Return-Path: Received: from imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.72] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2891666 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:08:31 -0500 Received: from TOSHIBAjhr ([209.215.55.83]) by imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with SMTP id <20031215144523.PUET21685.imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net@TOSHIBAjhr> for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:45:23 -0500 From: "John Slade" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Fuel System Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:45:23 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 V6.00.2800.1165 > Since we are using two rotors is it possible to > split the fuel rail into two rails and have one of the returns plumbed to the port > tank and the other plumbed to the starboard tank? I thought of doing this too since I was after total redundancy. The question becomes - "how well will the engine run (if at all) on one half of the system?" You dont want failure of either system to be a problem or you've doubled you're risk. This will depend on the computer settings. Using cold start I suspect it'll run reasonably well on either just primaries or just secondaries. Running on one rotor only would probably not be a good idea. The other constraint is physical. At least with my 3rd gen engine with the primaries in the block it would be simple to plumb the primaries and secondaries seperate. They're seperate already. You'd just need an extra regulator and a couple of extra pipes. In the end I decided to T the input just before the rail and switch the return with a solenoid. Regards, John Slade