Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Fuel Tank Coating

25 posts in this topic

Posted

Fellas,

I hate to start a redundant topic, but I was wondering if things had changed.

Are you guys coating your fiberglass tanks?

I know about the wing tanks that you can put inside the shell of your fiberglass tanks, but I would rather not loose the couple of gallons with that mod.

I have a Magnum with an O-320, so it's av gas for now. I would like to plan ahead for mogas. My tanks are mounted to the wing already, but the covering is not on yet. I could slosh the tank with another person or two.

I'd like to hear from someone who has used a coating method that they are happy with. Other options are invited too, including "don't do it."

Thanks,

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Fellas,

I hate to start a redundant topic, but I was wondering if things had changed.

Are you guys coating your fiberglass tanks?

I know about the wing tanks that you can put inside the shell of your fiberglass tanks, but I would rather not loose the couple of gallons with that mod.

I have a Magnum with an O-320, so it's av gas for now. I would like to plan ahead for mogas. My tanks are mounted to the wing already, but the covering is not on yet. I could slosh the tank with another person or two.

I'd like to hear from someone who has used a coating method that they are happy with. Other options are invited too, including "don't do it."

Thanks,

Ron

The only thing I have heard positive reports on is CASWELL - Not used it yet, but motorcycle buddy has.

$40 per tank, I think.

ED in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The only thing I have heard positive reports on is CASWELL - Not used it yet, but motorcycle buddy has.

$40 per tank, I think.

ED in MO

I used the Caswell sealer and would recommend it. I have not used fuel with alcohol but this stuff will stand up. The mix is critical so get one kit per tank. I used one kit for two tanks but the mix was a little off and it took several days to setup. I do have a ongoing test with 1 1/2 years of the epoxy soaking in Gasohol and it is holding up.

Here is a link:

http://www.caswellplating.com/restoration-aids/epoxy-gas-tank-sealer.html

Paul S

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I used the Caswell sealer and would recommend it. I have not used fuel with alcohol but this stuff will stand up. The mix is critical so get one kit per tank. I used one kit for two tanks but the mix was a little off and it took several days to setup. I do have a ongoing test with 1 1/2 years of the epoxy soaking in Gasohol and it is holding up.

Here is a link:

http://www.caswellplating.com/restoration-aids/epoxy-gas-tank-sealer.html

Paul S

Thanks Paul and Ed...that sealed the deal for me, no pun intended. I'm going to order it now!

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Fellas,

I hate to start a redundant topic, but I was wondering if things had changed.

Are you guys coating your fiberglass tanks?

I know about the wing tanks that you can put inside the shell of your fiberglass tanks, but I would rather not loose the couple of gallons with that mod.

I have a Magnum with an O-320, so it's av gas for now. I would like to plan ahead for mogas. My tanks are mounted to the wing already, but the covering is not on yet. I could slosh the tank with another person or two.

I'd like to hear from someone who has used a coating method that they are happy with. Other options are invited too, including "don't do it."

Thanks,

Ron

I'm firmly in the "don't do it" camp. If your tank(s) are currently leaking I would open them up, repair the leak and seal the tank back up to fix the leak. I did that with great success on my Magnum.

prior to repairing my tanks I did a bunch of testing of various coatings on samples of the fiberglass substrate the tanks are made of, soaking them in pure ethyl alcohol, E10 gas, pure auto gas and av gas, as well as various additives like Seafoam and Marvel mystery oil.

I found that even if you coat the tanks with a completely ethanol proof coating like phenolnovalac epoxy, there WILL be a spot that doesn't get covered. That spot may be at the tank penetration or somewhere else. Where ever it is, the ethanol (E-10 which was the worst of all of the substances I tested on the fiberglass) will get in behind the coating, soften the fiberglass and weaken the bond. The coating will eventually separate.

I believe if it isn't broken, don't fix it, and if it is broken, just fix it, but do not try to turn the original tank into something it was never intended to be. You will need to find a source for ethanol free mo gas or use Av gas. Neither of those damaged my fiberglass samples.

Somewhere else on this site (can't remember where) I uplaoded some pictures of the repair I did on my Magnum tanks. I think it turned out great looking and very functional in that it could be repaired again if need be. However, I did not coat the tanks and I only run av gas or ethanol free mo gas.

Good luck what ever you choose to do!

