Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:54 AM - Re: Re: fuel flow from tanks (A. Dennis Savarese)
2. 07:22 AM - Re: Re: fuel flow from tanks (Jan Mevis)
3. 07:58 AM - Re: Re: fuel flow from tanks (Brian Lloyd)
4. 07:59 AM - Re: fuel flow from tanks (Rob Rowe)
5. 08:09 AM - Re: Re: fuel flow from tanks (Dr. Robert Schroeder)
6. 08:22 AM - Re: Re: fuel flow from tanks (Warren Hill)
7. 09:55 AM - Re: Re: fuel flow from tanks (A. Dennis Savarese)
8. 10:34 AM - Re: Re: fuel flow from tanks (Brian Lloyd)
9. 11:00 AM - Re: Re: fuel flow from tanks (Warren Hill)
10. 11:31 AM - Re: Re: fuel flow from tanks (A. Dennis Savarese)
11. 03:42 PM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (RICHARD VOLKER)
12. 04:26 PM - Re: Re: fuel flow from tanks (Brian Lloyd)
13. 04:28 PM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Brian Lloyd)
14. 05:25 PM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Roger Kemp M.D.)
15. 05:30 PM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Roger Kemp M.D.)
16. 06:47 PM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Brian Lloyd)
17. 07:00 PM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Brian Lloyd)
18. 07:35 PM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Bill Geipel)
19. 08:04 PM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Herb Coussons)
20. 09:53 PM - Re: G Tolerance and Hydration (Brian Lloyd)
21. 10:27 PM - Re: fuel flow from tanks (CD 2.0)
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: fuel flow from tanks |
Unless I am mistaken, the post '89 52's with separate vent systems
actually have 2 vents per tank. The standard inboard vent line and an
outboard vent line on the top of each tank, which is capped off on the
pre '89 airplanes, is used on post '89 models. Now if someone wanted to
test a modified vent system for pre '89 airplanes, one could uncap the
fitting on the fuel tanks and add a vent tube to each tank and exiting
out of the bottom of the fuel cavity cover plate. Since this vent line
is at the top of the tank AND the fact that the original tanks have the
same 2 degree dihedral in them on the bottom side (inboard to outboard)
as does the wing itself making the tank thicker on the inboard end, the
outboard vent will tend to remain clear of fuel even if the tank is
filled to the top of the filler neck. I might add a "restrictor" at the
fitting at the flare on the top tank vent line so as to force a greater
amount of air through the inboard (standard) vent tube. But the
outboard vent line would certainly help alleviate the problem.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (cell)
Skype: Yakguy1
www.yak-52.com
On 7/26/2011 8:35 PM, Rob Rowe wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Rob Rowe"<yak-list@robrowe.plus.com>
>
> Dennis - thanks for the explanation I understand the nature of the single vent
problem now. Guess that's why they introduced the 1mm flow restrictors into
the cross piece arm joints feeding return fuel to each tank when they moved to
the separate tank vents design (having blanked off the 'old' single vent arm).
Allowing the resulting return back pressure spray of fuel through the restrictors
to make it less sensitive to the orientation of the associated pipework
or aircraft (to an extent). Presume this could not be used on the single vent
design as the resulting back pressure would jettison most of the fuel out of
the belly vent cross piece arm. On my -52 (1991 build ) as a last resort we addressed
an untraceable imbalance by making one of the flow restrictor holes marginally
larger ... at these Lilliputian dimensions a 0.1mm diameter change increases
the flow hole area by c.20%, hence even the smallest change can make a
significant difference. As I mentioned in my original!
> post ... the devil's in the detail!
> Cheers, Rob
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=347804#347804
>
>
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 from tanks |
Dennis, Rob, and others, thanks for this very instructive explanations!
These kind of discussions is what makes this list so interesting!
