The B300F in detail
08-28-2014, 10:56 PM
#101
Thread Starter
So, I got the new "Hi-flo" BVM UAT and it looks like a solid piece. Nice and big connectors with the correct step downs for the fuel pump tubing. And a nice purple "BVM" logo on it.
The bad news is, my system is still cavitating.
To recap:
In decreasing order of cavitation: Large CAT, New "hi-flo" UAT, Reg uat, JMP accumulator.
The removal of the "air traps" gets rid of any and all cavitation in my system.
The bad news is, my system is still cavitating.
To recap:
In decreasing order of cavitation: Large CAT, New "hi-flo" UAT, Reg uat, JMP accumulator.
The removal of the "air traps" gets rid of any and all cavitation in my system.
Is that the vacuum at which you are cavitating?
08-28-2014, 11:09 PM
#102
Yes Oli.
After a minute or so, bubbles appeared in the central fuel line.
Funny thing is that when I used the "T" that was included with my vacuum tester, there was almost instantaneous bubbles that appeared down stream of the "T". AND the vacuum went DOWN vs with the "hi-flo" UAT.
Here is a pic of just the "T" inline while running the pump. You can see, another inch of vacuum (ie 5 )
After a minute or so, bubbles appeared in the central fuel line.
Funny thing is that when I used the "T" that was included with my vacuum tester, there was almost instantaneous bubbles that appeared down stream of the "T". AND the vacuum went DOWN vs with the "hi-flo" UAT.
Here is a pic of just the "T" inline while running the pump. You can see, another inch of vacuum (ie 5 )
08-29-2014, 02:14 AM
#104
Hi All
How long had the fuel been pumped into the system from your caddy before you ran the tests?, I've found caddy pumps "infuse" air into the fuel, particularly if pumped at speed, the fuel is then more prone to "cavitation".
If the fuel is left to settle this infused air will dissipate and be unavailable, so then the fuel is less likely to form air bubbles at "low pressure points" in the airframes fuel lines.
In the past I have tested some "relaxed" fuel in a container by placing it under a vacuum to see at what point it realises bubble's, that pressure is far lower than that shown in any on-board fuel system tests.
I then compare it to freshly pumped fuel and it made a big difference.
Remember even if the vacuum gauge is only showing a relatively low figure on the system as a whole the point at which you see bubble's in the lines "must be lower" or you would see bubble's forming every were.
Low pressure points can only be caused by slowing down the fuel. To avoid this its necessary to reduce the diameters of lines and fittings as it approaches to turbine and never increases the diamiters, any step up will slow the fuel resulting in low pressure points. Easily said and hard to put into practice but the fact you got bubble's after a "T" proves the theory. It may be counter intuitive to reduce lines as they approach the turbine but it works, after all the last fitting in the fuel line is usually on/in the turbine, its likely to only be only 2mm id or less !
Good luck with solving your cavitation problems, as our turbines get bigger and the flow rates get higher these issues will crop up more often but if the full size guys solve it with fuel flows 100X grater so can we!
How long had the fuel been pumped into the system from your caddy before you ran the tests?, I've found caddy pumps "infuse" air into the fuel, particularly if pumped at speed, the fuel is then more prone to "cavitation".
If the fuel is left to settle this infused air will dissipate and be unavailable, so then the fuel is less likely to form air bubbles at "low pressure points" in the airframes fuel lines.
In the past I have tested some "relaxed" fuel in a container by placing it under a vacuum to see at what point it realises bubble's, that pressure is far lower than that shown in any on-board fuel system tests.
I then compare it to freshly pumped fuel and it made a big difference.
Remember even if the vacuum gauge is only showing a relatively low figure on the system as a whole the point at which you see bubble's in the lines "must be lower" or you would see bubble's forming every were.
Low pressure points can only be caused by slowing down the fuel. To avoid this its necessary to reduce the diameters of lines and fittings as it approaches to turbine and never increases the diamiters, any step up will slow the fuel resulting in low pressure points. Easily said and hard to put into practice but the fact you got bubble's after a "T" proves the theory. It may be counter intuitive to reduce lines as they approach the turbine but it works, after all the last fitting in the fuel line is usually on/in the turbine, its likely to only be only 2mm id or less !
