What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

The RV-9 holds more than 36 gallons

N941WR

Legacy Member
Van's lists the fuel capacity of the RV-9 as 36 gallons, 18 a side.

Today when I recalibrated the fuel tanks on my RV-9 (Note, this is NOT a -9A) I was reminded that there is still a lot of space in the fuel tanks when they have exactly 18 gallons. How much more I found out today.

With the tail back on the ground, after the calibration, I was able to fit another gallon and a half in each tank. The best part was that the fuel wasn't up to filler neck when I stopped adding fuel.

Even with the extra capacity, I wouldn't recommend flight planning for the extra capacity.
 
Bill, Will any leak overboard in level or descending flight attitude? Sure it would be a quick flight to be descending significantly and still have a completely full tank. I just wonder if the nose high attitude provided extra filing room? Jim
 
The temperature of the fuel will also vary your capacity. Colder fuel is more dense.
 
The temperature of the fuel will also vary your capacity. Colder fuel is more dense.

Yes - Density decreases by about 0.5% per 5 ?C (9 ?F) increase in temperature -

BUT that affects your weight and balance - a gallon is a volume measurement and should not alter with temperature....:)
 
Bill, Will any leak overboard in level or descending flight attitude? Sure it would be a quick flight to be descending significantly and still have a completely full tank. I just wonder if the nose high attitude provided extra filing room? Jim

The tanks are calibrated in the level flight position and there was a lot of room for more fuel before I let the tail down.

It is unlikely that any will spill overboard when heading downhill because the air entering the vents will pressurize the tanks.
 
Van's lists the fuel capacity of the RV-9 as 36 gallons, 18 a side.

Today when I recalibrated the fuel tanks on my RV-9 (Note, this is NOT a -9A) I was reminded that there is still a lot of space in the fuel tanks when they have exactly 18 gallons. How much more I found out today.

With the tail back on the ground, after the calibration, I was able to fit another gallon and a half in each tank. The best part was that the fuel wasn't up to filler neck when I stopped adding fuel.

Even with the extra capacity, I wouldn't recommend flight planning for the extra capacity.

Unusable fuel?
 
Unusable fuel?

Later in Phase One I tested right tank in flight to completely empty. Within airport reach I flew wide patterns at 3000' with very shallow left turns. Time from zero on the gage (difficult to determine exactly when the needle is not moving) to sputter was approximately three minutes. Switched to the left tank with aux pump on the engine recovered immediately. After landing I pressed the drain on empty tank. Several drops not even enough to wet a napkin. There was no unusable fuel left. I built fuel pick up tube by the plans.
 
Unusable fuel is known to be in the single digit ounces.

True...in coordinated level flight. In a slip, skid, crosswind landing, go around, etc--unknown!

Fly safe,

Jim

P.S. 5 of the 40 gallons in my certified aircraft is unusable--that's a lot!
 
I was doing a taxi test, knowing I was very low on fuel, but I was preparing to do a weight and balance so I wanted to all but run out. Heading back to the hanger, my Skyview sounded "Caution - fuel pressure". I noticed the fuel pressure falling and a few seconds later the engine died. Fortunatly, the hanger was close so I and a buddy pushed the plane back. I tried draining some fuel but there wasn't more than a few ounces that would come out.

And I thought the tanks held 19 gal each.
 
I must have 1.5 gallons of proseal in mine. When I filled for the 1st time and calibrated my Dynon I was able to get 18 gallon in and barely a drop more would fit.

Maybe my FBO needs to recalibrate his meter but I'm not sayin nuttin!
 
I must have 1.5 gallons of proseal in mine. When I filled for the 1st time and calibrated my Dynon I was able to get 18 gallon in and barely a drop more would fit.

Maybe my FBO needs to recalibrate his meter but I'm not sayin nuttin!

To calibrate my tanks, I took two milk jugs, filled each with exactly one gallon of water, and marked a fill line on each. I then let them dry for a week before putting any fuel in them. Those jugs were then used to calibrate my tanks.

I didn?t trust that I would be able to control the nozzle on the field?s fuel truck and would screw it up. Sure enough, when they filled my fuel cans with five gallons, as read from their meter, I actually received closer to 5.5 gallons, based on my Pyrex calibrated milk jugs.
 
Later in Phase One I tested right tank in flight to completely empty. Within airport reach I flew wide patterns at 3000' with very shallow left turns. Time from zero on the gage (difficult to determine exactly when the needle is not moving) to sputter was approximately three minutes. Switched to the left tank with aux pump on the engine recovered immediately. After landing I pressed the drain on empty tank. Several drops not even enough to wet a napkin. There was no unusable fuel left. I built fuel pick up tube by the plans.