Chris Bolkan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ron - I'm no fan of tank sealants, think it's better to just bite the bullet and replace the tanks if all you have is auto gas with ethanol. If you can't live with the lessor fuel quantity of the poly tanks, the new full-size wing tanks from Airdale and Kitfox use the same ethanol resistant resin (supposedly ethanol proof). Then again, it's a whole lot cheaper and easier just to limit your auto gas usage to E-0 premium if available. Here in upstate NY, it's available at marinas (89 and 91 octane) and seems to be showing up at more and more gas stations as the public outcry over the deleterious effects of alcohol have become known. If I was hell-bent on sloshing my tanks, all my research pointed to a 2-part phenol novolac epoxy sealer. Did you read thru THIS THREAD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Fellas,

I hate to start a redundant topic, but I was wondering if things had changed.

Are you guys coating your fiberglass tanks?

I know about the wing tanks that you can put inside the shell of your fiberglass tanks, but I would rather not loose the couple of gallons with that mod.

I have a Magnum with an O-320, so it's av gas for now. I would like to plan ahead for mogas. My tanks are mounted to the wing already, but the covering is not on yet. I could slosh the tank with another person or two.

I'd like to hear from someone who has used a coating method that they are happy with. Other options are invited too, including "don't do it."

Thanks,

Ron

One other thing to consider. All of the lycoming literature I have says do not use ethanol fuel as the various rubber type materials in the lycoming engines is not ethanol resistant either.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

One other thing to consider. All of the lycoming literature I have says do not use ethanol fuel as the various rubber type materials in the lycoming engines is not ethanol resistant either.

Chris

I'm with Chris on this - There were tests done years ago using E-gas in Aeroquip hoses and the hoses failed - anyone using moonshine gas needs to go to automotove hoses, like Gates, or whatever that is alcohol proof.

I am going to try to use my F/G tanks as is, and try to avoid alcohol gas when possible - If I get leaks later on, then will try sloshing or repair or replacement - probably old enough to just sell plane by the time I get it built and flying anyway!

Mogas ate the corks on my tank gauges years ago with my Ercoupe - this was about the time they went to the sponge plastic floats in carbs that eventually got saturated and sank.

Ed in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Chris, dholly, and Ed

Ok...that was what I needed. I had read through the thread before, but was just wondering if views had changed.

Unfortunately I have purchased the Caswell stuff already, but fortunately I haven't used it yet!

I plan on using straight Av gas until they don't make it anymore! That being said, sounds like not coating is my best option.

I did look into the other tanks, but I already have the fiberglass tanks installed, wrapped and not leaking! I just figured I would coat it before covering the wing if that is what you all are doing.

Chris, I did see the pics of your tank repair, great idea and craftsmanship! I copied those pics for future problems.

So, to clarify...I'm not going to coat my fiberglass tanks.

Thanks again guys!

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hey Ron -

I had another thought that might be helpful. I know that the wing tanks I received from [old] Airdale with my Avid+ kit had a crap load of excess adhesive and selvage in them, and definitely would have benefited from a good rinsing. Kitfox has a Service Bulletin out on this very issue, with pointers that should work with your (or any new Avid) tanks. If you have any question about the vintage of your tanks, ie. whether they were manufactured with the earlier polyester resin vs. vinylester resin, I would rinse with Avgas vs MEK or Acetone as instructed by Kitfox for tanks made prior to Nov. 2007 (which, I suspect, is the date they switched to more ethanol resistant vinylester resin).

HTH

sb60.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Doug-- The topic of what material to rinse with has been debated to death. Av-Gas will not do it. The release agents and uncured resin are resistant to it. MEK or Acetone are required.

My buddy who just finished his hybrid, used brand new wing tanks from Kitfox and rinced with Av-Gas. I persuaded him to rinse again with MEK and he got out a ton more junk from his "clean" tanks.

Additionally, I would highly recommend pressure testing your new tanks. These tanks above also had a flaw in their manufacture which caused a leak that required a bunch of screwing around to fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

With the old Avid tanks (new but manufactured prior to 2007) you are suggesting they should still be rinsed with MEK? Will rinsing for 1 min and then dumping and letting them dry not cause permanent damage but still be effective in cleaning out the initial gunk?

How much pressure are you talking about in doing a pressure test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

First off, let me correct a mistake. It was acetone, NOT MEK that was the rinsing agent. That was my mistake on my last post.

I don't have any idea what, if any, negative effect this would have on the "old" tanks, sorry.

