Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:11:37 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-918201@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.28.164; envelope-from=jkezele@juno.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: "jkezele@juno.com" <jkezele@juno.com>
Subject: To header tank or not....that is the question
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain

I recently purchase an uncompleted 360 MKII SFB with outback gear and ex=
tended engine mount.  The previous owner has closed the wings and added =
extra fuel bays with slosh valve per Lancair.  I now have the option of =
not installing the header tank.  I have the forward hinge canopy.  My or=
iginal plans were to omit the header tank, build a bulkhead for the cano=
py attachment and utilize the extra space for battery and hydraulic pump=
 placement.  As I understand the 360 with CG's fwd is less likely to hav=
e the pilot put himself into a pilot induced oscillation (PIO)in the fla=
re.
Some have stated that the header fuel system is a simple system and woul=
d be easier to plumb for return fuel management, say in the case of the =
Delta Hawk engine.  Engine weight for the Delta Hawk is comparable to th=
e Lycoming IO-360. =

The manual refers to utilizing the header tank as forward ballast for CG=
 purposes and setting the CG forward of the forward limit, thus the CG w=
ill move aft as the fuel is burned.

Any thought from the experts that have the header system and those that =
don't would be helpful.  A return system would require a duplex fuel val=
ve the is costly, but I don't see that the header system is all that sim=
ple to fabricate as well, and what about those facet pumps?

Regards

John Kezele