Not sure if this has been brought up before, but has anyone done wing
tank/tanks. Seems to me a tank of about 15 litres a side would fit ok, and
could be
plumbed in with the same bulb primer arrangement as the strap in tank and
use the dry break coupling found on most boats to plug the line in as you
put the wings
on. Also (correct me if i am wrong) would the tank and fuel not become part
of the wing dead weight and so not add to G loading weight for those who
like to fly at "Unusual Attitudes"
---From time to time.
craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Duncan & Ami
McFadyean
Sent: Friday, 4 January 2008 7:30 AM
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Europa-List: auxillary fuel tank
Fred,
I would not expect the standard tank to be bonded in rigidly.
It sits on a "shelf" on the forward side, is laterally restrained by a
saddle and contained by the 'box' around it. It is not likely that the
apparent bond between the glassed-in supports and tank would last very long
as fuel loads cause the tank to cyclically change shape.
It would be a fairly simple matter to debond any residual adhesion of the
tank to the supports, if you are worried about this.
Duncan McF.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Klein
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: auxillary fuel tank
Karl,
Thank you for your thoughtful post and the several suggestions included
therein...I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, my mention of Livermore is
speculation, with "the resulting fire (being) merely incidental in the two
fatalities", witness Cliff and Mary Shaw's accident (low speed stall/spin)
but no fire.
As I have a mono, I intend to fit the standard aux. tank.
Your comments re: the main tank are spot on, and as time goes by,
hopefully we'll all learn more about how to minimize the stress-cracking
tendencies. I regret not looking closely at the issue when I was installing
my tank when those little bells were ringing in my mind vis a vis the rigid
bonding in of a flexible, expandable component.
I'm curious as to whether those who have had to replace their main tanks
have replicated the original directions for tank installation or have made
adjustments which both provide a robust fit between the CM and the tank but
nonetheless allow for some tank expansion.
Fred
A194
On Thursday, Jan 3, 2008, at 08:03 US/Pacific, Karl Heindl wrote:
Fred,
I agree, and the installation of almost any auxiliary tank is a dodgy
accessory. Also the main tank is not exactly great, is it ? Some of them
have developed cracks for no apparent reason, and if I recall, it is made of
two sections which are welded together. They also tend to change shape. When
I inspected mine a couple of years ago, I noticed that the back wall had
buckled inwards, in spite of the enforcement ridges. Andy told me not to
worry about it.
To use the Livermore crash as an example of failing marine tanks is
really pure speculation. In such a high impact crash I imagine that any FULL
tank would fail, and that the resulting fire was merely incidental in the
two fatalities.
I considered the Europa longrange tank, but it has such an awkward
shape for a trigear, making it difficult to secure, and it doesn't look any
stronger than what I am using. Again, guesswork, only a real test with tanks
full of water and dropped from a certain height would constitute a valid
comparison.
Some builders tell us about their solutions with aluminum tanks, but
they don't tell us how the rest of us might acquire one and with the
connection accessories.
Maybe someone in the business, like Bud Yerly, can manufacture a
carbon fibre solution, that is portable, and fits on the seat and the
baggage compartment of any Europa. If it also fits other homebuilts, he
could generate a nice extra income. It should not hold more than 30 liters,
otherwise it is just too heavy to carry.
The way tanks are secured is just as important as the tank itself.
Also, when I use mine, I empty it as soon as there is enough room in the
main tank, reducing the fire risk considerably on a (crash)landing.
Trans-ocean pilots are in a totally different environment, and have to
take a calculated risk. Remember Lindbergh ? He practically sat in the
middle of a giant fuel tank, with zero forward visibility.
Karl
<html><div></div><image.tiff>
.ExternalClass .EC_EmailQuote
{margin-left:1pt;padding-left:4pt;border-left:#800000 2px solid;} ->
http://forums.matronics.c - List Contribution Web Site - _p;
&nbs.matronics.com/contribution"
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contr==============
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List the Web
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution";>http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution ==========
3:52 PM
|