X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Ernest Christley" Received: from nm10-vm8.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com ([216.39.63.218] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.10) with ESMTPS id 7241143 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:58:51 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.39.63.218; envelope-from=echristley@att.net Received: from [216.39.60.170] by nm10.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Oct 2014 19:58:17 -0000 Received: from [216.39.60.252] by tm6.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Oct 2014 19:58:17 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1023.access.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Oct 2014 19:58:17 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 880667.46338.bm@omp1023.access.mail.gq1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 4090 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Oct 2014 19:58:17 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1414526297; bh=yYlNhcQStVGJYJyJ65cyVsTCZcB2+UC3v3hM9Se65OM=; h=References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=1WlhXDmeADd8ZbDrjtu8ni8Psb0SwC/jAp594Un1zHYpF4UDT1Oemj107dt7cJtm1dXFw2FdqBI2Lb7YWSJfazjFaGu9JkJfuVKUCeKzdmVw2XUeKaioa3qINbAIcNIUixP7zcvfU37gVYZXXxEI0tTLu9wnqHxC523XpgBnxCU= X-YMail-OSG: SSRoZh4VM1mUemfQiLQXAUXJs5axuY3SVzZEfIe7tMwK8AH TEX.Rf_FjiH.TBmIk9MEz9ZtzeNbwabysb8to6MrDRvIcN_Vhtn6qqmTB54L TZfylhDtmO3.WCWFm0M.sDNJYeMrUZGMOOCimlKiS2RIv._dCWzCWqnvRkGb IA45JL0uX29lito1ZyY29P.fpXBDKBghjdeSveZNSGxzpxMF9.h9Yt.PCYaS BFBxrnaWplozxqy5JrrBsqdFOuTp36fPN.X7flfqGIW3NDgtZpduhsCupAcL 7GRyTuI_NCIz_i43rVykyhZwytiwNw9fHkh5QYmlRnjVj.B3ViMXl8vNwXXL EMb6eIFTtX_gAO.zwTfBQe8R4qIKpz2ne68b3G1dRjPIptx6KKZDveBbVGyT KEgPOfJyo5VfP_Rxd_O2AsFAx39r3wn1ZAqxOppw1nWVSc0ihn.9wsO6L_FN OIYaEqy71dLCbJHK_i6PA21B9.0DvTjnO5PgAHat8aGA2FxpNkdkN7qCTCAF JsIdRc2YZfaEhx8de6PNNwKLduPeDN11L Received: from [70.39.176.76] by web181604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:58:17 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001,QnV0LCBXSFkgZG8geW91IGRyYXcgdGhlIGxpbmUgdGhlcmUsIE1hcmsgKG9yIGFueW9uZSBlbHNlIHRoYXQgY2FyZXMgdG8gY2hpbWUgaW4pPyAgV2hhdCBpcyB0aGUgcGh5c2ljcyBiZWhpbmQgaXQuICBUaGVyZSBhcmUgbGl0ZXJhbGx5IE1JTExJT05TIG9mIHBsYXN0aWMgcGFydHMgcnVubmluZyBhcm91bmQgaW4gdGhlIGZ1ZWwgc3lzdGVtcyBvZiB2ZWhpY2xlcyB0aGF0IGxpdmUgaW4gZW52aXJvbm1lbnRzIG11Y2ggbW9yZSBhYnVzaXZlIHRoYW4gYWlycGxhbmVzLiAgRmlyZXMgZG8gaGFwcGVuLCBidXQBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.203.733 References: Message-ID: <1414526297.22488.YahooMailNeo@web181604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:58:17 -0700 Reply-To: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: electric fuel selector valves To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="2017413661-174382155-1414526297=:22488" --2017413661-174382155-1414526297=:22488 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii But, WHY do you draw the line there, Mark (or anyone else that cares to chime in)? What is the physics behind it. There are literally MILLIONS of plastic parts running around in the fuel systems of vehicles that live in environments much more abusive than airplanes. Fires do happen, but for the most part they are old junkers coated in oil and grease. And all the calls for steel braided hose: the max fuel pressure in the project I'm working on is 6psi. There isn't a tubing manufactured that will be noticeably stressed by 6psi. I've heard that the steel braid is to protect the hose against abrasion. But, wouldn't a better idea be to eliminate the rubbing, and then replace with a lighter hose that puts less stress on expensive aluminum AN fittings that always seem to be adapters screwed into NPT ports (ie, why not just stay with NPT if we're using it everywhere anyhow?) And why not use a barbed fitting? Nearly every vehicle on the highway today is using them exclusively. Are we really expecting AN fittings to hold the rubber hoses together when we wrap up in a ball tight enough to deform the entire airplane? It seems we insist that the laws of physics somehow change just because the wheels leave the ground, all in the name of doing a "little bit better", which doesn't seem to me to translate to anything actually beneficial. If we need a rope to hold 100lbs, and I have one rated for 1,000lbs, is it worth paying to get a chain rated at 100,000lbs? I'm ranting a bit, but I really can't wrap my brain around a lot of this. I bought my current project and I've been pulling off "improvements" the build did. I've got a fortune in AN fittings that are totally pointless...and all to serve 4gph of fuel to an updraft carburetor at 1.5psi. I'm just like, "SHEEESH!!" On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:17 PM, Mark Steitle wrote: Unlike airplanes, trucks can pull over to the side of the road. Besides, we all know that trucks/busses/RV's never catch fire. ;-0 Personally, I would never use a plastic fuel valve in an airplane, but that's just where I draw the line. YMMV. OK, I've said it. I'll go back to lurking now. --2017413661-174382155-1414526297=:22488 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
But, WHY do you draw the line there, Mark (or anyone else that cares to chime in)?  What is the physics behind it.  There are literally MILLIONS of plastic parts running around in the fuel systems of vehicles that live in environments much more abusive than airplanes.  Fires do happen, but for the most part they are old junkers coated in oil and grease. 

And all the calls for steel braided hose:  the max fuel pressure in the project I'm working on is 6psi.  There isn't a tubing manufactured that will be noticeably stressed by 6psi.  I've heard that the steel braid is to protect the hose against abrasion.  But, wouldn't a better idea be to eliminate the rubbing, and then replace with a lighter hose that puts less stress on expensive aluminum AN fittings that always seem to be adapters screwed into NPT ports (ie, why not just stay with NPT if we're using it everywhere anyhow?)  And why not use a barbed fitting?  Nearly every vehicle on the highway today is using them exclusively.  Are we really expecting AN fittings to hold the rubber hoses together when we wrap up in a ball tight enough to deform the entire airplane?

It seems we insist that the laws of physics somehow change just because the wheels leave the ground, all in the name of doing a "little bit better", which doesn't seem to me to translate to anything actually beneficial.  If we need a rope to hold 100lbs, and I have one rated for 1,000lbs, is it worth paying to get a chain rated at 100,000lbs?

I'm ranting a bit, but I really can't wrap my brain around a lot of this. I bought my current project and I've been pulling off "improvements" the build did.  I've got a fortune in AN fittings that are totally pointless...and all to serve 4gph of fuel to an updraft carburetor at 1.5psi.  I'm just like, "SHEEESH!!"





On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:17 PM, Mark Steitle <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:


Unlike airplanes, trucks can pull over to the side of the road.  Besides, we all know that trucks/busses/RV's never catch fire.  ;-0 
Personally, I would never use a plastic fuel valve in an airplane, but that's just where I draw the line.  YMMV. 
 
OK, I've said it.  I'll go back to lurking now. 
 


--2017413661-174382155-1414526297=:22488--