Return-Path: Received: from imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.70] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 770578 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:22:19 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.70; envelope-from=sqpilot@bellsouth.net Received: from paul52u7f5qyav ([216.78.114.8]) by imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with SMTP id <20050304202133.SFRR2068.imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net@paul52u7f5qyav> for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:21:33 -0500 Message-ID: <005701c520f7$bbbbdfb0$df2cd6d1@paul52u7f5qyav> From: "Paul" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel cutoff valve necessary? Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:20:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernest Christley" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 10:54 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel cutoff valve necessary? > Paul wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernest Christley" >> >> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" >> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:01 AM >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel cutoff valve necessary? >> >> >> >> > Paul, you're mixing two seperate things here. A maintenance shutoff valve > and an emergency shutoff valve. I'm only really considering the latter. Answer...Hi, Ernest....actually, my emergency shutoff valve is also my maintenance valve. (Dual duty). > > Consider this objectively. Once the pump stopped, did turning an extra > vavle actually make you safer, or did it just make you feel safer? If > there was no flow through the pump without the electrons driving it, what > additional benefit does the valve offer? Answer....If the landing was not so smooth, or I couldn't stop in time and went into the ditch and the engine and mount separate from the plane, or it should flip over, etc, I would prefer the fuel went no further than the shutoff valve. Not every forced landing results in an undamaged aircraft. > > One point that I should clarify, so that my ruminations here would not > seem so pointless. I've been considering a returnless system. A single > tank is located high in the back of the airplane. If I locate the pumps, > filters and gascolator back under the tank (advantageous for W&B and > positive head to the pumps), and just run the single supply line up front, > then I would have to find a valve that would reliably operate under > elevated pressures. But having a pump that blocks flow when it isn't > running immediately begs the question of, "What is the point of the > valve?" Not thinking for a moment that I know it all, I present the > question here. > Answer....the fitting that attaches the fuel line to your pump leaks, or the fuel line to your pump develops a leak. How you gonna stop it? Just a thought, not necessarily a good one. Paul Conner >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.1 - Release Date: 3/4/2005 > >