Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.71.176.72; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <43CE71E3.6010307@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:50:43 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Auto fuel
References: <list-931429@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-931429@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Heidi Johnson wrote:

> When I get a sec I'll have to go look it up, but if memory serves me 
> correctly.. there was someone else who did the same test, just with 
> water included and stated they hadn't found a suitable fuel tank 
> sealer or liner [meaning some type of resin coating] which stood up to 
> this combination. Again thats all from memory.
>
Everyone has their own comfort level, but the thing that scares the 
bejeesuses* outta me when thinking of a composite tank is that there is 
no way at all that I can test for the things that some state regulator 
will determine by fiat must be included in the fuel next year or 5 years 
hence.  I have a towable airplane, making it much easier to pickup fuel 
from any random service station.  I'm going to build an aluminum tank, 
even though the plans call for a glass one.  I wouldn't have a concern 
if I knew I'd always use avgas, but I find auto gas and glass tanks an 
iffy combination.


*bejeesuses - technical term for stuff you want to stay inside.

-- 
         ,|"|"|,                                    |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----        Dyke Delta         |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |