[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


> Brian, Just wondering  why all the fuss over a fuel pump when it is not really
> needed for the Carb. we have on the Franklin.   It is the same carb. as on a
> 1972 Cessna and just a bigger version of  what is mounted on the 0-200 Cont.
> in a Cessna 150.  Both are supplied fuel by gravity flow .
> I built a Tri-Q 200  (Cont. 0-200A engine) and flew it for 7 1/2 years with
> just a 12 inch drop from the header tank to the Carb.  Never had a problem.
> I used a Facet electric pump to move the fuel to the header tank and it also
> worked fine for 7 1/2 years.   It would seem that we could safely just put a
> plug in the engine fuel pump mount and use a gravity flow system with a Facet
> pump as booster or back up.  What do you think?

Excellent observation.
Actually, I'm going to test my setup with gravity feed and a boost
pump.  The only thing I don't like is that the sump tank is too
low to provide any pressure.  I'm sure I could save a few pounds
of weight by removing that big hunk of metal called a fuel pump

The problem I have is that other airplanes are using this engine.
Not everyone has the luxury of gravity feed.

Brian Michalk  <http://www.awpi.com/michalk>
Life is what you make of it ... never wish you had done something.
Aviator, experimental aircraft builder, motorcyclist, SCUBA diver
musician, home-brewer, entrepenuer and SINGLE!