I should know this... MEL
- Thread starter SixPapaCharlie
- Start date
arnoha
Cleared for Takeoff
I had both senders (one twice) and the gauge fail on my 172. The gauge...the needle fell off. The FREAKIN' NEEDLE FELL OFF. How does that even happen?!? After that, I gave up on stock Cessna garbage parts. I'm assuming the Grumman isn't much better in this regard. I went with CiES senders and a digital fuel gauge (not an engine monitor). Both were far cheaper than stock ($800/pair vs $1200 each and $800 vs. $3500) Install made up much of the difference, but I now have an absolutely reliable and accurate system. I would do it again in a heartbeat and I highly recommend it.
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
Please don’t ever consider that system “absolutely reliable and accurate”. It isn’t. Might be a lot better, but it can still kill you if you aren’t careful.
arnoha
Cleared for Takeoff
Yes, of course. It was a bit of hyperbole. Anything can fail and I do not rely on these gauges any more than I relied on the originals. I still stick the tanks. I still use time as my primary measure of endurance. These are not a way to get an extra few miles out of a tank.
But...it's still peace of mind to know I can depend on them. Previously, I knew that a needle to zero was almost certainly a glitch and will likely return after a few bumps. Report it to the A&P just so he can shrug and mark it as ops check good. As long as one tank or the other showed fuel, I wouldn't have treated it as an emergency. If a tank shows empty now, I'm running with the assumption that I have a serious leak and will treat it as an emergency. That's a valuable difference.