skippydiesel

Read installation where spell check has delivered insulation

😈

T510, You seem to be really getting into this little anomaly. "Do you use the boost pump in any other flight modes," Other than what I call high risk situations (TO/Climb/Low level) I do not routinely use the Boost pump (the exception to this rule being low fuel pressure warning)- See my earlier comments "If you don't get the low fuel pressure warning and switch the boost pump on do you still get the reduced indicated fuel flow? " The Boost pump ON, reduction in flow, only happens when flow indication is above that what I would expect in Cruise. High Flow indication is almost the norm ie 17-19L/hr, when I would expect sub 15L/hr. Turn the pump on, more often than not, the flow indication will go to something like what I would expect. "Does the boost pump bypass have a one way valve? " Yes - as stated above. "If it does could this be staying partially open allowing the pump to recirculate fuel?" Interesting thought - please expand. 😈

NOTE: At no time has the engine shown any indication (hesitation) of low/nil fuel supply😈

The wing tank bather, for each tank,is under the op posit outer wing😈

Hi T510, With small aircraft one should always be sceptical about the readings from engine condition related electronic indicators. The fuel pressure indication, pre engine start, run up & TO/Climb are all as I would expect - cant say that it may be "borked" from time to time. I guess I could interrogate/down load the Dynon & see if there is any tendency to bork. As a slight mature person, all this computer stuff is a tad intimidating but will give it go. Its not just pressure anomalies, its also flow. Completely separate & type of sensors so may not be related. 😈

I can't see me developing the complex diagram with all the features you describe (not that good of a draftsman). There is the option to operate from any one of the three tanks (or all three at once) however I use the "header" tank for all operations and the wing tanks to supply the header. While a picture may save many words , I will attempt the words- With the exception engine bay all fuel lines are aluminum. All tanks have their own breather, facing into air flow. A gascolator is located at the bottom of the engine side of the firewall There are three fuel drain valves In line Boost/Auxiliary pump (with a fuel bypass circuit in case of pump failure) used for all higher risk operations - TO/Landing & Low Level Inflight fuel transfer pump A four way wing tank selector valve - Left / Right / Both / Off. This valve is only ever on for fuel transfers The header has an ON /Off valve. On for all flight/engines running operations The system has a fuel return, from the distributor to header tank. This is fitted with a #35 restrictor jet. Fuel return flow was measure (using Boost pump) at 7L/hr The two (30L) wing tanks are located about mid wing The "header (40L) is in fuselage below the glair shield. When full (37 L), this tank may provide some gravity feed Red Cube fuel flow sensors x2 . One located between engine pump & fuel distribution block, the other on the return to tank line. Installed as per instructions however I may change this sometime in the future The pressor sensor is located as high in the engine compartment as possible/above the fuel distribution block to which it is connected via rubber hose (The seal around the sensor, has been intentionally damaged to facilitate ambient pressure entry) Fuel Pressure, Flow, Fuel Remain & Used, are displayed on a Dynon Classic Skyview EMS Fuel Used/Remain indication is acurate to about 1L in 4 hrs Fuel Flow indication only drops below 17L/hr when engine rpm reduced for descent. Calculated (Fuel added) Average fuel flow, for whole of trip, is below 15L/hr (usually 14.25) There is only one "check" valve (other than fuel pumps) which is in the Boost pump bypass circuit The gascolator to engine fuel pump line has been heavenly insulated, to rule out temperature related fuel vaporisation The over engine fuel fines, from pump, through distribution block to carburettors, are all orange fire sleeved, also to mitigate against fuel vaporisation The wing tank fuel selector & Boost pump system/associated plumbing, are in a very"tight package" 😈

Each tank has its own breather, facing into airflow, so should be between ambient and slightly elevated (+) pressure. Correction; My speculation was low pressure (cavitation) in the reticulation system, not in the tanks. For the most part pressures remain stable from Take-Off, through Cruise, to Landing. Not every flight involves a low pressure indication, but it is common. As far as I understand pumps, they all exhibit suction, on the inlet side and pressure, on the delivery side. Rotax 912 use a diaphragm pump. The wing tanks are below the "header". The header may have some "gravity" flow but it would be minimal, primarily when full. Fuel supply is ensured by an engine/mechanical pump. I have yet to determine a consistent "condition" for the low pressure indication. 😈