Good luck with solving your cavitation problems, as our turbines get bigger and the flow rates get higher these issues will crop up more often but if the full size guys solve it with fuel flows 100X grater so can we!
Last edited by Mark Vandervelden; 08-29-2014 at 04:55 AM.
08-29-2014, 07:48 AM
#106
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Norfolk , UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see some 'proper' research into what works best and what does not. I always thought the UAT was a bad thing as it increased the amount of restriction in flow through the system and the load on the pump. If it help you any I have never used UATs, I only use the pleated paper filters. In my Boulton Paul P111 I have a Kingtech 170 and it has a central tank with a pleated paper clunk and this tank is fed from 2 wing root tanks which have similar clunks in them.
With the large B300 type engines it might be worth getting some larger (longer) pleated paper clinks made up. The pleated paper filters are available in longer lengths than the one normally used.
I shall watch with interest if this cures your flow cavitation problems.
John
08-29-2014, 08:47 AM
#107
Hi John
A properly constructed Air Trap should not cause any significant restriction on a fuel system, after all its just another tank just with a centre pickup or clever bladder.
It dose however have one major advantage over using a paper filter clunk and that's it has a far "far" grater tolerance for filtering out air .
Any good AT will continue to feed fuel to the turbine at "any attitude" even if as much as 4-8oz of air if feed to it from the tanks, more if you use a really big AT.
A paper clunk can "only" feed fuel when it is submerged or partially submerged in fuel, after that it must allow air on to the turbine with about a 1-2 sec reserve of fuel in the line to the turbine.
In a gently flown airframe such as older scale airframes this would not be a problem as the fuel remains mostly at the bottom and rear of the tank, were the clunk sits.
I believe relying on a paper clunk only has only proven successful were the clunk can remain "wet" and it is actually a well designed tank and good clunk placement that should really get the credit.
"But" in sports aerobatic or a more aggressively flown modern fighter jet that's not the case as very few clunks can access "all of the tank all of the time", were as the fuel always will.
A good instance is the long thin fuselage tank fitted in the Flash/Ultra Flash, a long down line leaves the clunk "any type of clunk" high and dry very quickly.
Bottom line is both systems will work and each has its merits but unless you can guarantee the clunk will always be submerged in fuel for the whole flight with your flying style go for a AT
I my self always use an AT but edge my bets and nearly always use a felt or paper clunk on the last tank before the AT
A properly constructed Air Trap should not cause any significant restriction on a fuel system, after all its just another tank just with a centre pickup or clever bladder.
It dose however have one major advantage over using a paper filter clunk and that's it has a far "far" grater tolerance for filtering out air .
Any good AT will continue to feed fuel to the turbine at "any attitude" even if as much as 4-8oz of air if feed to it from the tanks, more if you use a really big AT.
A paper clunk can "only" feed fuel when it is submerged or partially submerged in fuel, after that it must allow air on to the turbine with about a 1-2 sec reserve of fuel in the line to the turbine.
In a gently flown airframe such as older scale airframes this would not be a problem as the fuel remains mostly at the bottom and rear of the tank, were the clunk sits.
I believe relying on a paper clunk only has only proven successful were the clunk can remain "wet" and it is actually a well designed tank and good clunk placement that should really get the credit.
"But" in sports aerobatic or a more aggressively flown modern fighter jet that's not the case as very few clunks can access "all of the tank all of the time", were as the fuel always will.
A good instance is the long thin fuselage tank fitted in the Flash/Ultra Flash, a long down line leaves the clunk "any type of clunk" high and dry very quickly.
Bottom line is both systems will work and each has its merits but unless you can guarantee the clunk will always be submerged in fuel for the whole flight with your flying style go for a AT
I my self always use an AT but edge my bets and nearly always use a felt or paper clunk on the last tank before the AT
08-29-2014, 10:02 AM
#109
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Norfolk , UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi John
A properly constructed Air Trap should not cause any significant restriction on a fuel system, after all its just another tank just with a centre pickup or clever bladder.
It dose however have one major advantage over using a paper filter clunk and that's it has a far "far" grater tolerance for filtering out air .
Any good AT will continue to feed fuel to the turbine at "any attitude" even if as much as 4-8oz of air if feed to it from the tanks, more if you use a really big AT.
A paper clunk can "only" feed fuel when it is submerged or partially submerged in fuel, after that it must allow air on to the turbine with about a 1-2 sec reserve of fuel in the line to the turbine.
