• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

header or not

I can't see myself getting out of an aft CG flat spin pulling the power back.

Doing long survey flights in the cub with Dodge tanks, I would milk everything I could out of the right tank. It would sputter and I would switch left. After a while I would switch back and it would run for a while again, this was to make sure you could make it to the next fuel cache on the left tank....
 
I am glad we still have our annual traditions in place at SC.org. This place wouldn't be as fun without traditional topics of "header/no-header", "big tires/no-big tires", "flaps/no-flaps". Which reminds me, we are overdue for a Husky bashing topic. :p
 
Who knew this could be such a controversial topic?

I agree with Mike V---- don't bother with adding the header if it isn't already in there. Make sure that you have ports in at least one tank that cover the front and rear of the tank though.

A friend of mine (in a J-5) had drained all the fuel out of his tanks to have some leaks repaired. The header (in the front) was also drained. When they were ready to fly they forgot about the possibility of an air lock occurring in the header---he took off and had an engine fail at 50 feet. Got it on the ground ok but lost a couple of years off his life. I don't recall how his system is vented but it played a role.

I would guess that most of us don't operate at attitudes that require a header unless perhaps the airplane is used for work. My 12 has a header that the previous owner installed because he thought it would be helpful for the initial takeoff run on floats. I don't see that he was correct. Save the weight and the plumbing.
 
In the experimental world, several of us are using a tapered header tank, WITH a sight gauge. Both wing tanks plumbed direct to the header, no shutoffs between. One outlet in each tank.

The way it works, I'm told.... is you fly along until the right wing tank sight gauge shows empty, as that tank always empties first, it is of no concern. Then, you start watching the left tank's level, and about 30 minutes after the last of the visible fuel disappears from it's sight gauge you starting looking around behind you every few minutes (or seconds, depending on the terrain, WX, and amount of fuel remaining) and now when you see the gas level start to drop in the header, and assuming you're flying behind a Rotax 912S, you still have 1 hr to 45 minutes of flight time left. The header holds 4 gallons. The taper of the tank is such that some report flying along (and taking off) with only a gallon OR LESS in the header, but, they knew exactly that that was the situation, no guess work about how much fuel was sloshing around in the mains or how accurate the electric gauge was. The end result seems to be more range, one guy flies 8 to 9 hrs between re-fueling with this setup, resulting in far less fuel stops, just due to the total awareness of the actual fuel remaining. In a real pinch, when some are cutting it real close, like sub 1 gallon remaining, the observed fuel remaining in the tapered header drains quicker and quicker, as the tank volume is less so the fuel seems to drain quicker, this visual effect must be allowed for or it will cause severe consternation they say. When the last of the fuel in the header is gone, there is not a drop left in the airplane anywhere, so at least the resulting deadstick landing probably won't result in much of a fire.
 
BULLSH!T.

Leave at least the front header in. There are a couple of reasons why, Jason has explained one.

If you really challenge yourself and your cub you will find times when you need to be uncoordinated, slipping, skids, abrupt pitch changes... part of the fun. In a slip you put the upwind wing down, and where does your fuel go??????? Right, to the outboards portion of the tank. Where are the ports?

Now do that on low fuel...

Also when you are real low on fuel the stock 12 will not feed fast enough to keep the engine running. But using a fuller tank and letting the fuel flow to the header tank you can then switch and run till the header is dry, thus using the last gallon or two out of a tank.

Don't think you will need that? That is fine. But like a shoulder harness, if you ever do...

Ok "BULLSH!T", let me admit to making the assumption that both tanks were selected. If anybody can figure out how to unport them all, I'll buy them a steak. Crashing doesn't count. P.S. You and Mike should be scolding Gordon, Bugs and Skywagon because they agree with me too.
 
Last edited:
Gordon, run one tank dry, switch tanks.

wait five minutes, switch back. You have fuel again and run for a while...

What, never tried it? Then don't say I am wrong.

Tried it? SOP for max range given a full or near-full second tank. It cross-feeds through the cross-vent.

If the fuel valves don't leak, and if there isn't enough fuel in the second tank to cross-feed thru the vent to the first tank, you're wrong.

But so what? That is independent of the presence or absence of a header tank.

And besides, that's not even what I said BS about, which I still stand by.
 
Last edited:
You guys that run that low on fuel on purpose must have a big ol' pair. Where do you fit them in?
 
Again, unsporting aside, why does the CC18-180 have six gallons unuseable fuel? The answer is fuel availability at all "normal" flight attitudes.

Thats what header tanks are for, and that's a lot of useless gas to haul around....36 pounds worth.

Granted, the CC header less fuel system STC on the PA18 doesn't require that much unuseable.....so, is that because of CAR 3 vs FAR 23 certification? Seems to me the systems are basically identical? CC tanks in the CC18 180 though.

MTV
 
I never cared much for the CCs Goose Neck type fuel cap. To me that says that they had feed problems. Not enough head pressure or volume delivered. Probably at full power applications.... Also those things attract bugs, moisture and ice.
 
