Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990106194801.00841240@mail.ens.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 19:48:01 -0600
To: <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
From: rcblumenstein <rcblumenstein@sysdyne.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel selector valve "both" in low wing aircraft
Cc: TByrnes133@aol.com,ticavers@hotmail.com
In-Reply-To: <19981230051926.AAA659@truman.olsusa.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
This is in reply to about Tristan Cavers concerns about a "both" position
in a fuel selector for a low wing plane. 

Tom Byrnes replied: 
">You mentioned that you do not have a header tank and that you have a fuel
>selector that has positions for R - L - Both and off.  A both position in a
>low wing aircraft is considered dangerous by the FAA and not allowed in a
>certified low wing aircraft because if one tank unports or runs dry before
the
>other one the fuel pumps would suck air even though fuel is present at the
>other port."

I had flown for some years a '79 Rockwell Commander 114A which had a "Both"
position for the fuel selector.  It too was a certificated low wing plane.
They must have done something right in the design to pass the FAA
certification.

Richard (Dick) Blumenstein
E-Mail:  rcblumenstein@sysdyne.com