X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-wy0-f180.google.com ([74.125.82.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c2o) with ESMTPS id 4881876 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:33:03 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.125.82.180; envelope-from=rwstracy@gmail.com Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so1438775wyf.25 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:32:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=oGHdnltE90vbLGZ8WYa3Dw2jFKJ36228X4pGJH3hRLg=; b=mNOv092JW8oxm7ryc4gAuaNMOffQI0THMvFOd7qmY2OKdIv9UKpGrVL8NqU1RWmP8O A4Cilj64ZkaxsRioLrj4NtzET7C85PHyk6OiVC/xGeG2pGSj1/CPKGi/lT/djt2y0vdr sKVnX2C23dlzYhSQhEII7mDMeh1fs1ILuMc8g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=W1WRffaDWm/cOWVO3V28YDPFKiwGIti204qVjsOS3NqUA8h2+iwtDffgZH1fXEvE4v sKLtx6hyREWPwfyumijcocdJafI5kDbbz7n76OTOiS/2QUO5dz3a/iRCxMt8GGrC4TdX uxU+/TdSsS0+PucMq8eGV47ouDRF/1dBnmOdI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.18.83 with SMTP id k61mr1418290wek.91.1298599165358; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:59:25 -0800 (PST) Sender: rwstracy@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.59.65 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:59:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:59:25 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: aQsM1l2WtxhzIDtj1QTO4UgXt2U Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fwd: Fuel injector pump cooling?? From: Tracy To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364c70ddf4f2c9049d11ad57 --0016364c70ddf4f2c9049d11ad57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd vote no on the selector valve and return to single tank setup. EFI pumps flow 30 - 40 GPH and sometimes the engine is only using 3 - 4 GPH. If you think about all the possible scenarios the fuel management chores would be unacceptable. Those injected Cont. setups don't return that much fuel. My fuel transfer pump 'T's into the return line. Tracy On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Charlie England w= rote: > Ouch; I hadn't thought about that. But I suspect that even a low pressur= e > pump would damage the tank if the vent is blocked. Thanks for the data po= int > on the fact that a high pressure pump can be used effectively as a transf= er > pump. > > Were you using a separate port on the main tank for your transfer point? = My > tentative plan is to T into either the regulator return, or (assuming an > effective back/anti-siphon setup), into the main supply between tank & > engine pump. Obviously, the anti-siphon feature would need to be bullet > proof to tap the supply line. > > One option I've considered is to use the fuel selector 'normally', but ha= ve > all regulator bypass return to a single 'main' tank. This arrangement is > actually used in some certified planes with injected Continentals, but I'= m > leery of having my primary engine pump run dry for even a very short > interval as I empty an aux tank. I suppose that with that arrangement, it > would only run dry for a couple of seconds ( :-> ), so maybe it would wor= k > out fine. Any thoughts? > > > > Charlie > > > On 2/24/2011 2:36 PM, Steven W. Boese wrote: > > Charlie, > > > > I initially had my RV set up with a Facet transfer pump with an external > check valve. The check valve spring was replaced with a slightly stronge= r > one so that it served both the anti back flow and anti siphon functions. > The high percentage of the time that the Facet transfer pump was operatin= g > convinced me to change to the type (not the exact part) of pump you are > considering. The pump seemed reliable but after a couple of instances o= f > transferring fuel out the receiving tank=92s vent in spite of a timer on = the > transfer pump, I eliminated the transfer function altogether. The > possibility of applying up to 90 psi to the receiving tank if its vent > malfunctioned did not suit me. It would not take anywhere near this > pressure to fail the tank. The procedure for leak testing the fuel tanks > cautions not to apply even a couple of psi to them. The limitation here > really was me, though, not the equipment. > > > > Steve Boese > > RV6A 1986 13B NA RD1A EC2 > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *Charlie England > *Sent:* Thursday, February 24, 2011 12:23 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Fwd: Fuel injector pump cooling?? > > > > > Anyone see any issues with one of the automotive in-tank pumps being used > outside the tank? Looking at the overall pump/pickup/regulator/level > sensor/etc assemblies in most auto fuel tanks, it would appear that the p= ump > itself would be above the level of the fuel anyway if the tank is less th= an > 1/4 full. > > I've been looking for a Facet transfer pump that has both a backflow valv= e > & an anti-siphon valve (40257 is one) but they are very hard to find & > expensive when you find them. During my search, I ran across this: > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BMBSS0/ref=3Dpd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd= _p=3D486539851&pf_rd_s=3Dlpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=3D201&pf_rd_i=3DB002YP4Q3= Q&pf_rd_m=3DATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=3D1JFK34G48EBF5R93EB2Y > > The application appears to be 87-98 GM products. > > It appears to be very similar to the 'standard' in-line pump that Tracy > supplies, with the exception of plastic components in the output end. > Assuming that it's a positive displacement gear pump, it should supply bo= th > the backflow & anti-siphon features I desire & at roughly $30 shipped, it= 's > cheaper than even the cheapest Facet 'solid state' transfer pumps. I'm > hoping that cooling/lube won't be an issue as long as it isn't run 'dry' = for > more than a few seconds at the end of a transfer cycle. > > Charlie > > > --0016364c70ddf4f2c9049d11ad57 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd vote no on the selector valve and return to single tank setup.=A0 E= FI pumps flow 30 - 40 GPH and sometimes the engine is only using 3 - 4 GPH.= =A0 If you think about all the possible scenarios the fuel management chor= es would be unacceptable.=A0 Those injected Cont. setups don't return t= hat much fuel.

