Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Fuel Return Line Location?

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 Location?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1700
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:41 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

O2 sensors do not burn out, with or without lead. They get coated/fouled 

by the lead which destroys their sensitivity very quickly. The period to 

sensor failure is typically less than a dozen hours when exposed to 

leaded fuel. That is my experience over 30 yrs of working on auto 

emission control systems.

The total improvement available with optimizing mixture and spark 

control is on the order of 5-10 percent. Whether that is significant or 

not is your call. I see claims for more, without significant data to 

back them up.

An RSA5 system  and magnetos can be overhauled for less than 1/2 what 

this system costs. But then you have to add in the cost of adding dual 

alternators, dual buss, dual batteries and the cost of maintaining those 

extras so as to ensure your risk of failure is as near nil as possible.

You are on the wrong track talking air to fuel ratios in an aircraft 

engine. You have 6 different air paths to cylinders. Those intake tubes 

are only crudely "tuned" and are not equal length. You have six 

different cylinders, each with their own fuel to air ratio. An oxygen 

sensor is only going to measure an average of 3 cylinders, unless you 

somehow tie together the exhaust from all six with a non-stock exhaust 

system. Then you would be averaging six into one, which tells you 

nothing about how the individual cylinders are doing. EGT is very good 

at measuring mixture in relation to the other cylinders. If a system 

could ensure that all six cylinders achieved peak EGT within 0.2 gal 

fuel flow of each other, then you would have something.  It is the 

balancing of the mixtures that safely allows operating lean of peak, so 

that each cylinder is producing the same power. It is the difference in 

power that causes roughness, not the old wive's tale of "lean misfire".  

There is no question that it is safer to run an engine lean of peak EGT 

than the mixture you are suggesting. Running LOP let the airlines extend 

the TBO on their R3350 engines to more than triple the original TBO. 

Valve distress comes from operating too rich and too hot, in the area of 

30-80 ROP, not from running lean of peak.

It has taken the auto industry 50 yrs to develop very good mixture and 

spark control. It also required unleaded fuel. That was with tens of 

thousands of dyno hours and huge investment in engineering and computer 

development to map optimal spark/mixture combinations for each load. To 

think you are going to patch together some of that technology and 

achieve the same thing in an aircraft engine running leaded fuel with 

minimal R&D is a big gamble. Same as there are a few successful auto 

engines running in aircraft, but many more conversions that have not 

worked. That this system apparently needs some mapping of mixture 

indicates that it is not fully developed.

On 4/20/2015 11:56 PM, Justin Jones wrote:

[quote] 

 The wide band O2 sensors will eventually burn out due to lead fowling. They are pricey, and it does not happen in less than one tank of 100LL.  There are many guys that have used them for tuning and removed them when they are done with them.  Not a good idea to keep them in as they will eventually burn out completely. If you plan on changing your fuel map, I would HIGHLY suggest using a wide band sensor and a display to ensure your AFR (air fuel ratio) is not getting to lean.  The stoichiometric ratio for a natural aspirated engine is 14.7:1  It is safer in our aircraft engines to run them at 13.7:1 and thats what the EFII systemâ€™s stock fuel map is programed to provide.  Another indicator of the AFR is EGT, but other things can affect EGT, so the safe bet while tuning is to use a wide band O2 sensor and an AFR gauge to display the correct number to ensure you donâ€™t get too lean.

 The EFII system for me, was a cost benefit to overhauling what I currently had.  An RSA5 fuel injection overhaul, new fuel pump, new mags, wires, plugs etcâ€¦ would have been at or above the cost of acquisition of the EFiI system.  I have heard nothing but good from this system and Robert Paisley from ProTec Performance has been nothing short of a rockstar with his customer service.  I would agree that more benefit comes from the EI than the fuel injection, but by modulating the injectors, they are seeing gains on the dyno with the Electronic Fuel Injection over the mechanical injection.  Also of note, the Lycoming hot start issue disappears with the EFII fuel injection.  Mixture management is simple with the EFII system due to the programed fuel map they have in the ECUs.  It reads the Manifold pressure, RPM, Throttle position sensor, and comes up with the fuel demand for the engine regardless of altitude.  There is NO MAF sensor in this system. It uses a similar sensor in !

   the throttle body.  If you wish to trim fuel to change the EGTs, you can do so with the mixture rheostat, or you can do it by reprograming the ECUsâ€™ fuel mapping.  Takes some programing knowledge and the software, but itâ€™s not hard to do. Robert Paisley and or SDS can help with this as well.  There is significant fuel savings with this system, but as Kelly stated, it is not half the fuel.

 Robert has his EFII system on numerous aircraft that race in the Reno air races, as well as many many happy customers flying the complete system.  The ECUs are SDS ECUs and have hundreds of thousands of hours tested on them. The fuel pumps are automotive type, and there are 2 of them. Tons of proving time on the fuel pumps as well.  The Coils are similar (if not the same) as the one from a Subaru Impreza. Again, hundreds of thousands of hours on the coils as well.  The spark plugs are iridium automotive plugs and are a fraction of the price as an aircraft plug and out perform them as well.  I feel perfectly safe with the EFII system in my aircraft, and would recommend them to anyone who wants a traditional aircraft engine with a modern fuel and ignition system.

 Hope this helps!

 Justin

 On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> wrote:

> 

>

> I assume you are aware that leaded fuel such as 100LL will destroy an oxygen sensor in less than one tank of fuel?

> I seriously doubt that the EFII system and the dual everything required to ensure it has power to work will save enough fuel to have a payback in any reasonable time frame. Mixture management on conventional fuel injection with magnetos is childs play once you get the system delivering equal fuel mixture to each cylinder. While autos are using less gas and producing more power, they are doing it with higher compression ratios, knock sensors and thousands of hours of dyno time. Most of the incremental benefit comes from electronic ignition, not electronic timed fuel injection. Feel free to experiment, but don't expect to get equal power on half the gas, or half the workload, for equal investment.

>

> On 4/20/2015 9:55 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:

>> Since the fuel is metered directly at the injectors by the ECU, why do you have to mess with the mixture knob?  The EFII website says, "Automatic mixture control (no mixture knob to fool with)", but you're saying that's not entirely true?  Is the issue that you're compensating for a lack of initial ECU programming by altering the fuel pressure until the you get the programming dialed in?  Since the system has a MAP and IAT sensor, it seems like it should be able to meter correctly without any input from the pilot.  It doesn't look like  the EFII includes an oxygen sensor, though?

>>

>> Any idea if there are plans to fly this plane on automotive gasoline?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com>> wrote:

>>

>>     I think you're kidding yourself if you think there is no mixture

>>     to worry about. I spend more time on the mixture knob so far than

>>     I do on the mixture control with a standard system. It's possible

>>     that once you get things all tuned up the way you want them you

>>     may not use it as much, but I really don't use it that much on a

>>     standard system either. I lean a little as I climb, then I set

>>     power, rpm and fuel flow for cruise.

>>

>>     I would imagine if you are burnin 12gph, you are probably

>>     returning at least that much to the tank, if not more. I wouldn't

>>     want to have to mess with picking a return tank separate from a

>>     feed tank. There are warnings when your fuel in a tank gets low,

>>     but I don't know of a warning saying your tank is getting too

>>     full. If you get busy or get bored and aren't managing fuel with a

>>     normal system, you will get something yelling at you saying you're

>>     getting into the red on the draw tank, but it won't happen if you

>>     start to pump it overboard through the return tank vent.

