X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from server3.alwayswebhosting.com ([66.98.204.64] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2) with ESMTPS id 964839 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 26 May 2005 21:55:35 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.98.204.64; envelope-from=bob@bob-white.com Received: from [68.35.160.229] (port=33297 helo=quail) by server3.alwayswebhosting.com with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DbU3e-0006CO-9N for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 26 May 2005 20:54:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 19:54:06 -0600 From: Bob White To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port Message-Id: <20050526195406.40ca2794.bob@bob-white.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.9.11 (GTK+ 2.4.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server3.alwayswebhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lancaironline.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bob-white.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Hi Georges, I don't even want to know what your're going to pimp in the sump. :) Sorry, Bob W. On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:48:42 -0700 (Pacific Standard Time) "Echo Lake Fishing Resort (Georges Boucher)" wrote: > My plan was to have 2 pimps in the sump tank with fuel return to the sump > tank. Iplan ning to run the engine on the test stand with a duplicate of the > A/C fuel system. Any input? > Georges B. > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Rotary motors in aircraft > Date: 05/26/05 10:30:58 > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port > > Having the pump in a 'sump tank' is a completely different scenario than > pump in main tank. Don't do this thinking that it is a tried & true > solution. Might be OK if all other factors are considered but there are a > LOT of them. > > Tracy (still hate sump/header tanks) > ----- Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port > > > This would not prevent a return system from being developed and > installed. Unless you intend to put an RX 8 pump inside your sump > tank...it might not be a bad idea to plan for one. > > Speaking of.. Anyone actually DOING in-tank fuel pumps. As popular as PL > is around here, I gleaned from his list that having an in tank pump can > help prevent vaporlock by not having to "SUCK" fuel. As long as the tank > remains wet (or the fuel air mix too rich) it should be safe.. right? > > Something to consider... > > Dave > > > -- http://www.bob-white.com N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (real soon)