X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from outbound-mail.dca.untd.com ([64.136.47.15] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1) with SMTP id 5109426 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:51:50 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.47.15; envelope-from=alwick@juno.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juno.com; s=alpha; t=1314798674; bh=47DEQpj8HBSa+/TImW+5JCeuQeRkm5NMpJWZG3hSuFU=; l=0; h=Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:Content-Type; b=O1xsn16xKc0vbkNfiIN2d0eskZ2ykSSb92lP0RKYmG0AGXsAYoereUaViFukFRQwg jz6K75OolYLkCPW95OP5TC5Jwgusk6nnNfVatZ5wWp6nPmTOrqfu87PhoBZ/APdpXI IusXkJGQ8PEVN+BakM1uOtGKFhcwZPYN8I3eYg3s= Received: from Penny (50-39-183-85.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net [50.39.183.85]) by smtpout04.dca.untd.com with SMTP id AABHF6RB6A7AYWDA for (sender ); Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:50:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005E52DA149E4AFEB19354915F8765FF@Penny> From: "Al Wick" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: CG Products Intake Manifold Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:50:50 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0141_01CC67AA.51CCF6B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 X-UNTD-BodySize: 9737 X-ContentStamp: 23:11:2812219245 X-MAIL-INFO:396e27fe27ce7b7fce0a0ad71b0a67ab17c71e47636b0f0f5bf39ea38e1e4ef3ae8e7bdaab4f5fc77b6e8e5a0a67ae23ce0adbb367eb0a23131b8fbf5a0b177f0343cfbae3872b87071e831f3fa74b5a7ebbbb77ef9fcf8b2a331a4a0e03377edfb7b7aa974aca8a9a8fd3cbcafedb5bc38ebb37decb4aea735ba3ae9e9e334ff3576e0f8e57c7bafe1b5aae1bfe X-UNTD-OriginStamp: L941HVjjYzDhN3itp//mkMy0/tS9rFD4OoiJChySsp4Ft0yqCiAcJg== X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 10.171.42.34|smtpout04.dca.untd.com|smtpout04.dca.untd.com|alwick@juno.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0141_01CC67AA.51CCF6B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<if there is not a method to bleed down the rail the risk of = vapor lock=20 exists
 
So you are saying every car built since 1990 has this "vapor lock" = problem?=20 We would see thousands of cars unable to start at every desert truck = stop. This=20 concern for fuel rail is a myth.
 
Vapor lock is not a myth. It occurs at the fuel pump inlet. Very = important=20 to minimize pressure drop there. You can actually measure how far your = design is=20 from vapor lock. You don't have to guess.
 
The bleed helps if you totally blew the plumbing from tank to = fuel=20 pump. But much better to fix that plumbing error.  
 
 
-al wick
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Dave=20
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 = 9:14=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: CG = Products=20 Intake Manifold

HOWEVER..... if there is not a method to bleed down the = rail=20 the risk of vapor lock exists, as the rail heats, the fuel boils, and = the=20 vapor gets trapped in the line.

If you DO put the regulator = upstream of=20 the rail, its imperative to be able to be able to flow fuel past the = injectors=20 and to a return line to avoid any possibility of vapor lock. The = easiest way=20 is simply to put the regulator downstream of the rail and injectors, = but=20 again.. this arrangement is more about preventing vapor lock, not = ensuring=20 adequate pressure.

Chris and I were forced into the upstream = approach=20 by the Mistral fuel rail configuration, and I didn't want to mess with = drilling out the pinhole and then running a regulator downstream - = Mistral was=20 hard enough to get the intake from, and we didn't expect getting a = replacement=20 part if we had an OOOPS would have been easy. As others have now found = out,=20 Mistral isn't selling parts.

So... anyways.. just wanted to = clarify=20 previous post.  1) can regulate pressure anywhere in the fuel = circuit=20 between pumps and injectors. 2) Must provide for mechanism to flow = fuel past=20 injectors to prevent vapor lock.

Dave

On 8/30/2011 11:06 = PM,=20 Dave wrote:=20
No... at = the flows=20 and pressures we are using (and barring any major obstructions = between the=20 regulator and the injectors), the regulator can be anywhere in the = circuit=20 and adequately regulate the pressure.

On Chris Barber's = install, I=20 purchased the Mistral intake for use on his engine. The fuel rail = was a dead=20 end tube with a pinhole on the end. Presumably the pinhole was to = prevent=20 vapor lock in the fuel rail. The regulator HAD to be upstream of the = injectors when using the intake. We had stable fuel pressures and no = problems getting fuel to the engine.

We had return lines = from the=20 pinhole end of the rail, as well as from the pressure regulator, = that fed=20 back to the sump tank. Since there were not check valves running = from the=20 wings to the sump, there was no chance of pressurizing the sump.=20

Dave

On 8/30/2011 10:30 PM, CozyGirrrl@aol.com wrote:=20
Ed, I must have mispoke to give this impression, I thought = the=20 pressure reg HAD TO be last in line to maintain pressure in the = fuel=20 rail?
 
 
Chrissi=20 & Randi
www.CozyGirrrl.com
CG Products, = Custom=20 Aircraft Hardware
Chairwomen, Sun-N-Fun Engine Workshop
 
In a message dated 8/30/2011 10:13:53 P.M. Central Daylight = Time, eanderson@carolina.rr.com = writes:
  If the pressure regulator is = place before=20 the injectors then there is less fresh fuel flowing through the=20 = rails. 


------=_NextPart_000_0141_01CC67AA.51CCF6B0--