>>

>>     I agree that electric ignition is tried and true in cars, but so

>>     far there are a total of 10 fleet hours in the RV-10 with a full

>>     EFII system and thousands and thousands with mags and standard

>>     fuel injection. Far from a no-brainier in my book unless you are

>>     talking the other way around.

>>

>>     Jesse Saint

>>     Saint Aviation, Inc.

>>     352-427-0285 <tel:352-427-0285>

>>     jesse(at)saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com>

>>

>>     Sent from my iPad

>>

>>     On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com

>>     <mailto:flyboy(at)gmail.com>> wrote:

>>

>>>     Carl- thanks so much for the picture.  I'll plan on the same

>>>     location.  As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet,

>>>     and probably won't until we source an engine. Hoping available

>>>     systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates

>>>     it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition

>>>     setups.

>>>

>>>     Jesse- Thanks for the heads up.  Glad to hear that one is flying

>>>     already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After

>>>     seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not

>>>     using it.  I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical

>>>     system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic

>>>     ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so

>>>     electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me.  This is, I

>>>     think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to

>>>     use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an

>>>     airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery

>>>     system from the 1950's.

>>>

>>>     Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc,

>>>     would be greatly appreciated.

>>>

>>>     As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems

>>>     a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered

>>>     "overly complex."  It's the difference of switching two valves

>>>     instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations.  Sure,

>>>     it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more

>>>     complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate

>>>     knowledge of the fuel return tank.  I'm not really concerned

>>>     about it either way.  The only reason to want to transfer fuel

>>>     would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground

>>>     quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around.  Since I

>>>     won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture

>>>     control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return

>>>     tank if I wind up with two valves.

>>>

>>>     On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich

>>>     <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net <mailto:carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>>

>>>     wrote:

>>>

>>>         Berck,

>>>

>>>         I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when

>>>         building in case I

>>>         ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached).  This

>>>         is the same

>>>         location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.

>>>

>>>         Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the

>>>         fitting in about

>>>         the same area as the vent line connection you should not have

>>>         an issue.  I'd

>>>         keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel

>>>         pick up -

>>>         should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as

>>>         compared to the

>>>         hotter return fuel.

>>>

>>>         Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?

>>>

>>>         Carl

>>>

>>>         --

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:04 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

You can still run LOP with the EFII system. It just does not do it automatically. There is a rheostat that precisely adjusts pulse width. You just watch your egts like you usually would. 



 



[quote] On Apr 21, 2015, at 06:37, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 O2 sensors do not burn out, with or without lead. They get coated/fouled by the lead which destroys their sensitivity very quickly. The period to sensor failure is typically less than a dozen hours when exposed to leaded fuel. That is my experience over 30 yrs of working on auto emission control systems.

 The total improvement available with optimizing mixture and spark control is on the order of 5-10 percent. Whether that is significant or not is your call. I see claims for more, without significant data to back them up.

 An RSA5 system  and magnetos can be overhauled for less than 1/2 what this system costs. But then you have to add in the cost of adding dual alternators, dual buss, dual batteries and the cost of maintaining those extras so as to ensure your risk of failure is as near nil as possible.

 You are on the wrong track talking air to fuel ratios in an aircraft engine. You have 6 different air paths to cylinders. Those intake tubes are only crudely "tuned" and are not equal length. You have six different cylinders, each with their own fuel to air ratio. An oxygen sensor is only going to measure an average of 3 cylinders, unless you somehow tie together the exhaust from all six with a non-stock exhaust system. Then you would be averaging six into one, which tells you nothing about how the individual cylinders are doing. EGT is very good at measuring mixture in relation to the other cylinders. If a system could ensure that all six cylinders achieved peak EGT within 0.2 gal fuel flow of each other, then you would have something.  It is the balancing of the mixtures that safely allows operating lean of peak, so that each cylinder is producing the same power. It is the difference in power that causes roughness, not the old wive's tale of "lean misfire".  There is no question that it is safer to run an engine lean of peak EGT than the mixture you are suggesting. Running LOP let the airlines extend the TBO on their R3350 engines to more than triple the original TBO. Valve distress comes from operating too rich and too hot, in the area of 30-80 ROP, not from running lean of peak.

 It has taken the auto industry 50 yrs to develop very good mixture and spark control. It also required unleaded fuel. That was with tens of thousands of dyno hours and huge investment in engineering and computer development to map optimal spark/mixture combinations for each load. To think you are going to patch together some of that technology and achieve the same thing in an aircraft engine running leaded fuel with minimal R&D is a big gamble. Same as there are a few successful auto engines running in aircraft, but many more conversions that have not worked. That this system apparently needs some mapping of mixture indicates that it is not fully developed.

 

> On 4/20/2015 11:56 PM, Justin Jones wrote:

> 

> 

> The wide band O2 sensors will eventually burn out due to lead fowling. They are pricey, and it does not happen in less than one tank of 100LL.  There are many guys that have used them for tuning and removed them when they are done with them.  Not a good idea to keep them in as they will eventually burn out completely. If you plan on changing your fuel map, I would HIGHLY suggest using a wide band sensor and a display to ensure your AFR (air fuel ratio) is not getting to lean.  The stoichiometric ratio for a natural aspirated engine is 14.7:1  It is safer in our aircraft engines to run them at 13.7:1 and thats what the EFII systemâ€™s stock fuel map is programed to provide.  Another indicator of the AFR is EGT, but other things can affect EGT, so the safe bet while tuning is to use a wide band O2 sensor and an AFR gauge to display the correct number to ensure you donâ€™t get too lean.

>  The EFII system for me, was a cost benefit to overhauling what I currently had.  An RSA5 fuel injection overhaul, new fuel pump, new mags, wires, plugs etcâ€¦ would have been at or above the cost of acquisition of the EFiI system.  I have heard nothing but good from this system and Robert Paisley from ProTec Performance has been nothing short of a rockstar with his customer service.  I would agree that more benefit comes from the EI than the fuel injection, but by modulating the injectors, they are seeing gains on the dyno with the Electronic Fuel Injection over the mechanical injection.  Also of note, the Lycoming hot start issue disappears with the EFII fuel injection.  Mixture management is simple with the EFII system due to the programed fuel map they have in the ECUs.  It reads the Manifold pressure, RPM, Throttle position sensor, and comes up with the fuel demand for the engine regardless of altitude.  There is NO MAF sensor in this system. It uses a similar sensor i!

 n !

>  the throttle body.  If you wish to trim fuel to change the EGTs, you can do so with the mixture rheostat, or you can do it by reprograming the ECUsâ€™ fuel mapping.  Takes some programing knowledge and the software, but itâ€™s not hard to do. Robert Paisley and or SDS can help with this as well.  There is significant fuel savings with this system, but as Kelly stated, it is not half the fuel.

> 

> Robert has his EFII system on numerous aircraft that race in the Reno air races, as well as many many happy customers flying the complete system.  The ECUs are SDS ECUs and have hundreds of thousands of hours tested on them. The fuel pumps are automotive type, and there are 2 of them. Tons of proving time on the fuel pumps as well.  The Coils are similar (if not the same) as the one from a Subaru Impreza. Again, hundreds of thousands of hours on the coils as well.  The spark plugs are iridium automotive plugs and are a fraction of the price as an aircraft plug and out perform them as well.  I feel perfectly safe with the EFII system in my aircraft, and would recommend them to anyone who wants a traditional aircraft engine with a modern fuel and ignition system.

