> My system actually needs less pilot input than the conventional system both
> in normal and emergency situations. In fact in auto mode the system will
> pick up a problem with the mechanical side and act on it probably before
> the pilot is aware that there is a problem. Including checklist items in
> the normal and emergency checklists are more about checking for
> serviceability and coping with multiple failures than anything else.
> Understanding this relatively simple system is not exactly rocket science.
>
> Nigel Charles
I was thinking of potential complications in dealing with
water-contaminated fuel. Accident statistics here say there is a much
higher probability of this occurring than failure of an engine-driven
pump and vapor lock combined. It would seem that if the left side
were water-contaminated, overwhelming its gascolator, the boost pump
may not supply clean fuel from the other side (relative pump
pressures). The next step would be shutting off the left side valve.
The reverse might be where the right side is contaminated, boost is on
during during T/O or landing, and its pressure overrides the
mechanical pump. Disabling boost might then correct it, but which do
you do first? I would agree there's light twins that are more
complicated, though, and an elegant system overall. But have you
ground-tested the system to see how she reacts to water contamination
either side and best sequence to correct in flight?
Regards,
Fred F.
|