Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

mz(at)cariama.nl
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:34 pm Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

I will have to replace my rubber fuel lines shortly due to aging, and am planning to install a fuel flow computer at the same time. As I posted on this list some time ago, the LAA recently released a standard mod for installing the sender.



I have purchase a FF computer with 2 senders, but am now considering a single sender setup to keep things simple (and therefore less prune to failure). 



Some people have been telling me that there is no need for a 2nd sender because the flow in the return line for a 912UL is very limited . My feeling tells me that this flow does show variation with RPM, so with the standard way the fuel flow reading using a single sender will have some inaccuracy.



If can do, I would very much like to eliminate this inaccuracy though. My brother Hans and Graham S. talked about this subject last night. Today my brother sent me attached schema of a setup that fixes the inaccuracy problem, and at the same time seems to make sure that fuel pressure at the carbs is guaranteed. 



Before proceeding following this thought I would like to get as much input as possible on the idea to find out if there are any flaws that we did not see. 



Would you please review this schema, and share your thoughts with me?



Much appreciated.



Marcel

Visit -  www.EuropaOwners.org



Attachments: 

http://www.europaowners.org//zfiles/fuel-feed_with_single_flowscan_637.gif

g-iani(at)ntlworld.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:41 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

Marcel



I do not see any problems with the principals of your fuel layout.



In practice the problem will be to get a good location for the transducer in

the engine bay.  As the compiler of the mod I am hampered a little by the

fact that I have a 914.  This means I have to have two sensors and (being a

Trigear) I have space in the centre tunnel to mount them.



I would be pleased to see how you mount the transducer.  If this works well

I will be happy to add additional advice to the modification document.



Ian Rickard G-IANI XS Trigear, 200 hours

Europa Club Mods Rep (Trigear)

e-mail mods(at)europaclub.org.uk   

   or direct g-iani(at)ntlworld.com

Brian Davies

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 124
Location: uk

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:54 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

The one disadvantage of the proposed fuel layout is that you will have

static fuel in the lines to the carbs when the engine is stopped.  In very

hot conditions you could get fuel vaporisation in this section of the line

on the ground.  Running the electric fuel pump will not clear it because

there will be no flow.



Brian Davies  kit 454, Trigear 912ULS



--

frans(at)paardnatuurlijk.
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:12 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

Brian Davies wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   The one disadvantage of the proposed fuel layout is that you will have

 static fuel in the lines to the carbs when the engine is stopped.  In very

 hot conditions you could get fuel vaporisation in this section of the line

 on the ground.  Running the electric fuel pump will not clear it because

 there will be no flow.


	


As far as I understand, Marcels intention is not to block the return

line, but just not metering the return flow. So there will be no static

fuel in the lines, and the electric fuel pump will clear fuel fapor,

just as with the original lay-out.



The question is, how does ignoring the return flow affect the accuracy

of the fuel flow instrument? It depends on the quantity of the return

flow of course. Is there any data about this? Maybe in the rotax

maintenance manuals?

I can't tell as I have a 914, and a 914 has a different fuel setup with

a very significant return flow.



-- 

Frans Veldman

mz(at)cariama.nl
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:19 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

[quote:1fbd4ff5cf="B Davies"]The one disadvantage of the proposed fuel layout is that you will have static fuel in the lines to the carbs when the engine is stopped.  In very hot conditions you could get fuel vaporisation in this section of the line on the ground.  Running the electric fuel pump will not clear it because there will be no flow.[/quote:1fbd4ff5cf]



Good point you have there Brian, I did not yet think of that!



As you state, this can become an issue in hot conditions on the ground, so I would not expect this to be a flight-safety issue. I recognize that restarting the engine might be troublesome (or even impossible?) in those circumstances.



If I take this approach I will therefore have to keep the 'static fuel section' as short in length as possible and, in addition, take the best possible measures to minimize the risk of fuel vaporizing in that section and/or even provide some means of cooling after shutdown.



Clearly some more thinking will be required. All recommendations are still more than welcome though! 



Marcel

Visit -  www.EuropaOwners.org

mz(at)cariama.nl
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:28 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

Hi Frans,



 	  Quote: 	
		   As far as I understand, Marcels intention is not to block the return

 line, but just not metering the return flow. 


	


Indeed that was my initial plan, but I am now exploring to see if I can

come up with accurate flow measuring using a single sender (as per your

earlier recommendation).



 	  Quote: 	
		   So there will be no static fuel in the lines, and the electric fuel 

 pump will clear fuel fapor, just as with the original lay-out.


