X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [199.185.220.220] (HELO priv-edtnes57.telusplanet.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2) with ESMTP id 964844 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 26 May 2005 21:59:05 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=199.185.220.220; envelope-from=echolakeresort@telus.net Received: from boucher-oddle24 ([207.194.127.19]) by priv-edtnes57.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.04 201-2131-118-104-20050224) with ESMTP id <20050527015819.PVAX29304.priv-edtnes57.telusplanet.net@boucher-oddle24> for ; Thu, 26 May 2005 19:58:19 -0600 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.322 [266.11.15]); Thu, 26 May 2005 18:58:15 -0700 Message-Id: <42967EB4.000007.02676@BOUCHER-ODDLE24> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 18:58:12 -0700 (Pacific Standard Time) X-Mailer: IncrediMail (3001609) From: "Echo Lake Fishing Resort (Georges Boucher)" References: To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port X-FID: FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-Priority: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=======AVGMAIL-42967EB716FA=======" --=======AVGMAIL-42967EB716FA======= Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_0HL4WCW0000000000000" --------------Boundary-00=_0HL4WCW0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable PUMPS NOT PIMPS!!=0D Georges B> =0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: Rotary motors in aircraft=0D Date: 05/26/05 18:56:02=0D To: Rotary motors in aircraft=0D Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port=0D =0D I guess I should read before I send, I'm using pimps, not pimps!! =0D Georges B.=0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: Rotary motors in aircraft=0D Date: 05/26/05 18:49:40=0D To: Rotary motors in aircraft=0D Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port=0D =0D My plan was to have 2 pimps in the sump tank with fuel return to the sum= p tank. Iplan ning to run the engine on the test stand with a duplicate of = the A/C fuel system. Any input?=0D Georges B.=0D =0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: Rotary motors in aircraft=0D Date: 05/26/05 10:30:58=0D To: Rotary motors in aircraft=0D Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port=0D =0D 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.=0D =0D Tracy (still hate sump/header tanks)=0D ----- Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port=0D =0D =0D This would not prevent a return system from being developed and =0D installed. Unless you intend to put an RX 8 pump inside your sump =0D tank...it might not be a bad idea to plan for one.=0D =0D Speaking of.. Anyone actually DOING in-tank fuel pumps. As popular as PL = =0D is around here, I gleaned from his list that having an in tank pump can =0D help prevent vaporlock by not having to "SUCK" fuel. As long as the tank = =0D remains wet (or the fuel air mix too rich) it should be safe.. right?=0D =0D Something to consider...=0D =0D Dave=0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =20 --------------Boundary-00=_0HL4WCW0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
PUMPS NOT PIMPS!!
Georges B> 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 05/26/05 18:= 56:02
Subject: [FlyRotar= y] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port
 
I guess I should read before I send, I'm using pimps, not pimps!!&nb= sp;
 Georges B.
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 05/26/05 18:= 49:40
Subject: [FlyRotar= y] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port
 
 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 d= uplicate of the A/C fuel system. Any input?
Georges B.
 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 05/26/05 10:= 30:58
Subject: [FlyRotar= y] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port
 
Having the pump in a 'sump tank'  is a completely different sce= nario than pump in main tank.  Don't do this thinking that it is a t= ried & true solution.  Might be OK if all other factors are cons= idered 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 develope= d and
installed. Unless you intend to put an RX 8 pump inside your su= mp
tank...it might not be a bad idea to plan for one.
 
Sp= eaking 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.. r= ight?

Something to consider...

Dave

 
 
 
--------------Boundary-00=_0HL4WCW0000000000000-- --=======AVGMAIL-42967EB716FA======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Content-Description: "AVG certification" No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 --=======AVGMAIL-42967EB716FA=======--