X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 11:27:53 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from europa.lunarpages.com ([209.200.229.75] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTPS id 2033760 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 May 2007 07:21:36 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.200.229.75; envelope-from=aflyer@lazy8.net Received: from relay.skywerx.com ([206.123.212.229] helo=[192.168.0.102]) by europa.lunarpages.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HlkDi-0007ip-2u for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 May 2007 04:20:34 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <4641AE6F.8020802@lazy8.net> X-Original-Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 05:20:15 -0600 From: John Huft User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: IO-550 fuel injection References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - europa.lunarpages.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lancaironline.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - lazy8.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Here is an off-the-wall theory from the RV spy.... I am suspicious of those cute little NACA vents you guys use for tank vents. I am thinking they may not be as effective as they need to be at higher altitudes (lower indicated airspeeds). I think maybe NACA vents work better when there is airflow through them, rather than being used to generate a static pressure. I am thinking a good positive pressure inside the tank would reduce these problems. My RV8 has streamlined tank vents that stick out about 1 1/2 inches into the air stream to get out of the boundary layer and generate a positive pressure inside the tank. I never turn the boost pump on except as a precaution on take-off and landing, and I have flown it for 3 hours at a time at 17,500 msl. I never turn the pump on switching tanks. My IO-550 powered C185 has big ugly tank vent tubes hanging below the wing (hiding behind the wing struts to keep from icing up). I have flown for hours at 19,000 IFR and never touched the boost pump. I have taken off from Porterville, CA at 105 degrees and climbed to 17,500 eastbound and never touched the boost pump. Just a thought, John Huft (RV spy) Kevin Stallard wrote: > Has anyone been able to do something to mitigate this requirement of > having to have the boost pump on at altitude? > > I've had some ideas put in my head by a good friend of mine like: What > is the good of having mags or anything else that makes an engine run > without the battery if it's just going to have a fuel starvation problem > when the lights go out... > > I'll continue to look through those posts, but I'm not finding anything > that would speak to this directly. > > Thanks > Kevin > > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html > >