Jan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: woensdag 27 juli 2011 15:51
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: fuel flow from tanks
--> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
Unless I am mistaken, the post '89 52's with separate vent systems actually
have 2 vents per tank. The standard inboard vent line and an outboard vent
line on the top of each tank, which is capped off on the pre '89 airplanes,
is used on post '89 models. Now if someone wanted to test a modified vent
system for pre '89 airplanes, one could uncap the fitting on the fuel tanks
and add a vent tube to each tank and exiting out of the bottom of the fuel
cavity cover plate. Since this vent line is at the top of the tank AND the
fact that the original tanks have the same 2 degree dihedral in them on the
bottom side (inboard to outboard) as does the wing itself making the tank
thicker on the inboard end, the outboard vent will tend to remain clear of
fuel even if the tank is filled to the top of the filler neck. I might add
a "restrictor" at the fitting at the flare on the top tank vent line so as
to force a greater amount of air through the inboard (standard) vent tube.
But the outboard vent line would certainly help alleviate the problem.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (cell)
Skype: Yakguy1
www.yak-52.com
On 7/26/2011 8:35 PM, Rob Rowe wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Rob Rowe"<yak-list@robrowe.plus.com>
>
> Dennis - thanks for the explanation I understand the nature of the single
vent problem now. Guess that's why they introduced the 1mm flow restrictors
into the cross piece arm joints feeding return fuel to each tank when they
moved to the separate tank vents design (having blanked off the 'old' single
vent arm). Allowing the resulting return back pressure spray of fuel
through the restrictors to make it less sensitive to the orientation of the
associated pipework or aircraft (to an extent). Presume this could not be
used on the single vent design as the resulting back pressure would jettison
most of the fuel out of the belly vent cross piece arm. On my -52 (1991
build ) as a last resort we addressed an untraceable imbalance by making one
of the flow restrictor holes marginally larger ... at these Lilliputian
dimensions a 0.1mm diameter change increases the flow hole area by c.20%,
hence even the smallest change can make a significant difference. As I
mentioned in my origin!
al!
> post ... the devil's in the detail!
> Cheers, Rob
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=347804#347804
>
>
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 from tanks |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:51 AM, A. Dennis Savarese <
dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> Unless I am mistaken, the post '89 52's with separate vent systems actually
> have 2 vents per tank. The standard inboard vent line and an outboard vent
> line on the top of each tank, which is capped off on the pre '89 airplanes,
> is used on post '89 models. Now if someone wanted to test a modified vent
> system for pre '89 airplanes, one could uncap the fitting on the fuel tanks
> and add a vent tube to each tank and exiting out of the bottom of the fuel
> cavity cover plate. Since this vent line is at the top of the tank AND the
> fact that the original tanks have the same 2 degree dihedral in them on the
> bottom side (inboard to outboard) as does the wing itself making the tank
> thicker on the inboard end, the outboard vent will tend to remain clear of
> fuel even if the tank is filled to the top of the filler neck. I might add
> a "restrictor" at the fitting at the flare on the top tank vent line so as
> to force a greater amount of air through the inboard (standard) vent tube.
> But the outboard vent line would certainly help alleviate the problem.
Cessna has had this asymmetric-feed problem in its planes that feed from
both tanks at the same time for as long as I can remember. It is instructive
to go back and look at all the changes they ended up making in an attempt to
solve the problem. As I recall, they finally settled on fuel getting into
the cross-tank vent line that ensured equal vent pressure to both tanks as
the primary cause of tank imbalance. The result was a proliferation of check
valves and extra vent lines, none of which really ever fixed the problem
100%
Anyway, spam-cans aside, Cessna has a LOT of data and a LOT of "solutions"
to the problem. I suspect there is a lot to be learned there.
