toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I think I can see ways around the problems you suggest, and I'm not sure
the two tanks are always "just one tank" in a fluids or any other
sense. However, as I think about answers to the problems you propose --
and as I think back to the design I was thinking of BEFORE the one I
actually published on this list -- I sense the presence of some old
friends: Rube Goldberg, Mickey Mouse and Captain Murphy. Time to give up
on this one.
By the way, this comment by you is right on: " We're all so used to seeing
a fuel tank vent under the wing of the Cessna we rent that we may not be
putting much thought into the "simple" act of "copying" that vent. Indeed,
that vent is very different from the QAC vent."
Thanks, Mike Perry
At 01:03 AM 8/14/2006 -0700, you wrote:
I'm not advocating this installation at all: I'm trying to get people to see
the difficulties of it and to opt for the simpler vent going out the top of
the fuselage. We're all so used to seeing a fuel tank vent under the wing of
the Cessna we rent that we may not be putting much thought into the "simple"
act of "copying" that vent. Indeed, that vent is very different from the QAC
vent. And you're right, the transition from large diameter to small in my
suggestion does pose a potential problem.
Let me jump to the conclusion regarding your suggestion to use the filler
pipe as a catch tank. In essence, the Q2/200 fuel tank(s) are actually (in a
fluids sense) just one tank. The header tank is connected to the main tank
via the 5/8" standpipe down the middle, through which the "two" tanks
communicate both fuel and air.
The advent of the header tank is that it provides a reliable head pressure
to feed the carb. The header tank is kept full by the fuel transfer pump.
You can think of this transfer pump as a part of a "live" tank as opposed to
a passive tank. In a passive tank like on a Cessna, when the tank is nearly
empty the head pressure is still good because the bottom of the tank is
above the carb. In the Q2/200, the "bottom" of the tank is artificially
moved up to the level of the bottom of the header tank, because as the main
tank empties we transfer the fuel to the header. This "live" transfer makes
the tank seem to the carb (in a fluids sense) to be mounted higher in the
Consider the act of filling the tank: If you fill the main tank until the
filler neck is full, doesn't the fuel also rise within the 5/8" standpipe to
the same level as in the filler neck? Now, mind you, I haven't got
operational experience with a Q2, but it seems to me that you either have to
run the electric fuel pump during refueling in order to fill the header
tank, or else the header tank fills when the fuel level reaches the top of
the 5/8" standpipe. Either way, when the header tank is full so is the 5/8
stand pipe and so is the filler pipe. Therefore, ANY vent connected to this
tank system anywhere had better be above the fuel level or it will have fuel
in it. Ergo, your proposed vent from the filler pipe would need to be just
as long (in the vertical dimension) as the existing vent from the header
tank. Moreover, the filler pipe vent would be just as susceptible to fuel
getting into it as the existing vent line is.
Keep up the good work,
David J. Gall