Return-Path: Received: from email2k3.itlnet.net ([64.19.112.12] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c1) with ESMTP id 726417 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:01:19 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.19.112.12; envelope-from=jwvoto@itlnet.net Received: from rav.itlnet.net (unverified [192.168.10.149]) by itlnet.net (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.1.17) with SMTP id for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:00:34 -0600 Received: from JWVOTO (unverified [64.19.116.67]) by itlnet.net (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.1.17) with SMTP id for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:00:33 -0600 Message-ID: <02fb01c51135$906c9060$73741340@JWVOTO> From: "Wendell Voto" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Vapor lock in sump/header tank. Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:02:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02F0_01C51103.150A5560" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02F0_01C51103.150A5560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Todd Bartrim=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 5:18 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Vapor lock in sump/header tank. Todd Bartrim (top posted all the way to the bottom) Very interesting indeed. What if you were to send the return fuel = with a tee fitting to the main tanks instead of the sump tank (this is = what I am planning to do)? My thinking (??) is this will eliminate warm = fuel in the sump tank (which I want to have so that there will be no = valves in the fuel lines to add work load, no tank switching - feed from = both tanks until dry). Also want to vent the sump tank, looks like I = might want to use the shrader valve idea so that if fuel flow was low = (timed flow rate at about 18 gph with only 1 gal. in tank) and a level = sensor. The capped vent would allow the pump to suck fuel from the = mains if needed, wouldn't it. Wendell - Cozy builder ------=_NextPart_000_02F0_01C51103.150A5560 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Todd = Bartrim=20
Sent: Saturday, February 12, = 2005 5:18=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Vapor = lock in=20 sump/header tank.

Todd=20 Bartrim  (top posted all the way to the = bottom)
Very=20 interesting indeed.  What if you were to send the return = fuel with a=20 tee fitting to the main tanks instead of the sump tank (this is = what I am=20 planning to do)? My thinking (??) is this will eliminate warm fuel in = the sump=20 tank (which I want to have so that there will be no valves in the fuel = lines=20 to add work load, no tank switching - feed from both tanks until=20 dry). Also want to vent the sump tank, looks like I might want = to use the=20 shrader valve idea  so that if fuel flow was low (timed flow rate = at=20 about 18 gph with only 1 gal. in tank) and a level sensor.  The = capped=20 vent would allow the pump to suck fuel from the mains if needed, = wouldn't=20 it.
Wendell - Cozy = builder
------=_NextPart_000_02F0_01C51103.150A5560--