	


Have another look at the schema that I posted, and note that the return

line is T-ed off at an earlier stage than in the original layout: my

schema Tees it off between mechanical pump and both carbs, the original

layout tees it off 'beyond' the carbs.



In the original layout, there are only two short pieces of line where

vapor-locking can occur (the two short T-ed off appr. 25cms segments

directly to each carb). In the schema I posted there is an *additional*

segment of fuel line where vapor-locking can occur (the guestimated 40

cms segment connecting the two carbs together).



 	  Quote: 	
		   The question is, how does ignoring the return flow affect the accuracy

 of the fuel flow instrument? It depends on the quantity of the return

 flow of course. Is there any data about this? Maybe in the rotax

 maintenance manuals?


	


That's indeed the question I so far have not found an answer to. The

only thing I was told by different people is that return flow varies

with RPM, but no hard numbers on return flow have made it my way. So

basically I *know* there will be an inaccuracy when ignoring return

flow, but *do not know* just how large this inaccuracy is (hence my

attempt to come up with something better for a single sender setup).



Marcel

frans(at)paardnatuurlijk.
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:51 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

Marcel Zwakenberg wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Hi Frans,

 

> As far as I understand, Marcels intention is not to block the return

> line, but just not metering the return flow. 

 

 Indeed that was my initial plan, but I am now exploring to see if I can

 come up with accurate flow measuring using a single sender (as per your

 earlier recommendation).

 

> So there will be no static fuel in the lines, and the electric fuel 

> pump will clear fuel fapor, just as with the original lay-out.

 

 Have another look at the schema that I posted, and note that the return

 line is T-ed off at an earlier stage than in the original layout: my

 schema Tees it off between mechanical pump and both carbs, the original

 layout tees it off 'beyond' the carbs.


	


Did you sent an attachment? I did not receive it.

If it is your plan to block the return line, I agree with Brian that

this would be a bad idea. Especially at idle the fuel consumption is

low, and the fuel will remain quite some time in an environment with

temperatures above its boiling point. You would well risk to make a not

so pleasant discovery at the subsequent take-off run, just above the

treshold at rwy 28 of EHHO. 



Note that this is not about the additional fuel line where vaporization

can occur, but about the fact that blocking the return flow will cause

the fuel to heat up much more than original, and making vapor lock much

more likely.



 	  Quote: 	
		   That's indeed the question I so far have not found an answer to. The

 only thing I was told by different people is that return flow varies

 with RPM, but no hard numbers on return flow have made it my way. So

 basically I *know* there will be an inaccuracy when ignoring return

 flow, but *do not know* just how large this inaccuracy is (hence my

 attempt to come up with something better for a single sender setup).


	


If I understand correctly from earlier conversations, you already bought

the second fuel flow sensor. So why not fit it temporarily in the return

line, measure what the return flow is, and then take it away again and

implement a correction factor to the single flow sensor?



-- 

Frans Veldman

grahamsingleton(at)btinte
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:13 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

The question is, how does ignoring the return flow affect the accuracy

 	  Quote: 	
		  > of the fuel flow instrument? It depends on the quantity of the return

> flow of course. Is there any data about this? Maybe in the rotax

> maintenance manuals?

>     



 That's indeed the question I so far have not found an answer to. The

 only thing I was told by different people is that return flow varies

 with RPM, but no hard numbers on return flow have made it my way. So

 basically I *know* there will be an inaccuracy when ignoring return

 flow, but *do not know* just how large this inaccuracy is (hence my

 attempt to come up with something better for a single sender setup).



 Marcel

   

Marcel
	


The return flow does not affect your fuel flow to the engine and that is 

what you are measuring. So you can forget about it with this configuration

Graham

mz(at)cariama.nl
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:56 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

[quote:e221de843a="grahamsingleton at bti..."]The return flow does not affect your fuel flow to the engine and that is what you are measuring. So you can forget about it with this configuration[/quote:e221de843a]

This was (part of) my motivation for wanting an accurate FF measure with just one sender, and doesn't discuss the solution you and Hans came up with.

Visit -  www.EuropaOwners.org

mz(at)cariama.nl
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:56 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

[quote:9b0584091e="Frans Veldman"]If it is your plan to block the return line[/quote:9b0584091e]

Negative, no way I am going to block the return line.



[quote:9b0584091e="Frans Veldman"]You would well risk to make a not so pleasant discovery at the subsequent take-off run, just above the treshold at rwy 28 of EHHO. [/quote:9b0584091e]

Exactly why I am running this idea by the readers 



[quote:9b0584091e="Frans Veldman"]So why not fit it temporarily in the return

line, measure what the return flow is, and then take it away again and

implement a correction factor to the single flow sensor?[/quote:9b0584091e]

I would rather avoid having to go through that excersize, I felt there should be a better way of accurate FF measuring with just one sender. That's why I came up with the new schema (well, actually my brother and Graham S. came up with it after some talks between my brother and myself, credit where credit's due!)