While I quite enjoy & learn from many of the "thread drifts" that have come to typify this Forum, I am concerned about the tone of some of the respondents and the lack of any relationship to matters aircraft. SO! I thought I might repost this interesting (to me) matter, that is homebuilt aircraft in its origin & intent; "My Sonex/912ULS has an interesting fuel anomaly; To give you some ides where the matter may arise from, I should tell you that my Sonex is fitted with 2 x 30L wing tanks and a 40L in fuselage "header" tank. I call it a "header" because it has no external fuel point, being "fed" from the two wing tanks and the fuel return. I can select from any of the three tanks but prefer to use just the "header" . The plumbing to to achieve, the above, is quite convoluted. I have an electric fuel transfer pump and a "boost" / auxiliary. The latter being used for all higher risk situations i.e take-off/landing, low level operations. For the most part fuel pressure is between 4-5+psi. The anomaly; In Cruise, my Dynon will occasionally (it seems to be quite random) give me a low fuel pressure warning - Pressure may be indicating a low as 1 psi. If I am high, I will just monitor the situaton and pressure will slowly recover, without any intervention on my part. If low, I will turn on my Boost pump for an immediate increase to 5 psi - Turn off the pump, pressure remans between 4-5psi. At no time has the engine ever hesitated. The above is puzzling enough - what could be happening ? BUT There is another weird symptom - When I switch on the Boost pump, in response to low pressure, my fuel flow rate reduces by up to 5L/hr. My Red Cube (x2)/Dynon fuel flow indication has, despite my best efforts to calibrate accurately, never been much good - usually over indicating fuel flow by a significant margin. I think it likly, the indication, with the Boost pump on, is reflective of the actual flow rate in Cruise. The Fuel Used/Remaining is acurate. To rule out engine heat causing fuel vaporisation, I have double insulated the, in cowling, fuel supply to the mechanical pump. The fuel distribution lines from the pump are all coved with orange fire sleeve. My best guess: Due to the convoluted fuel supply system, low pressure is being generated somewhere, causing the fuel to "cavitate". The cavitation encourages bubbles to form. The bubbles effect the fuel pressure sensor - low pressure warning! Why: The above only seem to happen occasionally, I can not explain. Would fuel flow indication, reduce with the Boost pump on? Does my fuel flow, without the Boost pump, indicate high flow? Anyone got any other suggestions?" 😈

An ADSB IN receiver is: Not much good if you don't have the ancillary systems to "see" the transmitting aircraft Overkill, for small recreational air craft , when you can use an SE2, which will display ADSB IN on an iPad (OzRunways) Wont display the older, still legal, transponders (Mode S?) 😈

Can't do a report on the Clear Prop adapter at this time. Silly old fart, waited too long to test the new adapter. Went flying a few days ago - adapter didnt work??? Landed, after a very nice 1.4 hrs, checked AvTraffic connection - free trial had run out the day before. Such is life! Will now have to pay AvTraffic 1 or 12 months subscription. I guess I will go for the single month and see how it works for me in the Sydney Basin. 😈

CV 19 ? "The discussion on whether it should be Parkes or somewhere else needs its own thread." Wherever the event is mentioned it deserves to be commented on. 😈

"With planning already underway for Fly’n For Fun 2028.........", The above phrase has once again been printed (07/05/26) - I repeat, is this an error or a genuine announcement of intent ie no RAA event in 2027??? Could RAA be starting to get the message - Parkes, along with any other Security Controlled airport, is not the place to hold this sort of event. 😈

Has a passing resemblance to the Boing Stratocruiser and a similar military origin (I am old enough to have flown in one)😈

Seems to me the two pilots concerned, responded exactly the way they were trained😈

Strange how quickly people forget/accept the status quo - Most publicly accessible airfields, around Australia, (post WW2) were owned by the Federal Government (US!). The Government uses our money to develop/maintain these assets ie nothing is for free. Publicly accessible airfields, do not just serve us (privet pilots) they are a valuable asset to their local community - travel, tourism, emergency service, FIFO personnel, emergency landing and agricultural aviation . THEN the Gov sells or gives them away. The sold ones go to businesses that know they can make a hansom profit from our asset. The now, privately owned airfields have all sorts of user fees applied AND often see non aviation development, that can impact aircraft safety and almost certainly foretells the ultimate goal of the owners - no more airfield. The give away's (transfers) seem to go to rural Councils, that also think there is a few extra $$ to be made. This is where the likes of AvData come in. For the most part the extra dollar expectation is an illusion. If they are lucky, they might come close to breaking even. Councils have had a very rude shock with the ASIC security upgrade costs, imposed by the Gov, on all RPT airfields We think we are hardly done by, with this ineffectual ridiculous cost - imagine if you are a cash strapped council. Paying $10-$50 to land somewhere & park, doesn't seem unreasonable - that is until you have multiples of this cost, on a trip away. There are some Council owners who have a more informed strategy eg Charge only apply to turbine/jet aircraft (ie normally commercial heavy aircraft). Others do not charge for landing and or parking at all. Publicly accessible airfields, do not just serve us (privet pilots) they are a valuable asset, like roads, to their local community - travel, tourism, emergency service, FIFO personnel, emergency landings and agricultural aviation. In the past publicly owned assets were either used "free" or subsidised, as a public good. As a public good they facilitated all sorts of other activities. This is called synergy - Synergy is the combined power or interaction of two or more agents/substances that produces a total effect greater than the sum of their individual contributions . This concept has given way to the shortsighted, regressive, philosophy of "User Pays" (part of Economic Rationalism?), to the detriment of the individual and society as a whole. Recreational /Private aviation seems to be on the decline. I have no doubt there are many factors contributing to this. Cost (which includes land/parking fees) would have to be a major disincentive. 😈

You know that the AvData cancer is close to untreatable, when some very "ordinary" dirt strips, with minimal amenities (tin shed) are being administered by the company. The owner (Council?) must be completely nuts, if they think buckets of money are going to descend from the heavens😈

Not just on the fee matter. Also you re purchasing a non product ie has no security benefit to you or the country. Ripped off twice by the Government - Thats Australia's version of a democratic process.😈

As stated (other thread) I have no problem with the aircraft itself, just the ridiculous hype around an aircraft, that can only be described as a triumph of form over function. A Rotax 912 UL (80hp) will likly match the fuel consumption(7.5L/gr ULP 91 RON ) and depending on airframe, probably in a better all round performing aircraft. If the handsome Spirit meets your expectations- go for it!😈

For Australia - I like a high wing, just font belie the Sonex will be a success. It s not just the kit/plans built market its up again, its a host of similar factory builds. Time will tell😈

As for Sonex reopening - Good news indeed however I fear that the inability of, consecutive management teams, to move with the times, will see it fold again in the not to distant future (I hope I am wrong). Their focus on a high wing varient of the Sonex, which will face stiff competition from a market already saturated with similar aircraft, rather than adopt the far more cost effective innovations offered by Robin Austin, speaks volumes as to their myopic view of what the customer wants.😈

I fear you misquote me - The Spirit is not expensive, as small aircraft go, its an art work that delivers looks, rather than performance, much like the Junker above (which at least has a second seat). For those who value form over function, I have no doubt that the Spirit/Junkers are highly desirable aircraft, worth every penny of posser potential.😈

True but is till only mans best effort at emulating what nature has crafted for birds.😈

Great information Onetrack. "highway pattern" square shoulder tyre that isn't desirable for aircraft use - you need a round-shouldered profile tyre" I do not disagree with what you have stated (above) but would place the tread type ahead of the "shouldered profile". Leaving aside ply & speed rating for a moment, I would place the centre tyre as near ideal, followed by left, then right. Simple principals - aircraft tyres should not pick up "stuff" to fling up onto wing/flaps, back onto empennage, will ideally slide when subject to side load rather than dig in. Smooth rather than grip type tread is desirable. Aviation tyres are usually horrifically expensive (as with anything labeled "aviation"). If your aircraft is under Max 600 kg take-off weight, with a 40knot or less stall/landing speed, you are unlikly to benefit from such exotic landing equipment😈

Fair comment but what of home built? Sure homebuilt have the potential to include concerning quality and divergence from plans, however this should be weighed against the creative expression of the builder, much cheaper construction cost (labour not usually being included), on going lower operating cost and genuine improvements on the origional design (eg Robin Austin Sonerai projects x 2). I am not in a position to make an all of fleet judgement on homebuilt quality but would point out that there is little negative criticism being express in this and other Forums. I am on my second homebuilt aircraft. I sold my first at about 20+ years & 950 hrs of reliable, safe operation. My second - the pre purchase engineers report, commented the construction standard exceeded factory quality. It seems likly that the "consistency" of factory builds, while true, is overblown😈