X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <jwvoto@itlnet.net>
Received: from email2k3.itlnet.net ([64.19.112.12] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2)
  with ESMTP id 968476 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 30 May 2005 22:21:26 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.19.112.12; envelope-from=jwvoto@itlnet.net
Received: from rav.itlnet.net (unverified [192.168.10.149]) by itlnet.net
 (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.1.17) with SMTP id <B0060057529@email2k3.itlnet.net> for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>;
 Mon, 30 May 2005 21:20:40 -0500
Received: from JWVOTO (unverified [64.19.116.146]) by itlnet.net
 (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.1.17) with SMTP id <B0003808215@email2k1.itlnet.net> for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>;
 Mon, 30 May 2005 21:20:39 -0500
Message-ID: <000201c56587$ac8031c0$92741340@JWVOTO>
From: "Wendell Voto" <jwvoto@itlnet.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-964952@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 10:05:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400




> I think that makes the sump tank way too "busy".  Submerged pumps are
> nice but not pivotal.  Returning fuel from the rail to the sump is what
> got Paul Connor in trouble.
> Gravity feed main(s) to sump, return to main(s) ... Jim S.
>
> Echo Lake Fishing Resort (Georges Boucher) wrote:
>
> >  My plan was to have 2 pimps in the sump tank with fuel return to the
> > sump tank. Iplan ning to run the engine on the test stand with a
> > duplicate of the A/C fuel system. Any input?
> > Georges B.
> >
Mazda returns the fuel to the tank right at the fuel pump. I see no problem
returning fuel to sump tank but I already have lines run to wing tanks.
Wendell