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)" <echolakeresort@telus.net>
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)