In a gently flown airframe such as older scale airframes this would not be a problem as the fuel remains mostly at the bottom and rear of the tank, were the clunk sits.
I believe relying on a paper clunk only has only proven successful were the clunk can remain "wet" and it is actually a well designed tank and good clunk placement that should really get the credit.
"But" in sports aerobatic or a more aggressively flown modern fighter jet that's not the case as very few clunks can access "all of the tank all of the time", were as the fuel always will.
A good instance is the long thin fuselage tank fitted in the Flash/Ultra Flash, a long down line leaves the clunk "any type of clunk" high and dry very quickly.
Bottom line is both systems will work and each has its merits but unless you can guarantee the clunk will always be submerged in fuel for the whole flight with your flying style go for a AT
I my self always use an AT but edge my bets and nearly always use a felt or paper clunk on the last tank before the AT
A properly constructed Air Trap should not cause any significant restriction on a fuel system, after all its just another tank just with a centre pickup or clever bladder.
It dose however have one major advantage over using a paper filter clunk and that's it has a far "far" grater tolerance for filtering out air .
Any good AT will continue to feed fuel to the turbine at "any attitude" even if as much as 4-8oz of air if feed to it from the tanks, more if you use a really big AT.
A paper clunk can "only" feed fuel when it is submerged or partially submerged in fuel, after that it must allow air on to the turbine with about a 1-2 sec reserve of fuel in the line to the turbine.
In a gently flown airframe such as older scale airframes this would not be a problem as the fuel remains mostly at the bottom and rear of the tank, were the clunk sits.
I believe relying on a paper clunk only has only proven successful were the clunk can remain "wet" and it is actually a well designed tank and good clunk placement that should really get the credit.
"But" in sports aerobatic or a more aggressively flown modern fighter jet that's not the case as very few clunks can access "all of the tank all of the time", were as the fuel always will.
A good instance is the long thin fuselage tank fitted in the Flash/Ultra Flash, a long down line leaves the clunk "any type of clunk" high and dry very quickly.
Bottom line is both systems will work and each has its merits but unless you can guarantee the clunk will always be submerged in fuel for the whole flight with your flying style go for a AT
I my self always use an AT but edge my bets and nearly always use a felt or paper clunk on the last tank before the AT
I can only say what I and others have found by actual use. It makes pretty little difference if the model is a sport jet or a scale military jet. We have flown lots of different planes and not had a flameout. The engine will eventually go out when the fuel is exhausted, but i find that this is only when the tank is almost dry. I try to use Dubro tanks where possible especially for the tank that the pump sucks from.
john
08-30-2014, 12:02 AM
#110
Hi John
I must concede to your considerable experience, you have been operating model jet turbines for a good deal longer than most of us, we must all use what we are comfortable with and have proven to ourselves to work.
For me I just cant get past how a clunk of any sort works at the back of the tank when the fuel is at the front, particularly when the final tank is getting low, so for now I will stay with my AT.
I must concede to your considerable experience, you have been operating model jet turbines for a good deal longer than most of us, we must all use what we are comfortable with and have proven to ourselves to work.
For me I just cant get past how a clunk of any sort works at the back of the tank when the fuel is at the front, particularly when the final tank is getting low, so for now I will stay with my AT.
08-30-2014, 12:22 AM
#111
Thread Starter
Hi All
Low pressure points can only be caused by slowing down the fuel. To avoid this its necessary to reduce the diameters of lines and fittings as it approaches to turbine and never increases the diamiters, any step up will slow the fuel resulting in low pressure points. Easily said and hard to put into practice but the fact you got bubble's after a "T" proves the theory. It may be counter intuitive to reduce lines as they approach the turbine but it works, after all the last fitting in the fuel line is usually on/in the turbine, its likely to only be only 2mm id or less !
Low pressure points can only be caused by slowing down the fuel. To avoid this its necessary to reduce the diameters of lines and fittings as it approaches to turbine and never increases the diamiters, any step up will slow the fuel resulting in low pressure points. Easily said and hard to put into practice but the fact you got bubble's after a "T" proves the theory. It may be counter intuitive to reduce lines as they approach the turbine but it works, after all the last fitting in the fuel line is usually on/in the turbine, its likely to only be only 2mm id or less !
