David Cutler

No doubt I'm the last person to realize this but . .

It just occurred to me how to fill a fuel tank when the fuel lines are inaccessible because a cowl is fitted, without having to spend a fortune on one of those filling fixtures.

Most tanks have three nipples, of which most of us only use 2.

The middle one for the fuel feed, and the top one for the muffler pressure connection. Why not use the other one (between the other two) by fitting a tube to it, running it outside the cowling and filling the tank through it, then sealing it with a suitable plug before starting the engine?

As I say, that is probably obvious to everybody else here, but I reckon I've just saved myself a lot of money!

David C.

dioncuda

Yeah your right,they are called fuel dots.i use them all the time.Now the third tube you put in the tank should all most touch the bottom of the tank.so you can take out all the unused fuel.

agentbishop

I put a klunker on the end of my third line to help drain all excess fuel. Also your LHS should have thishttp://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXVW09&P=0

Hircflyer

Don't forget to leave youself a way to defuel the tank.
The third line needs a clunk.

vinnie

My Feedback: (1)

A clunk isn't needed if, as Dion states, if you just bend a piece of tubing to reach the bottom of the tank. Why have two clunks rassling with each other in there?

Hircflyer

Only way to get most of the fuel out is to have a clunk, otherwise you will always have a level of fuel in the tank. The amount depending on where in the tank the bent tube is and how high above the the bottom of the tank the end of the tube is,
leaves quite a bit of fuel in a 16 oz tank.
I agree not the best system but it works.

vinnie

My Feedback: (1)

And why would one leave the tube above the bottom of the tank?
Mine touch the bottom.

Hircflyer

And it still sucks fuel? Amazing!

Devo

Is $12.00 for an Easy Fueler valve a fortune?

Hircflyer

No it's not. I just have had better luck using a three line system. I had a lot of trouble with leakage and erratic engine runs using the refuel valves.
It's just a matter of choice. Use whatever works for you.

lownslo

I just took off the GP fueler on my SpaceWalker and replaced it with the Sullivan type fueler. The reason was... it took 2 hands to fuel it. One to insert to nozzle, and MAINTAIN hand pressure on the nozzle. The other hand had to keep the plane from moving sideways from the pressure. If I "eased up" the fuel would squirt out. Not only did I install the Sullivan on the fill side....but also one in the muffler pressure line to tank. I can now use insert the simple brass tube/probe into the fill side, (hands free). I insert another tubing line/probe, into the fueler in the vent line, and it runs back to the jug. I can turn my hand crank pump, or use electric etc., and have a "closed system".
The down side is space needed to keep the tubing straight in line with the valve connection for a 1/4 " or so. This is needed so the probe/brass tube, will not be restricted by the tubing being curved right at the valve connection. One could force it in with no problem, but I would be afraid of wearing the tube interior.
My Spacewalker cowl is very roomy inside so I had no problems. I tried it out for the first time last week and it worked great. NO more holding the fill line and no catch can under the muffler. (I could not access the vent line for a return line before)......lownslo..

Bob

LOONY BOY

I use the three line system and to defuel I just invert my plane and suck it out of the muffler pressure line, no clunk required.
Good luck.
LOONY BOY

Hircflyer

Good idea....1/4 airplanes it gets a little hard to turn over airplane

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

As was mentioned earlier, I bend the third line down toward the bottom of the tank. I , however use about an inch of fuel tubing to reach the tank bottom. Cut it at an angle so that it completely seals with the floor of the tank. Then cut a small "V" in it. It will allow you to defuel completely. In fact, it is much better than a clunk.
This is lighter, has fewer moving parts than a two line system with a valve arrangement ,and it elliminates the possibility of a vacuum leak . My two cents from the old school.

Hircflyer

This I understand....and I'm going to give it a try. Thanks, I'm having a problem with my fuel system in my PT-19. I was planning on pulling the tank and redoing it.
Thanks

lownslo

Hello,.... kingwoodbarney.... I may try your idea. I had the post above about the Sullivan fill valves. I have only been out one time so far this year and they worked real good. I DO LIKE the simplicty of the 3 line system. I had one installed a while back but did it incorrectly. I like your idea about the 1" of fuel line on the end of the 3rd line. My planes are all tail draggers. The tank, of course, is slanted downhill to the rear, when the plane is being defueled. Ideally, the third line should go to a rear corner, opposite the clunk line. Question: I am affraid of the clunk getting stuck on this line. What you, and others, suggest?.. thanks...lownslo

Hircflyer

Mine are all tail draggers also.......just planning on holding tail level during defuel.

hookedonrc

On mine, I use two clunks with a fuel dot. To keep the lines from tangling, I put a small plastic cable tie to keep them together. You have to be careful though, you don't want so much pressure that the lines get pinched. This seems to work very well.

Bob Payne

My Feedback: (8)

using a fuel dot would you need to close
the high speed needle to prevent flooding?
or would the pressure line be enough to not build
up pressure?

Thanks

foxx

My Feedback: (2)

Robart make a very nice fuelers which you only need two line. I don't like put fuel dots in glow engines since it tend to flood them.

hookedonrc

Bob Payne,
Your question is one I don't know the answer to. In fact, I suspect you might be right. I have a Ultra Stick 60 with a OS61FX on it and it is turned on its side as required. When I fuel it, I have fuel running out of the muffler. The other that I use is a 4*60 with an OS91 surpass (4cycl) and I do not have the same problem.

Is there someone out there that can shed some light on this? I can change my US60 very quickly if I should not be using a fuel dot on it.

h8w8n

I have a Robart fueler and I like the simplicity. It is really just a manual ball valve. only one moving part. No "O" rings to leak air or spring check valves to fail. And it folds back against the fusalage in a nice streamlined shape.