X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [199.185.220.223] (HELO priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2) with ESMTP id 965046 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 27 May 2005 02:31:25 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=199.185.220.223; envelope-from=echolakeresort@telus.net Received: from boucher-oddle24 ([207.194.127.12]) by priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.04 201-2131-118-104-20050224) with ESMTP id <20050527063035.LHNY4603.priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net@boucher-oddle24> for ; Fri, 27 May 2005 00:30:35 -0600 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.322 [266.11.15]); Thu, 26 May 2005 23:30:32 -0700 Message-Id: <4296BE84.00001F.02676@BOUCHER-ODDLE24> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 23:30:28 -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-4296BE881D86=======" --=======AVGMAIL-4296BE881D86======= Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_S2Y4KFN2QL8000000000" --------------Boundary-00=_S2Y4KFN2QL8000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jim=0D do you mean Paul's accident? Can you elaborate.=0D Georges B.=0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: Rotary motors in aircraft=0D Date: 05/26/05 21:50:02=0D To: Rotary motors in aircraft=0D Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port=0D =0D I think that makes the sump tank way too "busy". Submerged pumps are=0D nice but not pivotal. Returning fuel from the rail to the sump is what=0D got Paul Connor in trouble.=0D Gravity feed main(s) to sump, return to main(s) ... Jim S.=0D =0D Echo Lake Fishing Resort (Georges Boucher) wrote:=0D =0D > My plan was to have 2 pimps in the sump tank with fuel return to the=0D > sump tank. Iplan ning to run the engine on the test stand with a=0D > 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=0D > than pump in main tank. Don't do this thinking that it is a tried &=0D > true solution. Might be OK if all other factors are considered but=0D > 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 > 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 P= L=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 tan= k=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 >No virus found in this outgoing message.=0D >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.=0D >Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005=0D >=0D >=0D >------------------------------------------------------------------------= =0D >=0D >=0D >=0D >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/=0D >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html=0D >>>=0D >>>=0D =0D >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/=0D >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html=0D =0D =0D --=0D No virus found in this incoming message.=0D Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.=0D Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005=0D =0D =2E --------------Boundary-00=_S2Y4KFN2QL8000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 Jim
do you mean Paul's accident? Can you elaborate.
Georges B.
 
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 05/26/05 21:= 50:02
Subject: [FlyRotar= y] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port
 
I think that makes the sump tank way too "busy".  Submerge= d 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 fu= el 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 dif= ferent 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 po= rt
>
> This would not prevent a return system from being developed 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.
>
> Speaking of.. Anyone actually DOING in-tank fuel pumps. As popu= lar 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: 5/2= 2/2005
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------= --------
>
>
>
>>> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>
>>>
 
>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
 
 
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/20= 05
 
.
--------------Boundary-00=_S2Y4KFN2QL8000000000-- --=======AVGMAIL-4296BE881D86======= 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-4296BE881D86=======--