X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 10:22:19 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com ([209.85.213.171] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 6804853 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:12:28 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.213.171; envelope-from=weinsweigd@gmail.com Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id c1so412074igq.10 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:11:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.62.104 with SMTP id x8mr275297igr.37.1396062714085; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:11:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.1.18] (dynamic-acs-24-112-177-176.zoominternet.net. [24.112.177.176]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c10sm8939052igj.17.2014.03.28.20.11.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: IVPT Belly tank From: David Weinsweig Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-88C4A56D-397B-4989-B251-E971C5B4DF63 X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) X-Original-Message-Id: X-Original-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:11:50 -0400 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-88C4A56D-397B-4989-B251-E971C5B4DF63 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Initially, Lancair provided a 15 gallon belly tank with the turbine kit as s= tandard. They then offered an optional 35 gallon belly tank which I purchas= ed and is on my plane. This was the standard factory designed system with th= e wings feeding the belly which feeds the engine. Simple but some feel not a= good design due to the fuel underbelly and perhaps more importantly the pot= ential unporting of the engine if air gets in the belly tank or if fuel is l= ow and the belly tank is not full and one flies a steep climb angle. If fue= l is low and burned out of the belly tank, one must give adequate time after= refueling for the wings to empty into and refill the belly or be very cogni= zant of avoiding a steep climb angle for fear of unporting the engine. I gen= erally try to consider the belly tank my reserves and land before the 112 ga= llons in the wings are gone or if I use some fuel from the belly tank wait a= period of time, low deck angle on climb out, or preferably let her sit over= night rechecking the wings prior to next flight to make sure the wings are a= s full as I expected as fuel from the wings will refill the belly.=20 John Cook and others have redesigned the fuel system as George pointed out s= o as to be able to pump belly fuel into the wing and my understanding is tha= t there is also a small gallon or two header tank so as to avoid unporting. P= ERHAPS this is a better system but in ways may be more complicated requirin= g more active fuel management with PERHAPS more to malfunction. I have opted to keep the factory designed system for many reasons but would a= lso like to know the integrity of the factory designed/provided belly tank i= n a gear up landing. I have been told by a previous owner of Lancair that i= t is a nonissue and that the factory system is the best but......... David Weinsweig Propjet N750DW Yes. That's what I'm asking. Being able to transfer to the wings and not ha= ve to draw off the belly tank was a very smart idea. Gear up is one thing. G= ear up fireball.....whole other league.=20 Sent from my iPhone On Mar 28, 2014, at 10:28, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: > Todd, > =20 > I presume you are asking if someone could make a gear up landing on one an= d not compromise the tank? > =20 > Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert R Pastusek > To: Lancair Mailing List > Sent: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 9:25 am > Subject: [LML] Re: Lancair IV-PT Accident Report >=20 > Todd, > Belly tanks to support the higher fuel consumption of the turbines, were a= builder add-on, and are all different. Some were better-engineered than oth= ers, but there is no standard for them. This, and the associated fuel system= plumbing for the turbine, are truly =E2=80=9Cbuilder option.=E2=80=9D > Bob Sent from my iPad= --Apple-Mail-88C4A56D-397B-4989-B251-E971C5B4DF63 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Initially, Lanc= air provided a 15 gallon belly tank with the turbine kit as standard.  = They then offered an optional 35 gallon belly tank which I purchased and is o= n my plane. This was the standard factory designed system with the wings fee= ding the belly which feeds the engine.  Simple but some feel not a good= design due to the fuel underbelly and perhaps more importantly the potentia= l unporting of the engine if air gets in the belly tank or if fuel is low an= d the belly tank is not full and one flies a steep climb angle.  If fue= l is low and burned out of the belly tank, one must give adequate time after= refueling for the wings to empty into and refill the belly or be very cogni= zant of avoiding a steep climb angle for fear of unporting the engine. I gen= erally try to consider the belly tank my reserves and land before the 112 ga= llons in the wings are gone or if I use some fuel from the belly tank wait a= period of time, low deck angle on climb out, or preferably let her sit over= night rechecking the wings prior to next flight to make sure the wings are a= s full as I expected as fuel from the wings will refill the belly. 

John Cook and others have redesigned the fuel system a= s George pointed out so as to be able to pump belly fuel into the wing and m= y understanding is that there is also a small gallon or two header tank so a= s to avoid unporting. PERHAPS  this is a better system but in ways may b= e more complicated requiring more active fuel management with PERHAPS more t= o malfunction.

I have opted to keep the factory des= igned system for many reasons but would also like to know the integrity of t= he factory designed/provided belly tank in a gear up landing.  I have b= een told by a previous owner of Lancair that it is a nonissue and that the f= actory system is the best but.........

David Weinsw= eig
Propjet N750DW




Yes. That's what I'm asking. Being  able to transfer t= o the wings and not have to draw off the belly tank was a very smart idea. G= ear up is one thing. Gear up fireball.....whole other league. 

S= ent from my iPhone

On Mar 28, 2014, at 10:28, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote:

Todd,
 =
I presume you are asking if someone could make a gear up landing on o= ne and not compromise the tank?
 
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From:= Robert R Pastusek <rpastusek@htii.com>
To: Lancair Mailing List <l= ml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 9:25 am
Subject: [= LML] Re: Lancair IV-PT Accident Report

Todd,
Belly tanks to support the higher fuel consumption of the turbines,= were a builder add-on, and are all different. Some were better-engineered t= han others, but there is no standard for them. This, and the associated fuel= system plumbing for the turbine, are truly =E2=80=9Cbuilder option.=E2=80=9D=
Bob

Sent from m= y iPad
= --Apple-Mail-88C4A56D-397B-4989-B251-E971C5B4DF63--