|
|
Jim Sower wrote:
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.
How do we KNOW that the return to the sump is what caused the prob? Are we talking his redesign or the original install?
If we are talking about his first engine out, if I remember right, he had the pumps mounted high, and his fuel lines were un-sleeved/ un-insulated.
The reason I am SO interested in this particular issue is that the Velocity has a sump tank as well, but it holds nearly an hour of fuel at lower power settings.
It HAS the room for an in-sump fuel pump, if desired (even though we've closed it already), and with the volume it lists, I am suspecting that it has enough thermal "inertia" to prevent the sump from over-heating the fuel to the point it would vapor lock.
My original plan was to return fuel to the sump, but after Paul's first engine out to also have the sump vent be capable of overflowing into one of the wing tanks (both of which gravity feed into the sump).
Trying to figure this out and follow the data.
Dave
|
|