Fuel Filter for each tank, looking for installation examples

[HotRod6A]

I like the idea of installing a fuel filter in the wing root for each fuel tank, looking for installation examples. If anyone has any pictures or comments please share. What I was able to determine is that I should consider using a serviceable type filter assembly with cylindrical type stainless steel filter (not a flat screen, need the surface area), and around 40mesh for a Carb setup.

RV6A O360

Thanks in advance!
Rodney

 

[rthur]

Aircraft Specialty sell a wing root filter kit for RV14s: https://www.aircraftspecialty.com/RV14 FUEL HOSE KITS.html

They have some pictures on page 6 onwards in their manual: https://www.aircraftspecialty.com/PDF Documents/RV14 Wing Root Filter.pdf

 

[RViator60]

I installed these wing root filters on my 14A, easy to access and maintain,

 

[clam]

I like the idea of installing a fuel filter in the wing root for each fuel tank, looking for installation examples.

AN Fuel Filters - FlyEFII

AN Fuel Filters We carry fuel filters with included AN-6 fittings to simplify the connection of your fuel system. If you have electronic fuel injection, you should run a coarse pre-filter (FF-2, 90 micron) before the fuel pump, and a fine post filter (FF-1, 10 micron) after the fuel pump. If you...

www.flyefii.com

 

[georgemohr]

The A/S mod is a really good one.

 

[BH1166]

It’s experimental, but I would not. Another maintenance item, another spot to possibly hamper fuel flow. You have a carburetor, not nearly as easy to clogging as an injector nozzle. You should already have some filtration on the pickup per plans, one in the carb, possibly a gascolator. Comment/opinion as requested.

 

[georgemohr]

Here's a photo of our installation of the Aircraft Specialty kit. I'm enthusiastic about this because of a few reasons. From a safety perspective, there are two filters. So if one tank becomes contaminated, the other tank will still flow fuel. Second, the complexity of the fuel filters are not in the cabin, so if anything leaks, the leak is overboard. From a convenience perspective, servicing the filters in the wing root is so much easier than in the tunnel.

 

[HotRod6A]

there’s a thread about loss of power due to the facet boost pump getting trash, this boost pump does recommend having a pre filter. Im not the builder of my 6a so I don’t know if the fuel pickups in each tank have screens or not.

 

[wcalvert]

DIY, Home made, made at home ... experimental. Block of UHMW and a band clamp. Some simple plumbing. You can do it ...

 

[georgemohr]

DIY, Home made, made at home ... experimental. Block of UHMW and a band clamp. Some simple plumbing. You can do it ...

Nice work, but consider a shutoff valve upstream of the filter, otherwise you'll have to empty the tanks to service the filter.

-G

 

[wcalvert]

I disconnect the tube from the filter to the tank, loosen the fitting at the tank and swivel it up. No fuel leaks out. Simple

 

[RV7 To Go]

I installed filters in the wing root of my 7. The Facet pump, as mentioned in a previous post, requires a pre-filter. I didn't want to have the filter in the cabin for cleaning with the resultant fuel spillage, which is why I installed them in the wing root. When cleaning I just tape over the vent and close the fuel shutoff. After disconnecting the filter I put a plastic plug in the tank side fitting to stop any leakage while cleaning the filter. Very little fuel leakage as long as the fuel cap seals are good. I always put a sticky note on the plane so I won't forget to remove the tape on the vent.

 

[HotRod6A]

DIY, Home made, made at home ... experimental. Block of UHMW and a band clamp. Some simple plumbing. You can do it ...

I like the tubing bend vrs fittings, flow much better this way vrs most fittings. cheers!

 

[HotRod6A]

I installed filters in the wing root of my 7. The Facet pump, as mentioned in a previous post, requires a pre-filter. I didn't want to have the filter in the cabin for cleaning with the resultant fuel spillage, which is why I installed them in the wing root. When cleaning I just tape over the vent and close the fuel shutoff. After disconnecting the filter I put a plastic plug in the tank side fitting to stop any leakage while cleaning the filter. Very little fuel leakage as long as the fuel cap seals are good. I always put a sticky note on the plane so I won't forget to remove the tape on the vent.

This is exactly my thought was on servicing, cheers Rodney

 

[HotRod6A]

I installed filters in the wing root of my 7. The Facet pump, as mentioned in a previous post, requires a pre-filter. I didn't want to have the filter in the cabin for cleaning with the resultant fuel spillage, which is why I installed them in the wing root. When cleaning I just tape over the vent and close the fuel shutoff. After disconnecting the filter I put a plastic plug in the tank side fitting to stop any leakage while cleaning the filter. Very little fuel leakage as long as the fuel cap seals are good. I always put a sticky note on the plane so I won't forget to remove the tape on the vent.

you recal what filter you used and mesh size?

 

[RV7 To Go]

you recal what filter you used and mesh size?

I got them from Summit Racing. It was the Summit brand 40 micron AN6 filter.

 

[dmattmul]

I got them from Summit Racing. It was the Summit brand 40 micron AN6 filter.

This is not a post critical of any filter on the market. My only comment is to be aware that filter specs can be misleading. Producers that call a filter XX micron is not the entire story. There are 2 other factors that determine how effective a filter is and that is area of filtration and depth of filter migration. I have tested half a dozen filters (Fuelab, Andair, Aeromotive. EFII, Holley, OEM supplied and several Chinese versions) and they all have their advantages and dis-advantages. (Cost, filter media integrity, filter area, additional fittings required, etc.) Check their printed specifications and determine at least what they say about their filters in detail. Personally, I like filters that that have AN6 fittings built into the filter (One less fitting to worry about leaking) and one gets bonus points by having a fitting that uses safety wire or C clips to ensure that it does not accidently unscrew. When I say I have tested I look at each filters ability to hold X amount of "crud" (Obtained from cutting open my 3 pre-filters and saving said "crud") to be used in pressure drop flow testing for each filter. I am not sure exactly what filter was tested from Summit. Some use a "wafer" filter that does have decent depth filtration, but the area of filtration is fairly small compared to others. There is nothing wrong with this type of filter as long as it's checked and cleaned regularly. (I've read some specs where they recommend every 100 hrs.) I like using a cleanable filter not from a cost perspective but the ability to easily look at the particulate it collected vs cutting open sealed one time use filters. Also review the material the filter is made from (Cellulose, stainless, ceramic media) for compatibility issues with the type of fuel one is using.

Good luck and safe flying to all.

 

[Freemasm]

This is not a post critical of any filter on the market. My only comment is to be aware that filter specs can be misleading. Producers that call a filter XX micron is not the entire story. There are 2 other factors that determine how effective a filter is and that is area of filtration and depth of filter migration. I have tested half a dozen filters (Fuelab, Andair, Aeromotive. EFII, Holley, OEM supplied and several Chinese versions) and they all have their advantages and dis-advantages. (Cost, filter media integrity, filter area, additional fittings required, etc.) Check their printed specifications and determine at least what they say about their filters in detail. Personally, I like filters that that have AN6 fittings built into the filter (One less fitting to worry about leaking) and one gets bonus points by having a fitting that uses safety wire or C clips to ensure that it does not accidently unscrew. When I say I have tested I look at each filters ability to hold X amount of "crud" (Obtained from cutting open my 3 pre-filters and saving said "crud") to be used in pressure drop flow testing for each filter. I am not sure exactly what filter was tested from Summit. Some use a "wafer" filter that does have decent depth filtration, but the area of filtration is fairly small compared to others. There is nothing wrong with this type of filter as long as it's checked and cleaned regularly. (I've read some specs where they recommend every 100 hrs.) I like using a cleanable filter not from a cost perspective but the ability to easily look at the particulate it collected vs cutting open sealed one time use filters. Also review the material the filter is made from (Cellulose, stainless, ceramic media) for compatibility issues with the type of fuel one is using.

Good luck and safe flying to all.

Filtration effectiveness is basically two parameters; particulate size and efficiency which is expressed as beta ratio by the actual media suppliers these days. Almost all of the domestically sourced, certified media came from just two suppliers not too long ago: Pall and American, IIRC.

Surface area is primarily a factor when determining fouling margin which typically a function of the allowable dP; both for the vessel and the related system.

Mind getting me smarter on depth of filter migration? Those words only apply to off-nominal conditions in heavy industry. The actual term is not defined in my ISO standard but it is pretty old at this point and I'm not paying for new one. Much thanks.

 

[dmattmul]

Filtration effectiveness is basically two parameters; particulate size and efficiency which is expressed as beta ratio by the actual media suppliers these days. Almost all of the domestically sourced, certified media came from just two suppliers not too long ago: Pall and American, IIRC.

Surface area is primarily a factor when determining fouling margin which typically a function of the allowable dP; both for the vessel and the related system.

Mind getting me smarter on depth of filter migration? Those words only apply to off-nominal conditions in heavy industry. The actual term is not defined in my ISO standard but it is pretty old at this point and I'm not paying for new one. Much thanks.

This from a post that discusses depth filtration and better explained than I could:

"Dan, your line

Depth media performs better when clean than later in the test when it is loaded with contaminant.

could use a little context. I work with water filtration, so while the contaminants and viscosity differ, the filtration aspects are quite similar. In general, I'd encourage interested people to dig a little into depth versus surface filtration.

Depth filtration tends to achieve progressively higher removal efficiency as it develops a surface cake of contaminants. The trapped materials make it yet more difficult for the fluid to reach the "clean" side of the media. The cost for this improved performance is higher pressure drop. Depth filters don't typically have a defined minimum particle size that'll pass, as your testing demonstrates. Whether any given particle will be trapped depends on myriad factors beyond simply particle size, such as particle shape, differential pressure, filter uniformity, etc. For this reason, they're customarily given nominal filtration ratings, though these may or may not have a particular test methodology associated with the claim.

Surface filtration, like woven screens, tends towards absolute filtration. The openings are highly uniform. Still, large particles may pass if they're not spherical. Threads, like metal fragments for examples, could be millimeters long and pass through a fine mesh if they happen to hit just right (or wrong, as it were). Surface filters also improve in removal efficiency with the development of a surface cake, but unlike depth filters they tend to have a much lower solids storage capacity. A particle either stops at the surface, or it doesn't. Once a given hole through the mesh gets blocked, pressure rises as the remaining open area decreases. Same basic trend as a depth filter, but can be dramatically more pronounced.

It's easy to visualize the contrast. Imagine shaking dirt through a metal screen versus shaking that same dirt through a suspended piece of shag carpet. Both will allow very small particles to pass, but the shag will hold a lot more dirt before it's completely blocked as compared to a screen. This assumes that the screen and the shag have the same basic opening sizes in the weave.

What's not visible in your removal table is that the particles larger than 40 microns rapidly clog the screen filters, leading to a rapid pressure rise. Sure, it's only about 15-18% of the dust by volume, but once the dust particles are bigger than the mesh, they're not going through and plugging occurs incredibly fast. These same particles have a lot more media volume available in the disposable filters, hence the longer run times.

LikeReply
Report"

 

[Freemasm]

This from a post that discusses depth filtration and better explained than I could:

"Dan, your line

could use a little context. I work with water filtration, so while the contaminants and viscosity differ, the filtration aspects are quite similar. In general, I'd encourage interested people to dig a little into depth versus surface filtration.

Depth filtration tends to achieve progressively higher removal efficiency as it develops a surface cake of contaminants. The trapped materials make it yet more difficult for the fluid to reach the "clean" side of the media. The cost for this improved performance is higher pressure drop. Depth filters don't typically have a defined minimum particle size that'll pass, as your testing demonstrates. Whether any given particle will be trapped depends on myriad factors beyond simply particle size, such as particle shape, differential pressure, filter uniformity, etc. For this reason, they're customarily given nominal filtration ratings, though these may or may not have a particular test methodology associated with the claim.

Surface filtration, like woven screens, tends towards absolute filtration. The openings are highly uniform. Still, large particles may pass if they're not spherical. Threads, like metal fragments for examples, could be millimeters long and pass through a fine mesh if they happen to hit just right (or wrong, as it were). Surface filters also improve in removal efficiency with the development of a surface cake, but unlike depth filters they tend to have a much lower solids storage capacity. A particle either stops at the surface, or it doesn't. Once a given hole through the mesh gets blocked, pressure rises as the remaining open area decreases. Same basic trend as a depth filter, but can be dramatically more pronounced.

It's easy to visualize the contrast. Imagine shaking dirt through a metal screen versus shaking that same dirt through a suspended piece of shag carpet. Both will allow very small particles to pass, but the shag will hold a lot more dirt before it's completely blocked as compared to a screen. This assumes that the screen and the shag have the same basic opening sizes in the weave.

What's not visible in your removal table is that the particles larger than 40 microns rapidly clog the screen filters, leading to a rapid pressure rise. Sure, it's only about 15-18% of the dust by volume, but once the dust particles are bigger than the mesh, they're not going through and plugging occurs incredibly fast. These same particles have a lot more media volume available in the disposable filters, hence the longer run times.

LikeReply
Report"

Much thanks for the education. The associated application would be limited, in my imagination at least. It wouldn't be suitable for a critical fluid applications like lubrication, cooling, etc. in the primary loop at least. Maybe in a kidney loop app or water treatment (or other) where a scrolling/rolling media is used? Thanks again.