Fuel System Musings, comments encouraged

On Oct 21, 12:29*pm, wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:55*pm, flybynightkarmarepair wrote:

(snip)
I recall a LONG argument on this forum *(or maybe it was on a Zenith
601 forum - LOTS of that design fly with a system VERY much like
you're advocating) about unporting a tank at low fuel levels and
sucking air, that I don't want to rehash, but I'll just note that I'm
firmly in the LEFT/RIGHT/OFF fuel selector camp for low wing planes
with wing tanks.

Just one more word on the subject and I'll go back to lurk around.

Since the Ercoupe design feeds the engine from the header tank,
unporting of a wing tank may momentarily interrupt the replenishment
of the header tank - but will not interrupt fuel flow to the engine.
Indeed, when the wing tank(s) are empty, the fuel pump is just suckin'
air. No harm, no foul.

Really good point.

You and Veeduber may have convinced me to try a Header Tank solution,
and FIND room for it. My gripe then will be No Pressurized Fuel in
the Cockpit, but I think I can work my way around that by having the
header tank VERY close to the firewall (maybe even in front of it...),
with the pump, the gasolator, and most of the fittings ahead of the
firewall. The next question becomes, how small can I reasonable go in
the header tank? I'm thinking that for an engine that burns, at most,
4 gallons per hour, a gallon USABLE might be enough.

I remember when I was young and stupid (as opposed to now being old
and senile),

Great story, I particularly enjoyed it as I know both areas well.

Later in
that same trip, we flew North into the Grand Canyon and then couldn't
climb back up and out over the North Rim. But that's another story.

Oh do tell! Either give it to us here, or e-mail it to me and I'll
post it on my blog or on my website.

Rich S.

My sincere thanks for all the comments thusfar, yours, Dan's,
Veeduber's, all y'all.