 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1706
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:45 pm Post subject: Fuel pump use |
 |
|
Boy are you confused. The Cessna 177RG for a long time was the only
Bendix fuel injected, Lycoming engined high wing Cessna. I haven't
looked at later models that got Lycoming engines, but there is no
question that your high wing will NOT produce the fuel pressure needed
for full power without a boost pump. Period.
The models you cite are all carbureted, and most do not have a boost
pump or mechanical pump because it isn't needed as it takes almost no
pressure to feed fuel past the needle valve when the fuel in bowl drops
and lets the valve open. Totally different than the Bendix fuel
injection that requires nearly 15 psi to allow for full power, which you
won't get from a wing that is only 6 ft above the wheels and much less
above the fuel injection servo, and probably only 2 ft or less above it
in a 15 degree pitch attitude.
That Cessna is idiotic enough to not change their POH after there have
been enough documented cases of mechanical fuel pump failure that
resulted in an AD on Lycoming high pressure mechanical pumps, is simply
negligence on Cessna's part, and yes, if it came to testifying at a
litigation trial, that is exactly what I would say.
Cessna in the early 210s also did not recognize the problem and didn't
even put in boost pumps adequate to run the engine after mechanical pump
failure.
All you are doing is pointing out the deficiencies of the 38 year old
POH. It also has no emergency checklist items to restore power before
reaching cruise altitude. How dumb is that? You aren't going to switch
on boost pump, switch tanks and check mags for both until you are at the
leisure of cruise altitude if the engine quits at 2000 ft????? Yes, I
would ignore the POH and use the boost pump for takeoff and landing,
just as the low wing planes with the same engine and injection system
recommend, because the wing position can't make enough a difference to
generate the pressure needed. Would you rather follow POH and risk an
off airport landing if your mechanical pump fails at 100 ft in the air,
or be more informed and keep flying until you are at altitude you can
return to runway when engine quits as you turn off the boost pump at
above 1000ft? Since I saw a 210 totaled for that exact reason 10 days
ago, I know my choice.
Kelly
On 1/10/2013 3:50 PM, William Curtis wrote:
| Quote: | Agreed, which is why I prefaced most by specifying "fuel injected high
wing." The high wing Cessna 150/152 that I trained in also did not
have boost pumps. Most high wing carbureted engine aircraft can and do
run perfectly fine full power with only gravity feeding the fuel.
I know we are "out in the weeds" on this thread now but I'll restate
my original statement with clarification and expansion-- I hope:
-In the case of the RV10 with a Lycoming fuel injected engine, follow
the Vans suggested recommendation of *running the boost pump during
takeoff and landing*s. This is normal procedure for most low wing
aircraft.
-For *high wing fuel injected* Cessnas, all POH that I have seen DO
NOT indicate running the fuel pump during takeoff and landings.
-Many, if not all, *high wing **carbureted *aircraft, including the
Cessna 150/152/172, DO NOT specify in the POH running the boost pump
during takeoff and landings.
W.
On Jan 10, 2013, at 16:51, Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net
<mailto:deej(at)deej.net>> wrote:
>
> <mailto:deej(at)deej.net>>
>
> On 01/10/2013 04:30 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>
>> I don't
>> think anyone has said or would think an engine would "run properly" with
>> fuel fed only with gravity
> This is exactly what I am saying - my Glastar has never had any
> kind of
> fuel pump installed, mechanical or electrical, and it runs just fine
> with gravity fed only to a carb.
>
> I've been told there are older certified aircraft that are setup the
> same way, but I don't have any specific references to share.
>
> -Dj
> --
> Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
> Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
> Glastar Flyer N866RH -
> http://deej.net/glastar/<========================== - The
> RV10-List
> Emailnics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List====================================================; -
> List Contribution Web Site
> -*http://www.m==================================================
>
> *
*
*
*
*
|
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wwc4(at)njit.edu
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:05 am Post subject: Fuel pump use |
|
|
Kelly,
I see my attempts at clarification has failed miserably. As this is an RV10 list, I won't drag this out further. I would suggest however that you review section 3 (Emergency Procedures) of the POH link I included previously and also my post(s) on exactly what I said about how much power is available following a mechanical fuel pump failure in each type of aircraft.
