Return-Path: Received: from mailout2.pacific.net.au ([61.8.0.85] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c1) with ESMTP id 743757 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:56:39 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=61.8.0.85; envelope-from=peon@pacific.net.au Received: from mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (mailproxy1.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.86]) by mailout2.pacific.net.au (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with ESMTP id j1I1tqHn015666 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:55:52 +1100 Received: from ar1 (ppp236C.dyn.pacific.net.au [61.8.35.108]) by mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with SMTP id j1I1tmS4018663 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:55:49 +1100 Message-ID: <004501c5155c$754ef310$6c23083d@ar1> From: "Leon" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Returnless Fuel System - Fuel Cooler Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:52:08 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Hey Guys, I'm sort of having trouble believing that this discussion is still going on about returnless systems. Why?? Todd probably gets away with his system because he lives in a REALLY cold climate. He would DEFINITELY have SERIOUS problems in the 50 Deg C heat we regularly expereience on the tarmac here in Oz in summer. But then again, maybe Lamar IS correct, and that I AM a lunatic!! . For the power output that most of you have (less than 250 BHP), a 5/16" high pressure supply line is more than adequate, and a 1/4" return line is more than adequate. For bigger power output (Hi Boost 13B & 20B engines, say up to 400 Cheveaux) and a Hi Flo EFI pump , maybe a 3/8" supply line, and a 5/16" return line. Whenever I do a turbo engine conversion on ROAD GOING early model RX7 ('79-"85), I just use the stock fuel lines (5/16" supply & 1/4 return), and I have never have a problem. One EFI pump is sufficient. The only reason we have 2 x HP pumps on an aircraft is redundancy in case one fails at take-off and climb-out. However, the size of the return line is not really that critical. All it is there for is to take the flow from the dumped pressure from the HP pump. If you are using the same pump as a car, then you only need the same size return. Interestingly, on the Mazda RX7 turbo cars, they have a 2 stage control (via voltage) of the EFI pump to cut the return flow at low load, and boost the supply at high load.. The SIZE of the return line is not really so much an issue as actually having one - size is more of an issue with the supply line, but only with Mega-Pferd turbo engines. The issue is that so long as there is a return line so that the fuel continues to circulate back to the tank, and if that tank is in the breeze, the fuel will never get hot. If the fuel is returned to the header / surge tank, this MUST be vented back to the main tank. Otherwise you will get air/vapour locks. If there is a breeze directed over the header/surge tank, then why do you need a $40 cooler?? As a famous megalomaniac once said, "It's either them or us" (referring to issues of mental stability). I'm just totally flummoxed. As Tracy said below, the cooler is just a bandaid covering up a problem. It also scares me witless when I read what Tracy wrote below about a fatality actually occuring because of dicey fuel supply issues. So please, ... this is a plea, just follow normal EFI practice. Have a look at the Toyota PDF link somebody posted a while ago about both return & returnless systems. Stick to the return system. This is the way it MUST be done. Please DON'T try to re-invent something that doesn't need to be re-invented, and that has been proven to work on millions of EFI road cars, and thousands and thousands of race cars. Additionally, that SDS link I posted the other day details how to do it where there are multiple tanks involved. There is a "critical minimum complexity" in any system. Try and simplify the system any further beyond this "critical minimum complexity", then the system no longer works properly, and will come back and bite you REALLY hard on your nethermost parts when you least expect it! Cheers, Leon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob White" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:29 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Returnless Fuel System - Fuel Cooler > > Hi Tracy, > > My alternative is to try to jam all the return fuel thru a 1/4 inch > line. It seems like that will cause problems also. It's fairly > substantial surgery to get a 3/8 inch return line in. > > I certainly agree that without the cooler it's a disaster waiting to > happen. I'm relying somewhat on Todd's positive experiences > with his system, and further testing on my plane. > > Bob White > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:52:56 -0500 > "Tracy Crook" wrote: > > > Even with the cooler, This scares me. I know of at least 2 cases where it has caused power failures, one resulted in fatality. True, they didn't have the cooler but it is a bandaid covering up a problem. > > > > Tracy > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > Todd's system is a "quasi" returnless system. The fuel is returned to > > the input of the fuel pump instead of the tank. Without the cooler, > > much of the same fuel would circulate thru the fuel rail again and agin > > picking up heat. To see Todd's diagram and description go to: > > > > http://www.rotarywiki.com/ and search for "returnless". > > > > Bob White > > > > > > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:25:06 -0600 > > Jim Sower > wrote: > > > > > But I thought the purpose of the cooler was to cool the *return* fuel. > > > If it's a one-way system, how does the fuel get hot enough to need cooling? > > > What am I missing here? ... Jim S. > > > > > > Bob White wrote: > > > > > > >Todd, > > > > > > > >I'm going to build a returnless system based on your design. I found > > > >this fuel cooler at Jeg's for about $40. Jeg's P/N 771-1009. The > > > >finned area is 4.5 X 5 X 7/8 (inch), which I think is a little bigger > > > >than the one you made. > > > > > > > >http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=3532&prmenbr= 361 > > > > > > > >I'm sure it's nicer looking than anything I could build myself. I'll > > > >post pictures of my alternator bracket one of these days to prove it. > > > > > > > >Bob White > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > > > >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.bob-white.com > > N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (real soon) > > > > >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > > >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > > > > -- > http://www.bob-white.com > N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (real soon) > > >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html