Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao10.cox.net ([68.230.241.29] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 759216 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:28:37 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.29; envelope-from=dale.r@cox.net Received: from smtp.west.cox.net ([172.18.180.52]) by fed1rmmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with SMTP id <20050225172753.DFDO2123.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:27:53 -0500 X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.15 (webedge20-101-1103-20040528) From: Dale Rogers To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel flow Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:27:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20050225172753.DFDO2123.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Jim Sower wrote: > We've already discussed this too much - it's all been said more > than once ... Jim S. Jim, Indeed it has ... but you did introduce a new wrinkle (for me, anyway - and I've been on the list, what, three years?): the concern about pumping air from a "dry" tank into the fuel rail. Since my fuel system, when I get that far, is pretty much like the Parmalee system, http://www.marcnadine.com/Menu.html and I planned to use "both" on takeoff and landing, this is some concern to me. It's defininely something I want to experiment with on my test cell. Dale R. COZY MkIV #1254