> 

> Hope this helps!

> 

> Justin

> 

> 

> 

>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> wrote:

>> 

>> 

>> I assume you are aware that leaded fuel such as 100LL will destroy an oxygen sensor in less than one tank of fuel?

>> I seriously doubt that the EFII system and the dual everything required to ensure it has power to work will save enough fuel to have a payback in any reasonable time frame. Mixture management on conventional fuel injection with magnetos is childs play once you get the system delivering equal fuel mixture to each cylinder. While autos are using less gas and producing more power, they are doing it with higher compression ratios, knock sensors and thousands of hours of dyno time. Most of the incremental benefit comes from electronic ignition, not electronic timed fuel injection. Feel free to experiment, but don't expect to get equal power on half the gas, or half the workload, for equal investment.

>> 

>>> On 4/20/2015 9:55 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:

>>> Since the fuel is metered directly at the injectors by the ECU, why do you have to mess with the mixture knob?  The EFII website says, "Automatic mixture control (no mixture knob to fool with)", but you're saying that's not entirely true?  Is the issue that you're compensating for a lack of initial ECU programming by altering the fuel pressure until the you get the programming dialed in?  Since the system has a MAP and IAT sensor, it seems like it should be able to meter correctly without any input from the pilot.  It doesn't look like  the EFII includes an oxygen sensor, though?

>>> 

>>> Any idea if there are plans to fly this plane on automotive gasoline?

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com>> wrote:

>>> 

>>>    I think you're kidding yourself if you think there is no mixture

>>>    to worry about. I spend more time on the mixture knob so far than

>>>    I do on the mixture control with a standard system. It's possible

>>>    that once you get things all tuned up the way you want them you

>>>    may not use it as much, but I really don't use it that much on a

>>>    standard system either. I lean a little as I climb, then I set

>>>    power, rpm and fuel flow for cruise.

>>> 

>>>    I would imagine if you are burnin 12gph, you are probably

>>>    returning at least that much to the tank, if not more. I wouldn't

>>>    want to have to mess with picking a return tank separate from a

>>>    feed tank. There are warnings when your fuel in a tank gets low,

>>>    but I don't know of a warning saying your tank is getting too

>>>    full. If you get busy or get bored and aren't managing fuel with a

>>>    normal system, you will get something yelling at you saying you're

>>>    getting into the red on the draw tank, but it won't happen if you

>>>    start to pump it overboard through the return tank vent.

>>> 

>>>    I agree that electric ignition is tried and true in cars, but so

>>>    far there are a total of 10 fleet hours in the RV-10 with a full

>>>    EFII system and thousands and thousands with mags and standard

>>>    fuel injection. Far from a no-brainier in my book unless you are

>>>    talking the other way around.

>>> 

>>>    Jesse Saint

>>>    Saint Aviation, Inc.

>>>    352-427-0285 <tel:352-427-0285>

>>>    jesse(at)saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com>

>>> 

>>>    Sent from my iPad

>>> 

>>>    On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com

>>>    <mailto:flyboy(at)gmail.com>> wrote:

>>> 

>>>>    Carl- thanks so much for the picture.  I'll plan on the same

>>>>    location.  As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet,

>>>>    and probably won't until we source an engine. Hoping available

>>>>    systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates

>>>>    it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition

>>>>    setups.

>>>> 

>>>>    Jesse- Thanks for the heads up.  Glad to hear that one is flying

>>>>    already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After

>>>>    seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not

>>>>    using it.  I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical

>>>>    system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic

>>>>    ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so

>>>>    electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me.  This is, I

>>>>    think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to

>>>>    use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an

>>>>    airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery

>>>>    system from the 1950's.

>>>> 

>>>>    Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc,

>>>>    would be greatly appreciated.

>>>> 

>>>>    As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems

>>>>    a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered

>>>>    "overly complex."  It's the difference of switching two valves

>>>>    instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations.  Sure,

>>>>    it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more

>>>>    complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate

>>>>    knowledge of the fuel return tank.  I'm not really concerned

>>>>    about it either way.  The only reason to want to transfer fuel

>>>>    would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground

>>>>    quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around.  Since I

>>>>    won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture

>>>>    control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return

>>>>    tank if I wind up with two valves.

>>>> 

>>>>    On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich

>>>>    <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net <mailto:carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>>

>>>>    wrote:

>>>> 

>>>>        Berck,

>>>> 

>>>>        I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when

>>>>        building in case I

>>>>        ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached).  This

>>>>        is the same

>>>>        location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.

>>>> 

>>>>        Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the

>>>>        fitting in about

>>>>        the same area as the vent line connection you should not have

>>>>        an issue.  I'd

>>>>        keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel

>>>>        pick up -

>>>>        should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as

>>>>        compared to the

>>>>        hotter return fuel.

>>>> 

>>>>        Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?

>>>> 

>>>>        Carl

>>>> 

>>>>        --

Rocketman1988

Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 63

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:11 pm Post subject: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?

I am building a -10 and WILL be using the complete EFII system.



That being said, I find it somewhat humorous how this thread is developing.



On one hand you have the "that's the way we have always done it" crowd.



On the other hand, there are the guys who want to bring our sport/hobby/obsession into the 21st century.



There will NEVER be agreement between the two sides but consider this:



If no one ever questioned Mr. Ford, we would all be driving black cars.  If no one ever question the points and condenser system, we would not have electronic ignition.  How about carbs versus FI?  Steam gauges versus EFIS?



It goes on and on.  There are those that want to progress forward and there are those who are more comfortable with the ancient technology of the last century.



It is what is great about experimental aircraft...

carl.froehlich(at)verizon
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:45 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

There are always better ways to do anything and experimenting is encouraged.

I'm forced however to apply the "value" decision on my projects as my

pockets are not at all that deep.



At some point EFII like systems will be widely adopted - and early adopters

will provide the environment to refine, standardize and most importantly

drive the scale needed to get the price down so us working slobs can afford

it.  In the meantime, and in view of the small (if any) incremental engine

efficiency gain of the EFII compared to a properly tuned standard fuel

injection system with electronic ignition, I will be sitting on the sideline

watching with interest on the progress to bring EFII systems to the masses.



I can provide you a power distribution design to support your EFII install

that is flying on four RVs for over a decade.  Perhaps this will give you a

jump start on your EFII install.  Contact me off list if interested.



Carl



--

jdriggs49(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:53 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Rocketman,

You ought to see what happens when you put a non-conventional engine in a RV!

That said, I've been really pleased with my EFII ignition system. My Lycosaurus starts immediately hot or cold. Eventually I will install the FI portion. 



 	  Quote: 	
		   Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?

 From: Rocketman(at)etczone.com

 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:11:57 -0700

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 

 --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com>

 

 I am building a -10 and WILL be using the complete EFII system.

 

 That being said, I find it somewhat humorous how this thread is developing.

 

 On one hand you have the "that's the way we have always done it" crowd.

 

 On the other hand, there are the guys who want to bring our sport/hobby/obsession into the 21st century.

 

 There will NEVER be agreement between the two sides but consider this:

 

 If no one ever questioned Mr. Ford, we would all be driving black cars.  If no one ever question the points and condenser system, we would not have electronic ignition.  How about carbs versus FI?  Steam gauges versus EFIS?

