Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 767207 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:52:57 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristl@cisco.com Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2005 17:07:18 -0500 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.90,131,1107752400"; d="scan'208"; a="39042591:sNHT17666944" Received: from [172.18.179.180] (echristl-linux.cisco.com [172.18.179.180]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j22Lq8hF023894 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:52:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <42263589.8070109@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:52:09 -0500 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040929 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: fuel cutoff valve necessary? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This really doesn't apply to planes with multiple tanks, as the fuel shutoff generally does double duty as a selector. But I have only one tank, so the cutoff valve is really only useful in case of an engine fire or in preperation of an emergency landing. With a fuel pump that blocks flow when it isn't running, what useful purpose does the cutoff valve serve beyond increasing pilot workload? Won't cutting power to the fuel pump provide the same service and eliminate several failure modes?