You da Man Bill. I was getting tired deleating all that. I have a 6 port valve and the fuel always returns to the tank it's comming from. All pumps, filter, fuel lines etc. are below the lowest point of my tanks and in such a way that any bubbles before the pumps can go only up in to the tanks.
I equalise the tank pressure by leading the two 1/4: vents into a manifold high on the firewall. From there two lines go down below the strakes into the air stream. If one is compleatly blocked, the other one will provide equal pressure to both tanks, and acts also as a syphon break.
Any bubbles after the pumps will be blown back into the tanks.
Buly

BTW I'm ready for the ARPA inspectors to do my final inspection. Any takers? :)

>
> From: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
> Date: 2005/05/27 Fri PM 06:29:46 EDT
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Why insist on a sump? (was: Sump tank - Velocity
>  version)
>
>          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'
>
>
> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>