Hi All, It?s been a while since I?ve been on the newsletter between
        work and trying to make progress on the Long EZ.  Anyway, it?s
  time      for the Fuel system and I wanted to get feedback from the
  group on      my design.  I attached a PDF of my concept which
  utilizes 2      different sumps, 1 rear cockpit thigh support/fuel
  sump and a 2nd      sump in the hell Hole.  The reason for the added
  sumps is to try to      recover some of the fuel I will be losing
  due to installing Infinity      retractable gear.   Anyway, my
  assumption was a P-Ported 13B with a      TO4 turbo so the lines
  need to be able to keep that thirsty puppy      humming at WOT.  I
  guess it would make about 350hp at WOT. Anyway,      can you guys
  take a look and shoot holes and make recommendations.       I look
  at the fuel system and Engine installation design as the      most
  critical systems we develop so I want it to be right.

        Thanks

        Mike C.

  I'd put a fuel drain in the lowest part of each sump where lowest is
  when the ship is parked.

  I'd put the pumps in the last sump.

  I don't see provision for fuel return.

  tc

  --
  Thanks TC, cant believe I forgot the return line.  I decided to do
  away with the Hell hole sump, seems like I would be creating a lot
  of work for little gain.  I did add a fitting to the thigh sump so I
  could add an Aux Tank if it was ever needed.  Could just strap it
  into the GIB seat.  Anyway, I have a couple of questions about the
  fuel return.  Will it have enough pressure to overcome the head
  pressure in the sumps from the Strake tanks?  And the thigh sump is
  probably only 2-3 Gallons so should I be worried about hot fuel in
  the sump?  Or should I just return the fuel to the strakes?  If I
  return it to the strakes is there a chance I could empty the sump
  faster than the gravity fill line can return it to the sump?  Thanks
  again for all the help guys.  I attached an updated diagram, throw arrows!

  Mike C.

  Paul
     I'm resending this because I never saw it posted, Might
  have gotten lost in the ether.

  Thanks

  Mike C.



  Now you are talking my language as an instrument tech (industrial).
Why use
cad plated carbon steel fittings. This is designated by the single S prefix.
I would use either SS (stainless) there is a a couple of different stainless
types available or alloy. Also a couple of options. Use the SS ferrule sets.
With time the cadmium plating seems to let the nut stick to the fitting and
it takes some effort to break it loose. SS does not have the same problem.
Its problem lies with a lack of tolerance to cross threading. Proper
tightening of the fittings is important. Start with the nut just finger
tight on the fitting and then tighten 1 1/4 turns. Use a felt pen to mark it
to get it right.
  Also, I would use 1/2" return line to make sure there is no restriction
there.
  What is the method of connecting to the sumps. You show tube unions
(600-6)
with the tube coming out of the sump. Another fitting available is
SS-6-TA-1-?
i Left a question mark for the pipe thread size; 1/4,3/8, or 1/2"NPT. These
would be 4, 6, or 8 like AN designations. This would then allow the use of
the tube unions directly. A better option is SS-600-1-? tube adapter. If you
need a 90* then SS-600-2-?. There is also 45* available. This would
eliminate a possible leak source or two. You know every joint will leak
eventually.
  Swagelok has available a small catalogue that is about 6" x 3" and about
3/8"
thick that lists a lot of this and explains the codes for it's fittings.
Also
pressure ratings for tubing sizes and materials.

Dale

Hi Dale
   Thanks for the info, I only chose the Steel because they were a lot
cheaper, I'll change to SS.  I will also increase the size of the return
line to 1/2".  My plan is to use Al tubing which will be floxed into the
sumps and Swagelok fittings to connect the lines toe the stub tubes in the
sump.  It seemed like a simple solution.  I did look at the Swagelok
fittings with NTP -600-2 on one end but thought if I used Al tubing I could
bend the tubes in the sump to the location (lowest point for the fuel feed
and highest point for the fuel supply and vent) that they needed to be at.
Then flox them in place through the sump walls with a stub tub protruding
which will allow me to use a union to attach to the rest of the supply lines
and vents.  Now that I think about it I could use a ss-600-2-8 for the
return lines and a SS-600-2-12 for the Sump feed and increase the feed line
size to 3/4".  Then use the original plan for the fuel pick up lines to the
Andair valve.   Keep shooting arrows,  I really want a bullet proof Fuel
System.  No fuel = no thrust = BAD DAY!

Thanks

Mike C.

I made all the suggested changes to the fuel system.  Here is the latest
design.  Still need to figure out the return...  To the sump or the strakes?
Thanks for the help guys.


Mike C.


Hi guys,
With regards to SS thread issues, I have had first hand experience
with thread binding when installing SS studs and nuts, the solution
was to use Kopper Kote ( a copper rich grease) to avoid it, I suspect
a nickel based anti-seize would do the same job. What say you Dale?
Graeme Riley

The Rotary Engine News Letter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
You Tube key word PaulLamar2
Copyright 1998-2012 All world wide rights reserved.