The only reason I responded to this thread initially was because you made the following statement:
You are correct. Every Lycoming powered fuel injected aircraft I have worked on, with Bendix RSA injection called for pump on for takeoff and landing. Since I knew this not to be the case, I sought to correct the statement. At this point I am unsure what you are still defending but alas, I will concede.
Lastly, I see you are now an accident investigator. Can you cite for me the 210 accident that you have concluded was brought down 10 days ago due to not running the fuel pump on takeoff?
W.
On Jan 11, 2013, at 0:44, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>
Boy are you confused. The Cessna 177RG for a long time was the only Bendix fuel injected, Lycoming engined high wing Cessna. I haven't looked at later models that got Lycoming engines, but there is no question that your high wing will NOT produce the fuel pressure needed for full power without a boost pump. Period.
The models you cite are all carbureted, and most do not have a boost pump or mechanical pump because it isn't needed as it takes almost no pressure to feed fuel past the needle valve when the fuel in bowl drops and lets the valve open. Totally different than the Bendix fuel injection that requires nearly 15 psi to allow for full power, which you won't get from a wing that is only 6 ft above the wheels and much less above the fuel injection servo, and probably only 2 ft or less above it in a 15 degree pitch attitude.
That Cessna is idiotic enough to not change their POH after there have been enough documented cases of mechanical fuel pump failure that resulted in an AD on Lycoming high pressure mechanical pumps, is simply negligence on Cessna's part, and yes, if it came to testifying at a litigation trial, that is exactly what I would say.
Cessna in the early 210s also did not recognize the problem and didn't even put in boost pumps adequate to run the engine after mechanical pump failure.
All you are doing is pointing out the deficiencies of the 38 year old POH. It also has no emergency checklist items to restore power before reaching cruise altitude. How dumb is that? You aren't going to switch on boost pump, switch tanks and check mags for both until you are at the leisure of cruise altitude if the engine quits at 2000 ft????? Yes, I would ignore the POH and use the boost pump for takeoff and landing, just as the low wing planes with the same engine and injection system recommend, because the wing position can't make enough a difference to generate the pressure needed. Would you rather follow POH and risk an off airport landing if your mechanical pump fails at 100 ft in the air, or be more informed and keep flying until you are at altitude you can return to runway when engine quits as you turn off the boost pump at above 1000ft? Since I saw a 210 totaled for that exact reason 10 days ago, I know my choice.
Kelly
On 1/10/2013 3:50 PM, William Curtis wrote:
| Quote: | Agreed, which is why I prefaced most by specifying "fuel injected high wing." The high wing Cessna 150/152 that I trained in also did not have boost pumps. Most high wing carbureted engine aircraft can and do run perfectly fine full power with only gravity feeding the fuel.
I know we are "out in the weeds" on this thread now but I'll restate my original statement with clarification and expansion-- I hope:
-In the case of the RV10 with a Lycoming fuel injected engine, follow the Vans suggested recommendation of *running the boost pump during takeoff and landing*s. This is normal procedure for most low wing aircraft.
-For *high wing fuel injected* Cessnas, all POH that I have seen DO NOT indicate running the fuel pump during takeoff and landings.
-Many, if not all, *high wing **carbureted *aircraft, including the Cessna 150/152/172, DO NOT specify in the POH running the boost pump during takeoff and landings.
W.
On Jan 10, 2013, at 16:51, Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net (deej(at)deej.net) <mailto:deej(at)deej.net (deej(at)deej.net)>> wrote:
| Quote: | On 01/10/2013 04:30 PM, William Curtis wrote:
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | think anyone has said or would think an engine would "run properly" with
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | fuel fed only with gravity
|
|
| Quote: | This is exactly what I am saying - my Glastar has never had any kind of
|
| Quote: | fuel pump installed, mechanical or electrical, and it runs just fine
|
| Quote: | with gravity fed only to a carb.
|
| Quote: | I've been told there are older certified aircraft that are setup the
|
| Quote: | same way, but I don't have any specific references to share.
|
| Quote: | Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
|
*
*
*
*
|
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
==========================bsp; - The RV10-List Email Forum -http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
_ &n--> http://www.matronic================================================
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kelly McMullen
Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:32 pm Post subject: Fuel pump use |
|
|
My statement was correct. I have not personally worked on a C177RG, only flown them. I have reviewed what is in the POH you provided.
IMHO it is pitiful.