I will email you the schema that you did not receive.



Marcel

Visit -  www.EuropaOwners.org

roberthatton1(at)googlema
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:07 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

Hello Graham, 



I am following this thread for I shall also be looking at fitting a fuel

flow meter. Could I ask you to elaborate on your comment about ignoring the

return flow for you are only measuring the fuel to the engine. I think I

understand that with the placement of the Flowscan (from Marcel's the

schematic) no problem in measuring the fuel going to the engine. But with

the fuel coming back via the return line will that not eventually (after

going through the system) go back to the engine again via the Flowscan? The

question being, are the amounts so small not to worry about it and does this

just build in a safety margin? Sorry to sound thick on this, I am just

trying to get my head around what has been said so far and the schematic.

Robert



Robert Hatton

email: roberthatton1(at)googlemail.com

US Cell: +01 303 906 9395

UK Mobile: +44 79 66 184171

--

kheindl(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:22 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

  

Hi C

  

 I am also very confused about what has been said so far. I will be installing a FS450 fuel flow gadget C and it calls for transducers in the flow and return lines. I am not interested in how much fuel is flowing to the engine C I am interested in the fuel consumption. And that consumption is the difference between flow and return. Have I missed something ?

  

 BTW C I am looking for another Floscan 201 A6 with a matching K-factor.

  

 Karl

 



  

[quote] From: roberthatton1(at)googlemail.com

 To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

 Date: Wed C 22 Apr 2009 18:00:53 +0100

 

 --> Europa-List message posted by: "Robert Hatton" <roberthatton1(at)googlemail.com>

 

 Hello Graham C 

 

 I am following this thread for I shall also be looking at fitting a fuel

 flow meter. Could I ask you to elaborate on your comment about ignoring the

 return flow for you are only measuring the fuel to the engine. I think I

 understand that with the placement of the Flowscan (from Marcel's the

 schematic) no problem in measuring the fuel going to the engine. But with

 the fuel coming back via the return line will that not eventually (after

 going through the system) go back to the engine again via the Flowscan? The

 question being C are the amounts so small not to worry about it and does this

 just build in a safety margin? Sorry to sound thick on this C I am just

 trying to get my head around what has been said so far and the schematic.

 

 

 Robert

 

 Robert Hatton

 email: roberthatton1(at)googlemail.com

 US Cell: +01 303 906 9395

 UK Mobile: +44 79 66 184171

 

 

 --

Gilles.Thesee(at)ac-greno
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:08 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

Karl and all,

 	  Quote: 	
		  



  I will be installing a FS450 fuel flow gadget, and it calls for 

 transducers in the flow and return lines. I am not interested in how 

 much fuel is flowing to the engine, I am interested in the fuel 

 consumption. And that consumption is the difference between flow and 

 return. Have I missed something ?

  




	


I've installed an FS450 and dual transducers with great success on a 

Rotax 914.

Given the price tag I wouldn't call it a gadget 



The main difference with the normlly aspirated 912S is, the 914 flows a 

great amount of fuel to and from the fuel pressure regulator on the 

engine, whereas the 912S only returns an unknown and variable, but 

presumably limited, fuel quantity to the tank.



The 912S return flow is dependent on RPM (eccentric pump), power setting 

(actual fuel consumption), boost pump operation, etc.. so one must 

ponder what benefit is expected when installing a single transducer FF.

The proposed schematic may work, but it implies putting the delicate 

turbine transducer very close to the engine, in the adverse engine 

compartment environment.



Best regards,

-- 

Gilles

http://contrails.free.fr

Brian Davies

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 124
Location: uk

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:13 am Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

No Karl, you have not  missed anything.  If you install the fuel system as recommended by the  factory on a Rotax 921, you need two transducers so that the return flow is  subtracted from the total flow- leaving you with fuel consumption.  If you  change the fuel supply configuration so that the return line starts before the  fuel gets to the carbs, you can then have a single feed to the carbs.  The  fuel flow in this single feed is the fuel consumption of the  engine.

  

 Hope that helps.

  

 Brian Davies

  

   From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Karl  Heindl

Sent: 22 April 2009 18:22

To:  europa-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Fuel return line  attachment point with 912UL

 

   

Hi,

 

I am also very confused about what has been said so far. I  will be installing a FS450 fuel flow gadget, and it calls for transducers in the  flow and return lines. I am not interested in how much fuel is flowing to the  engine, I am interested in the fuel consumption. And that consumption is the  difference between flow and return. Have I missed something ?

