[Zero4Zulu]

Now that I made a nice bracket and tank indicator plate, (engraved), I seen Vlads valve in a picture that has the valve mounted at 45 degrees so the selector handle only moves 90 degrees to switch tanks, which is the way the plans show it...

I have mine oriented and plumbed so the handle has to move 180 degrees Right, and Left to switch tanks. Any reasons this would be an issue?

 

[Mel]

Now that I made a nice bracket and tank indicator plate, (engraved), I seen Vlads valve in a picture that has the valve mounted at 45 degrees so the selector handle only moves 90 degrees to switch tanks, which is the way the plans show it...

I have mine oriented and plumbed so the handle has to move 180 degrees Right, and Left to switch tanks. Any reasons this would be an issue?

No problem as long as it is placarded as to all operations.

 

[Jimd]

I flew a six a while back that had manual trim in front of and part of the valve mount, and was configured in the 180 layout you describe. I thought it was a bit cramped to move the selector from left to right and would have been a bit easier for me with the 90 degree layout. The seat cushions sort of add to the cramped feel.

I also like not having to go thru such a large arc when it isn't really needed.

you will probably get used to it and not notice it unless you fly another configuration.

Jim

 

[rvbuilder2002]

The plans configuration was an attempt at a safety net for pilots.

There is historical data of pilots moving a fuel lever enough to feel the next detent and then stopping (with the valve in a middle/off position).

The accident data is for instances that the pilot then didn't try a different position and ended up doing a forced landing. Who knows how many times it has happened that pilots did discover the mistake in time.....

Because of this, good design practice is to not have to move a fuel selector valve through an off position to get to another tank, but there is no rule against it.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

Because of this, good design practice is to not have to move a fuel selector valve through an off position to get to another tank, but there is no rule against it.

Beg to differ.

FAR 23.995
(g) Fuel tank selector valves must--
(1) Require a separate and distinct action to place the selector in the "OFF" position; and
(2) Have the tank selector positions located in such a manner that it is impossible for the selector to pass through the "OFF" position when changing from one tank to another.

True, experimentals can do whatever they want, but in this case, following the FARs is probably a VERY good idea.

 

[Zero4Zulu]

Thank you all for the help.


Sounds like the best plan is no make a new bracket the way it's supposed to be.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

Beg to differ.

FAR 23.995
(g) Fuel tank selector valves must--
(1) Require a separate and distinct action to place the selector in the "OFF" position; and
(2) Have the tank selector positions located in such a manner that it is impossible for the selector to pass through the "OFF" position when changing from one tank to another.

True, experimentals can do whatever they want, but in this case, following the FARs is probably a VERY good idea.

I knew after I wrote that, that I should have clarified..... I meant it in the context of what is required for E-AB, so I guess I should have said there is no rule against it that applies to E-AB

So as you pointed out yourself, you have no grounds to "beg to differ" because as you said, nothing in FAR 23 applies to Experimental Amateur Built as far as requirements for certification.

The fact that it is a good idea (and the reason it is a requirement in FAR 23) is why I mentioned it, and why it is part of the fuel system design of every RV.

 

[David Paule]

Paul Dye wrote up an interesting account of his RV-3B engine failure on its second flight. Read the whole thread - it's enlightening. Continue to post #119, which is pertinent - there's important info there.

Here it is.

Dave