X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Ernest Christley" Received: from nm5-vm5.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com ([216.109.114.132] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.10) with ESMTPS id 7241121 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:00:43 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.109.114.132; envelope-from=echristley@att.net Received: from [66.196.81.156] by nm5.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Oct 2014 20:00:09 -0000 Received: from [66.196.81.153] by tm2.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Oct 2014 20:00:09 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1029.access.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Oct 2014 20:00:09 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 656188.28025.bm@omp1029.access.mail.bf1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 5921 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Oct 2014 20:00:09 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1414526409; bh=dYwba5gP7BodusNzqdJ4GKWxSaFYQERIZ2s+6NWm8W4=; h=References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=g2O708trPh2Z4m1j91hj4I+BxoW6EkorrK0AC38iXfYPhi5Sy3wOjzZYlYdc0AoQDShJZ9Dr/AhW+jK/cZQlkVu/QrDQ7hSEu4x/I6f/H7cM4DfYDp6yJ8zUjbrmJekJP92M6PfqjR8KknwBjJ2GV9B0uj+GUKBweWNweqQd+js= X-YMail-OSG: ImzDKCkVM1ngSDQSHX6LgHJ3K8upymY864tLyZFwlQWlOpa bzd7kDg15tT4pUCNgeLovH0RbMPHOmNmr.KwVGZnowqom6Zsq0T0H87U9_aJ QjYeGUcUVGLzdoBtSLc1HpEVtQYPHRtYpjIVMbG5S4oqwZ.6Py3w.XEX.B3_ inMi41IrwzSbKfwEhxiEWpL2HKW0.Qy20gqpZW8YEpuFR8iwB0wfRmXYaumd NbS5vX77aSqEeIAbF70IMAR2yMGSr7ZpVRWGIL5hN7myBlfFLmHfgUqeqPN2 jZRhRA.AleX3jg1qJEM9hBlwGhCrP3DTAgG6.F2CpZbf9Cb9RAVC9HvIYPhw e1TuvXrg2EeS5KOj4wUXvi39jUIoyzgFfFutbhbb0VxL.ZFOS29F2qBhSYWI B0FkVAplGko4P_LrLbC0ZVn8dyEB8Mt2bNxzX2UBTq2UGD6TyI42dkJ2_HJy pJ7rbQ8vyaGS1k2HZlsETR3LRwMO8C71RG2lq6f1lEYdokz5ibTsORmIActG RNT_SABlPiAsZuRTXEfInjFOM741q_GWO Received: from [70.39.176.76] by web181604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:00:09 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001,SSdtIG5vdCBzYXlpbmcgeW91J3JlIHdyb25nLCBNYXJrLiAgSSBkbyBob3BlIHRoYXQgcGFydCB3YXMgY2xlYXIuCgoKCgpPbiBUdWVzZGF5LCBPY3RvYmVyIDI4LCAyMDE0IDM6NTggUE0sIEVybmVzdCBDaHJpc3RsZXkgPGZseXJvdGFyeUBsYW5jYWlyb25saW5lLm5ldD4gd3JvdGU6CiAKCgpCdXQsIFdIWSBkbyB5b3UgZHJhdyB0aGUgbGluZSB0aGVyZSwgTWFyayAob3IgYW55b25lIGVsc2UgdGhhdCBjYXJlcyB0byBjaGltZSBpbik_ICBXaGF0IGlzIHRoZSBwaHlzaWNzIGJlaGluZCBpdC4gIFRoZXJlIGEBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.203.733 References: Message-ID: <1414526409.72845.YahooMailNeo@web181604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:00:09 -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="2017413661-741106822-1414526409=:72845" --2017413661-741106822-1414526409=:72845 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I'm not saying you're wrong, Mark. I do hope that part was clear. On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:58 PM, Ernest Christley wrote: 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. --2017413661-741106822-1414526409=:72845 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
I'm not saying you're wrong, Mark.  I do hope that part was clear.




On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:58 PM, Ernest Christley <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:


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. 
 




--2017413661-741106822-1414526409=:72845--