Personally I would prefer to add a fuel selector valve and go with separate
vent systems for each tank. It is simpler and permits the pilot to manage
tank balance, something we are already used to doing.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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 from tanks |
Dennis,
Sounds like an interesting idea. As to the 89+ -52s ... I believe the 'standard
inboard vent' is now just used for excess return fuel from the collector tank
(with the cross piece port for the single belly vent tube blanked off) so it's
no longer a vent in the conventional sense. Other than allowing some expansion
cross flow into the other tank engine off. I'm probably flying my -52 tomorrow
so I'll have a look-see to confirm whether the cross piece is blanked off
or if I'm just having a senior moment.
Cheers, Rob
dsavarese0812(at)bellsout wrote:
> Unless I am mistaken, the post '89 52's with separate vent systems
> actually have 2 vents per tank. The standard inboard vent line and an
> outboard vent line on the top of each tank, which is capped off on the
> pre '89 airplanes, is used on post '89 models. Now if someone wanted to
> test a modified vent system for pre '89 airplanes, one could uncap the
> fitting on the fuel tanks and add a vent tube to each tank and exiting
> out of the bottom of the fuel cavity cover plate. Since this vent line
> is at the top of the tank AND the fact that the original tanks have the
> same 2 degree dihedral in them on the bottom side (inboard to outboard)
> as does the wing itself making the tank thicker on the inboard end, the
> outboard vent will tend to remain clear of fuel even if the tank is
> filled to the top of the filler neck. I might add a "restrictor" at the
> fitting at the flare on the top tank vent line so as to force a greater
> amount of air through the inboard (standard) vent tube. But the
> outboard vent line would certainly help alleviate the problem.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-285-6263
> 334-546-8182 (cell)
> Skype: Yakguy1
> www.yak-52.com
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=347843#347843
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: fuel flow from tanks |
And...help us stay safe! My trip to OSH was greatly improved by the ideas
provided through this forum.
Balanced fuel flow through the use of the right rudder and corrective action
early.
Thanks again,
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jan Mevis
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: fuel flow from tanks
Dennis, Rob, and others, thanks for this very instructive explanations!
These kind of discussions is what makes this list so interesting!
Jan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: woensdag 27 juli 2011 15:51
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: fuel flow from tanks
--> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
Unless I am mistaken, the post '89 52's with separate vent systems actually
have 2 vents per tank. The standard inboard vent line and an outboard vent
line on the top of each tank, which is capped off on the pre '89 airplanes,
is used on post '89 models. Now if someone wanted to test a modified vent
system for pre '89 airplanes, one could uncap the fitting on the fuel tanks
and add a vent tube to each tank and exiting out of the bottom of the fuel
cavity cover plate. Since this vent line is at the top of the tank AND the
fact that the original tanks have the same 2 degree dihedral in them on the
bottom side (inboard to outboard) as does the wing itself making the tank
thicker on the inboard end, the outboard vent will tend to remain clear of
fuel even if the tank is filled to the top of the filler neck. I might add
a "restrictor" at the fitting at the flare on the top tank vent line so as
to force a greater amount of air through the inboard (standard) vent tube.
But the outboard vent line would certainly help alleviate the problem.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (cell)
Skype: Yakguy1
www.yak-52.com
On 7/26/2011 8:35 PM, Rob Rowe wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Rob Rowe"<yak-list@robrowe.plus.com>
>
> Dennis - thanks for the explanation I understand the nature of the single
vent problem now. Guess that's why they introduced the 1mm flow restrictors
into the cross piece arm joints feeding return fuel to each tank when they
moved to the separate tank vents design (having blanked off the 'old' single
vent arm). Allowing the resulting return back pressure spray of fuel
through the restrictors to make it less sensitive to the orientation of the
associated pipework or aircraft (to an extent). Presume this could not be
used on the single vent design as the resulting back pressure would jettison
most of the fuel out of the belly vent cross piece arm. On my -52 (1991
build ) as a last resort we addressed an untraceable imbalance by making one
of the flow restrictor holes marginally larger ... at these Lilliputian
dimensions a 0.1mm diameter change increases the flow hole area by c.20%,
hence even the smallest change can make a significant difference. As I
mentioned in my origin!
al!