Unusable fuel testing is a bit more involved, see page 44 (page 54 in the pdf) in AC 23-16.

I don't know how much thought Van's put into their published figures with regard to certification (i.e. safety) requirements. Anyway, thats the requirements for certification; in the experimental world, whatever makes you happy.


Thomas
 
One Gallon ..... Exactly

Bill, how did you determine the initial "one gallon"? The only item I can think of that actually has a mark for one gallon is a portable Blitz-type fuel can and I would not trust they are accurate. Just curious.
 
Bill, how did you determine the initial "one gallon"? The only item I can think of that actually has a mark for one gallon is a portable Blitz-type fuel can and I would not trust they are accurate. Just curious.

Here is how I calibrated my tanks:
1. Saved four of opaque milk jugs. Some jugs are white and were not used, only the semi-transparent jugs were used for my test.
2. Using a Pyrex measuring cup, each of the four jugs were filled with 16 cups of water and marked with a blue Sharpie brand marker.
3. The jugs were emptied and allowed to dry for two weeks prior to use. (I would hate one of the Forum members to post that I might have introduced water into my fuel system.)
4. One tank at a time, starting with the right tank, the quick drain was removed and the fuel was drained into five gallon gas cans. A large red funnel, complete with a micro screen in the bottom, was used to keep from spilling and to catch anything that might have come lose.
5. With the quick drains removed, I lifted the tail into the level flight attitude to see if any more fuel would come out. Maybe a thimble?s worth spilled out.
6. The quick drains were reinstalled and torqued.
7. With the aircraft still in the flight position, the Dynon SkyView was put in the calibration mode.
8. Starting on the left tank, the SkyView asked for two gallons of fuel be added.
9. I poured 100LL from my five gallon gas cans, utilizing the above mentioned red funnel-filter, into two previously scientifically calibrated milk jugs.
10. The filter was then placed in the tank replenishment orifice and two gallons of 100LL from the previously mentioned milk jugs was then dispensed into thank via the red fluid deflection and filtering device.
11. The Dynon SkyView then asked for confirmation that fuel, was in fact added. At which time the appropriate button was pressed, a note was made on some type of white parchment, probably derived from some formerly hard plant matter.
12. The above steps were repeated nine times, until the designer?s 18 gallon specification was achieved.
13. Upon completion of the task, an additional 1.5 gallons of dead blue dinosaurs was dispensed into the tank, prior to lowing the tail.
14. The above procedures were repeated for the second AKA, right, tank.

Come on guys, you are over thinking this.
 
Sure enough, when they filled my fuel cans with five gallons, as read from their meter, I actually received closer to 5.5 gallons, based on my Pyrex calibrated milk jugs.

A 10% error from the state calibrated meter is not likely. There is not enough profit in a gallon of gas to stay in business with that kind of losses.

So now Van's and the fuel meter say you have less than what is in the milk jug........ :rolleyes:
 
Usable fuel determination...

I have tested for actual usable fuel a couple of times by running a tank dry in flight then filling it to the caps at the pump. Pretty easy to do and the result is definative. Nice to know for real for your plane.
 
A 10% error from the state calibrated meter is not likely. There is not enough profit in a gallon of gas to stay in business with that kind of losses.
I agree, when I measured out more than gallons, I was surprised.

So now Van's and the fuel meter say you have less than what is in the milk jug........ :rolleyes:
When I first built the plane and calibrated the D10 EMS five years ago, I thought it odd that there was still room in the tanks after I hand filled it. Only back then I was a Beta Tester for the Dynon capacitance fuel senders. At that time I put the wings up on saw horses and connected the senders to the EMS and filled the tanks five or six times each. Each test came up the same, there was head space in the tanks.

With the installation of the SkyView, I decided to top off the tanks, if I got the same results, to find out how much they actually hold. That and talking with two other RV-9 (non-A) builders, they have seen the same thing. So yes, both Van?s and the fuel meter don?t match my ?highly calibrated? milk jugs.
 
I see the problem Bill R. you really have a RV-7.
First it holds too much fuel and second it has too big of an engine.
 
More volume

I think mine is going to hold more like 45 gals. However I think my bladder is more like 1/2 pint.
 
Not flying yet, but I calculate my tank capacity to be 70 gallons. I built the outboard leading edges into addition tanks.
 
Not flying yet, but I calculate my tank capacity to be 70 gallons. I built the outboard leading edges into addition tanks.
Just curious .... How did you calculate that they extra 200 pounds in the wings will leave them attached to the airccraft :confused:
 
Just curious .... How did you calculate that they extra 200 pounds in the wings will leave them attached to the airccraft :confused:

At what point are you worried about the wings leaving the aircraft?

