X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:58:53 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from plus24.host4u.net ([66.70.195.24] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTP id 6314864 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:43:41 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.70.195.24; envelope-from=cj@AwlBiz.com Received: from www.awlbiz.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by plus24.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id r58Gh5V21074; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 11:43:05 -0500 Received: from 99-35-194-187.lightspeed.edmdok.sbcglobal.net ([99.35.194.187]) (SquirrelMail authenticated user cj); by www.awlbiz.com with HTTP; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 11:43:05 -0500 (CDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <60780.99.35.194.187.1370709785.squirrel@99.35.194.187> In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 11:43:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [LML] Propjet belly tank From: "Craig Jimenez" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > or change the fuel system all together which has > been advocated by some but that opens a whole new conversation thread. What's considered state of the art fuel system plumbing to avoid unporting the belly tank (to include avoiding a complex or time-consuming fueling process after you've started to use the belly fuel)? I've heard some have "updated" their configuration in recent years. I've heard of one propjet that has left, right, or both wing tanks feeding the belly tank, which then feeds a header tank that is designed to eliminate any air. Craig