Carl I have never suggested cutting a new bung hole, ever I believe that's a poor technique anyway, think about it. The firewall which is the highest vibration concentration on the entire airframe and we are told to stick the neck of the tank directly into a small hole in that firewall while at the same time packing the back end of that tank with foam to prevent foaming. Huh, does not make much sense does it?

Instead what I have always practiced as well as recommended is in the case of a design that did the bung in a hole thing is I mearly moved the tank to the rear maybe a quarter inch or so sufficiently to allow the tank to be lower to where it needed to be if the nose compartment. Providing support carl for the tank is normally a matter of a few cross sticks. And I am sure the more you become involved in building you will realize just how easy that is to do.

If the nose compartment is short not infrequently it is quite easy to releve the number #2 bulkhead sufficiently to allow this slight movement to the rear of the tank. Another option in this situation is simply to use a slightly smaller tank i.e. shorter. There is such a hugh variety of tanks out there that using this option usually for me just take a look through my tank supplies.

Anytime an airplane pee's all over the tarmac after fueling or does not do that until the sun comes up then proceeds to do it then this in my Opinion and yes its always just my opinion, is unacceptable.

Yes Carl I use a two line system in almost everything (there are exceptions of course) wth a fueling point in the carb line and have recommended this many, many times in this forum, something I have also taken considerable heat over.

Anyway best of luck and hope to hear of your continuing adventures with your new ship.


John