To increase fluid pressure, one needs to increase the tubing diameter. This also slows down the fluid velocity at a given flow, which generates less micro swirl in the fluid.
08-30-2014, 12:25 AM
#112
I seem to remember in the early days of model turbines that those turbines were very susceptible to any air in the system and would stop the instant the smallest amount of air reached them.
With some of those early turbines unvented bladder tanks were used made from plasma bags which simply could not pass air to the turbine as no air was in them.
But I do clearly remember that it was good practice to let the fuel settle before use as even infused air induced by filling the tanks could defuse in the bladder and be an issue.
Now modern turbines seem very tolerant of air in the lines, I've seen several large gaps of air in the lines during ground runs with new un-bled systems simply ignored and to turbine simply keep running.
In any case I only ever fill my airframes at as slow a rate as its necessary, less strain on the pump, less strain on the tanks and lines and less chance of introducing air in to the system.
08-30-2014, 12:28 AM
#113
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Norfolk , UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark
The only way to get past your concerns is to try it out on a plane that you are comfortable flying if you have a flame out. Best of all is a glider, where you have so much more time and where the airframe has low drag and holds it speed well.
Just out of interest we first had our first turbine powered flight 17 years ago when Dave flew my scratch built delta (from plans) at Duxford. The engine was a home built one which had a hand ground turbine wheel. The on board systems were a simple boat speed controller and a windscreen washer pump. The engine had a separate oil system as we had not used oil in the fuel at that stage. The tank was Dubro tank and the pick up was a felt clunk.
I changed to pleated paper after reading an article about some work done in the USA on pleated paper. It was only some time later that the UAT started to appear. If you own a plane that you are happy to deadstick with just try it and fly it until the engine quits and see how much fuel is left. I think you would be surprised. One thing I always do with installations is make sure that the tank is tilted slightly down at the back a little.
John
The only way to get past your concerns is to try it out on a plane that you are comfortable flying if you have a flame out. Best of all is a glider, where you have so much more time and where the airframe has low drag and holds it speed well.
Just out of interest we first had our first turbine powered flight 17 years ago when Dave flew my scratch built delta (from plans) at Duxford. The engine was a home built one which had a hand ground turbine wheel. The on board systems were a simple boat speed controller and a windscreen washer pump. The engine had a separate oil system as we had not used oil in the fuel at that stage. The tank was Dubro tank and the pick up was a felt clunk.
I changed to pleated paper after reading an article about some work done in the USA on pleated paper. It was only some time later that the UAT started to appear. If you own a plane that you are happy to deadstick with just try it and fly it until the engine quits and see how much fuel is left. I think you would be surprised. One thing I always do with installations is make sure that the tank is tilted slightly down at the back a little.
John
08-30-2014, 01:02 AM
#114
Hi Olnico
Well you got me there, Ive not heard heard of Bernouilli"s or his laws!
You may well be correct as to weather the pressure drops rather than rises as it flows from one large diameter to another smaller one although it dose sound counter intuitive
"But"
What I have found in practical tests is, if you force kero from a small diameter for instance a restriction in a "T" joint to a large diameter tube i.e. a 6mm festo fuel line that's were your likely to get bubble's!
If you force kero from a 6mm fuel line to a smaller fuel line you don't. It may be the pressure "lowering or rising" and cant comment on swirl but can see how that might induce "low pressure"
I am assuming that the pressure dropping was causing cavitation but no matter what the case the result is the same "Bubble's" I am willing/keen to have it explained.
My point of refrance
If you pass a fluid (air in for instance) over/across an aerofoil and that aerofoil is shaped to cause the air to travel further over the top than the bottom, that air if forced to go faster over the top than the bottom.
This difference in speed of the air across/over the aerofoil from top to bottom we know to cause "lower" pressure above the aerofoil (were its traveling faster) producing lift.
Have I got that wrong or are aeroplanes defying Bernoulli's Law., On the other hand if you blow down a damp straw it will collapse? same goes for a damaged and softened tailpipe
I'm comfortable with being told im wrong, that's how we learn, just cant grasp how Bernouli"s theory works?
In any case for our use restriction's in the fuel line opening up to a non restricted part is were bubble's are likely to occur and if possible should be avoided.
Well you got me there, Ive not heard heard of Bernouilli"s or his laws!
