Fuel System Musings, comments encouraged

On Oct 20, 6:43*am, flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
RE the Ercoupe example: I don't like header tanks from a crash safety
standpoint, and another vent, and a return line souunds like MORE
plumbing to me. *Plus, this is a VW conversion, and if I used a
mechanical fuel pump it would be on the TOP of the engine, plus they
are not sealed like aircraft mechanical fuel pumps are, so this is a
no-go.

The Ercoupe design has worked safely and well for over fifty years.
The lack of a header tank does not guarantee crash safety - nor does
it's presence necessarily increase the danger.

The one pump in that design can either be mechanical or electric, it
matters not. There are no vents involved in the design. The float
gauge holes in the caps provide adequate venting. If you are forced to
park outside in the rain, you simply put a cap over the cap. There is
one line connecting the two tanks which are located at the wing roots.
If one wing is parked, or flown, a little low it makes no difference.
There is a tee in the line that leads to the inlet of the pump. The
outlet of the pump goes to the header tank. The overflow of the header
tank goes to one wing tank.

IMHO, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. This ain't rocket
science and you aren't building a space shuttle. Gravity flow to a
carburated engine is the safest and most reliable fuel feed possible,
until you are attacked by Feherenghi using anti-grav phasers. Listen
carefully - putting any pump, electric or mechanical, in the fuel line
to the carb will restrict or prevent fuel flow in the event of pump
failure. Be safe - use gravity.

My 2 cents worth.

Rich S.