Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:39 AM - Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Gary Casey)
2. 07:37 AM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Eric Ruttan)
3. 07:46 AM - Inrange check/downwind check etc (Fergus Kyle)
4. 09:03 AM - Re: Crimpers - lead rod for testing (KeithHallsten)
5. 09:54 AM - Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc (Leo J. Corbalis)
6. 11:04 AM - SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit a Reality for IFR ops? (Treff, Arthur)
7. 11:32 AM - Re: SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit (Harley)
8. 11:42 AM - Re: SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit a Reality ... (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 12:38 PM - Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc (Richard Riley)
10. 01:57 PM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Brian Lloyd)
11. 02:11 PM - Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc (Brian Lloyd)
12. 02:20 PM - Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc (Brian Lloyd)
13. 02:53 PM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
14. 03:58 PM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Rick Girard)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<Heh, maybe you switch to Auto before cranking the engine and take note of
fuel pressure?>>
Exactly - that's the easiest way to "disable" the mechanical pump in order
to check operation of the automatic system. You are doing two things when
you turn on the "auto" mode; one is to check that the pressure switch if
functioning (the pump turns on) and the other is to check the functioning of
the latching relay (the pump stays on) and the light. Then during the runup
the rest of the system is checked - the pump is turned from off to "auto"
and it DOESN'T come one. I believe that would be an adequate check of the
system. The idea is to reduce the number of decisions that have to be made
in the air.
Should we reject the idea of doing this simply because ALL planes don't have
this capability, thereby creating different operating techniques that have
to be learned for different airplanes? Fuel pump operation is already quite
a bit different from plan to plane. Some POH's say to turn on the pump for
takeoff and landing (but they omit other operating modes where it would be a
good idea) and some don't. Some fuel systems will tolerate the electric
pump on under all conditions and some don't. Some have 2-speed pumps with
specific requirements and even these vary from plane to plane. Some will
show a difference in fuel pressure with the electric pump on and some won't.
Many don't even have a fuel supply pressure gage. Seems that if this system
were on all aircraft the difference in operating procedure from plane to
plane would be less than it is today.
It probably sounds like I'm pushing this system a lot, but I'm mostly trying
to get diverse opinions on the idea (it worked!).
Gary Casey
When I was a kid we had a tractor that required the operator to control the
generator output current. Yet all present-day system voltages are
controlled automatically, taking this control away from the pilot (and
creating the need for still more complexity in the form of monitoring and
enunciation features). What I wonder is, can I install this fuel system in
my experimental and still be a Libertarian?
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
> Exactly - that's the easiest way to "disable" the mechanical pump in order
> to check operation of the automatic system. You are doing two things when
> you turn on the "auto" mode; one is to check that the pressure switch if
> functioning (the pump turns on) and the other is to check the functioning
of
> the latching relay (the pump stays on) and the light. Then during the
runup
> the rest of the system is checked - the pump is turned from off to "auto"
> and it DOESN'T come one. I believe that would be an adequate check of the
> system. The idea is to reduce the number of decisions that have to be
made
> in the air.
>
> Should we reject the idea of doing this simply because ALL planes don't
have
> this capability, thereby creating different operating techniques that have
> to be learned for different airplanes? Fuel pump operation is already
quite
> a bit different from plan to plane. Some POH's say to turn on the pump
for
> takeoff and landing (but they omit other operating modes where it would be
a
> good idea) and some don't. Some fuel systems will tolerate the electric
> pump on under all conditions and some don't. Some have 2-speed pumps with
> specific requirements and even these vary from plane to plane. Some will
> show a difference in fuel pressure with the electric pump on and some
won't.
> Many don't even have a fuel supply pressure gage. Seems that if this
system
> were on all aircraft the difference in operating procedure from plane to
> plane would be less than it is today.
>
> It probably sounds like I'm pushing this system a lot, but I'm mostly
trying
> to get diverse opinions on the idea (it worked!).
>
> Gary Casey
>
> When I was a kid we had a tractor that required the operator to control
the
> generator output current. Yet all present-day system voltages are
> controlled automatically, taking this control away from the pilot (and
> creating the need for still more complexity in the form of monitoring and
> enunciation features). What I wonder is, can I install this fuel system
in
> my experimental and still be a Libertarian?
Yes you can. The part still get to decide if they want to participate. :)
Incorrect fuel management is a number 3 killer. This speaks to the truth
that may pilots are not very good at it.
The creation of a full automatic fuel delivery system will save lives. The
cost of monitoring the sub components is minor compared to saving lives.