As to pressure testing, only a very low pressure is needed, 1/2 to 1 psi. Put a balloon over the filler neck and pressurize the tank through the threaded ports. Leave the tank/balloon for a while and measure the balloon for shrinkage to detect a leak. Soapy water spray for finding the leaks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Doug-- The topic of what material to rinse with has been debated to death. Av-Gas will not do it. The release agents and uncured resin are resistant to it. MEK or Acetone are required.

I'm aware of the arguments for each rinse media and their benefits used with poly, vinyl ester or epoxy resins individually and specifically. However, due to the different fiberglass wing tank material compositions and oem manufacturing procedures, I just don't believe that a one size solution fits all. Having owned two Avids and two Kitfoxes equipped with wing tanks, my real life experience seems to be in line with the chatter I see posted on multiple forums. That being, Kitfox tanks tend to suffer primarily from inadequate mold release agent removal and subsequent failure of the factory applied Kreem (or other owner applied tank) sealant, as well as excess adhesive and selvage. Avid tanks tend to suffer from leaking due to polyester resin getting eaten up, as well as excess adhesive.

Not that either tank is exempted from the other affliction of course, but those observations are no surprise to me since Skystar and Kitfox supplied tons of coated tanks while Avid supplied none. Both companies slathered on copious amounts of adhesive to secure the baffles, which can dislodge at any time for any number of reasons, including use of E10 auto gas and it's additives (finger strainers on tank outlets mandatory, IMHO). And it is my understanding that the composition of polyester binding and laminating resin used by each company was different. Unlike the newer vinyl ester or epoxy resins, polyester resin is chemically formulated to reemain tacky after it is hardened which allows additional layups to adhere easier. Perhaps Skystar chose this to facilitate the Kreem slosh? Might have worked better, assuming all the mold release had been cleaned properly.

However, in this case, Ron has stated he's sticking with 100LL. So if any selvage or adhesive bits in his Avid tanks will not be loosened by the use of E10 or, more importantly IMHO, any residual release agent will not be turned into the infamous jet clogging 'brown sticky stuff' by the use of E10, what's the point? Hell, rinse 'em with water if you want, all you're doing is getting rid of whatever loose debris is in there as opposed to preventative medicine for sloshing a tank sealant or E10 use, or trying to capture the fiberglass hairs from a deteriorating tank. I suspect there is a header tank sump or gascolator in his fuel circuit to catch any bits of debris that make it past the finger strainers.

My buddy who just finished his hybrid, used brand new wing tanks from Kitfox and rinced with Av-Gas. I persuaded him to rinse again with MEK and he got out a ton more junk from his "clean" tanks.

If he rinsed new (post Nov'07) tanks with Avgas, then he did not follow the SB instructions and your recommendation was consistent with SB60. If he had unused pre-Nov'07 tanks and rinsed with MEK [edit: saw your correction] or Acetone, no doubt they puked more crap, this circa tank is clearly most susceptible to that rinse media. I would use Acetone to rinse pre-Nov'07 tanks but not MEK. In any event, based on the factory position stated in the Kitfox Service Bulletin, I think the question in this case is just how necessary or beneficial would an Acetone rinse be when Ron a.) is not going to use E10; b.) is not going to use a sealant to coat his tanks; c.) already has tanks installed in covered wings. I understand the thought process behind Kitfox Service Bulletin, it's up to each which set of instructions is appropriate and fits both their tank material and mission. If I was in the same position as Ron, unless I wiped my finger in the tank and felt a bunch of sticky material indicating the presence of eexcessive mold release agent, I would just use Avgas to rinse any loose debris, reinstall the finger strainers and go fly. Not a recommendation, argument with Larry or endorsement of Kitfox, only my opinion. Ron's and YMMV.

Edited by dholly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hey Ron -

I had another thought that might be helpful. I know that the wing tanks I received from [old] Airdale with my Avid+ kit had a crap load of excess adhesive and selvage in them, and definitely would have benefited from a good rinsing. Kitfox has a Service Bulletin out on this very issue, with pointers that should work with your (or any new Avid) tanks. If you have any question about the vintage of your tanks, ie. whether they were manufactured with the earlier polyester resin vs. vinylester resin, I would rinse with Avgas vs MEK or Acetone as instructed by Kitfox for tanks made prior to Nov. 2007 (which, I suspect, is the date they switched to more ethanol resistant vinylester resin).

HTH

I have a story (and a lesson learned) about this very topic. I bought my Magnum from the original builder. He had installed these neat little clear glass filters right up where the fuel exits the wings, but before the fuel dumps into the header tanks. The original builder never flew it. I had transferred the 40 hour flyoff to myself and successfully completed it.

At about 80 very successful and uneventful hours on the plane, I decide to take my girlfriend to Port Townsend for a jazz festival for her birthday. We left Tri Cities and had a wonderful flight up and over the Cascades. We went around and under the Class B around Seattle and had just completed the first water crossing betewwn Paine Field and Whidbey Island. One of my GPS waypoints was a little grass airfield on the south end of Whidbey. Just as we passed over that airstrip and switched to Port Townsend on the GPS, the engine stopped. I found that if I pulled the throttle back, the engine would start again and idle, but if I gave it any throttle at all it would just die again. Fortunately (VERY FORTUNATELY) we were directly over this grass airstrip and had plenty of altitude to coast in and land uneventfully.

Once on the ground, I found that the little glass filters had plugged with very fine debris from the tank construction. The debris appeared clear in the gasoline so you could not see it. I had to remove the filters and blow through them to actually verify the restriction. There were something like two hangars on the field and fortunately one of them had a couple EAA'ers who were happy to help. We re-plumbed sans the filters directly into the header tanks as in hindsight was the way it should have been done in the first place since there is a gascolator/screen at the firewall anyway.

Once I got back home, I removed the pipe fittings from the tanks and found a bunch of construction debris that had collected around the finger screen in the tank in addition to the very fine dust which had plugged the filter. I removed all of it with a fine bent wire hook. i never had another problem with fuel restriction once I removed those little glass filters.

The lesson learned or me was NEVER place a filter directly at the tank outlet. Placement of a filter there does not provide any pressure head to push through a restriction. If the filter were located at the output of the header tank instead, there would have been plenty of pressure head (3+ feet) to push right through the slight restriction.

The filters were not badly plugged, just restricted enough that the very low head at the output of the tanks could not produce adequate flow.

The system I eventually ended up with contains no filters at all. The tanks dump directly into the header tanks where debris can settle out and be drained off, then goes to an aviation gascolator with inverted screen at the firewall. That is all there is now without a hint of reduced flow at 450 hours. The system on the Magnum is entirely gravity feed with no pumps in the system and is reliable as can be once those filters at the tank outlets were removed.

I do not think MEK is appropriate to rince tanks with and maybe not acetone either. Both of these chemicals are harder on the fiberglass than ethanol ever dreamed of being.

Chris

Edited by ChrisB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have a story (and a lesson learned) about this very topic. I bought my Magnum from the original builder. He had installed these neat little clear glass filters right up where the fuel exits the wings, but before the fuel dumps into the header tanks. The original builder never flew it. I had transferred the 40 hour flyoff to myself and successfully completed it.

At about 80 very successful and uneventful hours on the plane, I decide to take my girlfriend to Port Townsend for a jazz festival for her birthday. We left Tri Cities and had a wonderful flight up and over the Cascades. We went around and under the Class B around Seattle and had just completed the first water crossing betewwn Paine Field and Whidbey Island. One of my GPS waypoints was a little grass airfield on the south end of Whidbey. Just as we passed over that airstrip and switched to Port Townsend on the GPS, the engine stopped. I found that if I pulled the throttle back, the engine would start again and idle, but if I gave it any throttle at all it would just die again. Fortunately (VERY FORTUNATELY) we were directly over this grass airstrip and had plenty of altitude to coast in and land uneventfully.

Once on the ground, I found that the little glass filters had plugged with very fine debris from the tank construction. The debris appeared clear in the gasoline so you could not see it. I had to remove the filters and blow through them to actually verify the restriction. There were something like two hangars on the field and fortunately one of them had a couple EAA'ers who were happy to help. We re-plumbed sans the filters directly into the header tanks as in hindsight was the way it should have been done in the first place since there is a gascolator/screen at the firewall anyway.

Once I got back home, I removed the pipe fittings from the tanks and found a bunch of construction debris that had collected around the finger screen in the tank in addition to the very fine dust which had plugged the filter. I removed all of it with a fine bent wire hook. i never had another problem with fuel restriction once I removed those little glass filters.

The lesson learned or me was NEVER place a filter directly at the tank outlet. Placement of a filter there does not provide any pressure head to push through a restriction. If the filter were located at the output of the header tank instead, there would have been plenty of pressure head (3+ feet) to push right through the slight restriction.

The filters were not badly plugged, just restricted enough that the very low head at the output of the tanks could not produce adequate flow.