I spoke directly to the pilot/A&P/IA who was flying the C210 when it crashed, and it is powered by an IO-470 Continental, and its pump failed(at about 100 ft AGL), the boost pump is not recommended for takeoff, and he believe is inadequate to even provide takeoff fuel flow, not to mention that it takes according to TCM 6 seconds to restore power if fuel flow is interrupted. From personal experience that timeframe is about right on Lyc IO-360 as well, but at least the pump I have on my Mooney will provide enough fuel for full power, and using it has no impact on mixture, whether the mechanical pump is working or not.
Just recognize your POH is 38 years old and there is far better information available today than what was generally available in 1975. Lawyers are why you don't have a revised and improved POH, not that the original was perfect.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM, William Curtis <wwc4(at)njit.edu (wwc4(at)njit.edu)> wrote:
[quote] Kelly,
I see my attempts at clarification has failed miserably. As this is an RV10 list, I won't drag this out further. I would suggest however that you review section 3 (Emergency Procedures) of the POH link I included previously and also my post(s) on exactly what I said about how much power is available following a mechanical fuel pump failure in each type of aircraft.
The only reason I responded to this thread initially was because you made the following statement:
You are correct. Every Lycoming powered fuel injected aircraft I have worked on, with Bendix RSA injection called for pump on for takeoff and landing.
Since I knew this not to be the case, I sought to correct the statement. At this point I am unsure what you are still defending but alas, I will concede.
Lastly, I see you are now an accident investigator. Can you cite for me the 210 accident that you have concluded was brought down 10 days ago due to not running the fuel pump on takeoff?
W.
On Jan 11, 2013, at 0:44, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>
Boy are you confused. The Cessna 177RG for a long time was the only Bendix fuel injected, Lycoming engined high wing Cessna. I haven't looked at later models that got Lycoming engines, but there is no question that your high wing will NOT produce the fuel pressure needed for full power without a boost pump. Period.
The models you cite are all carbureted, and most do not have a boost pump or mechanical pump because it isn't needed as it takes almost no pressure to feed fuel past the needle valve when the fuel in bowl drops and lets the valve open. Totally different than the Bendix fuel injection that requires nearly 15 psi to allow for full power, which you won't get from a wing that is only 6 ft above the wheels and much less above the fuel injection servo, and probably only 2 ft or less above it in a 15 degree pitch attitude.
That Cessna is idiotic enough to not change their POH after there have been enough documented cases of mechanical fuel pump failure that resulted in an AD on Lycoming high pressure mechanical pumps, is simply negligence on Cessna's part, and yes, if it came to testifying at a litigation trial, that is exactly what I would say.
Cessna in the early 210s also did not recognize the problem and didn't even put in boost pumps adequate to run the engine after mechanical pump failure.
All you are doing is pointing out the deficiencies of the 38 year old POH. It also has no emergency checklist items to restore power before reaching cruise altitude. How dumb is that? You aren't going to switch on boost pump, switch tanks and check mags for both until you are at the leisure of cruise altitude if the engine quits at 2000 ft????? Yes, I would ignore the POH and use the boost pump for takeoff and landing, just as the low wing planes with the same engine and injection system recommend, because the wing position can't make enough a difference to generate the pressure needed. Would you rather follow POH and risk an off airport landing if your mechanical pump fails at 100 ft in the air, or be more informed and keep flying until you are at altitude you can return to runway when engine quits as you turn off the boost pump at above 1000ft? Since I saw a 210 totaled for that exact reason 10 days ago, I know my choice.
Kelly
On 1/10/2013 3:50 PM, William Curtis wrote:
| Quote: | Agreed, which is why I prefaced most by specifying "fuel injected high wing." The high wing Cessna 150/152 that I trained in also did not have boost pumps. Most high wing carbureted engine aircraft can and do run perfectly fine full power with only gravity feeding the fuel.
I know we are "out in the weeds" on this thread now but I'll restate my original statement with clarification and expansion-- I hope:
-In the case of the RV10 with a Lycoming fuel injected engine, follow the Vans suggested recommendation of *running the boost pump during takeoff and landing*s. This is normal procedure for most low wing aircraft.
-For *high wing fuel injected* Cessnas, all POH that I have seen DO NOT indicate running the fuel pump during takeoff and landings.
-Many, if not all, *high wing **carbureted *aircraft, including the Cessna 150/152/172, DO NOT specify in the POH running the boost pump during takeoff and landings.
W.
On Jan 10, 2013, at 16:51, Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net (deej(at)deej.net) <mailto:deej(at)deej.net (deej(at)deej.net)>> wrote:
| Quote: | On 01/10/2013 04:30 PM, William Curtis wrote:
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | think anyone has said or would think an engine would "run properly" with
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | fuel fed only with gravity
|
|
| Quote: | This is exactly what I am saying - my Glastar has never had any kind of
|
| Quote: | fuel pump installed, mechanical or electrical, and it runs just fine
|
| Quote: | with gravity fed only to a carb.
|
| Quote: | I've been told there are older certified aircraft that are setup the
|
| Quote: | same way, but I don't have any specific references to share.
|
| Quote: | Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
|
*
*
*
*
|
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
==========================bsp; - The RV10-List Email Forum -http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
_ &n--> http://www.matronic=======================
|
| Quote: |
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Strasnuts
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 502
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:14 pm Post subject: Fuel pump use |
|
|
I really haven't been following this thread until I scanned through and noticed the "early 210" part. I had a mechanical fuel pump fail in a 1960 210A with an IO-470 around 500 hours on a factory reman. This is way before the Service Letter or whatever came out explaining how the electric pump will not keep it running. I tried but ended up gliding in to an uncontrolled airfield in Colorado. It would pop every few seconds but I could NOT get it to run. Mixture change and trying low and high settings on the pump didn't change the outcome. When I slowed down to land, the prop stopped. 700$ later the following day I flew out of Blake.
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
40936
RV-10 SB N801VR Flying
780 Hours
SuperSTOL 60 hours |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wwc4(at)njit.edu
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:43 am Post subject: Fuel pump use |
|
|
Kelly,
Apologies to list members but below is a link to the POH of a G1000 equipped Cessna 182T (2005) - all 450 pages of it. The new 182 and 172 are fuel injected Lycoming powered. Have you "not personally worked on" these aircraft? This and the current POH are not 38 years old. Cessna has still not found reason to add boost pump ON during takeoff and landings for the new fuel injected 172 & 182. Are the Lawyers to blame for this?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a2ijokdsmdvs8vl/C182_POH.pdf
W.
On Jan 11, 2013, at 21:31, Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
[quote]My statement was correct. I have not personally worked on a C177RG, only flown them. I have reviewed what is in the POH you provided.
IMHO it is pitiful.
I spoke directly to the pilot/A&P/IA who was flying the C210 when it crashed, and it is powered by an IO-470 Continental, and its pump failed(at about 100 ft AGL), the boost pump is not recommended for takeoff, and he believe is inadequate to even provide takeoff fuel flow, not to mention that it takes according to TCM 6 seconds to restore power if fuel flow is interrupted. From personal experience that timeframe is about right on Lyc IO-360 as well, but at least the pump I have on my Mooney will provide enough fuel for full power, and using it has no impact on mixture, whether the mechanical pump is working or not.
Just recognize your POH is 38 years old and there is far better information available today than what was generally available in 1975. Lawyers are why you don't have a revised and improved POH, not that the original was perfect.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM, William Curtis <wwc4(at)njit.edu (wwc4(at)njit.edu)> wrote:
| Quote: | Kelly,
I see my attempts at clarification has failed miserably. As this is an RV10 list, I won't drag this out further. I would suggest however that you review section 3 (Emergency Procedures) of the POH link I included previously and also my post(s) on exactly what I said about how much power is available following a mechanical fuel pump failure in each type of aircraft.
The only reason I responded to this thread initially was because you made the following statement:
You are correct. Every Lycoming powered fuel injected aircraft I have worked on, with Bendix RSA injection called for pump on for takeoff and landing.
Since I knew this not to be the case, I sought to correct the statement. At this point I am unsure what you are still defending but alas, I will concede.
Lastly, I see you are now an accident investigator. Can you cite for me the 210 accident that you have concluded was brought down 10 days ago due to not running the fuel pump on takeoff?
W.
On Jan 11, 2013, at 0:44, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>
Boy are you confused. The Cessna 177RG for a long time was the only Bendix fuel injected, Lycoming engined high wing Cessna. I haven't looked at later models that got Lycoming engines, but there is no question that your high wing will NOT produce the fuel pressure needed for full power without a boost pump. Period.