This is probably the most important change the OBAM community can make.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Inrange check/downwind check etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Cheers,
Not my purpose to disagree with an active CFI, but I see no
reason to change checklists [which were used for hundreds of different
aircraft types and developped over 40 years of training] for each model of
aerodyne.
If one must change the list each item should be complete:
Gas - contents, selection, fuel pressure
Mixture - usually rich unless above 5000, carb heat on/off
Undercarriage - down, locked, downlock pressure up, visual clues, no horn
Flap - initial circuit selection, then final selection
Pitch - fine for overshoot
Trim - for overshoot (on final)
Actually, the ultimate checklist 50 years ago was HTMPFFGGS plus
any particularity for type - could be used on most allied machines for any
manoeuvre (if admittedly repetitive - but when you're flying seven or eight
types..........).
Ferg
do not archive
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crimpers - lead rod for testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "KeithHallsten" <KeithHallsten@quiknet.com>
Guy,
Lead wire and lead rod is commonly available at sporting goods stores, in
the fishing section. It's used to make sinkers.
Keith Hallsten
<snip>
I'm reasonably happy with my PRO-CRIMPER, though I still feel like
a liability target. I'll just keep the PRO-CRIMPER in spec by mic'ing my
crimps and recording the results. (The PRO-CRIMPER instructions give "CRIMP
HEIGHTS" based on "LEAD ROD" crimps for your enjoyment. Don't ask me where
I'm going to find lead rod.)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
When I was an aviation cadet in 1949, they tatooed the GUMP check and the
"cigarette" actually CIFFRRT on THE INSIDE OF OUR EYELIDS and if we couldn't
find the list we caught unshirted hell ! It works fine for any plane you can
actually if not legally fly solo. The P put the prop in flat pitch causing
the overspeed supersonic howl of the old counterweight constant speed
hamilton prop when you pulled the throttle off and on to check the gear
warning horn on the downwind leg.
That was 4000 hrs ago and 55 years. If it works , it works.
Leo corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Inrange check/downwind check etc
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
> Cheers,
> Not my purpose to disagree with an active CFI, but I see no
> reason to change checklists [which were used for hundreds of different
> aircraft types and developped over 40 years of training] for each model of
> aerodyne.
> If one must change the list each item should be complete:
> Gas - contents, selection, fuel pressure
> Mixture - usually rich unless above 5000, carb heat on/off
> Undercarriage - down, locked, downlock pressure up, visual clues, no horn
> Flap - initial circuit selection, then final selection
> Pitch - fine for overshoot
> Trim - for overshoot (on final)
> Actually, the ultimate checklist 50 years ago was HTMPFFGGS
plus
> any particularity for type - could be used on most allied machines for any
> manoeuvre (if admittedly repetitive - but when you're flying seven or
eight
> types..........).
> Ferg
> do not archive
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit a Reality |
for IFR ops?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff@smartm.com>
With the plethora of panel mounted MFD's, hand held tablet computer and PDA
based devices for display of IFR maps and instrument approach procedures in
the cockpit, has the FAA made a ruling to no longer require a paper backup
of approach charts for IFR operations? I'm thinking of making the 'digital
jump': away from my stack of Jeppesen books (and never ending revisions) to
an electronic hand held device. I have asked Seattle Avionics and Control
Vision (Anywhere Map), [two of the vendors I'm considering] the same
quesiton, but no answer as yet from their sales team. I mean, if to be
legal, the Feds still require a paper backup for approach procedures, then
the charts will remain in my bag, and any PDA and it's subscription to the
database would only be excess baggage in my mind, and forget an expensive
MFD. I"d rather put the $$ into the RV under construction or into AVGAS.
This list is the cutting edge for all things electrical in aircraft, so I'm
guessing one of you out there has gone down this thought path before.
Arthur Treff
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit |
a Reality for IFR ops?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Afternoon, Art...
I can't confirm it, but I think I heard that the FAA allows printouts of
the charts such as Control Vision generates. I may have read this
somewhere on Control Visions website or one of their emails.
So, during your preflight or planning stage, print out the charts you
may need, and throw them away when you're trip is over.
