X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
Received: from tomcat.al.noaa.gov ([140.172.240.2] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2)
  with ESMTP id 966085 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 27 May 2005 18:31:21 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=140.172.240.2; envelope-from=bdube@al.noaa.gov
Received: from mungo.al.noaa.gov (mungo.al.noaa.gov [140.172.241.126])
	by tomcat.al.noaa.gov (8.12.11/8.12.0) with ESMTP id j4RMUZxT020060
	for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Fri, 27 May 2005 16:30:35 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.0.20050527162133.0392d970@mailsrvr.al.noaa.gov>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 16:29:46 -0600
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
From: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
Subject: Why insist on a sump? (was: Sump tank - Velocity version)
In-Reply-To: <list-966037@logan.com>
References: <list-966037@logan.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

         I'm reading this thread and all the while I'm thinking, "What is 
the attraction of a sump?"

         A sump seems like a lot of trouble when you have a return fuel 
system. It seems to multiply your fuel management headaches. There seem to 
be a lot of ways it can run dry with little warning. It seems like more 
seams to leak and another place to collect water.

         Why pick a sump over Tracy's time-tested transfer system? If you 
don't like that system, why not gang up two 3-way valves and simply select 
one tank or the other?

         With all the trouble sump systems have been proven to cause, why 
even go there?

         Maybe I'm missing some key point.......

         Bill Dube'