X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 17:18:26 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms173001pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.1] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTP id 6362714 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:52:26 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.1; envelope-from=n5zq@verizon.net Received: from BillHP ([unknown] [173.72.172.118]) by vms173001.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0MPI00523RY3VY60@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 09:51:40 -0500 (CDT) X-Original-Message-id: <6BBD30CF0C6948F7AB7E8C95AACF2460@BillHP> From: "Bill Harrelson" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-reply-to: Subject: Re: [LML] Header Tank X-Original-Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:51:40 -0400 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3538.513 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3538.513 Rob, I've got to second Angier's suggestion. You can check the archives for what I've written on the advantages of a header tank. Sue and I are now building a little Rans Coyote and are even putting a header in that. Bill Harrelson N5ZQ 320 2,150 hrs N6ZQ IV 300 hours (with a header tank) -----Original Message----- From: Greenbacks, UnLtd. Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 9:30 PM To: Rob Murawski Cc: List Lancair Mailing Subject: [LML] Header Tank Rob, Seriously reconsider your decision not to install a header tank. Safety, simple, not to mention 10gal of additional fuel as well as CG balance. Angier Ames N4ZQ -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html