Return-Path: Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com ([198.81.17.69]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO203-101c) ID# 0-44819U2500L250S0) with ESMTP id AAB14072 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:42:24 -0400 Received: from ReganRanch@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 8LMYa02316 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:40:43 -0400 (EDT) From: ReganRanch@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:40:43 EDT To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Subject: Fuel Tank Vent X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Marv wonders: << Other than the extensive distance from the outboard end of the tanks back to the fuselage, what problems do any of you see with this venting scheme? >> I don't think it is a good idea to have the vent higher than the cap. This implies that you can have some pressure behind the cap. There are two problems with this, caps leak and a preflight check of fuel level (removing the cap) will result in fuel being spit at you. Personally I would rather have the blue ring around the vent;) The IVs have a little NACA scoop that pressurizes the fuel to about 1/2 a PSI at cruse. This no doubt helps prevent boost pump cavitation in high altitude flight. Regards Brent