New fuel tank

Hi all.

My 22 mk2's fuel tank leaks when I brim the tank. This is due to the cork flange on top of the tank leaking. I have a couple of questions:

1. My fuel tank has two inlets, both running from the refill hole on deck. Would this be standard, or has the second one been added over time?

2. Is the cork flange easy to replace? If so, how would I ensure a good seal?

3. The 15gl water tank is completely unused. Is there anything stopping me from using this as a replacement fuel tank? It is bone dry.

Thanks

Tom

Not familiar with any "cork flange" . do you have pictures?

I understand the water tank is exactly the same as the fuel tank.... but for BSS you must have a top draw off for the fuel and not gravity....

Liberty wrote:Not familiar with any "cork flange" . do you have pictures?

Ditto !  Also I have never heard of two inlets into one tank, again picture may assist ?

Thanks, I will get a photo at the weekend.

John Douglas converted Trilliums water tank to petrol to give him 2x15 = 30 gallon for his channel hopping and French adventures!

My 23 has what i believe was twin fuel tanks, one is not now connected as prob when they had to be converted to top connection the then owner didn't need that capacity. My water tank is built under the bow seating V part and filled by a flush deck fitting.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hopefully this picture loads properly.....You can see the two inlets. Both are fed by the same filling cap on deck. The one in the foreground is the one with the cork flange. Fuel seeps through this when I brim the tank.

Thanks

Tom

Can you put up a picture of the filler?

The larger one is the filler hose, the smaller one is a vent

Hi, yes can do, but it will be a couple of days until I'm back over there. The filler is the standard one on the stern deck.

Then I doubt the small hose goes to the same fitting, it wouldn’t vent, so probably wouldn’t pass a BSS

Ah OK. I'm sure it was like this when it last passed in 2017/8??

I think the hole thing looks a mess. I'd quite like to rip it out and install a new one.

Isn’t that the vent fitting to the right of the larger pipe 

Can you see it when the seat panels are on 

The vent( if that's what it is ) has to higher than the filler cap for BSS.

Pretty sure it has to be higher than the tank Derek

My understanding of all this may be wrong but i’ll Tell you anyway! Originally the transom located vent was/is located at the same height as the top of the tank. It served 2 purposes...breathing but also on filling fuel would spill out so that you could never overfill and have fuel sitting in the filler pipe as this could leak. The BSS regs have changed the routeing of the vent pipe so that it swan necks up to level of filler cap. This means you can now fill all the way up to the top of the filler cap and you can have fuel sitting in the filler pipe. I personally think this is more dangerous as you are relying on integrity of hose filler pipe hose clips etc so I can only assume BSS did this to stop petrol leaking into river every time you did a refill (and it always did). When Val wyatts did fuel fills in the old days there was always a bottle of washing up liquid by the fuel pump to disperse the petrol film on the water.

Prof Pat Pending wrote:Pretty sure it has to be higher than the tank Derek

I'll leave this here !!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Go back to BSS and read 2.4.1

Well we are both right ! It's either / or 
Another case of gobbly gook madness

2.4.1  Does the fuel tank vent outlet, or the vent line swan neck, rise at least as high as the filling point? R  Check the rise of each vent line.  Fuel tank vent outlets, or the vent line swan neck must rise to a height at least that of the fuel filling point

Derek said it had to be higher than filler cap
Pat said it had to be higher than tank 
The top of the vent swanneck has to be at least the same level as filler
If it’s lower than filler cap (like the original) then fuel will spill out of vent when the level in the filler hose is higher than vent.
Higher swan neck would be acceptable IMO.

Oh...which mean Derek win this one...sorry Pat! (Preoaring for demotion to cadet)

Read the quote Rupert

I did read the quote!
Originally the vent feeder tube had no swan neck
The freeman vent was positioned on transom at sane level as top of tank to prevent filling higher than top of tank
BSS didn’t like this so they define you to swan neck the feeder tube so it’s highest point is at least same height as filler cap.
This means you never get discharge out the vent like in the old days. 
Once you do this routeing of  feeder tube like this the position of the vent is now irrelevant.

You'll always be able to get discharge unless something is higher than the rim of the filler. If you fill with something like a jiggle pump, it’s flow rate is potentially less than the vent, you still have to pay attention. 

As you said earlier, the potential to hold fuel in the filler and vent hoses is flawed, BSS didn’t think it through....again

2.3 and 2.4.1 contradict each other anyway and I know of one examiner who believes that the filling point refers to the aperture in the tank, not the deck fitting.

No wonder there's disparity amongst examiners if points of view on a simple subject like this can be interpreted in different ways.
So:
1. A  goose neck is installed higher or level with the filler cap neck which in theory means the original through hull vent can still BSS compliant ?
 Or
2. The vent is repositioned in say the cockpit coaming at a higher level than the filler neck thus complying ?
Both of which are probably correct according to the regulations
Or
3. The examiner decides   to make up a rule which he thinks is correct !!

Best to get a examiner that has passed your vessel previously as presumably in his mind it will comply unless changes have been made ( that applies to all clauses !)

I wonder if we have resolved the original posters question before going off on technicalities ?

Happy days !! 

F23 flittermouse wrote:3. The examiner decides   to make up a rule which he thinks is correct !!

Best to get a examiner that has passed your vessel previously as presumably in his mind it will comply unless changes have been made ( that applies to all clauses !)

You’d think that would be a safe bet, alas not