The models you cite are all carbureted, and most do not have a boost pump or mechanical pump because it isn't needed as it takes almost no pressure to feed fuel past the needle valve when the fuel in bowl drops and lets the valve open. Totally different than the Bendix fuel injection that requires nearly 15 psi to allow for full power, which you won't get from a wing that is only 6 ft above the wheels and much less above the fuel injection servo, and probably only 2 ft or less above it in a 15 degree pitch attitude.
That Cessna is idiotic enough to not change their POH after there have been enough documented cases of mechanical fuel pump failure that resulted in an AD on Lycoming high pressure mechanical pumps, is simply negligence on Cessna's part, and yes, if it came to testifying at a litigation trial, that is exactly what I would say.
Cessna in the early 210s also did not recognize the problem and didn't even put in boost pumps adequate to run the engine after mechanical pump failure.
All you are doing is pointing out the deficiencies of the 38 year old POH. It also has no emergency checklist items to restore power before reaching cruise altitude. How dumb is that? You aren't going to switch on boost pump, switch tanks and check mags for both until you are at the leisure of cruise altitude if the engine quits at 2000 ft????? Yes, I would ignore the POH and use the boost pump for takeoff and landing, just as the low wing planes with the same engine and injection system recommend, because the wing position can't make enough a difference to generate the pressure needed. Would you rather follow POH and risk an off airport landing if your mechanical pump fails at 100 ft in the air, or be more informed and keep flying until you are at altitude you can return to runway when engine quits as you turn off the boost pump at above 1000ft? Since I saw a 210 totaled for that exact reason 10 days ago, I know my choice.
Kelly
On 1/10/2013 3:50 PM, William Curtis wrote:
| Quote: | Agreed, which is why I prefaced most by specifying "fuel injected high wing." The high wing Cessna 150/152 that I trained in also did not have boost pumps. Most high wing carbureted engine aircraft can and do run perfectly fine full power with only gravity feeding the fuel.
I know we are "out in the weeds" on this thread now but I'll restate my original statement with clarification and expansion-- I hope:
-In the case of the RV10 with a Lycoming fuel injected engine, follow the Vans suggested recommendation of *running the boost pump during takeoff and landing*s. This is normal procedure for most low wing aircraft.
-For *high wing fuel injected* Cessnas, all POH that I have seen DO NOT indicate running the fuel pump during takeoff and landings.
-Many, if not all, *high wing **carbureted *aircraft, including the Cessna 150/152/172, DO NOT specify in the POH running the boost pump during takeoff and landings.
W.
On Jan 10, 2013, at 16:51, Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net (deej(at)deej.net) <mailto:deej(at)deej.net (deej(at)deej.net)>> wrote:
| Quote: | On 01/10/2013 04:30 PM, William Curtis wrote:
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | think anyone has said or would think an engine would "run properly" with
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | fuel fed only with gravity
|
|
| Quote: | This is exactly what I am saying - my Glastar has never had any kind of
|
| Quote: | fuel pump installed, mechanical or electrical, and it runs just fine
|
| Quote: | with gravity fed only to a carb.
|
| Quote: | I've been told there are older certified aircraft that are setup the
|
| Quote: | same way, but I don't have any specific references to share.
|
| Quote: | Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
|
*
*
*
*
|
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
==========================bsp; - The RV10-List Email Forum -http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
_ &n--> http://www.matronic=======================
|
===================================
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
===================================
cs.com
===================================
matronics.com/contribution
===================================
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:12 am Post subject: Fuel pump use |
|
|
Bill and Kelly ..... This food fight has filled our inbox for so long ..... what's your point? Anything meaningful from this discussion has been lost ... at least on me. I, for one, could give a rat's ass what's on a high wing POH. It's relevance is totally lost on me. I'm building a low-wing fuel-injected airplane with both mechanical and electrical boost pumps. If there's a POH out there that calls for boost pump on take off and landing ...... or one that doesn't ...... they have no relevance to our RV-10s. Nobody in this food fight has any special knowledge about WHY a manufacturer does something one way or another so it's time to cut the crap. If you want to use your boost pump during takeoff and landing, by all means do it. If some anomaly rears it's ugly head during boost pump use and you're not comfortable with the change ..... then shut the darn thing off!