> post ... the devil's in the detail!
> Cheers, Rob
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=347804#347804
>
>
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 from tanks |
Many of us here in Arizona have installed separate vent systems for each
tank that can be mechanically turned off and on with a small switch in
the cockpit. Has worked well on my CJ, which in the past always fed much
more from the right tank.
Warren Hill
N464TW
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:55 AM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:51 AM, A. Dennis Savarese
<dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> Unless I am mistaken, the post '89 52's with separate vent systems
actually have 2 vents per tank. The standard inboard vent line and an
outboard vent line on the top of each tank, which is capped off on the
pre '89 airplanes, is used on post '89 models. Now if someone wanted to
test a modified vent system for pre '89 airplanes, one could uncap the
fitting on the fuel tanks and add a vent tube to each tank and exiting
out of the bottom of the fuel cavity cover plate. Since this vent line
is at the top of the tank AND the fact that the original tanks have the
same 2 degree dihedral in them on the bottom side (inboard to outboard)
as does the wing itself making the tank thicker on the inboard end, the
outboard vent will tend to remain clear of fuel even if the tank is
filled to the top of the filler neck. I might add a "restrictor" at the
fitting at the flare on the top tank vent line so as to force a greater
amount of air through the inboard (standard) vent tube. But the
outboard vent line would certainly help alleviate the problem.
>
> Cessna has had this asymmetric-feed problem in its planes that feed
from both tanks at the same time for as long as I can remember. It is
instructive to go back and look at all the changes they ended up making
in an attempt to solve the problem. As I recall, they finally settled on
fuel getting into the cross-tank vent line that ensured equal vent
pressure to both tanks as the primary cause of tank imbalance. The
result was a proliferation of check valves and extra vent lines, none of
which really ever fixed the problem 100%
>
> Anyway, spam-cans aside, Cessna has a LOT of data and a LOT of
"solutions" to the problem. I suspect there is a lot to be learned
there.
>
> Personally I would prefer to add a fuel selector valve and go with
separate vent systems for each tank. It is simpler and permits the pilot
to manage tank balance, something we are already used to doing.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
>
>
>
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 from tanks |
Which makes perfect sense Rob. I think modifying the earlier single
vent 52's to the configuration of the later airplanes would be much more
difficult than adding a vent line from the now capped-off fitting on the
top of the tanks. I also like the idea of a vent shut-off valve or
switch mechanism which gives positive control over which tank feeds.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (cell)
Skype: Yakguy1
www.yak-52.com
On 7/27/2011 9:57 AM, Rob Rowe wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Rob Rowe"<yak-list@robrowe.plus.com>
>
> Dennis,
> Sounds like an interesting idea. As to the 89+ -52s ... I believe the 'standard
inboard vent' is now just used for excess return fuel from the collector tank
(with the cross piece port for the single belly vent tube blanked off) so it's
no longer a vent in the conventional sense. Other than allowing some expansion
cross flow into the other tank engine off. I'm probably flying my -52 tomorrow
so I'll have a look-see to confirm whether the cross piece is blanked off
or if I'm just having a senior moment.
> Cheers, Rob
>
>
> dsavarese0812(at)bellsout wrote:
>> Unless I am mistaken, the post '89 52's with separate vent systems
>> actually have 2 vents per tank. The standard inboard vent line and an
>> outboard vent line on the top of each tank, which is capped off on the
>> pre '89 airplanes, is used on post '89 models. Now if someone wanted to
>> test a modified vent system for pre '89 airplanes, one could uncap the
>> fitting on the fuel tanks and add a vent tube to each tank and exiting
>> out of the bottom of the fuel cavity cover plate. Since this vent line
>> is at the top of the tank AND the fact that the original tanks have the
>> same 2 degree dihedral in them on the bottom side (inboard to outboard)
>> as does the wing itself making the tank thicker on the inboard end, the
>> outboard vent will tend to remain clear of fuel even if the tank is
>> filled to the top of the filler neck. I might add a "restrictor" at the
>> fitting at the flare on the top tank vent line so as to force a greater
>> amount of air through the inboard (standard) vent tube. But the
>> outboard vent line would certainly help alleviate the problem.
