Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.7) with ESMTP id 803718 for rob@logan.com; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 15:08:58 -0400 Received: from mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net ([151.164.30.29]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71175U5500L550S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:13:23 -0400 Received: from swbell.net ([216.63.107.30]) by mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.03.23.18.03.p10) with ESMTP id <0GFJ000SDBEV8C@mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net> for lancair.list@olsusa.com; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 06:18:32 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 06:17:25 -0700 From: Greg Nelson Subject: Re: Useable Fuel - Header Tank vs Wing feed only To: "lancair.list@olsusa.com" Message-id: <3B388B65.AF129A1F@swbell.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Scott: While I use a sight-guage on a header tank too, I would change it quickly for the alternative non-header arrangement simply because I don't like the idea of having 10 gallons of fuel above my legs and in front of me and "cushioning" impact on crash landing. That header tank offers only several ply of glass to prevent a small mushroom cloud above your plane if it is ruptured. It sounds to me like the header tank offers distinct advantages in "preventing" accidents and the wing-tank-only arrangement offers advantages in survival if an accident actually occurs. Greg Nelson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>