On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:08:03 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:


"Jerry Wass" wrote in message
.net...
GeorgeB wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:23:52 -0800, Richard Riley
wrote:

If you're flying a homebuilt you can burn whatever you want - but the
alcohol restriction wasn't put there at random, it increases vapor
lock problems dramatically,

How do the planes which do fly on ethanol handle that problem,
pressurized tanks?

and is incompatable with many of the
materials commonly used in aircraft fuel systems.

The sealant sloshed in the tanks is one, I think ...

Do automobiles with flex-fuel capability do anything to minimize the
vapor lock issues? I'm sure the materials were selected to be ok.

Ole Jerry said: most of the automobiles in the last 20 yrs or so have the
GAS PUMP inside the GAS Tank. Vapor lock is usually induced by Sucking on
the fuel at some point in the fuel system.

Maybe off topic but this involves fuel pumps in tanks. They fail way too
often and when they do, you aren't going to fix it on the road side. After
five failures at $800 a pop, I removed the pump from the tank and put an
aftermarket pump in the fuel line where I can replace it with a screw driver
for $50. No vapor locks yet.

Strange. I have 362000km on my current vehicle (pump in tank - still
original and 14 years old) and had 240,000 on each of my last two
vehicles - 14 and 18 years old - all on the original in-tank pumps.

I NEVER got that kind of mileage out of a mechanical pump, and frame
mounted electric pumps virtually ALL rusted out in less than 10 years,
requiring replacement. This is why, to a large degree, most
manufacturers went to in-tank pumps a long time ago.
If you don't change fuel filters, you WILL burn out pumps. If you
always run on the bottom 1/4 tank you will LIKELY burn out pumps - but
the top 1/4 doesn't cost any more to keep full than the bottom 1/4.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com