 

 It goes on and on.  There are those that want to progress forward and there are those who are more comfortable with the ancient technology of the last century.

 

 It is what is great about experimental aircraft...

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441110#441110

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 _-============================================================

 _-=          - The RV10-List Email Forum -

 _-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse

 _-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,

 _-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,

 _-= Photoshare, and much much more:

 _-=

 _-=   --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 _-=

 _-============================================================

 _-=               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

 _-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!

 _-=

 _-=   --> http://forums.matronics.com

 _-=

 _-============================================================

 _-=             - List Contribution Web Site -

 _-=  Thank you for your generous support!

 _-=                              -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 _-=   --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 _-============================================================

Rocketman1988

Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 63

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:07 am Post subject: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?

Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.



It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.



While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancient tractor engines that we are using...

flyboy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:05 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Thanks for chiming in, Rocketman.Â  Unlike a lot of you, I'm new to this whole homebuilt thing, but I take the the concept of "experimental" seriously.Â  I think that there's a strong tendency to simply want to put an airplane together, and while that's a valid option these days, it doesn't have to be limited to that.Â  I'm just now struggling with diving into the actual experimental aspects of building a kit. Up until now, everything I've done has been pretty much verbatim following the (mostly) excellent instructions.Â  It's nice to be able to make progress on building an airplane without thinking about it, but a huge part of the appeal of a homebuilt is the ability to make my own decisions about how I think an aircraft should be equipped.Â  And now, as I'm making progress on the wings I'm having to make some real decisions, and I keep trying to remind myself that's a good thing.Â  It drives me crazy that piston aircraft engines are stuck with 1950's technology when so much better is available, and I hope that by being a (somewhat) early adopter of EFI that I can help turn the tide toward affordable, modern engine management.Â  Buying and installing a system from EFII is only a minor contribution, but the more of us there are moving forward, the faster we'll get there.Â  I wasn't around when the EAB community started adopting things like glass panel displays, but I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers then, too.Â  Still, I welcome all the comments: it's a very valid point that there's currently only one RV-10 that we know about with an EFII system, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.Â  At some point there were no RV-10s flying at all.Â  I love not having to be first; I'm glad that there were 1,534 kits sold before mine, but I'm not afraid of building something that's actually experimental.Â  After all, I'm going to have to paint that word on the plane. I love that this community exists and that, so far, everything I want to do has been done in some form or fashion by someone else.Â  Keep telling me I'm insane for not priming or planning on an EFII system.Â  Those are valid opinions, and I like hearing them.Â  Thanks for being out there--this is one of the first times I've actually had to ask questions, because almost every question I've had can be answered by a web search.



Berck

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)> wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)>

 

 Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.

 

 It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.

 

 While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancient tractor engines that we are using...

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

 Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 [b]

philperry9

Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Posts: 379

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:10 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

You are touching on a few things I have been thinking about.  Recognizing your newness to the experimental side of aviation is very important. 

When I started my RV-10 seven years ago, I too was new to the experimental side.   At the time my exposure/experience was very limited. Sure, I had some knowledge of how things work, how they should work if I modify things, and how they should react.    To simply put it, I had knowledge but very little real world experience; my window of real-world exposure was very narrow. 

At that point, I hadn't had friends who had accidents.  I hadn't lost any friends.   As a result my eyes were wide open because I didn't know what I didn't know. 

As I sit here at lunch typing this message on my iPhone, I have 7 years of history behind me. 

7 years ago my personal impact record was clean and in looking in the rear view mirror I now have 2 friends who managed to dead stick their airplane after engine failure.  One of them has gone through 7 engines in his velocity (costing him more than a Lycoming) and he is now putting a Lycoming in it after finally giving up. 

But those are the good stories because today I have 4 (other) friends who are dead from 3 accidents.   All of them were in alternative engine aircraft.  All of them were the direct result of the engine. 

Today I now have some experience to go along with that knowledge I had when I started.  My window of exposure to experimental aviation is now wider and is balanced by real experience. 

I'm tired of losing friends.  I'm tired of seeing their wives and kids grieve.  I'm tired of all of it.   It sucks. 

If there's one good thing about a 7-8 year build, it's that you're given an opportunity to get exposure to some stuff you otherwise wouldn't.

Phil





Sent from my iPhone



On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]Thanks for chiming in, Rocketman.  Unlike a lot of you, I'm new to this whole homebuilt thing, but I take the the concept of "experimental" seriously.  I think that there's a strong tendency to simply want to put an airplane together, and while that's a valid option these days, it doesn't have to be limited to that.  I'm just now struggling with diving into the actual experimental aspects of building a kit. Up until now, everything I've done has been pretty much verbatim following the (mostly) excellent instructions.  It's nice to be able to make progress on building an airplane without thinking about it, but a huge part of the appeal of a homebuilt is the ability to make my own decisions about how I think an aircraft should be equipped.  And now, as I'm making progress on the wings I'm having to make some real decisions, and I keep trying to remind myself that's a good thing.  It drives me crazy that piston aircraft engines are stuck with 1950's technology when so much better is available, and I hope that by being a (somewhat) early adopter of EFI that I can help turn the tide toward affordable, modern engine management.  Buying and installing a system from EFII is only a minor contribution, but the more of us there are moving forward, the faster we'll get there.  I wasn't around when the EAB community started adopting things like glass panel displays, but I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers then, too.  Still, I welcome all the comments: it's a very valid point that there's currently only one RV-10 that we know about with an EFII system, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.  At some point there were no RV-10s flying at all.  I love not having to be first; I'm glad that there were 1,534 kits sold before mine, but I'm not afraid of building something that's actually experimental.  After all, I'm going to have to paint that word on the plane. I love that this community exists and that, so far, everything I want to do has been done in some form or fashion by someone else.  Keep telling me I'm insane for not priming or planning on an EFII system.  Those are valid opinions, and I like hearing them.  Thanks for being out there--this is one of the first times I've actually had to ask questions, because almost every question I've had can be answered by a web search.



Berck

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)>

 

 Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.

 

 It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.

 

 While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancient tractor engines that we are using...

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 



D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

//forums.matronics.com

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D



	


[b]

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1700
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:58 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

I think you are misinterpreting some of the comments. It is not that is 

how we have always done it. Yes, the IO540 has been around since the 

mid-sixties. However, it was really advanced for its time. Cars were 

running 4 barrel carburetors with points controlled distributors back 

then. No one has shown better fuel efficiency on avgas than the IO-540 

will do lean of peak, beyond what an electronic ignition does to improve 

control of spark advance. That gives you 5% plus or minus a little. By 

1970 there was the dual turbo charged 350+ hpTIO-540 on Chieftains and 

the TIO541 on Dukes. If there is efficiency to be added by timed fuel 

injection, I have not seen the data. There is efficiency available with 

direct injection to the cylinders with very high fuel pressures, but 

that isn't what is being discussed. Whether the fuel is delivered when 

the valves are open or continuous is talking about around a 50th of a 

second. To operate that unquantified benefit, you have the extra cost of 

the unit plus another thousand or so in a fully redundant electrical system.

Since, as you say you still have a mixture control, you probably haven't 

gained much over the engines that had altitude compensating fuel pumps 

to adjust the mixture for altitude. Most of what is being considered 

"new" was invented 40-50 years ago and used on race cars. Only the 

volume of mass production for cars has changed the costs somewhat. Many 

cars have had continuous fuel injection for a very long time. It took 

the combination of unleaded fuel, closed loop feedback and higher 

compression with knock sensors to make much improvement. There are 

factors for cars like cold and hot start emissions and part throttle 

economy that drive a lot of the choices.

The main point is that yes you can make all the experimental choices you 

want, but there are costs, and not much has been proven effective and 

durable at this point.



On 4/22/2015 8:07 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.



 It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.



 While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancient tractor engines that we are using...





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2870

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 2:22 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

To me it gets hard to accept that many of these new engine technologies

make our engines "better" in any real way.  Maybe things like roller

lifters are an improvement, but what I see is that most of the new

things come with caveats.

When you look at how the engines need to operate, there are some

things that really make it hard to deviate from the old designs

of the past.

I'll give some examples:

1) Piston size/clearance.  First, we operate in a much broader temp

range than any cars do, over the course of any given hour.

We go from very hot to very cold (at altitude), and vice versa.

To do this, requires a significant amount of piston gap to compensate

for the expansion of materials.  Our engines are looser than car

engines, but for good reason.  You can eliminate some of the looseness

if you go with liquid cooling, but that means you now accept one more

system that can leak and bring down your plane.  So air cooling is

the norm.  Deviations from air cooling come with weight penalties and

potential "ruggedness" penalties like the forementioned leak worry.

Also, since we're trying to run high power levels, swinging a big

prop at sub-sonic speeds, we need engines that run lots of power

at low RPM. Sure, you can throw a gearbox on a high RPM engine, but

now you have additional parts, weight, harmonics to consider, and

all of that is more that can have an issue.  So any deviation

from the bore/stroke format comes with it's own set of issues.

2) Electronic ignition.  Yes, I'm a fan myself.  But, think about

the goal when they made the engine... Self-sufficient power source

that doesn't require a battery.  Other than the POTENTIAL of

the P-Mag, there isn't much out there that can give you that.

So while you can get benefits from EI, you now add a significant

downside that you have to compensate for.  In my case, I left

one mag in place as my compensation plan.  But if you drop both

mags, now you have a lot more to think and worry about that your

airplane relies on.  This is significant.  I hear people rave

about Auto plugs.  I did too.  Now I'm not so sure.  I had the

bad situation of having a high mag drop on one run-up.  I remembered

that the engine maybe was SLIGHTLY rougher on landing the last

flight too.  I checked and sure enough, one of my auto plug

wire caps had popped off...on the TOP of the engine.

I put it on, went flying, and when I landed again, it was

once again off. After that happened, I ordered new wire and caps

for all cylinders.  Mine had begun to age after being removed

many times for inspections, and were no longer as tight as before.

I now view it from a completely different perspective.  I think

auto plugs are nice in that they're cheap, but I'd almost rather

have the ability for my Lightspeed ignition to use AIRPLANE

fine wire plugs instead.  At least those have wrench-on wire

attachments.  Yeah, they weight more, cost more, and all that,

but they don't come off on their own.  Think about the guys

running auto plugs on their bottom plug sets...I personally

now have a real concern about that and would recommend if you

do that, that you actually RTV the cap right to the plug.

It will, however, make maintenance less fun.  But to me, auto

plugs are not the panacea they were before.

3) Fuel injection.  Well, the old lycoming injection is very

hard to have a total fuel starvation issue.  Now, if you go to

electronically operated injectors, you have other things that

can take your engine out.  How about this for personal experience...

I had a chevy diesel truck. It had a mechanical injection system.

No issues, and it ran forever, and got great mileage...24mpg

for my suburban I remember on one trip, loaded with maybe 8

people and towing a trailer.   One day I wanted to turbo charge

it.  I decided to buy a used engine and rebuild it and

put a turbo on it and swap it.  I located an engine that had

only 400 miles on it.  It needed to be re-sleeved on one cylinder

but otherwise needed just basic work to get it ready. Why did

it need re-sleeving? Well, it was from a newer diesel truck.

That truck had the newer electronic injection on it.  Something

had gone wrong that had caused that cylinder to melt down.

Just that cylinder.  Electronic injection. I was so happy

at the time that I got the engine cheap...I put on a nice rebuilt

mechanical injection system and drove it for years.  That

and a few other things taught me that on my diesel truck, the

LESS electronic you make it, the more reliable it can be in

some cases.  Yeah, old, but fairly bullet proof.

4) Form factor:  Sure, you could probably design a better

shaped engine with a better case and everything else.  But,

engines only get mass produced when there is mass market for

them.  If you go significantly away from the normal engine

mount methods or shape, you now eliminate a HUGE percentage

of your potential customers for retrofits.  So, given the

low sales potential, I can see why a company would stick

with tried and true.  Any alternative engine would have to

use normal mounts and attachments.

5) More on electronic controls:  Have you ever had a car that

had the check engine light on and it didn't run so well?

Maybe because the MAP sensor, or O2 sensor or Throttle position

sensor, or just any other sensor didn't work quite right?

Man, I would really rather just have a simple engine, with

a nice fully instrumented monitoring system. Also, I'm not

an airplane "Driver", I'm a "pilot" or "Aviator".  I actually

enjoy operating the mixture lever.  I like the added challenge,

as minimal as it is. I like it that if my CHT's seem high,

I can lean it out more past peak, or richen it more ROP,

and watch the temps come down.  It gives me pleasure and

a feeling of security that I have the ability to change

that engine parameter, along with RPM and throttle, to

affect a change in how the engine runs.  If it were all

automatic, I'd not know what's really happening in that little

black box, and my options are limited.

So I'm not saying that things can't be improved upon, but

I really don't know that there is as much as some people

think that NEEDS improving.  To me, the only real thing

that I'd complain about is that the cost is too high.

I'd also like it if certified engines could come with

maybe 1/2 of the electrical system using EI, like I do,

so that you can get the benefits of EI, while maintaining

some semblance of electrical independence.

New technologies are not simply "better" or "worse", in many cases,

but in many ways, the old "tractor engine" as it's been recently

called (Not that I've ever seen one like it on a tractor, but

maybe a VW), is hard to beat from a standard reliability in

flight metric.  To me, reliability in flight is probably the

SINGLE most important thing that an airplane engine needs to have,

is it not?  I'm about to do another few hundred miles over

the ocean soon....I know to me it matters a lot.

Tim

On 4/22/2015 3:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 I think you are misinterpreting some of the comments. It is not that is

 how we have always done it. Yes, the IO540 has been around since the

 mid-sixties. However, it was really advanced for its time. Cars were

 running 4 barrel carburetors with points controlled distributors back

 then. No one has shown better fuel efficiency on avgas than the IO-540

 will do lean of peak, beyond what an electronic ignition does to improve

 control of spark advance. That gives you 5% plus or minus a little. By

 1970 there was the dual turbo charged 350+ hpTIO-540 on Chieftains and

 the TIO541 on Dukes. If there is efficiency to be added by timed fuel

 injection, I have not seen the data. There is efficiency available with

 direct injection to the cylinders with very high fuel pressures, but

 that isn't what is being discussed. Whether the fuel is delivered when

 the valves are open or continuous is talking about around a 50th of a

 second. To operate that unquantified benefit, you have the extra cost of

 the unit plus another thousand or so in a fully redundant electrical

 system.

