|
|
<... 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
|
|