Bill: Al just wrote a long thesis on the subject, didn't you read it? :-)

I'm not pushing sumps on anyone, I just peeped up to correct some misinformation based on my 500 hours of real world experience on a "time-tested system".
When I installed my rotary engine back in 1997, my main tanks were already closed up and sealed. The sump was the easiest way to implement EFI and keep the airframe stock. When I did my EFI system Tracy was still using carburetors. Tracy's system might just be best for anyone starting construction now, I'm not debating that, but I'm not going to change my system that has worked well for so long.

Perry


Bill Dube wrote:

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'