The system I eventually ended up with contains no filters at all. The tanks dump directly into the header tanks where debris can settle out and be drained off, then goes to an aviation gascolator with inverted screen at the firewall. That is all there is now without a hint of reduced flow at 450 hours. The system on the Magnum is entirely gravity feed with no pumps in the system and is reliable as can be once those filters at the tank outlets were removed.

I do not think MEK is appropriate to rince tanks with and maybe not acetone either. Both of these chemicals are harder on the fiberglass than ethanol ever dreamed of being.

Chris

Chris!

I'm so glad you posted that story! The previous owner of my Magnum also bought the clear filters to go in the same place! I never thought of the pressure needed to keep the fuel flowing through a filter. It all makes sense now!

I have another aircraft that I did use an in line filter on, but it was in between the gascollator and the mechanical fuel pump. I put it there because I saw some small particles when sumping the gascollator. I didn't want them making it to the carb. Couldn't ever discover exactly what caused that, but guessed that a dirt dobber had deposited some mud in the vent tube of the tank that then made it into the tank and dissolved slowly, making its way through the gascollator screen.

A gascollator screen won't stop everything. At least with my gascollator it is a wide screen.

On that plane I also put a small Facet fuel pump tubed in parallel to the line with the filter, so if the filter clogged you could electrically pump gas through the other line straight to the carb. I plan on doing this with my Magnum too.

Now, on the flushing the tank conversation. I think I'm going to wash it out with Av gas only and then test for leaks. Acetone and MEK just open the door for creating fiberglass issues that I'm going to have a hard time fixing at this point. If I ever go to Ethanol, I will probably look at the acetone option, or a major modification with cutting panels in the bays to get a good sealed tank.

Thanks for all the discussions!

Ron

Edited by Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ron / Chris / anyone,

Have you ever measured your fuel pressure from the tank to the carb, with no fuel pump running?

Suberavid and I were talking about this a while back, since both of us are running Soobs with two fuel pumps, and I asked him if his engine would run without a pump running, and he had no tryed that yet.

My carb is a Holley two-barrel, and has a small internal wire filter at the inlet, and takes 2 to 6 lbs of pressure to operate. He has the dual Bings on his Stratus engine.

Another point was brought up by Doug Holly, that the only filters you should have are the screen wire type, since a paper filter will clog easier. I see clearly that the point Chris is making is valid - You have to have head pressure to overcome resistance to flow.

ED in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ron / Chris / anyone,

Have you ever measured your fuel pressure from the tank to the carb, with no fuel pump running?

Suberavid and I were talking about this a while back, since both of us are running Soobs with two fuel pumps, and I asked him if his engine would run without a pump running, and he had no tryed that yet.

My carb is a Holley two-barrel, and has a small internal wire filter at the inlet, and takes 2 to 6 lbs of pressure to operate. He has the dual Bings on his Stratus engine.

Another point was brought up by Doug Holly, that the only filters you should have are the screen wire type, since a paper filter will clog easier. I see clearly that the point Chris is making is valid - You have to have head pressure to overcome resistance to flow.

ED in MO

Ed,

This is all on a Starduster Too Experimental. I have a Lycoming O-320 with an MS4 carb.

My mechanical fuel pump went out on my O-320 and the only reason I knew was that I was reading about 1.5 psi on my fuel pressure gauge. I couldn't tell you when the pump went out, because the engine ran just fine. I usually see 3-4 psi on the gauge and rarely look at it (except on cross country flights). That being said, you can have problems with the engine quitting in climb or extreme angles, when your fuel pump is not working. You probably know that already...

Ron

Edited by Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ed,

This is all on a Starduster Too Experimental. I have a Lycoming O-320 with an MS4 carb.

My mechanical fuel pump went out on my O-320 and the only reason I knew was that I was reading about 1.5 psi on my fuel pressure gauge. I couldn't tell you when the pump went out, because the engine ran just fine. I usually see 3-4 psi on the gauge and rarely look at it (except on cross country flights). That being said, you can have problems with the engine quitting in climb or extreme angles, when your fuel pump is not working. You probably know that already...

Ron

Thanks Ron,

I have been trying to get the specifics for the Kitfox/Avid head pressure because they may be different than the Starduster and others. Suberavid has a pressure gage on his, and I am installing one on mine. My dual Facet electric fuel pumps will have an internal bypass so that if they quit I should still have head pressure flow, but that may not be enough for any extra power. Testing will tell someday.