My fuel transfer pump 'T's into the return line.
=A0
Trac= y


On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Ch= arlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Ouch; I hadn't thought about that. But I suspect that even a low pressure pump would damage the tank if the vent is blocked. Thanks for the data point on the fact that a high pressure pump can be used effectively as a transfer pump.

Were you using a separate port on the main tank for your transfer point? My tentative plan is to T into either the regulator return, or (assuming an effective back/anti-siphon setup), into the main supply between tank & engine pump. Obviously, the anti-siphon feature would need to be bullet proof to tap the supply line.

One option I've considered is to use the fuel selector 'normall= y', but have all regulator bypass return to a single 'main' tank. T= his arrangement is actually used in some certified planes with injected Continentals, but I'm leery of having my primary engine pump run dr= y for even a very short interval as I empty an aux tank. I suppose that with that arrangement, it would only run dry for a couple of seconds ( :-> ), so maybe it would work out fine. Any thoughts?



Charlie


On 2/24/2011 2:36 PM, Steven W. Boese wrote:
=20 =20 =20

Charlie,

=A0

I initially had my RV set up with a Facet transfer pump with an external check valve.=A0 The check valve spring was replaced with a slightly stronger one so that it served both the anti back flow and anti siphon functions.=A0 The high percentage of the time that the Facet transfer pump was operating convinced me to change to the type (not the exact part) of pump you are =A0considering.=A0 The pump seemed reliable but after a couple of instances of transferring fuel out the receiving tank=92s vent in spite of a timer on the transfer pump, I eliminated the transfer function altogether.=A0 The possibility of applying up to 90 psi to the receiving tank if its vent malfunctioned did not suit me. =A0It would not take anywhere near this pressure to fail the tank.=A0 The procedure for leak testing the fuel tanks cautions not to apply even a couple of psi to them.=A0 The limitation here really was me, though, not the equipment.

=A0

Steve Boese

RV6A 1986 13B NA RD1A EC2

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 12:23 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Fwd: Fuel injector pump cooling??

=A0


Anyone see any issues with one of the automotive in-tank pumps being used outside the tank? Looking at the overall pump/pickup/regulator/level sensor/etc assemblies in most auto fuel tanks, it would appear that the pump itself would be above the level of the fuel anyway if the tank is less than 1/4 full.

I've been looking for a Facet transfer pump that has both a backflow valve & an anti-siphon valve (40257 is one) but they are very hard to find & expensive when you find them. During my search, I ran across this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pro= duct/B000BMBSS0/ref=3Dpd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd_p=3D486539851&pf_rd_s=3Dl= po-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=3D201&pf_rd_i=3DB002YP4Q3Q&pf_rd_m=3DAT= VPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=3D1JFK34G48EBF5R93EB2Y

The application appears to be 87-98 GM products.

It appears to be very similar to the 'standard' in-line p= ump that Tracy supplies, with the exception of plastic components in the output end. Assuming that it's a positive displacement gear pump, it should supply both the backflow & anti-siphon features I desire & at roughly $30 shipped, it's cheaper than even the cheapest Facet 'solid state= 9; transfer pumps. I'm hoping that cooling/lube won't be an = issue as long as it isn't run 'dry' for more than a few sec= onds at the end of a transfer cycle.

Charlie



--0016364c70ddf4f2c9049d11ad57--