Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 768166 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:44:55 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristl@cisco.com Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2005 09:59:23 -0500 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.90,132,1107752400"; d="scan'208"; a="39120529:sNHT19185704" Received: from [172.18.179.180] (echristl-linux.cisco.com [172.18.179.180]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j23Ei7hF006362 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:44:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <422722B8.9070402@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:44:08 -0500 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040929 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel cutoff valve necessary? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russell Duffy wrote: > Assuming that connections will be the weakest spot in any system, and > that there actually is a pump that blocks flow when there's no power > applied (I haven't tried to determine if there is), I would argue that > the pump IS the cutoff valve, > > This is another one of those questions I've never seen a good answer > for, so out to the garage I just went. I grabbed one of the Walbro > in-tank pumps, and tried with all my might to blow through it, and > could not. With the exception of my cheeks, I feel better now. My > RV-3 has no fuel shutoff valves. > > Rusty (forgot what I was going to put here) > And knowing how hard Rusty blows, I would say this is a valid test. 8*) Ernest (running for cover)