Harley Dixon
Treff, Arthur wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff@smartm.com>
>
>With the plethora of panel mounted MFD's, hand held tablet computer and PDA
>based devices for display of IFR maps and instrument approach procedures in
>the cockpit, has the FAA made a ruling to no longer require a paper backup
>of approach charts for IFR operations? I'm thinking of making the 'digital
>jump': away from my stack of Jeppesen books (and never ending revisions) to
>an electronic hand held device. I have asked Seattle Avionics and Control
>Vision (Anywhere Map), [two of the vendors I'm considering] the same
>quesiton, but no answer as yet from their sales team. I mean, if to be
>legal, the Feds still require a paper backup for approach procedures, then
>the charts will remain in my bag, and any PDA and it's subscription to the
>database would only be excess baggage in my mind, and forget an expensive
>MFD. I"d rather put the $$ into the RV under construction or into AVGAS.
>
>This list is the cutting edge for all things electrical in aircraft, so I'm
>guessing one of you out there has gone down this thought path before.
>
>Arthur Treff
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit a Reality |
...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/23/2004 1:04:48 PM Central Standard Time,
Arthur.Treff@smartm.com writes:
With the plethora of panel mounted MFD's, hand held tablet computer and PDA
based devices for display of IFR maps and instrument approach procedures in
the cockpit, has the FAA made a ruling to no longer require a paper backup
of approach charts for IFR operations?
Good Afternoon Arthur,
The FAA says that if you are operating under 135, or any of the other common
carrier modes, you must have an approved source. There are some approved
electronic flight bags.
That is something between the holder of the certificate and the Principle
Operations Inspector assigned to that operator.
As to what is needed by someone operating under the provisions of part 91,
all that it says is that some approved source of information must be used.
That puts the decision right back in your own pocket.
If you are out there flying around in the clag and come up needing something
you don't have, you are always subject to the careless and/or reckless
operation rules.
Personally, I use the Jeppesen JeppView disc and print out any charts I
think I will need. I also carry a VAIO LapTop computer on which I can run the
disc if I need to make some sort of an unplanned stop.
I also carry enough fuel such that I can always make it to some point where
I could get down visually if I should encounter a complete electrical failure.
If I want to shoot an approach at a point for which I don't have the charts,
I can try to use the VAIO. If that fails, I will just go to my alternate.
The vast majority of IFR flights are conducted under conditions where no
approach is needed. As long as you can get into VFR conditions using the
enroute charts, no approach plates are needed.
One thing that I do if am going to make an approach to an airport for which
I don't have the printed chart is to look up the approach on my portable
computer long before I need the data. I then write down the data on a pad of
paper so that I will have it if the computer fails.
I do that just to increase my dispatch and schedule reliability. As I said
before, if the electronic source fails, I can just treat it like I would if I
was executing an NDB approach and my ADF failed.
I would divert to my alternate.
It all gets back to your interpretation of what is reasonable. The FAA has
no specific requirements as to how much data you much have and in what form
it is carried.
All they require is that you have current FAA approved information for the
operation you are conducting.
If what you think is reasonable does not work, action would likely be taken
against you.
One check that I make is to ask myself how I would explain my decision at
the hearing.
If I feel uncomfortable with my planning, I won't do it!
I have been operating without a complete set of paper approach plates for
the last three years. So far, I have only had to use the laptop a couple of
times and I have never had to divert to my alternate due to equipment failure.
I do carry a complete set of enroute paper charts for the area being flown
over.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
I once red a proposal to mount a 12 guage shotgun in the panel, pointing at
the pilot. The trigger would be in the belly of the airplane. If the
pilot ever landed gear up, the shotgun would fire. This would, it was
proposed, greatly reduce the number of gear up accidents.
My airplane will not run reliably at idle with the electric and mechanical
fuel pumps running - after a couple of minutes, it tends to flood. Now if
the engine quit on short final, I *might* have the presence of mind to turn
on the electric pump - while simultaniously switching tanks, pegging best
glide, raising the belly board, perhaps raising the gear, looking for a
place to land, calling a mayday and re-assuring my passenger.
Or I could have an automatic switch that would to it faster than I could
possibly react.
Thanks to those that replied. I'll be putting the fuel pressure switch in,
but leaving the oil pressure switch out of it.
At 09:55 AM 10/23/04, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis"
><leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
>
>When I was an aviation cadet in 1949, they tatooed the GUMP check and the
>"cigarette" actually CIFFRRT on THE INSIDE OF OUR EYELIDS and if we couldn't
>find the list we caught unshirted hell ! It works fine for any plane you can
>actually if not legally fly solo. The P put the prop in flat pitch causing
>the overspeed supersonic howl of the old counterweight constant speed
>hamilton prop when you pulled the throttle off and on to check the gear
>warning horn on the downwind leg.
