > 2. I have mine in stock location. I was kit 322 and did that part of the build in 2006 I think, early builder. I have had no problems with the valve. But if I was doing that part of the build again, I would go with the Andair valve. Having it lower in the tunnel would help with the aft heat duct routing also. I think it is a much nicer valve. > > Rene' > 801-721-6080 > > -- 1. You're right; in fact, no suction is needed at all, since the pump/filter are lower than the tank. If you open the line at the filter, gas will just run out. However, the pressure is lower, the higher you go. (If you put the valve up 25 feet (!) the pressure would drop to zero and no fuel would flow, no matter how hard the pump pulled. At the elevated valve, pressure will be a bit lower, providing more opportunity for the fuel to vaporize if conditions are right (or should I say 'wrong'?). 2. Since about mid-2008 the stock valve is located in a slightly (4") lower location than previously, slightly lessening the pressure drop, but also allowing for more room to get the heater SCAT tubing thru there. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472591#472591 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 03:28:18 PM PST US From: "Rene" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Fuel selector valve Oh, so they moved it down. I would still replace the valve because I do not like the feel, just does not feel like it is in position and I always wonder when I am in the air. Rene' 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 4:08 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fuel selector valve rene(at)felker.com wrote: > 1. If I remember HS physics (70's for me), the rise and drop of the line will not really affect how much suction is needed to pull the fuel except to overcome the friction of the longer line. Don't think it matters either way and I am just saying this because it interest me. I do think limiting the number of fuel connections and length of fuel lines has its positive safety benefits. > 2. I have mine in stock location. I was kit 322 and did that part of the build in 2006 I think, early builder. I have had no problems with the valve. But if I was doing that part of the build again, I would go with the Andair valve. Having it lower in the tunnel would help with the aft heat duct routing also. I think it is a much nicer valve. > > Rene' > 801-721-6080 > > -- 1. You're right; in fact, no suction is needed at all, since the pump/filter are lower than the tank. If you open the line at the filter, gas will just run out. However, the pressure is lower, the higher you go. (If you put the valve up 25 feet (!) the pressure would drop to zero and no fuel would flow, no matter how hard the pump pulled. At the elevated valve, pressure will be a bit lower, providing more opportunity for the fuel to vaporize if conditions are right (or should I say 'wrong'?). 2. Since about mid-2008 the stock valve is located in a slightly (4") lower location than previously, slightly lessening the pressure drop, but also allowing for more room to get the heater SCAT tubing thru there. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472591#472591 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 03:36:21 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fuel selector valve From: Tim Olson Bob, That's interesting. I know I did it that way in 2005 (finished and flew in Feb 2006). I wasn't aware that they made the change to the plans though. I'm actually impressed. I thought they never changed anything once it was released, unless it was a major issue. I did it for the reasons you mentioned, including the heater SCAT. I'm just surprised that it actually became official. It made sense to me at least. Tim > > 1. You're right; in fact, no suction is needed at all, since the pump/filter are lower than the tank. If you open the line at the filter, gas will just run out. However, the pressure is lower, the higher you go. (If you put the valve up 25 feet (!) the pressure would drop to zero and no fuel would flow, no matter how hard the pump pulled. At the elevated valve, pressure will be a bit lower, providing more opportunity for the fuel to vaporize if conditions are right (or should I say 'wrong'?). > 2. Since about mid-2008 the stock valve is located in a slightly (4") lower location than previously, slightly lessening the pressure drop, but also allowing for more room to get the heater SCAT tubing thru there. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 04:32:44 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fuel selector valve From: "Bob Turner" The post early 2008 set up uses a very slightly modified valve - the shaft is slightly thinner. The handle up on top of the tunnel is greatly improved, with a locking feature and a 'pull up to turn' feature. