norm2 wrote:

norm doty wrote:

this way to complicated, to many ways the fuel can be blocked or routed
wrong.
remember the K.I.S.S. principle.

Maybe I need to send a drawing to show how this works. Unless you run a
common sump with a common return, I don't see how you can make it simpler.
(Forget the backup system, that is only for those of us who like to see
three failures before the plane falls out of the sky.)

If you maintain seperate tank source, you must have either two injection
pumps, one for each tank, or a selector valve.  Personally, I like the idea
of a second pump rather than an input selector valve.

You either need to have a valve on the return side that selects where the
fuel returns to, or you return to one tank only.  If you return to one tank
only, then you basicaly have a single tank system with a transfer pump
feeding fuel to it from the second tank.  This is Tracy's system as I
understand it.

If you buy into the single tank philosophy, then the Kiss system is simply a
common sump system.  Tie both tanks together and let them equalize.  No
valves, transfer pumps, overflowing tanks, etc.

If you don't wish to signup for a single tank system, then I think you need
valving of some type to handle the return flow. The part that is foreign to
a lot of people is the amount of return flow that a typical FI system has.
If you only pumped what the engine required, such that there was no return
or a minimal return, then you don't need to worry about the return side.

When you are returning 30-40 gallons per hour,  it doesn't take long to
transfer all of the fuel to your return side.

Regards-
Norm Muzzy

I got to keep you two Norm's straight. :-) Sketches and drawings are good.

Paul Lamar
 
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org