|
I deserve that!! I guess that's what Ed calls a "senior moment".
Georges B.
-------Original Message-------
Date: 05/26/05 18:55:38
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port
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)
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
>
>
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (real soon)
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005
. |