You may well be correct as to weather the pressure drops rather than rises as it flows from one large diameter to another smaller one although it dose sound counter intuitive
"But"
What I have found in practical tests is, if you force kero from a small diameter for instance a restriction in a "T" joint to a large diameter tube i.e. a 6mm festo fuel line that's were your likely to get bubble's!
If you force kero from a 6mm fuel line to a smaller fuel line you don't. It may be the pressure "lowering or rising" and cant comment on swirl but can see how that might induce "low pressure"
I am assuming that the pressure dropping was causing cavitation but no matter what the case the result is the same "Bubble's" I am willing/keen to have it explained.
My point of refrance
If you pass a fluid (air in for instance) over/across an aerofoil and that aerofoil is shaped to cause the air to travel further over the top than the bottom, that air if forced to go faster over the top than the bottom.
This difference in speed of the air across/over the aerofoil from top to bottom we know to cause "lower" pressure above the aerofoil (were its traveling faster) producing lift.
Have I got that wrong or are aeroplanes defying Bernoulli's Law., On the other hand if you blow down a damp straw it will collapse? same goes for a damaged and softened tailpipe
I'm comfortable with being told im wrong, that's how we learn, just cant grasp how Bernouli"s theory works?
In any case for our use restriction's in the fuel line opening up to a non restricted part is were bubble's are likely to occur and if possible should be avoided.
Last edited by Mark Vandervelden; 08-30-2014 at 04:20 AM. Reason: To explain my self more clearly
08-30-2014, 04:36 AM
#115
Thread Starter
My point of refrance
If you pass a fluid (air in for instance) over/across an aerofoil and that aerofoil is shaped to cause the air to travel further over the top than the bottom, that air if forced to go faster over the top than the bottom.
This difference in speed of the air across/over the aerofoil from top to bottom we know to cause "lower" pressure above the aerofoil (were its traveling faster) producing lift.
Have I got that wrong or are aeroplanes defying Bernoulli's Law., On the other hand if you blow down a damp straw it will collapse? same goes for a damaged and softened tailpipe
On this graph, the red sector represents the portion of the airfoil where the air converges, the green segment where the air diverges.
The yellow area is where pressure drops, the blue area is where pressure rises.
Bernouilli's law is the foundation of aerodynamics.
Here is a quick overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle
I do not want to elaborate too much here as we'd rapidly get very technical and very boring.
09-02-2014, 12:28 PM
#116
The best, easiest, and daily way to see Bernoulli's at work is in your car. While moving at speed, crack open your window and hold up a piece of paper, or if you smoke, watch the smoke get sucked out.
If you smoke, you should quit, but if you don't quit, smoke two, I need the money! LOL!
Ok Oli, I flew my UB. In short, it went fantastic.
I tested the system with the new pleated clunk on the ground, with no Air Trap, up to 5V, and there wasn't a hint of cavitation.
So then, I went to a deserted spot by my house, and tested my UB fully put back together with multiple long (30 sec) full throttle runs.
Here is a typical screen shot of the GSU at full throttle.
Temps: 785-800
RPM: 103-103.5
Pump Voltage: 3.68-3.74
Incidentally, that screen shot showed the highest pump voltage of all the full throttle runs.
So, testing my fuel system at 5V was quite overkill. And 6V was probably out of usable range.
Remembering that the CAT was the best airtrap with the longest time to cavitation at 5V, and remembering also the fact, that I had not tested the CAT with the new clunk, I hooked up the CAT and tested my system at 4V. And it passed with flying colors!
For completeness, I should have filled my tanks up again and tried it at 5V, but I was too excited and wanted to get some flight time in already.
As I wanted to make sure I was in a safe flying position (incase of an emergent landing condition), I didn't "spank" my Ultra B too hard. But I was impressed with the decreased take off run, the notable power in vertical maneuvers and I think it was actually easier to get into the landing pattern with the B300F vs the P200.
The spool up time was fantastic and I can't complain about the time "on" to power. I also noted an increased "jet noise", I love that.
Incidentally, I had redone my smoke system and I was VERY impressed the smoke output, even at full throttle. Pics coming.
And lastly, Oli, you had expressed concerns in the seemingly small bvm brackets in the bypass. I left about 1/8 of an inch of space between the Behotec supplied extra bracket and the BVM bypass bracket to see if I could tell any movement, and I could not. I checked after every flight.
Overall, I was quite impressed with the engine. I'd like to try some vertical take offs (my BARF does it with a Titan SE) but I'll do a few more flights before I try it in the Ultra B.
What are your thoughts Oli?
If you smoke, you should quit, but if you don't quit, smoke two, I need the money! LOL!
Ok Oli, I flew my UB. In short, it went fantastic.
I tested the system with the new pleated clunk on the ground, with no Air Trap, up to 5V, and there wasn't a hint of cavitation.
So then, I went to a deserted spot by my house, and tested my UB fully put back together with multiple long (30 sec) full throttle runs.
Here is a typical screen shot of the GSU at full throttle.
Temps: 785-800
RPM: 103-103.5
Pump Voltage: 3.68-3.74
Incidentally, that screen shot showed the highest pump voltage of all the full throttle runs.
So, testing my fuel system at 5V was quite overkill. And 6V was probably out of usable range.
Remembering that the CAT was the best airtrap with the longest time to cavitation at 5V, and remembering also the fact, that I had not tested the CAT with the new clunk, I hooked up the CAT and tested my system at 4V. And it passed with flying colors!
For completeness, I should have filled my tanks up again and tried it at 5V, but I was too excited and wanted to get some flight time in already.
As I wanted to make sure I was in a safe flying position (incase of an emergent landing condition), I didn't "spank" my Ultra B too hard. But I was impressed with the decreased take off run, the notable power in vertical maneuvers and I think it was actually easier to get into the landing pattern with the B300F vs the P200.
The spool up time was fantastic and I can't complain about the time "on" to power. I also noted an increased "jet noise", I love that.
Incidentally, I had redone my smoke system and I was VERY impressed the smoke output, even at full throttle. Pics coming.
And lastly, Oli, you had expressed concerns in the seemingly small bvm brackets in the bypass. I left about 1/8 of an inch of space between the Behotec supplied extra bracket and the BVM bypass bracket to see if I could tell any movement, and I could not. I checked after every flight.
Overall, I was quite impressed with the engine. I'd like to try some vertical take offs (my BARF does it with a Titan SE) but I'll do a few more flights before I try it in the Ultra B.
What are your thoughts Oli?
09-02-2014, 10:02 PM
#118
Congrats on your successful flight....... I have a jetcat P140 RXi in my bandit MKII and I do vertical take-offs all the time.... My U-Bandit is set at 250N but soon will max it out to 300 N and try the same vertical take off....
09-03-2014, 12:39 AM
#119
Thread Starter
Ok Oli, I flew my UB. In short, it went fantastic.
And lastly, Oli, you had expressed concerns in the seemingly small bvm brackets in the bypass. I left about 1/8 of an inch of space between the Behotec supplied extra bracket and the BVM bypass bracket to see if I could tell any movement, and I could not. I checked after every flight.
Overall, I was quite impressed with the engine. I'd like to try some vertical take offs (my BARF does it with a Titan SE) but I'll do a few more flights before I try it in the Ultra B.
What are your thoughts Oli?
Keep an eye on the bracket for a little while.. If it doesn't move, I guess you should be fine with it.
In essence it is a Uber P-200. Same size within 1 mm, about the same weight, 50% more power, super fast acceleration and amazing reliability figures ( at least for the last 4 years we've been operating and selling this engine ).
Last edited by olnico; 09-03-2014 at 12:42 AM.
03-13-2015, 08:59 AM
#120
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK I have my engine working in the car but looks like I have a fuel problem as well. I have a header tank to catch air but it fills up with air quickly and I get bubbles under acceleration. The engine seems to not spin up quickly and I think its being starved of fuel. I'll check the voltage etc.. and take some screen shots of the ECU at full chat and see if you can spot anything amiss.
Here is the car running https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pel...ature=youtu.be
Here is the car running https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pel...ature=youtu.be
03-14-2015, 07:54 AM
#121
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ran the engine up to full power and the readings were as follows
Revs 102,900 to 103,100
Temp 670-680
Volts 4.3
That looks a bit low compared to some of the posts above. What do you think?
Revs 102,900 to 103,100
Temp 670-680
Volts 4.3
That looks a bit low compared to some of the posts above. What do you think?