Thanks, Ed

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ron / Chris / anyone,

Have you ever measured your fuel pressure from the tank to the carb, with no fuel pump running?

Suberavid and I were talking about this a while back, since both of us are running Soobs with two fuel pumps, and I asked him if his engine would run without a pump running, and he had no tryed that yet.

My carb is a Holley two-barrel, and has a small internal wire filter at the inlet, and takes 2 to 6 lbs of pressure to operate. He has the dual Bings on his Stratus engine.

Another point was brought up by Doug Holly, that the only filters you should have are the screen wire type, since a paper filter will clog easier. I see clearly that the point Chris is making is valid - You have to have head pressure to overcome resistance to flow.

ED in MO

My system has no fuel pump. All gravity flow. I have never measured the pressure, but when sumping the gascolator, I can tell intuitively that there is PLENTY of flow. The gascolator (and carb) are WAY lower than the tanks on the Magnum (Lycoming engine with bottom mounted carb) so there is a LOT of head. As for the screen size in the gascolator, it may look like a large mesh, but the mesh is designed to be enough smaller than any restrictions or jets in the carb, so anything that does make it through the mesh will flow uneventfully through the carb. Plus the gsscolators collect everything anyway. The gascolator screen is just a last defence. It's how certificated planes do it, and IMHO there is no need to re-invent that wheel. When you try and "improve" on things that have been figured out over many years with good reason already, you get the shit that happened to me because the builder thought he had a better mousetrap. This is something I NEVER want to experience again. If you know the terrain up there, there is simply no place to land. I was lucky. Just plain lucky. No two ways about it. If that little grass strip hadn't been right there, I mean right there at that moment, it would have been water or trees.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Detail please. Exactly which tanks are you referring to?

These were brand new tanks from Kitfox, ordered about two years ago. the flaw was a small crescent shaped area on the inside wall in front of the sight view tube. Repaired with a fuel (ethanol) proof two part epoxy.

All of my comments above are in reference to these tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My system has no fuel pump. All gravity flow. I have never measured the pressure, but when sumping the gascolator, I can tell intuitively that there is PLENTY of flow. The gascolator (and carb) are WAY lower than the tanks on the Magnum (Lycoming engine with bottom mounted carb) so there is a LOT of head. As for the screen size in the gascolator, it may look like a large mesh, but the mesh is designed to be enough smaller than any restrictions or jets in the carb, so anything that does make it through the mesh will flow uneventfully through the carb. Plus the gsscolators collect everything anyway. The gascolator screen is just a last defence. It's how certificated planes do it, and IMHO there is no need to re-invent that wheel. When you try and "improve" on things that have been figured out over many years with good reason already, you get the shit that happened to me because the builder thought he had a better mousetrap. This is something I NEVER want to experience again. If you know the terrain up there, there is simply no place to land. I was lucky. Just plain lucky. No two ways about it. If that little grass strip hadn't been right there, I mean right there at that moment, it would have been water or trees.

Chris

I agree Chris - no need to mess-up what we know that works.

Also, IMO, the FARs are the rules that help keep us safe, no matter what type we fly, just like rules of the roads,

and the FARs/AC43-13, gives minimum fuel flow for all piston engines, as 150% of Max full-power consumption for gravity systems, and 125% for pumped fuel systems - and some of this determines our line sizes too.

They even tell us how to do the test for this at maximum angles of attack, using a bucket and a timer. Nothing is too small to overlook when you want the fan to keep turning.

ED in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Were those the only bad ones to your knowledge or was whole a run of tanks affected? Kind of surprised KF wouldn't replace them if defective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Were those the only bad ones to your knowledge or was whole a run of tanks affected? Kind of surprised KF wouldn't replace them if defective?

I don't know of others, but I'm not on the "inside" with Kitfox. Dave wouldn't have replaced them anyway, they were already installed in a wing and flying. Repair is holding and plane is still flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I agree Chris - no need to mess-up what we know that works.

Also, IMO, the FARs are the rules that help keep us safe, no matter what type we fly, just like rules of the roads,

and the FARs/AC43-13, gives minimum fuel flow for all piston engines, as 150% of Max full-power consumption for gravity systems, and 125% for pumped fuel systems - and some of this determines our line sizes too.

They even tell us how to do the test for this at maximum angles of attack, using a bucket and a timer. Nothing is too small to overlook when you want the fan to keep turning.

ED in MO

I did the entire bucket timing series of test because I was paranoid about it! I wasn't paranoid after finishing the tests!

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0