Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20031215111544.016f6bc8@popserve.lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:19:59 -0500
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
From: Joseph M Berki <Joseph.M.Berki@grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel System
In-Reply-To: <list-2891657@logan.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Hi John,
         I guess I am missing something.  I am not familiar with the 
primary and secondary injectors.  I thought the fuel rail fed all of the 
injectors.  My idea was to split the rail into two rails fed from the same 
source just that the returns go to different tanks.  I don't see how the 
computer settings would affect this.  What am I missing?  Thanks for any help.

Joe

At 09:45 AM 12/15/2003 -0500, you (John Slade) wrote:
> > Since we are using two rotors is it possible to
> > split the fuel rail into two rails and have one of the returns plumbed to
>the port
> > tank and the other plumbed to the starboard tank?
>I thought of doing this too since I was after total redundancy.
>The question becomes - "how well will the engine run (if at all) on one half
>of the system?" You dont want failure of either system to be a problem or
>you've doubled you're risk.
>This will depend on the computer settings. Using cold start I suspect it'll
>run reasonably well on either just primaries or just secondaries. Running on
>one rotor only would probably not be a good idea. The other constraint is
>physical. At least with my 3rd gen engine with the primaries in the block it
>would be simple to plumb the primaries and secondaries seperate. They're
>seperate already. You'd just need an extra regulator and a couple of extra
>pipes.
>
>In the end I decided to T the input just before the rail and switch the
>return with a solenoid.
>Regards,
>John Slade
>
>
> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html