| Hey Rob,
If you scan the archive you will find this issue vigorously debated several times.
Reminds me of the Mac vs PC debate (or Unix vs VMS for us old fogeys) (or Python vs C for younger guys).
Most of us just keep repeating whatever argument validates the particular choice we selected.
As you know, I put the fuel in the outer wing bays and use the header space for avionics.
I have 42 gal usable. I put in slosh gates. I am very happy.
reasons for my choice:
-There are, oh maybe a million, airplanes configured this way....most aircraft designers make this choice.
-Lancair switched to this system with the Legacy. -If I have an off-airport landing and break things, I would rather not get doused with fuel. -In the header system, if you leave a facet pump on too long you pump fuel overboard.
-In the header system if you forget to turn on the facet pump every 20 min. the engine dies. -Yes, these last two problems can be fixed by automating transfers...but that adds a system with its own failure modes.
-The headers space is really useful for ahrs, rf splitters, pitot-static manifolds, misc. circuits, regulators etc.
To each his own....but the fuel-in-the-wings system is in fact a very reasonable choice.
|