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://forums.matronics.com
|