Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c1) with ESMTP id 744288 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:19:17 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristl@cisco.com Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Feb 2005 10:30:59 -0500 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.90,98,1107752400"; d="scan'208"; a="37502797:sNHT31701642" Received: from [172.18.179.151] (echristl-linux.cisco.com [172.18.179.151]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j1IFHx1j007563 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:18:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <42160727.5030300@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:17:59 -0500 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040929 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Returnless Fuel System - Fuel Cooler References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Leon wrote: >For the power output that most of you have (less than 250 BHP), a 5/16" >high >pressure supply line is more than adequate, and a 1/4" return line is more >than adequate. For bigger power output (Hi Boost 13B & 20B engines, say up >to 400 Cheveaux) and a Hi Flo EFI pump , maybe a 3/8" supply line, and a >5/16" return line. > > > Just to put some numbers behind it, for anyone who cares. Assuming 15GPH for somewhere around 200Hp and a 1/4" fuel line (which has .049065cu.in. volume per linear inch of line): 15gal/hr * 1hr/3600sec * 231cu.in./gal * 1in/.049065cu.in * 1ft/12in = 1.634ft/sec flow rate for the used fuel. You'll pump more than twice that (depending on the pump), with most of the fuel being returned to the tank, but I don't think there'd be much pressure loss in even 5ft/sec.