|
|
I think that makes the sump tank way too "busy". Submerged pumps are nice but not pivotal. Returning fuel from the rail to the sump is what got Paul Connor in trouble.
Gravity feed main(s) to sump, return to main(s) ... Jim S.
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 <mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
/*Date:*/ 05/26/05 10:30:58
/*To:*/ Rotary motors in aircraft <mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
/*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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|