Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #22613
From: Echo Lake Fishing Resort (Georges Boucher) <echolakeresort@telus.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 18:58:12 -0700 (Pacific Standard Time)
To: <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
PUMPS NOT PIMPS!!
Georges B> 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 05/26/05 18:56:02
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port
 
I guess I should read before I send, I'm using pimps, not pimps!! 
 Georges B.
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 05/26/05 18:49:40
Subject: [FlyRotary] 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 duplicate of the A/C fuel system. Any input?
Georges B.
 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 05/26/05 10:30:58
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

 
 
 
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
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster