Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #22610
From: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 19:54:06 -0600
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Hi Georges,

I don't even want to know what your're going to pimp in the sump. :)

Sorry,
Bob W.


On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:48:42 -0700 (Pacific Standard Time)
"Echo Lake Fishing Resort (Georges Boucher)" <echolakeresort@telus.net>
wrote:

 My plan was to have 2 pimps in the sump tank with fuel return to the sump
tank. Iplan ning to run the engine on the test stand with a duplicate of the
A/C fuel system. Any input?
Georges B.

 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Rotary motors in aircraft
Date: 05/26/05 10:30:58
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: No fuel return for RX-8 six port
 
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 installed. Unless you intend to put an RX 8 pump inside your sump tank...it might not be a bad idea to plan for one.
 
Speaking of.. Anyone actually DOING in-tank fuel pumps. As popular as PL is around here, I gleaned from his list that having an in tank pump can help prevent vaporlock by not having to "SUCK" fuel. As long as the tank remains wet (or the fuel air mix too rich) it should be safe.. right?

Something to consider...

Dave


 


--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (real soon)
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster