Canadian who built w/o gascolator?

andrew phillips · #1 05-09-2007, 02:08 PM

Any Canadian planes out there without gascolators? If so, how did you get by the MD-RA inspector? I have a performance airflow injection system and they are recommending not to use a gascolator.

rv6ejguy · #2 05-09-2007, 02:36 PM

Some inspectors are willing to listen to reason on this one, others are not. With high pressure EFI and return systems, the gascolator is of questionable value and probably a liability. Makes sense for a carb. Makes no sense for EFI or other high pressure FI with tank return lines.

Inspectors do want to see quick drains at all low points including header tanks. This makes sense in my mind.

mark manda · #3 05-09-2007, 10:27 PM

i know a guy who just flew his "sold" hr-2 into canada for the new owner.

didn't pass-- 1. no gascolator. (had the fuel filter set up)

2. fresh air for cabin was drawn from behind the baffles. Not allowed; must draw fresh air from up in the inlet area.

FWIW

teaguy · #4 05-10-2007, 12:37 AM

Just had my inspection within the last 30 days, I have airflow performance boost pump, I mentioned how I had read where gascolators not recommended with setup, red flags went up for my inspector, long story short I now have a gascolator.
Mark Mercier
RV-7A
Vancouver, BC

Tom Martin · #5 05-10-2007, 04:30 AM

I have built seven planes in Canada, one RV4, two HRIIs and four F1s. There is nothing wrong with a gascolator for these installations. Lycoming engines have run reliably with gascolators for decades. Often when we thing of gascolators we have recollections of the old style units with the flimsy rod that swings down to capture the bowl. Van's sells a very nice slolid aluminium unit that is rated for 60psi and Andair sells a beautiful unit that has many nice features.
Gascoltors will not filter as well as some of the filters that come FI systems but at least you can sump the gascolator. This will not only give you an indication of water but also of other contamination issues. The filter systems that I have seen do not have this capability and I believe it to be important.
Fuel systems on experimental aircraft are the major source of accidents, be careful.

mgomez · #6 05-10-2007, 02:13 PM

I was looking at a new RV-7 recently, and noticed that the gascolator was not at the lowest point of the fuel system. Not in the 3-point attitude, and not in the level attitude either.

This isn't the fault of the builder...it's just the geometry of the RV-7. If it's going to fit inside the cowling, the fuel tanks will be lower than the gascolator.

So my question: is it still worth having a gascolator?

Thanks,
Martin

gmcjetpilot · #7 05-10-2007, 04:27 PM

There has been debate on this for years on this list and others. I am a traditionalist (I'm addressing carbs only). The Gascolator has MORE volume to hold more water. Some want to depend on little in-line filters. I think that is a bad idea. The only saving grace is most RV's are pampered pets that live in hangers and rarely see rain. I think a gascolator is fine, and you are right it really is almost impossible to get it at the TRUE low point. However it is a big can to catch gunk.

You can have an "experimental fuel" system, but like primary structure, unless YOU REALLY know what you are doing, don't mess with it. If it ain't broke don't fix it. There have been a few cases of "clever" fuel designs that met with less than successful results, e.g., engine involuntarily stopped turning in flight, i.e., pucker factor 11.

Wisdom I was told and learned the hard way: Follow the plan's?