In flight, the load on the spars is actually lessened, since any excess lift due to gusts of wind has to lift the excess fuel within the wing itself before load can be transferred to the fuselage (same reason fuel in the wing is not counted against aerobatic weight) with the net result that I can actually take a harder gust with fuel in the outboards than without. On the ground, yes it is an issue since the additional weight increases the bending moment of the main spar at the fuselage - but as you point out only by a few hundred pounds compared to the -3.8 G rating of the wing. Ground ops with fuel in the outboards just requires careful taxiing to minimize the strain. The danger point comes in trying to land with fuel in the outboards, as you could botch the landing and pancake hard enough to hurt the wing spars - so a landing with fuel in the outboards is to be treated as an emergency case only and requires an over-gross-weight-landing inspection before further flight.

This is not uncharted territory - several people have gone here before and the engineering numbers have been crunched. Yes it whittles away a bit at the margins but it still ends up well within "standard category" that you get on a certificated aircraft.

Realistically I don't intend to use the additional fuel tanks very often at all - but I'm building the aircraft to be capable of doing a round-the-world flight when I retire and I'll need the capacity for the over-water legs.
 
Last edited:
around the world!

Realistically I don't intend to use the additional fuel tanks very often at all - but I'm building the aircraft to be capable of doing a round-the-world flight when I retire and I'll need the capacity for the over-water legs.

Wow, I just want to go get a hamburger!
Actually, I think it is a good idea having the extra fuel, if only to save money buying fuel where you can get the best price. I used to have a 300g tank on a trailer I would bring to remote job sites. If I still had that tank and was going to use auto fuel, traveling a few miles would make it worth while.

Im just getting to my wings and have a couple questions.

1. It looks like it wouldn't be an issue transferring between the ribs, but with additional ribs, is there a problem? Gravity should take care of it, but wanted to ask.

2. Did you go all the way to the tip or how many additional ribs did you do? It looks like 4 more would work best.

3. Would it be worth it to install a pump to dump fuel overboard if a landing was needed while still full? I had thought of that anyway to reduce the chance of fire after emergency landing. Once the engine stops working, fuel is an enemy. Having the chance to pump it out may be a nice thing to have.

I will have to talk to you to get more info and pictures when I get to that point. Thanks.
 
Pat Tuckey didn't blaze this trail, but has done as detailed a job of documenting it as I've seen. I especially like his approach to the plumbing that ensures fuel from the outboard tanks is always used first. He's got at least 4-5 years of running this setup on his -8.

http://napwars.com/RV-8HTML/Fuel.htm
 
Van says the margins belong to the engineers.... :eek:

I'm an engineer for my day job.

I followed Pat Tuckey's layout very closely for my bird, the full writeup of step-by-step is in my builders log. I ran my fuel system very similar to his, with transfer pumps but no overboard fuel dump pumps.
 
Last edited:
I'm an engineer for my day job.
I'm sure that Van meant that the margins belonged to HIS engineers.
Not anyone that wants to fiddle with his numbers.

I don't know how you fiddle with the margins when the margins are not published so you don't know how much of them you are biting into, unless you reverse engineer the entire aircraft.:confused:
 
I'm sure that Van meant that the margins belonged to HIS engineers.
Not anyone that wants to fiddle with his numbers.

I don't know how you fiddle with the margins when the margins are not published so you don't know how much of them you are biting into, unless you reverse engineer the entire aircraft.:confused:

Stress calculations can be run by any competent mechanical engineer, they don't belong exclusively to the guys that sell the components. If you are not comfortable playing in the "gray area" then by all means don't do it.
 
Bill, it would be interesting to check the accuracy of your pyrex jug by weighing the contents. My Pyrex jugs used in the kitchen are not very accurate - they don't even agree with each other.
 
Bill, it would be interesting to check the accuracy of your pyrex jug by weighing the contents. My Pyrex jugs used in the kitchen are not very accurate - they don't even agree with each other.

Good thought. How much does a gallon of 100LL weigh and at what temperature should I weigh it at?

I know we all use 6 lbs a gallon but that is not the actual weight of a gallon of 100LL.
 
Van's lists the fuel capacity of the RV-9 as 36 gallons, 18 a side.

Today when I recalibrated the fuel tanks on my RV-9 (Note, this is NOT a -9A) I was reminded that there is still a lot of space in the fuel tanks when they have exactly 18 gallons. How much more I found out today.

With the tail back on the ground, after the calibration, I was able to fit another gallon and a half in each tank. The best part was that the fuel wasn't up to filler neck when I stopped adding fuel.

