13 fuel taps

[RalphInCA]

13 fuel taps on C172R.

I know the value of draining fuel to check for water, and proper fuel type, but 13?

I drain them all, like a good boy. But it sure is annoying!

 

[MAKG1]

Sure is.

Three for the PIC, 10 for the lawyers.

Late model 182s are exactly the same.

 

[timwinters]

Three for the PIC, 10 for the lawyers.

Yup...

 

[James331]

And yet the mighty grand caravan has 2 sumps on the walk around

The pilatus has 5

Aerobatic 7ECAs have 4

One seventy deuce has how many?!

 

[Henning]

And yet the mighty grand caravan has 2 sumps on the walk around

The pilatus has 5

Aerobatic 7ECAs have 4

One seventy deuce has how many?!

There's apparently some issue with the tank design. If you ever sump on a sloped ramp, you begin to see the point.

 

[kgruber]

Cessna was offered Bill Barton's "Monarch" tanks, but turned him down. Fools.

BTW, Bill made the first "Barbie Doll" prototype. He was not in aviation "for the money."

http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/1940/a-better-barbie-story/

 

[asechrest]

After seeing this, I think I'd appreciate more sumps on the airplane I fly.

 

[frfly172]

The monarch tanks would have been the way to go,also they have a great cap.

 

[James331]

After seeing this, I think I'd appreciate more sumps on the airplane I fly.

That article makes me want better placement, not necessarily more.

If the drain was installed in that sump under the engine fuel line it would have shown up immediately, or if there was a gully formed from that sump under the pickup to the drain it would have shown up.

Just shot gunning more drains doesn't really sound like the best solution.

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

After seeing this, I think I'd appreciate more sumps on the airplane I fly.

Thanks for the link. Interesting read.

 

[MAKG1]

That article makes me want better placement, not necessarily more.

If the drain was installed in that sump under the engine fuel line it would have shown up immediately, or if there was a gully formed from that sump under the pickup to the drain it would have shown up.

Just shot gunning more drains doesn't really sound like the best solution.

I'm not sure I believe it at all.

It says you can have more than a gallon of undetected water in the tank. If that really were a hazard, don't you think 150s would be crashing after every rain?

 

[tonycondon]

one in each corner

 

[James331]

I'm not sure I believe it at all.

It says you can have more than a gallon of undetected water in the tank. If that really were a hazard, don't you think 150s would be crashing after every rain?

Even with bad cap seals I doubt they'd let that much water in from rain.

 

[Dan Thomas]

The old 172s had an aluminum tank within the wing. It had a smooth bottom that let all the water run into the inboard aft corner, right to the low spot in the tank where the drain was located. The new 172s had the same sort of wing structure, with ribs and stiffeners and so on inside the skin, but Cessna made that into an integral tank by sealing up all the joints and strips and rivets. Cheaper, maybe, and stiffer, since there's no removable tank cover with 80-some screws in it, and it holds more fuel, but all those stiffeners and stuff on the bottom form traps for water, so they had to install five drains in each tank. They stuck one in the bottom of the fuel selector, where the old 172s had a pipe plug and where water and sludge collected and caused trouble, and another in the header tank under the copilot's feet, where water can also collect and cause other sorts of trouble. The last one is in the gascolator.

There are reasons for almost everything.

Dan

 

[NJP_MAN]

And yet the mighty grand caravan has 2 sumps on the walk around

1 for the EPA can
1 for the fuel filter
1 for left wing
1 for right wing
1 for the fuel reservoir


I sump 5 on my caravan walk around.

 

[asechrest]

The old 172s had an aluminum tank within the wing. It had a smooth bottom that let all the water run into the inboard aft corner, right to the low spot in the tank where the drain was located. The new 172s had the same sort of wing structure, with ribs and stiffeners and so on inside the skin, but Cessna made that into an integral tank by sealing up all the joints and strips and rivets. Cheaper, maybe, and stiffer, since there's no removable tank cover with 80-some screws in it, and it holds more fuel, but all those stiffeners and stuff on the bottom form traps for water, so they had to install five drains in each tank. They stuck one in the bottom of the fuel selector, where the old 172s had a pipe plug and where water and sludge collected and caused trouble, and another in the header tank under the copilot's feet, where water can also collect and cause other sorts of trouble. The last one is in the gascolator.

There are reasons for almost everything.

Dan

Dan: given your experience (if I'm not mistaken) as a long-time A&P, what are your thoughts on this test?

Real? Bogus? Poorly performed?

 

[Dan Thomas]

Dan: given your experience (if I'm not mistaken) as a long-time A&P, what are your thoughts on this test?

Real? Bogus? Poorly performed?

Sure look sick. I wish they'd posted a picture of the airplane's overall attitude. Still, that sump at the fuel outlet is a real water trap.

I've had 150 tanks out and haven't noticed that low spot at the outlet nor the high spot at the sump drain. I'll watch for it. That one in the pictures might be a really old 150 and there might be an AD or an SB on it. The caps are really old.

Dan

 

[ARFlyer]

The Maule has 5/7 depending on if AUX tanks are installed.

1 - Gascolator
2 - Lowest Point, Which are side by side
1 - For Each Tank

 

[James331]

*oops, caravan mistype....iphone