X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail.viclink.com ([206.212.237.11] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2) with ESMTP id 966006 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 27 May 2005 17:09:51 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.212.237.11; envelope-from=pjmick@mail.viclink.com Received: from mail.viclink.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.viclink.com (8.13.2/8.13.2) with ESMTP id j4RL95v5003771 for ; Fri, 27 May 2005 14:09:05 -0700 (PDT) From: "Perry Mick" To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Sump tank - Velocity version Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:09:05 -0700 Message-Id: <20050527204211.M59611@mail.viclink.com> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.90 20030226 X-OriginatingIP: 205.175.225.5 (pjmick) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 I'll have to go look at the archives to see what changes Paul made after his first flame out. One thing different about mine vs. Paul's, is he had external pumps and I have internal. I'm still sceptical of this fuel heating theory, but I'll have to put a temp sensor in my sump tank to prove anything one way or the other. My sump tank is steel and exposed on the bottom of the fuselage inside the naca inlet. I touch it after flight and it's stone cold. With all the hours I have on it, I would say it's well proven by now. BTW, I've mentioned this on other lists. When doing first flights and flight testing of canard aircraft, especially with auto conversions, I think one should choose an airport to fly out of with multiple, crossing, very long runways. Have plans on what you will do if your engine quits soon after takeoff from any runway you will use. You can't expect to just hop in an experimental plane of this nature and fly it off a short runway as if it were a certified plane that has been well proven. You have to expect or assume something can go wrong at any time, even the worst possible time. Back to luring... :) Jim S. wrote: That gives us two data points. Yours and Paul's first flame out. It's entirely possible that Paul did NOT have vapor lock, and never did fix his problem. Also possible that there's something else about your system that makes it different enough from his to not manifest the problem. I don't know. All I can do is the best I can with the data and experience I've got ... Jim S. Jim S. wrote: There are several down sides to returning fuel to the sump (aggrivated quite a bit as the size of the sump decreases). Perry Mick wrote: Don't know where this comes from? My sump is only 1 gallon and contains two fuel pumps. Never had an issue with fuel return to the sump in 520 hours now. I had a minor problem at one time with sump vent placement. Had a potential major problem once when I had the sump vent temporarily plugged - BIG NO-NO!