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>> A. Dennis Savarese
>> 334-285-6263
>> 334-546-8182 (cell)
>> Skype: Yakguy1
>> www.yak-52.com
>>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=347843#347843
>
>
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 from tanks |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:52 AM, A. Dennis Savarese <
dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> Which makes perfect sense Rob. I think modifying the earlier single vent
> 52's to the configuration of the later airplanes would be much more
> difficult than adding a vent line from the now capped-off fitting on the top
> of the tanks. I also like the idea of a vent shut-off valve or switch
> mechanism which gives positive control over which tank feeds.
>
Switching the vents on and off seems backward. Wouldn't adding a fuel
selector valve be more efficacious? OTOH it would require more fabrication.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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: fuel flow from tanks |
Brian,
The vents are 1/4 tubing at the wing tip and cut on a 45 degree angle,
facing into the incident wind. So, rather than simply passively venting
the tanks, while flying there is actually some small amount of positive
pressure, which is either off or on, depending on the switch location.
Simple and seems to work well.
Warren
On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:52 AM, A. Dennis Savarese
<dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> Which makes perfect sense Rob. I think modifying the earlier single
vent 52's to the configuration of the later airplanes would be much more
difficult than adding a vent line from the now capped-off fitting on the
top of the tanks. I also like the idea of a vent shut-off valve or
switch mechanism which gives positive control over which tank feeds.
>
> Switching the vents on and off seems backward. Wouldn't adding a fuel
selector valve be more efficacious? OTOH it would require more
fabrication.
>
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
>
>
>
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 from tanks |
What you say is true Brian. However, given the fact that the fuel
junction is somewhat similar to the CJ except that there is separate
fuel junction under the front seat with the flapper valves in it with
fuel hoses about 15-16" long from the fuel tanks to the junction, I
think it would be extremely difficult to install a fuel selector that
allows the fuel to gravity feed into the fuel junction as it does now.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (cell)
Skype: Yakguy1
www.yak-52.com
On 7/27/2011 12:31 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:52 AM, A. Dennis Savarese
> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net <mailto:dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>> wrote:
>
> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net <mailto:dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>>
>
> Which makes perfect sense Rob. I think modifying the earlier
> single vent 52's to the configuration of the later airplanes would
> be much more difficult than adding a vent line from the now
> capped-off fitting on the top of the tanks. I also like the idea
> of a vent shut-off valve or switch mechanism which gives positive
> control over which tank feeds.
>
>
> Switching the vents on and off seems backward. Wouldn't adding a fuel
> selector valve be more efficacious? OTOH it would require more
> fabrication.
>
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com <mailto:brian@lloyd.com>
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: G Tolerance and Hydration |
As a newby on the list, I missed your response. =46rom years of aerobatic co
ntests and air show aerobatics, I have seen the risk of g-loc due to elevate
d body temp and dehydration equal the risk of fire. I agree that this has to
be a personal decision based on conditions and not mandated. Similar argume
nts can be made with respect to helmet wear
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 28, 2011, at 5:45 PM, Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Yak Pilot <yakplt@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
> "Didn't we have an argument about nomex about 10 years ago? ;-)"
>
> Not that I remember ......
>
> Let's see if I can annoy everyone by bringing it up again. It had to do wi
th Red Star requiring nomex flight suits and gloves for Red Star events. I g
ot all pissy about them telling me how I have to dress in my own airplane. I
brought up the issue of heat and dehydration impairing safety more than wea
ring nomex poopy-suits improves safety.
