![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for the suggestions so far. I had already considered both of
them: 1. Filling on the ground, and gravity draining in flight For optimum "go fast" trimming, I really need to be able to transfer fuel rearwards in flight, once at altitude. The plane will fly fastest and most efficient when trimmed so far back that it's unsafe for take-off ... or anything but fairly straight-and-level at high altitudes. I'll want to pump some forward again as I'm decending to land. (And no, I'm not crazy enough to go WAY back out of the envelope.) 2. Filling with water instead of fuel Ya, that's certainly the safer thing to do, and is in fact what one builder is planning. I'd still have the transfer-in-flight consideration above, of course. And I'd really like to be able to have those extra 12 gallons onboard (when rear seats empty) for extra range. I just hate carrying around dead weight. I'm also planning on routing another line from the aux tank to the engine, via a shut-off, so that it could gravity-feed directly as a fail-safe. Tougher to do with water. ;-) This fuel cell is from the NASCAR circuit and it very well built, and way back in the tailcone; I'm not terribly worried about it in a crash. Meanwhile, I've found a site (misplaced its link at the moment, but can find it again via Google) that sells Facet pumps with integral valves specifically intended for fuel transfer. When OFF, no fuel can flow in either direction. The idea is to use two of them on separate "fill" and "drain" lines of course, with no extra manual valves required. They're cheap enough, and eliminate other hardware, so I'll probably go with them ... even tho' they'll require the second line plumbing. Unfortunately, they're only 30GPH, and I'd like to find some with at least twice that capacity. I'm still looking. Greg |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What about some sort of emergency and you have to get down fast. Will you build in a dump valve or other means to bring
the CG back forward so handling is ok for the landing? -- Dan D. .. "Greg Reid" wrote in message om... Thanks for the suggestions so far. I had already considered both of them: 1. Filling on the ground, and gravity draining in flight For optimum "go fast" trimming, I really need to be able to transfer fuel rearwards in flight, once at altitude. The plane will fly fastest and most efficient when trimmed so far back that it's unsafe for take-off ... or anything but fairly straight-and-level at high altitudes. I'll want to pump some forward again as I'm decending to land. (And no, I'm not crazy enough to go WAY back out of the envelope.) 2. Filling with water instead of fuel Ya, that's certainly the safer thing to do, and is in fact what one builder is planning. I'd still have the transfer-in-flight consideration above, of course. And I'd really like to be able to have those extra 12 gallons onboard (when rear seats empty) for extra range. I just hate carrying around dead weight. I'm also planning on routing another line from the aux tank to the engine, via a shut-off, so that it could gravity-feed directly as a fail-safe. Tougher to do with water. ;-) This fuel cell is from the NASCAR circuit and it very well built, and way back in the tailcone; I'm not terribly worried about it in a crash. Meanwhile, I've found a site (misplaced its link at the moment, but can find it again via Google) that sells Facet pumps with integral valves specifically intended for fuel transfer. When OFF, no fuel can flow in either direction. The idea is to use two of them on separate "fill" and "drain" lines of course, with no extra manual valves required. They're cheap enough, and eliminate other hardware, so I'll probably go with them ... even tho' they'll require the second line plumbing. Unfortunately, they're only 30GPH, and I'd like to find some with at least twice that capacity. I'm still looking. Greg |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Greg Reid wrote:
Thanks for the suggestions so far. I had already considered both of them: 1. Filling on the ground, and gravity draining in flight For optimum "go fast" trimming, I really need to be able to transfer fuel rearwards in flight, once at altitude. The plane will fly fastest and most efficient when trimmed so far back that it's unsafe for take-off ... or anything but fairly straight-and-level at high altitudes. I'll want to pump some forward again as I'm decending to land. (And no, I'm not crazy enough to go WAY back out of the envelope.) OK, what you're planning to do sounds fairly dangerous. It sounds like you're trying to shift the W&B during flight so that the horizontal stabilizer is generating upforce instead of neutral or downforce (that's why the plane goes faster: less thrust goes into making induced negative lift on the horizontal stabilizer). Stalling the upforce-producing horizontal stabilizer before the main on a conventionally rigged aircraft would be about as much fun as stalling the main before the horizontal stabilizer on a canard. Normally, stalling the horizontal stabilizer on a conventionally rigged aircraft is no biggie. Since the horizontal stabilizer normally produces downforce, stalling it makes the nose pitch down, which causes an increase in airspeed, which unstalls the stabilizer. But if you make the stabilizer produce upforce and then stall it, you're in a deep stall and a world of hurt. But to propose another solution to your original question: plumb a manual on/off valve in parallel to the checkvalve-equipped pump from main to aux. tanks. Want fuel in the aux? Turn off the valve and turn on the pump until you reach the desired fullness, then turn off pump. Want to take fuel out of the aux? Open the valve until you reach the desired emptiness, then turn off the valve. Russell Kent |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hot weather and autogas? | Rich S. | Home Built | 33 | July 30th 03 11:25 PM |