Even with the extra capacity, I wouldn't recommend flight planning for the extra capacity.

Bill,
If nothing else, that extra capacity would be useful when refueling at large airshows, like AirVenture or Sun N' Fun, where you can expect extended taxiing. Those extended taxi times can eat up a lot of fuel. No sense having to shorten a leg, due to fuel burned during an extended taxi.
Charlie
 
Good thought. How much does a gallon of 100LL weigh and at what temperature should I weigh it at?

I know we all use 6 lbs a gallon but that is not the actual weight of a gallon of 100LL.

So if you can't trust the accuracy of a Pyrex jug, how will you trust the accuracy of your scale?
 
Good thought. How much does a gallon of 100LL weigh and at what temperature should I weigh it at?

I know we all use 6 lbs a gallon but that is not the actual weight of a gallon of 100LL.

From the wikipedia article on avgas: All grades of avgas that meet CAN 2-3, 25-M82 have a density of 6.01 lb/U.S. gal at 15 °C, or 0.721 kg/l, and this density is commonly used for weight and balance computation. Density increases to 6.41 lb/US gallon at -40 °C, and decreases by about 0.5% per 5 °C (9 °F) increase in temperature. There are references, if one cares to check them out.
 
So if you can't trust the accuracy of a Pyrex jug, how will you trust the accuracy of your scale?

The volume will change by several percent depending on the temperature of the fuel so the pyrex is automatically suspect unless you take that into account. On the other hand, a pound of fuel is ALWAYS a pound of fuel regardless of temperature.

For energy content purposes, weight would be the correct measure since engines burn the fuel/air mixture by total hydrocarbon content over oxygen content (weight/weight) rather than a volume mix. For calculating tank volume (as in the case of this thread) actual volume is the unit of measure of greater interest, since you've only got just so many cubic inches to fill no matter what temperature you are at.

To accurately fill via Pyrex, you would have to let your fuel stabilize to ambient temperature before pouring it in the tank, so that the Pyrex temperature (volume) equals the tank temperature (volume). Cool fuel in the pyrex at 1.000 gallons will warm up in the sun in the tanks to 1.+++ gallons (and vice versa) and throw your calculations off.
 
Last edited:
At what point are you worried about the wings leaving the aircraft?

In flight, the load on the spars is actually lessened, since any excess lift due to gusts of wind has to lift the excess fuel within the wing itself before load can be transferred to the fuselage (same reason fuel in the wing is not counted against aerobatic weight) with the net result that I can actually take a harder gust with fuel in the outboards than without. On the ground, yes it is an issue since the additional weight increases the bending moment of the main spar at the fuselage - but as you point out only by a few hundred pounds compared to the -3.8 G rating of the wing. Ground ops with fuel in the outboards just requires careful taxiing to minimize the strain. The danger point comes in trying to land with fuel in the outboards, as you could botch the landing and pancake hard enough to hurt the wing spars - so a landing with fuel in the outboards is to be treated as an emergency case only and requires an over-gross-weight-landing inspection before further flight.

I realize I am coming to the conversation a bit late, but I wanted to cover something not yet mentioned, that needs to be carefully considered when doing a modification such as being discussed.
I pretty much agree with everything Greg said above. If you keep in mind the additional weight, you can probably avoid doing any damage to the airplane.

This is not uncharted territory - several people have gone here before and the engineering numbers have been crunched. Yes it whittles away a bit at the margins but it still ends up well within "standard category" that you get on a certificated aircraft.

Realistically I don't intend to use the additional fuel tanks very often at all - but I'm building the aircraft to be capable of doing a round-the-world flight when I retire and I'll need the capacity for the over-water legs.

The part that I do take exception to is related to flying qualities (vs structural strength issues).

Maybe some engineers have crunched the #'s, but have test pilots carefully evaluated the handling qualities?
The primary question in my mind is stall and spin recovery handling qualities.

Adding that much additional weigh to the outboard end of the wing does reduce the wing bending moment, but it also greatly induces the moment of inertia of the wings. This can effect roll and yaw stability, but most importantly it can have a huge negative effect on spin recovery.

The spin recovery qualities of the RV-9(A) was extensively tested before the kit was introduced.
Has an RV-9 (or any other RV model for that matter) had any detailed spin testing done with a full span load of fuel on board? I have never heard of any, so I think at least this issue "Is uncharted Territory.

Now someone might say "I will just fly very carefully, and wont stall (or spin) when fuel is in the outboard tanks"!
I say good luck to you (pilots don't accidentally stall and spin just because they forgot to think about being careful that day)
 
Back
Top