X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from smtp831.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.171.18] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2) with SMTP id 965385 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 27 May 2005 10:58:07 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.163.171.18; envelope-from=tim2542@sbcglobal.net Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (tim2542@sbcglobal.net@68.127.49.13 with plain) by smtp831.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 May 2005 14:57:21 -0000 Message-ID: <4297354E.30308@sbcglobal.net> Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 07:57:18 -0700 From: Tim Andres User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim Sower wrote: >> >> My own (personal) recommendation is: > > Large (>1/2") gravity feed from Right ("supply") strake to Sump; > Sump feeds engine; return from rail to Right strake; > Have a facet pump that transfers fuel from Left ("transfer") strake to > Right; > Sump vent is capped off (and only uncapped to initially fill the sump); > ONLY fluid path into sump is from "supply" tank; > "Transfer" tank feeds ONLY the "supply" tank. > > Dirt simple, as reliable as it can be, does require some fuel > management (which if I can't handle, I shouldn't be flying > unsupervised :o). Simple warnings and other simple gizmos can assure > more timely fuel management. > >> Jim, this is exactly the system I have been thinking of except for the sump to tank vent. Why do you suggest not venting the sump? It seems to me that any gasses or vapor that do get in the sump will eventually displace the fuel. Tim Andres