>
> Remember now?
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: fuel flow from tanks |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:28 AM, A. Dennis Savarese <
dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> What you say is true Brian. However, given the fact that the fuel junction
> is somewhat similar to the CJ except that there is separate fuel junction
> under the front seat with the flapper valves in it with fuel hoses about
> 15-16" long from the fuel tanks to the junction, I think it would be
> extremely difficult to install a fuel selector that allows the fuel to
> gravity feed into the fuel junction as it does now.
Huh. I was thinking CJ6A rather than Yak-52 but, OK, I see what you are
saying. Remote the control to the valve? Just thinking aloud here.
I know that, when faced with fuel-feed imbalance in Cessnas, I just resorted
to use the selector position for the tank with more fuel. That seemed to me
to be a reasonable solution to the problem. Unfortunately that doesn't work
in the C-150. :-)
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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: G Tolerance and Hydration |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:39 PM, RICHARD VOLKER <rick@rvairshows.com> wrote:
> As a newby on the list, I missed your response. From years of aerobatic
> contests and air show aerobatics, I have seen the risk of g-loc due to
> elevated body temp and dehydration equal the risk of fire. I agree that this
> has to be a personal decision based on conditions and not mandated. Similar
> arguments can be made with respect to helmet wear
>
Well, the issue is about 10 years old. No matter.
Regardless, welcome to the community.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
Message 14
| 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: G Tolerance and Hydration |
Guess you did not like the editorial on the second page of this months EAA m
agazine either on the topic either.
The way to manage your GLOC risk is to maintain an active life style incorpo
rating moderate aerobic and anaerobic exercise. Drink enough water while won
dering around the ramp to keep the color of your piss pretty much clear or l
ight yellow. If you are not having to take a piss before you step then you a
re probably a little dry. Fly accordingly. Stay out of the sun a long as pos
sible between flights. If you are new to pulling G's get with someone that c
an teach you how to do the anti-G straining maneuver.
Otherwise you can fly in whatever attire you like. I'll just remind you of t
he AF Academy student that was in San Antonio 3-4 years ago that lost her e
ngine on T.O. She was wearing a pair of shorts, tennis shoes, and T-shirt wh
en her Diamond hit the ground and burned. She suffered 3rd degree burns over
70% of her body. She now has no fingers, toes, or face. She has scar contra
ctures that have to be periodically surgically lysed so she can walk and ex
tend her arms. Also, she is no longer in the AF. Her dream was to be an AF p
ilot.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 27, 2011, at 5:39 PM, RICHARD VOLKER <rick@rvairshows.com> wrote:
> As a newby on the list, I missed your response. =46rom years of aerobatic c
ontests and air show aerobatics, I have seen the risk of g-loc due to elevat
ed body temp and dehydration equal the risk of fire. I agree that this has t
o be a personal decision based on conditions and not mandated. Similar argum
ents can be made with respect to helmet wear
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 5:45 PM, Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Yak Pilot <yakplt@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
>> "Didn't we have an argument about nomex about 10 years ago? ;-)"
>>
>> Not that I remember ......
>>
>> Let's see if I can annoy everyone by bringing it up again. It had to do w
ith Red Star requiring nomex flight suits and gloves for Red Star events. I g
ot all pissy about them telling me how I have to dress in my own airplane. I
brought up the issue of heat and dehydration impairing safety more than wea
ring nomex poopy-suits improves safety.
>>
>> Remember now?
>>
>> --
>> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
>> 3191 Western Dr.
>> Cameron Park, CA 95682
>> brian@lloyd.com
>> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
>> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 15
| 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: G Tolerance and Hydration |
Rick,
I realize you are not knew to G's. My point was to dress, hydrate, and train
sensibly for G's and any other disaster.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 27, 2011, at 5:39 PM, RICHARD VOLKER <rick@rvairshows.com> wrote:
> As a newby on the list, I missed your response. =46rom years of aerobatic c
ontests and air show aerobatics, I have seen the risk of g-loc due to elevat
ed body temp and dehydration equal the risk of fire. I agree that this has t
o be a personal decision based on conditions and not mandated. Similar argum
ents can be made with respect to helmet wear
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 5:45 PM, Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Yak Pilot <yakplt@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
>> "Didn't we have an argument about nomex about 10 years ago? ;-)"
>>
>> Not that I remember ......
>>
>> Let's see if I can annoy everyone by bringing it up again. It had to do w
ith Red Star requiring nomex flight suits and gloves for Red Star events. I g
ot all pissy about them telling me how I have to dress in my own airplane. I
brought up the issue of heat and dehydration impairing safety more than wea
ring nomex poopy-suits improves safety.
>>
>> Remember now?
>>
>> --
>> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
>> 3191 Western Dr.
>> Cameron Park, CA 95682
>> brian@lloyd.com
>> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
>> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 16
| 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: G Tolerance and Hydration |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. <viperdoc@mindspring.com>wrote:
> Guess you did not like the editorial on the second page of this months EAA
> magazine either on the topic either.
> The way to manage your GLOC risk is to maintain an active life style
> incorporating moderate aerobic and anaerobic exercise. Drink enough water
> while wondering around the ramp to keep the color of your piss pretty much
> clear or light yellow. If you are not having to take a piss before you step
> then you are probably a little dry. Fly accordingly. Stay out of the sun a
> long as possible between flights. If you are new to pulling G's get with
> someone that can teach you how to do the anti-G straining maneuver.
> Otherwise you can fly in whatever attire you like. I'll just remind you of
> the AF Academy student that was in San Antonio 3-4 years ago that lost her
> engine on T.O. She was wearing a pair of shorts, tennis shoes, and T-shirt
> when her Diamond hit the ground and burned. She suffered 3rd degree burns
> over 70% of her body. She now has no fingers, toes, or face. She has scar
> contractures that have to be periodically surgically lysed so she can walk
> and extend her arms. Also, she is no longer in the AF. Her dream was to be
> an AF pilot.
>
Nice anecdote but not a valid statistical sampling. And then there is the
presumption that the nomex suit would have made a difference, especially if
she was trapped in the aircraft. (I am not saying that it will or won't,
only that you can't assume that it would.)
I still hold that the effect of dehydration presents a greater risk than
fire because having to deal with fire is far less likely than having to deal
with dehydration. (Threat * probability = risk).
And none of this is an attempt to spark an argument. All I am hoping to
spark is the realization that it is not a clear-cut choice.
But lest you think I am am totally on the side of wearing shorts and a
Hawaiian shirt in the cockpit:
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/fighting-fire/
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
Message 17
| 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: G Tolerance and Hydration |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
> But lest you think I am am totally on the side of wearing shorts and a
> Hawaiian shirt in the cockpit:
>
> http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/fighting-fire/
>
On further thought, I think this implies that the standard single-layer
nomex flight suit worn over cotton underwear is probably insufficient to
protect against any significant fire in the cockpit. If you want fire
protection you may want to consider something closer to what the gentleman
in the story was wearing.
Likewise we can consider taking a page from the race-car drivers for
preventing the deleterious effects of temperature. Most race-car drivers now
wear a device known as a "cool shirt". It is a vest that has tubing to
circulate cool water to help maintain core body temperature at reasonable
levels.
So, if one is concerned about both of these things, i.e. fire and
debilitation from heat, it may be that the only thing we can say about
shorts vs. single-layer nomex is, "neither works well."
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
Message 18
| 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: G Tolerance and Hydration |
Bad news for the military.
Bill
On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
> But lest you think I am am totally on the side of wearing shorts and a Haw
aiian shirt in the cockpit:
>
> http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/fighting-fire/
>
> On further thought, I think this implies that the standard single-layer no
mex flight suit worn over cotton underwear is probably insufficient to prote
ct against any significant fire in the cockpit. If you want fire protection y
ou may want to consider something closer to what the gentleman in the story w
as wearing.
>
> Likewise we can consider taking a page from the race-car drivers for preve
nting the deleterious effects of temperature. Most race-car drivers now wear
a device known as a "cool shirt". It is a vest that has tubing to circulate
cool water to help maintain core body temperature at reasonable levels.
>
> So, if one is concerned about both of these things, i.e. fire and debilita
tion from heat, it may be that the only thing we can say about shorts vs. si
ngle-layer nomex is, "neither works well."
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
Message 19
| 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: G Tolerance and Hydration |
The cool shirt was also promoted by the Aeroshell team.
They also wear flight suits, but recognize the debilitating effects of
heat and dehydration on G-tolerance.
For grins I weighed, flew with Sergei for 1hr 10mins and re-weighed.
Lost 2.3 pounds !! Just over one liter.
(All sweat - no caca !!)
By the way I just found out Jimmy Fordham was a member of the Aeroshell
team. No more Red Star?
Herb
On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
> But lest you think I am am totally on the side of wearing shorts and a
Hawaiian shirt in the cockpit:
>
> http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/fighting-fire/
>
> On further thought, I think this implies that the standard
single-layer nomex flight suit worn over cotton underwear is probably
insufficient to protect against any significant fire in the cockpit. If
you want fire protection you may want to consider something closer to
what the gentleman in the story was wearing.
>
> Likewise we can consider taking a page from the race-car drivers for
preventing the deleterious effects of temperature. Most race-car drivers
now wear a device known as a "cool shirt". It is a vest that has tubing
to circulate cool water to help maintain core body temperature at
reasonable levels.
>
> So, if one is concerned about both of these things, i.e. fire and
debilitation from heat, it may be that the only thing we can say about
shorts vs. single-layer nomex is, "neither works well."
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
>
>
>
Message 20
| 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: G Tolerance and Hydration |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Herb Coussons <drc@wscare.com> wrote:
> The cool shirt was also promoted by the Aeroshell team.
> They also wear flight suits, but recognize the debilitating effects of heat
> and dehydration on G-tolerance.
>
Interesting. Do they wear multiple layers of nomex? That seems to be the
key.
> For grins I weighed, flew with Sergei for 1hr 10mins and re-weighed.
> Lost 2.3 pounds !! Just over one liter.
> (All sweat - no caca !!)
>
No surprise at all. Makes sense to me.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
Message 21
| 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 from tanks |
A selector valve would be a good solution to uneven fuel feeding problems, hands
down the best solution to this problem - but switching the vents on and off,
as Warren mentioned, in my opinion isn't a bad idea after all knowing the difficulties
with installing a fuel selector valve in CJ's and Yak's... The main
idea here is to avoid getting empty in one tank and wonder (at 3500 feet) if
the full tank will take over or not :)
... keep an eye on the tanks to check for imbalance and always watch the ball....
using rudder trim to correct for uneven fuel feed seems to be the method most
used... but for long cross country trips to air shows, it may be safer setting
the GPS scheduler alarm to sound every 15 minutes. When the alarm goes off,
check for imbalance and do appropriate wing correction to minimize the problem...
and it would be even better if we could simply switch to the fullest tank
with the selector valve. Same goes when entering the pattern, switch to the
fullest tank...
... I still think the lack of a fuel selector is a major design defect, especially
when they where aware of this problem from the very first tests. If they were
really concerned about the complexity of switching tanks they could have done
what Cessna did long ago, a Fuel selector and a Both setting...
Carl
>
>
> Switching the vents on and off seems backward. Wouldn't adding a fuel selector
valve be more efficacious? OTOH it would require more fabrication.
>
> [/b]
[b][/quote]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=347899#347899
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! --
|