>That was 4000 hrs ago and 55 years. If it works , it works.
>Leo corbalis
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Inrange check/downwind check etc
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Not my purpose to disagree with an active CFI, but I see no
> > reason to change checklists [which were used for hundreds of different
> > aircraft types and developped over 40 years of training] for each model of
> > aerodyne.
> > If one must change the list each item should be complete:
> > Gas - contents, selection, fuel pressure
> > Mixture - usually rich unless above 5000, carb heat on/off
> > Undercarriage - down, locked, downlock pressure up, visual clues, no horn
> > Flap - initial circuit selection, then final selection
> > Pitch - fine for overshoot
> > Trim - for overshoot (on final)
> > Actually, the ultimate checklist 50 years ago was HTMPFFGGS
>plus
> > any particularity for type - could be used on most allied machines for any
> > manoeuvre (if admittedly repetitive - but when you're flying seven or
>eight
> > types..........).
> > Ferg
> > do not archive
> >
> >
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 23, 2004, at 10:37 AM, Eric Ruttan wrote:
>> What I wonder is, can I install this fuel system in
>> my experimental and still be a Libertarian?
>
> Yes you can. The parts still get to decide if they want to
> participate. :)
And in an aircraft, we still need to have a stable society even if not
all the parts choose to cooperate.
> Incorrect fuel management is a number 3 killer. This speaks to the
> truth
> that may pilots are not very good at it.
Clearly this is a problem. The scary thing about it is: it just isn't
that hard to do so why do pilots screw it up so often?
> The creation of a full automatic fuel delivery system will save lives.
> The
> cost of monitoring the sub components is minor compared to saving
> lives.
Well, fully automatic implies sufficient intelligence to automatically
select the proper tank, automatically manage the fuel pumps to ensure
proper pressure at the fuel metering system, and to let you know if you
aren't going to make it to your destination or if you can make it to
any field before you drop below minimum fuel.
This is a good question. Does anyone know of a source of good
electrically-operated fuel valves? Simple motor-driven bistable on/off
valves (draws current only when the valve is moving) with a switch to
provide feedback of valve open/closed would be nice. Anyone know of
such a critter? Seems to me the old Aero Commander twins used
eletrically-operated valves.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 23, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Richard Riley wrote:
> Thanks to those that replied. I'll be putting the fuel pressure
> switch in,
> but leaving the oil pressure switch out of it.
What I found worked really, really well for me in my RV-4 was an Audio
Flight Avionics engine monitor. It had a polite woman's voice that
would say, "Warning, low fuel pressure," in my headphones should I
forget to switch tanks. I could then switch tanks without the engine
so much as skipping a beat.
It would tell me exactly what was wrong and the rest of the systems
were dirt simple. This appealed to me greatly.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 23, 2004, at 10:48 AM, Fergus Kyle wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
> Cheers,
> Not my purpose to disagree with an active CFI,
Feel free. I am still learning.
> but I see no
> reason to change checklists [which were used for hundreds of different
> aircraft types and developped over 40 years of training] for each
> model of
> aerodyne.
I agree with you. I use GUMPS for all aircraft. I just have to
remember that the 'S' means "slats and flaps".
I encourage you to disagree with me if you have a better idea. The
point I try to make with my students is to be consistent in performing
a before landing check that all systems are in order. Repetition leads
to the likelihood that the check will be performed every time. And a
simple check means that the components of the check will be performed.
> If one must change the list each item should be complete:
> Gas - contents, selection, fuel pressure
> Mixture - usually rich unless above 5000, carb heat on/off
> Undercarriage - down, locked, downlock pressure up, visual clues, no
> horn
> Flap - initial circuit selection, then final selection
> Pitch - fine for overshoot
> Trim - for overshoot (on final)
> Actually, the ultimate checklist 50 years ago was
> HTMPFFGGS plus
> any particularity for type - could be used on most allied machines for
> any
> manoeuvre (if admittedly repetitive - but when you're flying seven or
> eight
> types..........).
Well, one does what one needs to do to get the job done.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/23/2004 3:59:12 PM Central Standard Time,
brianl@lloyd.com writes:
Anyone know of
such a critter? Seems to me the old Aero Commander twins used
eletrically-operated valves.
So did the Convair 340s
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Girard <fly.ez@verizon.net>
The RV (the kind that roll not the kind that fly) industry has
electrically operated fuel valves. Here are two from JC Whitney:
http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ProductDisplay/s-10101/p-1103/c-10107
Rick Girard
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|