 Since, as you say you still have a mixture control, you probably haven't

 gained much over the engines that had altitude compensating fuel pumps

 to adjust the mixture for altitude. Most of what is being considered

 "new" was invented 40-50 years ago and used on race cars. Only the

 volume of mass production for cars has changed the costs somewhat. Many

 cars have had continuous fuel injection for a very long time. It took

 the combination of unleaded fuel, closed loop feedback and higher

 compression with knock sensors to make much improvement. There are

 factors for cars like cold and hot start emissions and part throttle

 economy that drive a lot of the choices.

 The main point is that yes you can make all the experimental choices you

 want, but there are costs, and not much has been proven effective and

 durable at this point.

 On 4/22/2015 8:07 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote:

> 

>

> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.

>

> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has

> their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.

>

> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always

> done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be

> made to ancient tractor engines that we are using...

>

>

> Read this topic online here:

>

> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119

neal.george(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:21 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Well said, Phil...



Neal GeorgeSent from my iPhone

On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com (philperry9(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]You are touching on a few things I have been thinking about.  Recognizing your newness to the experimental side of aviation is very important. 

When I started my RV-10 seven years ago, I too was new to the experimental side.   At the time my exposure/experience was very limited. Sure, I had some knowledge of how things work, how they should work if I modify things, and how they should react.    To simply put it, I had knowledge but very little real world experience; my window of real-world exposure was very narrow. 

At that point, I hadn't had friends who had accidents.  I hadn't lost any friends.   As a result my eyes were wide open because I didn't know what I didn't know. 

As I sit here at lunch typing this message on my iPhone, I have 7 years of history behind me. 

7 years ago my personal impact record was clean and in looking in the rear view mirror I now have 2 friends who managed to dead stick their airplane after engine failure.  One of them has gone through 7 engines in his velocity (costing him more than a Lycoming) and he is now putting a Lycoming in it after finally giving up. 

But those are the good stories because today I have 4 (other) friends who are dead from 3 accidents.   All of them were in alternative engine aircraft.  All of them were the direct result of the engine. 

Today I now have some experience to go along with that knowledge I had when I started.  My window of exposure to experimental aviation is now wider and is balanced by real experience. 

I'm tired of losing friends.  I'm tired of seeing their wives and kids grieve.  I'm tired of all of it.   It sucks. 

If there's one good thing about a 7-8 year build, it's that you're given an opportunity to get exposure to some stuff you otherwise wouldn't.

Phil





Sent from my iPhone



On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Thanks for chiming in, Rocketman.  Unlike a lot of you, I'm new to this whole homebuilt thing, but I take the the concept of "experimental" seriously.  I think that there's a strong tendency to simply want to put an airplane together, and while that's a valid option these days, it doesn't have to be limited to that.  I'm just now struggling with diving into the actual experimental aspects of building a kit. Up until now, everything I've done has been pretty much verbatim following the (mostly) excellent instructions.  It's nice to be able to make progress on building an airplane without thinking about it, but a huge part of the appeal of a homebuilt is the ability to make my own decisions about how I think an aircraft should be equipped.  And now, as I'm making progress on the wings I'm having to make some real decisions, and I keep trying to remind myself that's a good thing.  It drives me crazy that piston aircraft engines are stuck with 1950's technology when so much better is available, and I hope that by being a (somewhat) early adopter of EFI that I can help turn the tide toward affordable, modern engine management.  Buying and installing a system from EFII is only a minor contribution, but the more of us there are moving forward, the faster we'll get there.  I wasn't around when the EAB community started adopting things like glass panel displays, but I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers then, too.  Still, I welcome all the comments: it's a very valid point that there's currently only one RV-10 that we know about with an EFII system, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.  At some point there were no RV-10s flying at all.  I love not having to be first; I'm glad that there were 1,534 kits sold before mine, but I'm not afraid of building something that's actually experimental.  After all, I'm going to have to paint that word on the plane. I love that this community exists and that, so far, everything I want to do has been done in some form or fashion by someone else.  Keep telling me I'm insane for not priming or planning on an EFII system.  Those are valid opinions, and I like hearing them.  Thanks for being out there--this is one of the first times I've actually had to ask questions, because almost every question I've had can be answered by a web search.



Berck

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)>

 

 Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.

 

 It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.

 

 While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancient tractor engines that we are using...

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 



D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

//forums.matronics.com

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D



	






D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

//forums.matronics.com

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D



	


[b]

Rocketman1988

Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 63

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?

The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the ancient times but VW works, too.



Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion.  Everyone has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it.  It doesn't make any opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more information...and that is good.



Still going with the EFII system

gengrumpy

Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 131
Location: Tullahoma, TN

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:50 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Tim.

Well stated!

As I get closer to the time to overhaul my 2 slick mags, I’ll be watching the data on the P-mags…..also want to put them on the RV8 I’m building.

grumpy

do not archive

 	  Quote: 	
		   On Apr 22, 2015, at 5:18 PM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> wrote:

 To me it gets hard to accept that many of these new engine technologies

 make our engines "better" in any real way.  Maybe things like roller

 lifters are an improvement, but what I see is that most of the new

 things come with caveats.

 When you look at how the engines need to operate, there are some

 things that really make it hard to deviate from the old designs

 of the past.

 I'll give some examples:

 1) Piston size/clearance.  First, we operate in a much broader temp

 range than any cars do, over the course of any given hour.

 We go from very hot to very cold (at altitude), and vice versa.

 To do this, requires a significant amount of piston gap to compensate

 for the expansion of materials.  Our engines are looser than car

 engines, but for good reason.  You can eliminate some of the looseness

 if you go with liquid cooling, but that means you now accept one more

 system that can leak and bring down your plane.  So air cooling is

 the norm.  Deviations from air cooling come with weight penalties and

 potential "ruggedness" penalties like the forementioned leak worry.

 Also, since we're trying to run high power levels, swinging a big

 prop at sub-sonic speeds, we need engines that run lots of power

 at low RPM. Sure, you can throw a gearbox on a high RPM engine, but

 now you have additional parts, weight, harmonics to consider, and

 all of that is more that can have an issue.  So any deviation

 from the bore/stroke format comes with it's own set of issues.

 2) Electronic ignition.  Yes, I'm a fan myself.  But, think about

 the goal when they made the engine... Self-sufficient power source

 that doesn't require a battery.  Other than the POTENTIAL of

 the P-Mag, there isn't much out there that can give you that.

 So while you can get benefits from EI, you now add a significant

 downside that you have to compensate for.  In my case, I left

 one mag in place as my compensation plan.  But if you drop both

 mags, now you have a lot more to think and worry about that your

 airplane relies on.  This is significant.  I hear people rave

 about Auto plugs.  I did too.  Now I'm not so sure.  I had the

 bad situation of having a high mag drop on one run-up.  I remembered

 that the engine maybe was SLIGHTLY rougher on landing the last

 flight too.  I checked and sure enough, one of my auto plug

 wire caps had popped off...on the TOP of the engine.

 I put it on, went flying, and when I landed again, it was

 once again off. After that happened, I ordered new wire and caps

 for all cylinders.  Mine had begun to age after being removed

 many times for inspections, and were no longer as tight as before.

