Return-Path: Received: from [199.185.220.223] (HELO priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c1) with ESMTP id 729302 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:16:16 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=199.185.220.223; envelope-from=haywire@telus.net Received: from Endurance ([207.81.25.155]) by priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with SMTP id <20050215071526.PGUL1178.priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net@Endurance> for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:15:26 -0700 From: "Todd Bartrim" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] For Ernest Re: More on Header Tanks, Venting & Pressure Reg Position Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:15:24 -0800 Message-ID: <007601c5132e$1f19b910$0201a8c0@Endurance> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0077_01C512EB.10F67910" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0077_01C512EB.10F67910 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually cost was not the driving force to implement a returnless EFI system, but rather the need to comply with ever increasingly stringent California emissions requirements in regards to evaporative emissions... caused by returning hot fuel to a fuel tank. I've no doubt that the auto manufacture's would try to use this as an opportunity to reduce manufacturing costs, but not likely at a cost to reliability or fuel economy. As any consistent failure of these components could lead to an expensive safety recall or at the very least, increased warranty work, I'd speculate that they'd not do it if they didn't think they could do it right. Todd Bartrim When you look at the new "returnless" fuel systems, they are really no less complex than the previous systems, only a bit CHEAPER to manufacture and install!! (corz most of the stuff is in one place in the tank - but it's a bugger for mechanics when it comes overhaul time!!) Cost is usually the driving force in these things, not necessarily efficacy, functionality or serviceability. ------=_NextPart_000_0077_01C512EB.10F67910 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Actually cost was not = the driving=20 force to implement a returnless EFI system, but rather the need to = comply with=20 ever increasingly stringent California emissions requirements in regards = to=20 evaporative emissions... caused by returning hot fuel to a fuel tank. = I've no=20 doubt that the auto manufacture's would try to use this as an = opportunity to=20 reduce manufacturing costs, but not likely at a cost to reliability or = fuel=20 economy. As any consistent failure of these components could lead to an=20 expensive safety recall or at the very least, increased warranty work, = I'd=20 speculate that they'd not do it if they didn't think they could do it=20 right.

Todd = Bartrim

When you=20 look at the new "returnless" fuel systems,  they are really no=20 less
complex than the previous systems,  only a bit CHEAPER to=20 manufacture and
install!! (corz most of the stuff is in one place in = the tank=20 - but it's a
bugger for mechanics when it comes overhaul = time!!)  Cost=20 is usually the
driving force in these things,  not necessarily=20 efficacy,  functionality=20 or
serviceability.

------=_NextPart_000_0077_01C512EB.10F67910--