IMHO, I think using the boost pump when close to your crash point is a good thing. So far, in this discussion, (as far as I can tell) the only downside to using the boost pump is it screws up the fuel calculations on SOME installations. If you're calculating your fuel burn time down to ounces ..... well, I think you have far more problems than will be solved here on this list.
So, I recommend that we let the NTSB worry about what caused this train wreck ..... and go back to building and flying.
Linn
On 1/12/2013 9:42 AM, William Curtis wrote:
[quote] Kelly,
Apologies to list members but below is a link to the POH of a G1000 equipped Cessna 182T (2005) - all 450 pages of it. The new 182 and 172 are fuel injected Lycoming powered. Have you "not personally worked on" these aircraft? Â This and the current POH are not 38 years old. Â Cessna has still not found reason to add boost pump ON during takeoff and landings for the new fuel injected 172 & 182. Are the Lawyers to blame for this?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a2ijokdsmdvs8vl/C182_POH.pdf
W.
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1706
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:15 am Post subject: Fuel pump use |
|
|
Linn,
Apologies. I totally agree with your points.
Kelly
On 1/12/2013 8:11 AM, Linn wrote:
| Quote: | Bill and Kelly ..... This food fight has filled our inbox for so long
..... what's your point?
|
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bwestfall
Joined: 22 Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:42 am Post subject: Fuel pump use |
|
|
Not to fan the flames (no pun intended) but because Linn stated
“IMHO, I think using the boost pump when close to your crash point is a good thing”
I’d agree w/Linn but I’d add… You definitely want it off at the scene of the crash. It could be pumping fuel to a fire if power is still making it to the pump and one forgets to turn off the fuel during the decent.
Ben Westfall
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:12 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Fuel pump use
Bill and Kelly ..... This food fight has filled our inbox for so long ..... what's your point? Anything meaningful from this discussion has been lost ... at least on me. I, for one, could give a rat's ass what's on a high wing POH. It's relevance is totally lost on me. I'm building a low-wing fuel-injected airplane with both mechanical and electrical boost pumps. If there's a POH out there that calls for boost pump on take off and landing ...... or one that doesn't ...... they have no relevance to our RV-10s. Nobody in this food fight has any special knowledge about WHY a manufacturer does something one way or another so it's time to cut the crap. If you want to use your boost pump during takeoff and landing, by all means do it. If some anomaly rears it's ugly head during boost pump use and you're not comfortable with the change ..... then shut the darn thing off!
IMHO, I think using the boost pump when close to your crash point is a good thing. So far, in this discussion, (as far as I can tell) the only downside to using the boost pump is it screws up the fuel calculations on SOME installations. If you're calculating your fuel burn time down to ounces ..... well, I think you have far more problems than will be solved here on this list.
So, I recommend that we let the NTSB worry about what caused this train wreck ..... and go back to building and flying.
Linn
On 1/12/2013 9:42 AM, William Curtis wrote:
[quote]
Kelly,
Apologies to list members but below is a link to the POH of a G1000 equipped Cessna 182T (2005) - all 450 pages of it. The new 182 and 172 are fuel injected Lycoming powered. Have you "not personally worked on" these aircraft? This and the current POH are not 38 years old. Cessna has still not found reason to add boost pump ON during takeoff and landings for the new fuel injected 172 & 182. Are the Lawyers to blame for this?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a2ijokdsmdvs8vl/C182_POH.pdf
W.
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:13 am Post subject: Fuel pump use |
|
|
The 'crash point' was a tongue-in-cheek reference to my landings. 
But you definitely have a valid point. Depending on the cause of a premature return to earth, it would be wise to shut down as many systems as possible prior to impact. After impact you may be unable to do much of anything. On both of my off-field landings I was too busy controlling the airplane to even think about doing anything after the emergency checklist. I didn't shut anything down. Great training lesson though!
Linn
On 1/12/2013 12:41 PM, Ben Westfall wrote:
[quote] <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Not to fan the flames (no pun intended) but because Linn stated
Â
“IMHO, I think using the boost pump when close to your crash point is a good thing”
Â
I’d agree w/Linn but I’d add… You definitely want it off at the scene of the crash. It could be pumping fuel to a fire if power is still making it to the pump and one forgets to turn off the fuel during the decent.
Â
Ben Westfall
Â
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