 I now view it from a completely different perspective.  I think

 auto plugs are nice in that they're cheap, but I'd almost rather

 have the ability for my Lightspeed ignition to use AIRPLANE

 fine wire plugs instead.  At least those have wrench-on wire

 attachments.  Yeah, they weight more, cost more, and all that,

 but they don't come off on their own.  Think about the guys

 running auto plugs on their bottom plug sets...I personally

 now have a real concern about that and would recommend if you

 do that, that you actually RTV the cap right to the plug.

 It will, however, make maintenance less fun.  But to me, auto

 plugs are not the panacea they were before.

 3) Fuel injection.  Well, the old lycoming injection is very

 hard to have a total fuel starvation issue.  Now, if you go to

 electronically operated injectors, you have other things that

 can take your engine out.  How about this for personal experience...

 I had a chevy diesel truck. It had a mechanical injection system.

 No issues, and it ran forever, and got great mileage...24mpg

 for my suburban I remember on one trip, loaded with maybe 8

 people and towing a trailer.   One day I wanted to turbo charge

 it.  I decided to buy a used engine and rebuild it and

 put a turbo on it and swap it.  I located an engine that had

 only 400 miles on it.  It needed to be re-sleeved on one cylinder

 but otherwise needed just basic work to get it ready. Why did

 it need re-sleeving? Well, it was from a newer diesel truck.

 That truck had the newer electronic injection on it.  Something

 had gone wrong that had caused that cylinder to melt down.

 Just that cylinder.  Electronic injection. I was so happy

 at the time that I got the engine cheap...I put on a nice rebuilt

 mechanical injection system and drove it for years.  That

 and a few other things taught me that on my diesel truck, the

 LESS electronic you make it, the more reliable it can be in

 some cases.  Yeah, old, but fairly bullet proof.

 4) Form factor:  Sure, you could probably design a better

 shaped engine with a better case and everything else.  But,

 engines only get mass produced when there is mass market for

 them.  If you go significantly away from the normal engine

 mount methods or shape, you now eliminate a HUGE percentage

 of your potential customers for retrofits.  So, given the

 low sales potential, I can see why a company would stick

 with tried and true.  Any alternative engine would have to

 use normal mounts and attachments.

 5) More on electronic controls:  Have you ever had a car that

 had the check engine light on and it didn't run so well?

 Maybe because the MAP sensor, or O2 sensor or Throttle position

 sensor, or just any other sensor didn't work quite right?

 Man, I would really rather just have a simple engine, with

 a nice fully instrumented monitoring system. Also, I'm not

 an airplane "Driver", I'm a "pilot" or "Aviator".  I actually

 enjoy operating the mixture lever.  I like the added challenge,

 as minimal as it is. I like it that if my CHT's seem high,

 I can lean it out more past peak, or richen it more ROP,

 and watch the temps come down.  It gives me pleasure and

 a feeling of security that I have the ability to change

 that engine parameter, along with RPM and throttle, to

 affect a change in how the engine runs.  If it were all

 automatic, I'd not know what's really happening in that little

 black box, and my options are limited.

 So I'm not saying that things can't be improved upon, but

 I really don't know that there is as much as some people

 think that NEEDS improving.  To me, the only real thing

 that I'd complain about is that the cost is too high.

 I'd also like it if certified engines could come with

 maybe 1/2 of the electrical system using EI, like I do,

 so that you can get the benefits of EI, while maintaining

 some semblance of electrical independence.

 New technologies are not simply "better" or "worse", in many cases,

 but in many ways, the old "tractor engine" as it's been recently

 called (Not that I've ever seen one like it on a tractor, but

 maybe a VW), is hard to beat from a standard reliability in

 flight metric.  To me, reliability in flight is probably the

 SINGLE most important thing that an airplane engine needs to have,

 is it not?  I'm about to do another few hundred miles over

 the ocean soon....I know to me it matters a lot.

 Tim

 On 4/22/2015 3:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

> 

> 

> I think you are misinterpreting some of the comments. It is not that is

> how we have always done it. Yes, the IO540 has been around since the

> mid-sixties. However, it was really advanced for its time. Cars were

> running 4 barrel carburetors with points controlled distributors back

> then. No one has shown better fuel efficiency on avgas than the IO-540

> will do lean of peak, beyond what an electronic ignition does to improve

> control of spark advance. That gives you 5% plus or minus a little. By

> 1970 there was the dual turbo charged 350+ hpTIO-540 on Chieftains and

> the TIO541 on Dukes. If there is efficiency to be added by timed fuel

> injection, I have not seen the data. There is efficiency available with

> direct injection to the cylinders with very high fuel pressures, but

> that isn't what is being discussed. Whether the fuel is delivered when

> the valves are open or continuous is talking about around a 50th of a

> second. To operate that unquantified benefit, you have the extra cost of

> the unit plus another thousand or so in a fully redundant electrical

> system.

> Since, as you say you still have a mixture control, you probably haven't

> gained much over the engines that had altitude compensating fuel pumps

> to adjust the mixture for altitude. Most of what is being considered

> "new" was invented 40-50 years ago and used on race cars. Only the

> volume of mass production for cars has changed the costs somewhat. Many

> cars have had continuous fuel injection for a very long time. It took

> the combination of unleaded fuel, closed loop feedback and higher

> compression with knock sensors to make much improvement. There are

> factors for cars like cold and hot start emissions and part throttle

> economy that drive a lot of the choices.

> The main point is that yes you can make all the experimental choices you

> want, but there are costs, and not much has been proven effective and

> durable at this point.

> 

> On 4/22/2015 8:07 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote:

>> 

>> 

>> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.

>> 

>> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has

>> their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.

>> 

>> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always

>> done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be

>> made to ancient tractor engines that we are using...

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> Read this topic online here:

>> 

>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119

>> 

>>

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2870

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:56 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

No worries, I don't think "Tractor Engine" is even a slam.  I think if

I wanted ultimate reliability out of my engine, I'd WANT a tractor

engine, a Semi Tractor engine, a UPS truck engine.... those guys

couldn't run a business if their engine broke down, so hey, if it's

a tractor engine that's fine.  At least maybe it keeps running and running.

Tim



On 4/22/2015 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the ancient times but VW works, too.



 Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion.  Everyone has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it.  It doesn't make any opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more information...and that is good.



 Still going with the EFII system

arplnplt(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:58 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Iâ€™ve told non-pilot friends who ask, that my engine is like having a big lawn mower engine on the front of the plane.  Air cooled, magneto fired and silly simple.  Change the oil and it runs forever.  Just has electric start.  (Obviously more to it than that but in simple termsâ€¦) I also wonder what we would all think about an IO-540 if it just was introduced on the market this year, and previously all aircraft engines were liquid cooled, EFI, high RPM auto engines.



Dave Leikam 	  Quote: 	
		  On Apr 22, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Neal George <neal.george(at)gmail.com (neal.george(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

Well said, Phil...Neal GeorgeSent from my iPhone



On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com (philperry9(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  You are touching on a few things I have been thinking about.  Recognizing your newness to the experimental side of aviation is very important. 



When I started my RV-10 seven years ago, I too was new to the experimental side.   At the time my exposure/experience was very limited. Sure, I had some knowledge of how things work, how they should work if I modify things, and how they should react.    To simply put it, I had knowledge but very little real world experience; my window of real-world exposure was very narrow. 



At that point, I hadn't had friends who had accidents.  I hadn't lost any friends.   As a result my eyes were wide open because I didn't know what I didn't know. 



As I sit here at lunch typing this message on my iPhone, I have 7 years of history behind me. 



7 years ago my personal impact record was clean and in looking in the rear view mirror I now have 2 friends who managed to dead stick their airplane after engine failure.  One of them has gone through 7 engines in his velocity (costing him more than a Lycoming) and he is now putting a Lycoming in it after finally giving up. 



But those are the good stories because today I have 4 (other) friends who are dead from 3 accidents.   All of them were in alternative engine aircraft.  All of them were the direct result of the engine. 



Today I now have some experience to go along with that knowledge I had when I started.  My window of exposure to experimental aviation is now wider and is balanced by real experience. 



I'm tired of losing friends.  I'm tired of seeing their wives and kids grieve.  I'm tired of all of it.   It sucks. 



If there's one good thing about a 7-8 year build, it's that you're given an opportunity to get exposure to some stuff you otherwise wouldn't.



Phil



Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Thanks for chiming in, Rocketman.  Unlike a lot of you, I'm new to this whole homebuilt thing, but I take the the concept of "experimental" seriously.  I think that there's a strong tendency to simply want to put an airplane together, and while that's a valid option these days, it doesn't have to be limited to that.  I'm just now struggling with diving into the actual experimental aspects of building a kit. Up until now, everything I've done has been pretty much verbatim following the (mostly) excellent instructions.  It's nice to be able to make progress on building an airplane without thinking about it, but a huge part of the appeal of a homebuilt is the ability to make my own decisions about how I think an aircraft should be equipped.  And now, as I'm making progress on the wings I'm having to make some real decisions, and I keep trying to remind myself that's a good thing.  It drives me crazy that piston aircraft engines are stuck with 1950's technology when so much better is available, and I hope that by being a (somewhat) early adopter of EFI that I can help turn the tide toward affordable, modern engine management.  Buying and installing a system from EFII is only a minor contribution, but the more of us there are moving forward, the faster we'll get there.  I wasn't around when the EAB community started adopting things like glass panel displays, but I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers then, too.  Still, I welcome all the comments: it's a very valid point that there's currently only one RV-10 that we know about with an EFII system, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.  At some point there were no RV-10s flying at all.  I love not having to be first; I'm glad that there were 1,534 kits sold before mine, but I'm not afraid of building something that's actually experimental.  After all, I'm going to have to paint that word on the plane. I love that this community exists and that, so far, everything I want to do has been done in some form or fashion by someone else.  Keep telling me I'm insane for not priming or planning on an EFII system.  Those are valid opinions, and I like hearing them.  Thanks for being out there--this is one of the first times I've actually had to ask questions, because almost every question I've had can be answered by a web search.

Berck



On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)>Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancient tractor engines that we are using...Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119===========-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List===========FORUMS -_blank">http://forums.matronics.com===========b Site -          -Matt Dralle, List Admin.target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=========== 	




 	  Quote: 	
		  



D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

//forums.matronics.com

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D



	






D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

//forums.matronics.com

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D



	






class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

class="">http://forums.matronics.com

class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	


	


 [quote][b]

philperry9

Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Posts: 379

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:29 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact.Â  Not opinion.



On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)> wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)>

 

 The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the ancient times but VW works, too.

 

 Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion.Â  Everyone has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it.Â  It doesn't make any opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more information...and that is good.

 

 Still going with the EFII system 

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

 Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 [b]

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:53 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

I'm sorry to hear that Phillip. I am always interested in causal factors in aviation accident because we have a duty to learn from the mistakes of others. Do you have any specific lessons learned that you would like to share with the rest of us?  Were any of these accidents employing the use of the EFII system specifically? Were they automotive engines adapted for aviation use? 

Thanks for sharing lessons learned.

Justin



 



On Apr 22, 2015, at 18:26, Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com (philperry9(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact.  Not opinion.



On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)>

 

 The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the ancient times but VW works, too.

 

 Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion.  Everyone has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it.  It doesn't make any opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more information...and that is good.

 

 Still going with the EFII system 

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 



D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

//forums.matronics.com

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D



	


[b]

n801bh(at)netzero.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:05 pm Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

I will add to the other side of the coin....

 

ALOT of alternative engine powered experimental planes suffer from "pie in the sky" dreams and fail in predictable ways... For example... Take the guy from Texas who was able to stuff a LS Chevy into various airframes and claim is will work with minimal clearance between RED hot exhaust systems radiating massive amounts of heat against critical fuel and oil lines......  He didn't learn his lesson from the first inflight fire...

 

The second one killed him and his sister... 

 

And the other example previously mentioned was poor Chris from Texas who drank the P. Lamar Koolaid and spent years trying to get into the air after numerous mistakes.... Glad he survived and picked a Lyc to power his Velocity..

To quote a movie line... " A man has to know his limitations"

 

My experimental just had it's 11th bithday.... Over 500 hours and 100,000 + miles of safe flight.. That equals to 4 plus times around the earth at the equator, and it NEVER has had a off airport emergency landing and still running perfectly.... All the time running a V-8 Ford ( ALTERNATIVE) engine in it...

 

 

I am dumber that a fence post and I pulled it off..... So far,....The day is still young though.... 

 

I have owned a few certified planes and now that I ventured over to the experimental side, I see that as a badge to explore the uncertain side of life... It is all of us who do the experimental thing who will move the ball down the field, make it airframes, motors or avionics... since we are at the forefront of certified planes 40 years from now....

 

Be safe out there kids....

  

 

 

Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



--------

speckter(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:21 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

I have been building experimental planes since 1980. My list of dead friends is a lot longerand so is the list of dead projects. The frustration of those of use who have endured these losses is that "joe new guy" thinks that he is the first guy to think of the "new ides/new technology". Or that they are smarter than those that went before. Many many things have been tried over the years and discarded because they did not live up to the hype or had hidden dangers not apparent on first or even second look.

It is so frustrating to see an idea floated and folks respond with reasons why it probably is not in the best interest of the builder to do it and the new guy takes the attude that he knows better and that the veterans are a bunch of old fuddy duddies.  Most of us who try and offer suggestions are not trying to show that our way is better, if we po po an idea it is because we don't think it will get you to where you want to be.

I would like to see an auto engine conversion be successful, but how many folks have tried and tried only to eventually put in a Lycoming. If you want to try an auto conversion great, however you need to know that you will be in for a very long road of frustration and failure before you succeed if you are lucky enough to succeed. 

A friend gave me some sage advice many years ago, before the turn of the century, if you think something is a good idea for your plane, go to OSH and if you can find 5 of that idea in a row and Most of the builders are happy with the idea, go for it.  If not you will be embarking on a long  road of experimentation.  Experimentation is great, but the road is way longer and way more frustrating than you can know going into it.



Gary



On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:26 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com (philperry9(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact.  Not opinion.



On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)>

 

 The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the ancient times but VW works, too.

 

 Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion.  Everyone has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it.  It doesn't make any opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more information...and that is good.

 

 Still going with the EFII system 

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 



D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

//forums.matronics.com

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D



	


[b]

Lew Gallagher

Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 402
Location: Greenville , SC

Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:51 am Post subject: Fuel Return Line Location?

I promise I am reading every word of this thread with great interest.   The fuel line location has long been dealt with.

 What would the appropriate label of this topic be?

  

 Do not archive.

  

 Later, â€“ Lew

    

  

 



   [quote][b]

_________________
non-pilot
crazy about building
NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
Fly off completed !

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

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