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472595#472595 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:39:20 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fuel selector valve From: Kelly McMullen If you have no air/vapor in the system, no leaks, etc. then yes siphon is no big deal. Is that the real world in your airplane if you run one tank dry, or your connections are imperfect? Will your fuel not vaporize when suction is applied to it? At 130 degrees runway temperature? Ever tried to start a siphon with mouth suction? The amount of rise definitely makes a difference. On 9/7/2017 3:08 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > rene(at)felker.com wrote: >> 1. If I remember HS physics (70's for me), the rise and drop of the line will not really affect how much suction is needed to pull the fuel except to overcome the friction of the longer line. Don't think it matters either way and I am just saying this because it interest me. I do think limiting the number of fuel connections and length of fuel lines has its positive safety benefits. >> 2. I have mine in stock location. I was kit 322 and did that part of the build in 2006 I think, early builder. I have had no problems with the valve. But if I was doing that part of the build again, I would go with the Andair valve. Having it lower in the tunnel would help with the aft heat duct routing also. I think it is a much nicer valve. >> >> Rene' >> 801-721-6080 >> >> -- > > > 1. You're right; in fact, no suction is needed at all, since the pump/filter are lower than the tank. If you open the line at the filter, gas will just run out. However, the pressure is lower, the higher you go. (If you put the valve up 25 feet (!) the pressure would drop to zero and no fuel would flow, no matter how hard the pump pulled. At the elevated valve, pressure will be a bit lower, providing more opportunity for the fuel to vaporize if conditions are right (or should I say 'wrong'?). > 2. Since about mid-2008 the stock valve is located in a slightly (4") lower location than previously, slightly lessening the pressure drop, but also allowing for more room to get the heater SCAT tubing thru there. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=472591#472591 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:27:32 PM PST US From: Phillip Perry Subject: RV10-List: Fuel PSI Fluctuations - Update For the past few weeks, I haven't had much time to fly. But it's getting b etter tomorrow I hope to fly some more and hopefully get knocking on the doo r of retiring Phase 1. I am not willing to claim 100% victory yet, but I've managed to make some go od progress on the fuel pressure fluctuations and the rough engine. After searching for leaks, contamination, etc. I finally zeroed in on heat forward of the firewall. My tunnel is cool to the touch so it had to be f orward. I had mentioned that I re-routed a fuel line away from exhaust and that help ed smooth out the engine quite a bit. But there was still a hint of roughne ss. Not bad, but enough to make you sit up straight in your seat. I manufactured some heat shields and clamped them on to the fuel lines comin g into and out of the engine driven fuel pump. Protecting from exhaust hea t. That appears to be the secret to the rough engine. Last two flights have b een great. The fuel PSI fluctuations were reduced from 4 psi in cruise to a bout .5 psi. Good progress! My fuel pump cooling shroud came in, and knowing the heat shields made a dif ference, I stared down my fuel pump and picked the fight. After a simple 4 h our swap earlier, this time that @&$%# beast fought me at every turn. 2 da ys and 11 hours of shop time later, it was installed and test run. I hate f uel pump replacements now and my hands are chewed up and bruised from this o ne. I flew it again tonight and the cooling shroud didn't make any incremental d ifference.........though I suspect it will still be beneficial once we get b ack to the hot Texas weather again. Here is a video from tonight in cruise. https://youtu.be/x3geLPYmuyU I was still seeing about 4 psi fluctuations in climb but in cruise it was ba ck in the .5 range. Engine is running well and .5 doesn't seem that bad once you're stable in cr uise. So I'm going to let it go until it becomes a problem or some symptom s begin showing their face. So far it's what you want out of the airplane . My next thing to try is focusing on the sensor. I'm going to re-crimp the s ensor wires to make sure that's not contributing to it. And maybe, someday, I might replace be sensor. But at least it's safe now and running like you'd expect. Takes a load off and it's nice to be able to relax a bit and not have to sit straight up in t he seat the entire time. :) Phil Sent from my iPhone ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv10-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV10-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv10-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv10-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.