 

BTW,  I am looking for another Floscan 201 A6 with a matching  K-factor.

 

Karl

 



  

 	  Quote: 	
		   From:  roberthatton1(at)googlemail.com

 To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

  Subject: RE: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

  Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:00:53 +0100

 

 --> Europa-List  message posted by: "Robert Hatton" <roberthatton1(at)googlemail.com>

  

 Hello Graham, 

 

 I am following this thread for I shall  also be looking at fitting a fuel

 flow meter. Could I ask you to  elaborate on your comment about ignoring the

 return flow for you are  only measuring the fuel to the engine. I think I

 understand that with  the placement of the Flowscan (from Marcel's the

 schematic) no problem  in measuring the fuel going to the engine. But with

 the fuel coming back  via the return line will that not eventually (after

 going through the  system) go back to the engine again via the Flowscan? The

 question  being, are the amounts so small not to worry about it and does this

 just  build in a safety margin? Sorry to sound thick on this, I am just

 trying  to get my head around what has been said so far and the schematic.

  

 

 Robert

 

 Robert Hatton

 email:  roberthatton1(at)googlemail.com

 US Cell: +01 303 906 9395

 UK  Mobile: +44 79 66 184171

 

 

 -----Original  Message-----

 From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com

  [mailto:owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Graham

  Singleton

 Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:12 PM

 To:  europa-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Fuel return line  attachment point with 912UL

 

 --> Europa-List message posted  by: Graham Singleton

 <grahamsingleton(at)btinternet.com>

  

 The question is, how does ignoring the return flow affect the  accuracy

 >> of the fuel flow instrument? It depends on the  quantity of the return

 >> flow of course. Is there any data about  this? Maybe in the rotax

 >> maintenance manuals?

 >>  

 >

 > That's indeed the question I so far have not found an  answer to. The

 > only thing I was told by different people is that  return flow varies

 > with RPM, but no hard numbers on return flow  have made it my way. So

 > basically I *know* there will be an  inaccuracy when ignoring return

 > flow, but *do not know* just how  large this inaccuracy is (hence my

 > attempt to come up with  something better for a single sender setup).

 >

 >  Marcel

 > 

 Marcel

 The return flow does not affect your  fuel flow to the engine and that is 

 what you are measuring. So you can  forget about it with this configuration

 Graham

 

 

  

 

 

=======================

&g=======
	


 	  Quote: 	
		    

 

 

 	  Quote: 	
		  
	




href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

	
No virus found in this incoming  message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com     [quote][b]

mz(at)cariama.nl
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:24 pm Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

[quote:7b02d7e77c="Barry"]The lines are insulated with reflective sleeve and I have not had any problems. My fuel lines are however run along the joggle on the cowling away from the engine heat.[/quote:7b02d7e77c]



Hi Barry,



Great to hear that we're trying to invent something new and untested here   !



Do you some pictures from your setup? I would highly appreciate seeing those if you have them.

If you would also be so kind to tell me the exact type of reflective sleeve and possible other parts you use, that would be awesome!



Thanks

Marcel

Visit -  www.EuropaOwners.org

mz(at)cariama.nl
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:27 pm Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

[quote:a9ceb294d7="Gilles.Thesee at ac-gr..."]-...but it implies putting the delicate 

turbine transducer very close to the engine, in the adverse engine 

compartment environment.[/quote:a9ceb294d7]

Correct, it's going to be in the 'engine bay' when using this schema. I presume your "but..." is referring to more taking care being required to keep the transducer as cool as possible?

Visit -  www.EuropaOwners.org

mz(at)cariama.nl
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

Karl,



I hope Brian's explanation has taken away your confusion? Just to make sure, when I stated "flowing to the engine" I meant what you refer to as "fuel consumption". Sorry for having caused the confusion.



[quote:79c4c6d7a8="kheindl"]BTW, I am looking for another Floscan 201 A6 with a matching K-factor.[/quote:79c4c6d7a8]



I have two brandnew 201B6 senders right now. If and when I decide to go with only one, the other one will be coming up for sale. Once that happens I'll drop another message on this board...

Visit -  www.EuropaOwners.org

grahamsingleton(at)btinte
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:49 pm Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

Robert Hatton wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Hello Graham, 



 I am following this thread for I shall also be looking at fitting a fuel

 flow meter. Could I ask you to elaborate on your comment about ignoring the

 return flow for you are only measuring the fuel to the engine. I think I

 understand that with the placement of the Flowscan (from Marcel's the

 schematic) no problem in measuring the fuel going to the engine. But with

 the fuel coming back via the return line will that not eventually (after

 going through the system) go back to the engine again via the Flowscan? The

 question being, are the amounts so small not to worry about it and does this

 just build in a safety margin? Sorry to sound thick on this, I am just

 trying to get my head around what has been said so far and the schematic.

