X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:17:44 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([216.148.227.153] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTP id 2080822 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:05:24 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.148.227.153; envelope-from=mmichaelian@comcast.net Received: from msmemachine (c-24-5-180-61.hsd1.ca.comcast.net[24.5.180.61]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <20070602220437m1300dko51e>; Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:04:47 +0000 From: "Marshall Michaelian" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: [LML] Lancair IV belly + baggage tank X-Original-Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 15:04:58 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01C7A527.632316A0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C7A527.632316A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have the same setup and have had no leaks from the baggage tank which if the vent valve is closed will be under pressure as the fuel heats. However the tank is designed to take pressure (normal operation) so even when I leave the valve closed there are no leaks. The center tank is always vented. In addition since the baggage tank is normally always full (or it should be) refueling into that tank is not typical. But just in case you could open the vent until the next flight. Marshall 420M << We recently completed a turbine conversion on our Lancair IV. Part of the conversion project included adding belly and baggage compartment auxiliary fuel tanks. My question is for Lancair IV owners with similar auxiliary fuel set ups. Is there any reason that I should avoid filling all tanks and allowing the airplane to sit several days? Is it possible to "create" leaks by filling all tanks and allowing the fuel to expand due to heat? If installed and sealed properly, is the belly tank as robust as the wing tanks?>> ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C7A527.632316A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have the = same setup and=20 have had no leaks from the baggage tank which if the vent = valve is=20 closed will be under pressure as the fuel heats.  However the = tank is=20 designed to take pressure (normal operation) so even when I leave the = valve=20 closed there are no leaks.   The center tank = is always=20 vented. In addition since the baggage tank is normally always full (or = it should=20 be) refueling into that tank is not typical.  But just in case you = could=20 open the vent until the next flight.
Marshall 420M

<< We=20 recently completed a turbine conversion on our Lancair IV.  Part = of the=20 conversion project included adding belly and baggage compartment = auxiliary=20 fuel tanks.  My question is for Lancair IV owners with similar = auxiliary=20 fuel set ups.  Is there any reason that I should avoid filling = all tanks=20 and allowing the airplane to sit several days?  Is it possible to = “create” leaks by filling all tanks and allowing the fuel = to expand due to=20 heat?  If installed and sealed properly, is the belly tank as = robust as=20 the wing tanks?>> 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C7A527.632316A0--