![]() |
Quote:
what if the selector itself is busted and doesn't really switch from the left tank to the right tank but stays on the left no matter how I have the knob set? |
Please excuse me, if my post sounds harsh, but this topic makes me really nervous. Firstly, because the builder thought that it might be a smart idea to install a fuel selector with a ‘both’ setting (what other brilliant ideas did he have?). Secondly, because this didn’t strike the OP as odd. :eek:
Frankly, I also wonder about the leap from believing that a ‘both’ setting is fine to some fancy testing of the fuel system. This is what I would suggest:
I strongly doubt that there is anything wrong with your fuel selector valve. Most likely, it is simply the wrong type which had been installed. |
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE change that valve to the proper one!
Do not fly this aircraft until done! |
Quote:
It does strike me as yet another example of beating a very dead horse with regard to the BOTH setting and the fact that the selector has that setting. Well I suppose everyone has to get their two cents in about that, and tell me what they would do with regard to signing off my airplane if they were inspecting it and so forth. In fact I long ago, in this thread, made my decision about the selector. What does not seem simple to me - what I need to figure out and hope to obtain aid from people in this forum - is figuring out the best way to test the fuel system and determine it's rigging. THAT is where my focus is in this thread. |
Quote:
While you're at it you can also do the max attitude flow test. Put the tail in a hole/ditch and/or jack up the nose to an attitude well above stall and measure the flow rate from each tank with the boost pump. It needs to be greater than the max fuel consumption at SL WOT. There's more specifics in the construction manual (or at least there used to be). |
Quote:
2. Remove any covers over the fuel lines in the cockpit 3. Look with Mark I Eyeballs at which tank is connected to which input on the valve. |
Quote:
I once was a DAR that would NOT issue the Special Airworthiness Certificate to an RV till after the Fuel Selector Valve was changed to one that did not have a BOTH position. It is my belief that it is UNSAFE to have a fuel valve with both position in the present low wing fuel tank RVs. I would not sign off the once a year Condition Inspection as being in a condition for Safe Operation with a BOTH position fuel valve on a low wing fuel tank Experimental aircraft. |
Quote:
|
An element of paranoia has crept into this thread.
There is nothing unsafe about the BOTH position of this valve. It MAY become unsafe if it is used but even then the airplane won't fall out of the sky. There are a number of switches in every aircraft that create an unsafe situation if used in flight. Guess what happens if the ignition switch is moved to OFF or the mixture is pulled to OFF? Placards are even not required for these obvious unsafe situations. It would appear this aircraft was built with some care. I would be most reluctant to condemn the builder, perhaps several EAA tech advisors who frequently inspect before certification, or the DAR (or perhaps FAA inspector) who certified it. If the valve gives one night mares, change it. My 2 cents worth is I would have no qualms whatever about flying this aircraft with or without a placard to not use the BOTH position. |
Where is that "like" button?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:17 AM. |