 Robert

Hi Robert
	


I'm beginning to doubt my own logic on this thread :-\   but just think 

about it for a moment. What we need to know is how much fuel the engine 

uses/burns. All the rest of the fuel goes back to the tank. If you place 

the Floscan, (I know of no other sensor that is acceptable) so that the 

only fuel that passes through it is burnt by the engine then isn't that 

what we want to know?

If fuel comes out of the tank and then goes back to the tank it hasn't 

been used so won't be used to calculate fuel burnt by the totaliser.So 

we don't need to know that, do we??

Graham

kheindl(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:26 pm Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

  

Brian C

  

 I believe it helps a lot C but I have to think about it a little more. Are you saying that I can change my plumbing and not use a transducer in the return line ? My fuel lines are as per factory recommendations apart from gascolator and location of gascolator and fuel pump.

It would save a great deal of money; the tr. is now $ 332.- from ACS. I took advantage of the ACS discount plus the $ 175.- rebate from JPI C and payed 'only' $310 for the complete FS450

 single transducer kit. 

 What then is the LAA recommendation and what about Ian's mod submission to the LAA ?

  

 Cheers C    Karl



 



  

  From: bdavies(at)dircon.co.uk

To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

Date: Wed C 22 Apr 2009 19:12:24 +0100



  .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-top:0px;} .ExternalClass BODY.EC_hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}   No Karl C you have not missed anything.  If you install the fuel system as recommended by the factory on a Rotax 921 C you need two transducers so that the return flow is subtracted from the total flow- leaving you with fuel consumption.  If you change the fuel supply configuration so that the return line starts before the fuel gets to the carbs C you can then have a single feed to the carbs.  The fuel flow in this single feed is the fuel consumption of the engine.

  

 Hope that helps.

  

 Brian Davies

  

   From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Karl Heindl

Sent: 22 April 2009 18:22

To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

 

   Hi C

 

I am also very confused about what has been said so far. I will be installing a FS450 fuel flow gadget C and it calls for transducers in the flow and return lines. I am not interested in how much fuel is flowing to the engine C I am interested in the fuel consumption. And that consumption is the difference between flow and return. Have I missed something ?

 

BTW C I am looking for another Floscan 201 A6 with a matching K-factor.

 

Karl

 



  

[quote] From: roberthatton1(at)googlemail.com

 To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Europa-List: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

 Date: Wed C 22 Apr 2009 18:00:53 +0100

 

 --> Europa-List message posted by: "Robert Hatton" <roberthatton1(at)googlemail.com>

 

 Hello Graham C 

 

 I am following this thread for I shall also be looking at fitting a fuel

 flow meter. Could I ask you to elaborate on your comment about ignoring the

 return flow for you are only measuring the fuel to the engine. I think I

 understand that with the placement of the Flowscan (from Marcel's the

 schematic) no problem in measuring the fuel going to the engine. But with

 the fuel coming back via the return line will that not eventually (after

 going through the system) go back to the engine again via the Flowscan? The

 question being C are the amounts so small not to worry about it and does this

 just build in a safety margin? Sorry to sound thick on this C I am just

 trying to get my head around what has been said so far and the schematic.

 

 

 Robert

 

 Robert Hatton

 email: roberthatton1(at)googlemail.com

 US Cell: +01 303 906 9395

 UK Mobile: +44 79 66 184171

 

 

 --

mz(at)cariama.nl
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:49 pm Post subject: Fuel return line attachment point with 912UL

Hi Karl,

[quote:ee27d1fd5f="kheindl"]Are you saying that I can change my plumbing and not use a transducer in the return line ? [/quote:ee27d1fd5f]

Yes, you can. Actually, that's the whole purpose of the schema I posted 



[quote:ee27d1fd5f="kheindl"]What then is the LAA recommendation [/quote:ee27d1fd5f]

I had the same question, so got in touch with the LAA before posting it here. I had a brief e-mail conversation with Andy D. (I also sent him the schema). 



Andy too was mentioning vapor-lock, and recommends to stick the sender as closely to the carbs as possible.



If I decide to go this route, I will need to seek individual approval. Andy stated that this mod almost certainly invalidates the PtF, and a new flight test would be required.



Marcel

Visit -  www.EuropaOwners.org

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum