X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [64.4.51.87] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2) with ESMTP id 964114 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 26 May 2005 13:30:49 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.4.51.87; envelope-from=lors01@msn.com Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 May 2005 10:30:04 -0700 Message-ID: Received: from 64.4.51.220 by BAY107-DAV15.phx.gbl with DAV; Thu, 26 May 2005 17:30:04 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [64.4.51.220] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 13:29:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009B_01C561F7.039770C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.10.0011.1703 Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 26 May 2005 13:29:59 -0400 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 May 2005 17:30:04.0712 (UTC) FILETIME=[8DC45A80:01C56218] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_009B_01C561F7.039770C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Having the pump in a 'sump tank' is a completely different scenario = than pump in main tank. Don't do this thinking that it is a tried & = true solution. Might be OK if all other factors are considered but = there are a LOT of them. Tracy (still hate sump/header tanks) ----- Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port This would not prevent a return system from being developed and=20 installed. Unless you intend to put an RX 8 pump inside your sump=20 tank...it might not be a bad idea to plan for one. =20 Speaking of.. Anyone actually DOING in-tank fuel pumps. As popular as = PL=20 is around here, I gleaned from his list that having an in tank pump = can=20 help prevent vaporlock by not having to "SUCK" fuel. As long as the = tank=20 remains wet (or the fuel air mix too rich) it should be safe.. right? Something to consider... Dave ------=_NextPart_000_009B_01C561F7.039770C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Having the pump in a 'sump tank'  is a completely different = scenario=20 than pump in main tank.  Don't do this thinking that it is a tried = &=20 true solution.  Might be OK if all other factors are considered but = there=20 are a LOT of them.
 
Tracy (still hate sump/header tanks)
----- Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = No fuel=20 return for RX-8 six port

This would not prevent a return system from being = developed and=20
installed. Unless you intend to put an RX 8 pump inside your sump=20
tank...it might not be a bad idea to plan for = one.
 
Speaking=20 of.. Anyone actually DOING in-tank fuel pumps. As popular as PL
is = around=20 here, I gleaned from his list that having an in tank pump can
help = prevent=20 vaporlock by not having to "SUCK" fuel. As long as the tank =
remains wet=20 (or the fuel air mix too rich) it should be safe.. = right?

Something to=20 consider...

Dave

------=_NextPart_000_009B_01C561F7.039770C0--