X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from relay04.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.182.167] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2) with ESMTP id 966254 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 27 May 2005 23:44:39 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.167; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net Received: from filter06.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (filter06.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [66.133.183.73]) by relay04.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468743582BE for ; Sat, 28 May 2005 03:43:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay04.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.182.167]) by filter06.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (filter06.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [66.133.183.73]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 12074-05-54 for ; Sat, 28 May 2005 03:43:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (67-137-69-152.dsl2.cok.tn.frontiernet.net [67.137.69.152]) by relay04.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E413580A1 for ; Sat, 28 May 2005 03:43:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4297E8F6.9000503@frontiernet.net> Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 22:43:50 -0500 From: Jim Sower User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Why insist on a sump? (was: Sump tank - Velocity version) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0521-4, 05/27/2005), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20040701 (2.0) at filter06.roc.ny.frontiernet.net <... With all the trouble sump systems ... cause ... why even go there? ...> Fair question. It's the simplest plumbing (mains to sump, sump to engine, all gravity fed, no valves or gizmos. It's the way Velocitys come at you. A Cozy with RG gives up a good bit of strake volume - a sump where the main LG bow would have been buys most of it back. IINM Tracy has a Supply tank that he returns to and a Transfer tank that he pumps into the Supply tank. I think that's the best way to do it except that a sump buys you some more fuel at no great cost in some airplanes. But I regard them as sneaky critters ... Jim S. 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' > >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> > >