I am looking at doing a CC system when I recover BUT there are some issues I do not like. The top crossover tube will give you problems if parked on a side hill, It can be like a Cessna with fuel draining out the low wing. The both selector will cross contaminate if one tank has bad fuel, also make fuel management harder. Both tanks are connected in the off mode also. CC system without top crossover and stock valve would be what I would like. Just have to pay attention to where my fuel is and what angle I am flying at. Stock system sounds pretty good. Lots of good points have been brought up, now just pick what you like and go for it.
DENNY
 
When I started my 12 project, there were no header tanks in the fuel system. I'm upgrading to either an 0-320 or 360. I've already put in Dakota 24 gal tanks and Dakota fuel selector, but haven't started plumbing yet. Someone a while back said if I didn't have a header to begin with, then don't worry about it. Should I install one (or two) or should I just not worry about it. What's the advantage other than a little extra gas? I added another door (seaplane) and the STC requires belly sumps. I'm trying real hard not to go experimental.
Getting back to your original question, since your plane has a normal certificate, you need to either have an original stock system or one which has been modified in accordance with an STC. Your seaplane door and engine upgrade STCs should give you the details of the fuel system requirements. What ever the final approved fuel system is, it will have been tested for unusable fuel. Unusable fuel is determined by slipping and skidding in many unusual attitudes while using the one tank which is being tested. When the engine falters that tank is turned off and another is turned on. Then back on the ground, the tank is drained with the remaining fuel quantity measured. That amount is then considered to be the unusable fuel.

I suspect that the 6 gallons of unusable, which has been mentioned for which CC is placarded, would be totally usable under normal flight conditions.
 
Last edited:
Pay good attention to Nanook. He knows more about cub fuel systems than 99.9% of the cub people in the world. This is real life working experience.
 
I have a certified 1959 Tri-pacer, 0-320-150, DC 24's per side-48 total, no header, STC Maule fuel selector valve with Off-Left-Right-Both. Only restriction- No Takeoff on Right Tank, With Less Than 1/3 Fuel-. Left & right belly sumps. No AD's with tanks or fuel selector! Never a fuel related stumble. My fuel experience more like Nanook & Mike. YMMV. Clyde
 
I am glad we still have our annual traditions in place at SC.org. This place wouldn't be as fun without traditional topics of "header/no-header", "big tires/no-big tires", "flaps/no-flaps". Which reminds me, we are overdue for a Husky bashing topic. :p

I wonder how the removal of the header tank affects the downwind turning tendencies?
 
I know one thing, if I head a header I wouldn't be using it as a "reserve tank" so that I can run my primary tanks dry sort of like the "snooze" button. Then take a guess on how much flying time you have left. I have 44 gallons capacity on my Cub and 44 gallons usable. When they run dry they are dry and I'm deadstick. Not sure why you need it any other way. JMO
 
Last edited:
Again, unsporting aside, why does the CC18-180 have six gallons unuseable fuel? The answer is fuel availability at all "normal" flight attitudes.

Thats what header tanks are for, and that's a lot of useless gas to haul around....36 pounds worth.

Granted, the CC header less fuel system STC on the PA18 doesn't require that much unuseable.....so, is that because of CAR 3 vs FAR 23 certification? Seems to me the systems are basically identical? CC tanks in the CC18 180 though.

MTV

The unusable fuel is because of regulated fuel flow.... That is the minimum fuel needed in the tanks to comply with the rule.... Example, our 0-360 STC conversion on the PA-22/20 has a 3 gallon unusable fuel because it took that much to comply with fuel flow. That is with fuel pumps, I think the cub crafters CC18 180 is gravity flow so it would need more fuel to get there...

And as for Tri-Pacers not having header tanks.... They have fuel outlet ports on the front and rear of the tank.... PA-18's originally only have the main outlets on the rear with the exception of the left tank feed to the front header with a smaller line.... At the right flight attitude and the fuel selector on the right tank you can have all your fuel in the front of the tank and un-port that rear pickup. The header less system adds a front pickup to the right and increases the fuel line size on the front left tank giving the airplane a fuel system similar to the Pacer with the added benefit of having a both position on the selector where the Pacer does not have a both... Trimmers fuel mod for the Pacer is better than stock because the line routing for the right tank allows all of the fuel to be usable and it adds a both position fuel selector....

I am not bashing anyone's opinion... Just giving facts from working on these things for the last several years.... I like both systems myself, they have pros and cons but both work for the intended purposes...

Brian
 
Buggs,

I needed the tank dry for removal the next day, so instead of draining it after the flight I used it all up that day... had lots in the other tank.
 
I know one thing, if I head a header I wouldn't be using it as a "reserve tank" so that I can run my primary tanks dry sort of like the "snooze" button. Then take a guess on how much flying time you have left. I have 44 gallons capacity on my Cub and 44 gallons usable. When they run dry they are dry and I'm deadstick. Not sure why you need it any other way. JMO

Not even if it held an hours fuel, and has a sight gauge? No guesswork involved, that's the whole idea of a sight gauged header, no surprises. If I ever run out I'll know a couple of minutes before ( the time to stoppage after the last of the gas disappears, timed it, in flight, with a ferry tank ready to transfer, and over good terrain) and after watching the level drop for the previous 1 hr. it's pretty obvious it's time to land. Experimental only of course.
 
Back
Top