19 Apr 2024, 10:45 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 12:51 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/07/08 Posts: 5527 Post Likes: +3837 Location: Fort Worth, TX (KFTW)
Aircraft: B200, ex 58P
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I understand Cirrus may be having some issues with the fuel tank switchover valve. It’s a purchased part. In this plane , on automatic, the thing switches tanks every two minutes. Well, it isn’t. Also troubles with the manual mode on his same valve. Anyone else heard his? Rube Goldberg would be proud.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 13:58 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: In all seriousness, seems like the wing tanks should be pressurized off bleed air and feed a smaller center tank that's always full. There are a myriad of ways that could go bad. It doesn't take very many PSI before you blow a wing skin off for example. Also, when a wing gets heavier, it is easier for the more empty tank to transfer since it is uphill, so it is unstable to a certain degree. If you build some sort of leveling system by controlling pumps, then it becomes dependent on the fuel level sensing system to balance, so that introduces a dependency and new ways for things to go wrong. The timed flip flop switching is simpler, doesn't require sensors. An issue if you have a fuel imbalance. You have to override the fuel cycling and force it on one tank, but don't do that too long or you are out of balance again the other way. On twin jets, ejector pumps are used to transfer fuel from one side to the other in case of fuel imbalance or extended engine out operation. In normal use, they are rarely used, both engines draw equally from each tank and the two sides are kept separate. Ejector pumps are light weight and never need servicing (basically just a venturi). Attachment: Ejector_or_Injector.png Quote: the engine would draw fuel only from the center tank. No switching and fairly automatic. You basically described the MU2 fuel system. One center tank from which both engines draw, transfer from other tanks, tips by bleed air (they are round so they can take the pressure), outers by electric pump. Mike C.
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 14:33 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2595 Post Likes: +2352 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: on automatic, the thing switches tanks every two minutes. TBM does the same thing every ten minutes, IIRC. I think it's a certification requirement that there be some system to prevent forgetting to switch tanks.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 14:41 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Dang, hadn't heard that. I assumed fuel would draw from both sides simultaneously and have a transfer pump to use when necessary. Another example where the SF50 is vastly more complex than the SR22. The SR22 pilot switches tank every 20-30 minutes or so in cruise by using a manual fuel valve. If you did the same thing, a manual valve, for the SF50, you'd be 200 lbs out of balance and you'd be way out of trim. But you don't want the SF50 pilot having to switch tanks manually every few minutes. So you have to design an automatic system, which they did. But now the automatic system can fail, so you have to provide a procedure for that and monitor for the failure. Plus you have to be able to override the automatic system, so there's a procedure for that. Plus the automatic system cycles so often, you potentially cause premature wear out. Meanwhile, the twin jet pilot is doing... nothing, even less than the SR22 pilot. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 14:44 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think it's a certification requirement that there be some system to prevent forgetting to switch tanks. I don't think there is a certification requirement (witness SR22 manual fuel valve, FAR 23 aircraft also). I think it naturally comes about as a practical matter. You want to switch tanks often enough that roll trim is not affected, but you don't want pilots to have to do it manually on an airplane that burns several hundred pounds an hour. Thus, you need some system to draw evenly. With fuel in low wings, you simply can't do "both", and thus the complexity starts. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 14:59 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2595 Post Likes: +2352 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think it's a certification requirement that there be some system to prevent forgetting to switch tanks. I don't think there is a certification requirement (witness SR22 manual fuel valve, FAR 23 aircraft also). Certification requirement for SE turbines. As mentioned, TBM does it the same way, Meridian and Pilatus have a different system to the same effect, I don't know about others.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 15:18 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11898 Post Likes: +2854 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Another example where the SF50 is vastly more complex than the SR22.
Nah, SF50 G2 will likely go with a more common/traditional center tank fed by both wings via gravity feed using static air pressure to balance the head pressure of both tanks. There are many ways to solve it. The above is just one solution I know works really well from the Aerostar. I am sure Cirrus will come up with their own spin, especially if they find a reliability issue with the vendor part. Tim
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 15:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/17/08 Posts: 6063 Post Likes: +12473 Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Nah, SF50 G2 will likely go with a more common/traditional center tank fed by both wings via gravity feed using static air pressure to balance the head pressure of both tanks.
There are many ways to solve it. The above is just one solution I know works really well from the Aerostar. I am sure Cirrus will come up with their own spin, especially if they find a reliability issue with the vendor part.
Tim I doubt they will slay that dragon with a gravity or pitot pressure solution. The TBM has been around for a long time with the motor driven selector system,,,,
_________________ Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal MCW Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 16:01 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/23/09 Posts: 1071 Post Likes: +564 Location: KSJT
Aircraft: PC-24 Citabria 7GCBC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I don't think there is a certification requirement (witness SR22 manual fuel valve, FAR 23 aircraft also). Certification requirement for SE turbines. As mentioned, TBM does it the same way, Meridian and Pilatus have a different system to the same effect, I don't know about others.
I think it has to do with the restart time of a turbine after a tank is ran dry doesn’t meet the FAAs requirements thus it must be certified with an automatic system.
PC12 uses motive pumps that draw fuel from both tanks and keeps tanks balanced with electric pumps that provide more pressure on the heavy side. No valve involved.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 16:43 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5233 Post Likes: +3026 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: . I am sure Cirrus will come up with their own spin, ... Nah, you know Cirrus does not do spins.
_________________ Allen
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 16:54 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/17/08 Posts: 6063 Post Likes: +12473 Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: . I am sure Cirrus will come up with their own spin, ... Nah, you know Cirrus does not do spins.
That's funny.....
_________________ Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal MCW Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 10 Oct 2017, 20:36 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/02/09 Posts: 1340 Post Likes: +404 Company: Nantucket Rover Repair Location: Manchester, NH (MHT)
Aircraft: Cessna N337JJ
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you have to have a fuel system where you need to change tanks all the time, you've designed the system wrong. Just look at what Ted Smith did and copy that. How does the fuel system work in an Aerostar?
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|