I agree 100% with you Mark, I will definately have wing tanks. The decision is whether to throw out the header or to keep it. I must say that I am partial to a fuel system supplied by an electric pump (or two). I plan on putting tubular tanks in the leading edge linked to the tanks between the spars as was suggested in a previous post. Like this there should be even less shift in CG as fuel is taken from the wing tanks, providing that the fuel level in the header remains constant. As for an overflow for the header, the wing tank vents will be plumbed to enter the header tank at about the full level. Only the header tank will be vented to atmosphere. That way any overflow will be sucked down the wing tank breather to return to the wing tanks. I am considdering running the transfer pump constantly in this configuration keeping the header tank full at all times, as long as there is fuel in the wing tanks. A short sight tube can be plumbed into the wing tank breather line. This will visually show that the transfer pump is running by being full of fuel and possibly bubbles as the fuel moves in the header. When this tube goes empty and the header tank level starts to drop you know that the wing tanks are empty (or the pump has crapped out) and the pump can be switched off. This is just an idea at this stage though. Regards Dene Collett KR2SRT builder South africa Whisper assembler See: www.whisperaircraft.com mailto: av...@telkomsa.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Langford" <n5...@hiwaay.net> To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 22:31 Subject: Re: KR> header tanks
> "Keeping the header tank"...yes, as long as you also have wing tanks or a > fuselage fuel cell like Bill mentioned. Header tank ONLY, I'd vote no.
