Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: flyrotary
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:28:39 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-2084402@logan.com>
From: "sqpilot@earthlink" <sqpilot@earthlink.net>
References: <list-2083574@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Sump tank
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 8:23 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Sump tank


> Posted for "Tommy James" <twjames@healed.org>:
>
> Hi Paul,
> To me this would be a question of temperature and pressure.  If the fuel
can
> cool down in the sump that would be better than running all the way back
to
> a tank.
> What happens, pressure wise, when the 2 gallon sump fills up?  Actually, I
> don't think it would be a problem, but an item to consider any way.
> The surest way is to run the overflow back to a main tank.  Why did you
> choose a 2 gallon sump?
> Regards,
> Tommy James<><
>
Hi, Tommy....thanks for the reply. I chose the 2 gallon sump tank because
Velocity uses it in their retract aircraft, and it will fit behind my rear
seat back and just forward of the main gear. Not much room there for a
larger sump tank.  I am also toying with the idea of not using a sump tank
at all, and just having the fuel return to the left main tank, which I will
make my "primary" tank for takeoff and landing etc.  Paul Conner
> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>