Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Repairs/Mods
Outrage sump-cover fuelline elbows necessary?
|Author||Topic: Outrage sump-cover fuelline elbows necessary?|
posted 05-13-2002 10:27 AM ET (US)
I have a 1989 Outrage 22 with twins.
I took a look at my fuellines yesterday and they are all 1987, seem adequate but I'm trying to get her highly dependable and will replace them as well as the balls. The fill and vent hoses seem perfect.
At the starboard sump, the hoses attach to bronze elbows that pass through the plywood, seems common to these Outrages. The hoses also attach to the corresponding other end of the elbow under the ply and with a good loop attach to the copper tubing from the tank area. I believe there is also a section of hose from the tank to the copper. As far as I can tell, the elbow joint could be removed and the hoses directly attached to the copper in the sump. The elbows appear only to provide shock absorbtion that would otherwise be passed directly to the copper were the hoses stressed. I'm thinking that I would get rid of the elbows and connect directly to the copper with some loops, any thoughts?
posted 05-13-2002 11:00 AM ET (US)
Chap - be cautious of replacing elbows with just a loop of tubing - the reason, a short loop stresses the tubing and if the stress level and temperature are sufficient, will kink the tubing and close the tubing. With the flow unblocked, the flow resistance is kind of a trade-off - that is, the resistance through an elbow may be close to the resistance through a loop of additional tubing. Personally, I would use the largest possible elbows and tubing and thus 'cleaner' arrangement. --- Jerry/Idaho
posted 05-13-2002 11:40 AM ET (US)
Thanks Jerry. I agree that the replacement of the elbows with "hose" elbows or drastic turns would be a bad idea and fail as you described. The term "loops" I used may be misleading. I'm looking to see if I can get rid of the elbow entirely thus eliminating 4 connections that could fail. The hose would attach to the copper tubes in the sump with a couple of hose clamps each, screws opposite, then some "coils" of hose could remain in the sump before the hose exited to the fuel filters. The coils could absorb shock and provide smooth unkinkable transitions.
posted 06-13-2002 06:36 AM ET (US)
I am replying somewhat late to this posting, but I just happened across it.
On my 1987 Whaler 20-foot hull (a REVENGE model) the fuel lines were rigged in a similar fashion, using large feed through fittings to traverse the plywood hatch cover in the rear of the cockpit.
Below deck there were right-angle fittings (elbows) mated to the feed-throughs, and then to hose barbs. These connected to 3/8-in. ID grade A1 Fuel hose and carried to the tank. (This is different than the copper mentioned in the original posting.)
Above deck two more elbows were attached, and from these hose barbs for 1/4-in. ID A1 fuel line carried to the filter system.
So thus there were many connections involved in this elaborate journey through the hatch cover:
I replaced all of this with a simple direct run of 3/8-in A1 fuel line from the tank to the filter.
I believe the reason for all this complexity may have been to deliver the boat with the fuel system in place and ready to be rigged to the engine, but without actually rigging it to the engine, which was to be installed later by the dealer.
When the boat left the factory, the fuel system was rigged to an above deck level. The dealer would just install whatever engine and filter he wanted, and connect to the fuel lines at the point they appeared above deck.
I believe that my new re-fit that eliminates all this is an improvement. First of all, locating all these fittings in the top of sump made them likely to be submerged in water. If any water comes into the cockpit, the first place it is headed is into this sump. Second, replacing six connections (plus two hose clamps) with a few inches of hose certainly reduces the number of places for potential leaks or failures.
I did not route the new hose though the original holes. The fuel lines exit the sump in the same access area as the other cables running into and out of there, the hydraulic steering and some electrical cables. The fuel lines make a gentle bend upward and lay against the wall of the sump and cockpit, where they continue a few inches and connect to a filter mounted on the bulkhead of the cockpit.
posted 06-13-2002 10:09 AM ET (US)
What you have done and stated makes total sense and is what I am thinking of doing.
The copper I have is between the tank and the sump. Hose from the tank to copper. The copper terminates in the sump after traversing the wet well. It may be an extension used for the additional 2 feet in the 22 with small tank and well, compared to your 20 or a 22 with large tank. The copper makes up the 2 feet. If I can fish it, I may get rid of the copper also.
Thanks again for the info and insight.
posted 06-13-2002 02:56 PM ET (US)
For the life of me, I have never been able to figure why BW used those sump cover fuel line fittings on the 20 & 22' models. Neither the 18 or 25 Outrages have this detail. On the 18 Outrage, the 3/8" fuel line exiting the tank passes right through the sump and up to the underside of the starboard gunwale, terminating in a copper fuel manifold with 2 plugged withdrawl fittings. From this point a line is run to the filter, and then to the engine(s). On the 25, there are two HD (red) 3/8" tank withdrawl lines, also passing through the sump and up under the starboard gunwale, each terminating in a bracket mounted to the hull and with a plugged withdrawl fitting.
It would seem to me that a notched transom 20/22 should have been rigged the way they did the 18's. Anybody know the reasoning behind this funny detail of connecting the fuel lines down at the floor instead of under the gunwales?
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.