Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.73] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 767576 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:11:39 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.73; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050303011053.RNBC29384.imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 20:10:53 -0500 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel cutoff valve necessary? Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:11:44 -0600 Message-ID: <002501c51f8d$f70bc280$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0026_01C51F5B.AC715280" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C51F5B.AC715280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't doubt that it is so, Ed, but putting the edicts from Federal agencies aside, I'd like to raise the question of whether it is safer. Indeed, how many crashes have resulted from people taking off with the = fuel valves off? Granted, that won't happen with fuel injection, but with a = big carb bowl it does. =20 Assuming that connections will be the weakest spot in any system, and that there actually is a pump that blocks flow when there's no power applied (I haven't tried to determine if there is), I would argue that the pump IS the cutoff valve, This is another one of those questions I've never seen a good answer = for, so out to the garage I just went. I grabbed one of the Walbro in-tank = pumps, and tried with all my might to blow through it, and could not. With = the exception of my cheeks, I feel better now. My RV-3 has no fuel shutoff valves. =20 Rusty (forgot what I was going to put here) ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C51F5B.AC715280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

I don't doubt that it is so, Ed, but putting the = edicts from=20 Federal
agencies aside, I'd like to raise the question of whether it = is=20 safer.

Indeed, = how many crashes=20 have resulted from people taking off with the fuel valves off?  = Granted,=20 that won't happen with fuel injection, but with a big carb bowl it = does. =20

Assuming that connections will be the weakest spot in any system, = and
that=20 there actually is a pump that blocks flow when there's no = power
applied (I=20 haven't tried to determine if there is),  I would argue that
the = pump IS=20 the cutoff valve,

This is another one of = those questions=20 I've never seen a good answer for, so out to the garage I just = went.  I=20 grabbed one of the Walbro in-tank pumps, and tried with all my might to = blow=20 through it, and could not.   With the exception of my cheeks, = I feel=20 better now.  My RV-3 has no fuel shutoff valves. 

Rusty (forgot what I was = going to put=20 here)

 ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C51F5B.AC715280--