I need to replace two fuel senders in each wing of a Socata TB20, and a replacement is almost $500.
I wanted to know whether a shop exists in the US that reconditions these?
After some research, I'm still not sure if reconditioning resistive fuel senders is common practice at all. I only heard anecdotically about it
While I have no personal experience with refurbished or reconditioned fuel senders, I did some research, and there do appear to be shops that will work on aviation units. An alternate search has some different results.
These results imply that that it is both legal to recondition fuel senders, and that there are a few options within the US.
For the record, I wasn't able to track down a manufacturer or part number for the units used by SOCATA, which makes it a bit more difficult to research. I do know that Cessna senders can be found for under $300 at McFarlane, if that gives you a price comparison, or in case one of those is the right unit. Aircraft Spruce has even cheaper units (Rochester and Westach) but I'm not sure why they are so cheap; often the parts Spruce carries are not for certified aircraft, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Either option is certainly cheaper than the price SOCATA seems to have quoted.
Good luck with your search, and if you find a shop or a part number, make sure to update (or comment on) your question!
There are shops that do this and egid gave you a couple of hints on how to find one, but your local mechanic can probably recondition your fuel sender about as well as any of the specialty shops, as long as they're not squeamish about opening up the unit (and as long as the unit can be opened up - I'm not sure about the TB20 senders).
What's basically involved is cleaning the resistor element and wiper contacts, making sure everything is making good contact through its full range of travel, and verifying that the sender is still within a reasonable calibration range when you're done with the cleaning (you can use your other, working sender to determine what's "reasonable", or verify using your fuel gauge).
The Comanche folks have a nice article on reconditioning a (really beat up) fuel sender, and technologically they're similar to automotive fuel senders, so this article about reconditioning Corvette fuel senders may also be useful to get an idea of what you're in for.
I've been taught to always sump the plane's fuel system before going flying to check for water / contamination / proper fuel grade. However, I've yet to go flying in rain. What's the proper procedure to drain fuel during rain? If I took the fuel cap off to dump the fuel back into the plane, I'd be worried about rainwater getting in the tanks.
Ok, so this may be more of an english lanugage question, and I can confirm from context that when the fuel shutoff valve is ON fuel does indeed flow to the engine, but wouldn't that just make more sense to call that valve the fuel valve? If the component that shuts fuel off is on, operational, in use, functioning, etc., shouln't fuel be shut off, as the name implies? I realize this could be seen as a quibble, but confusion causes accidents and IMO this is wildly confusing. EDIT Looking at the Cessna 152 checklist today I noticed this interesting quirk. On the regular checklist side (pre
We know that most of the plane accidents and deaths result from the explosion of fuel tanks in the planes, like when two planes collide, or when the plane falls on the ground. With the advent of technology, i wonder whether it is possible to prevent the fuel explosion. Can this be done by evaporating the fuel in the planes just before the collision? Or use a solid architecture encapsulating the fuel tanks in the planes, such that the fuel is not set to fire? What research has been done in this field and if so what were the findings?
Inspired by a discussion in chat. Most GA piston singles are powered by either Lycoming or Continental engines. The engine designs used by both manufacturers are broadly similar (4-cycle, horizontally-opposed, gasoline-powered, air-cooled), and they're both generally available with either carburetors or fuel injection, but I know they're not "identical products". What are some of the differences between the designs used by the two manufacturers, and what practical implications do those choices have for pilots?
I know that the F-16 (F-16I and Block 50/52/60 models) have conformal fuel tanks standard now on top of the wing/fuselage area. The Silent Eagle model of the F-15E proposed by Boeing for South Korea, and other F-15E customers had them added. The F-18E (Superhornet) has demoed a set recently. But on older aircraft, how common were conformal fuel tanks? Or have they always been drop tanks before?
As a thought experiment, imagine a plane with minimal fuel/appliances on board with hundreds of heavy passengers that make up say 10% of the weight of the plane. Now imagine that they have a way to synchronize a jump where temporarily for 0.5s they are airborne in relation to the plane. (NOTE: If idea of so many heavy passengers is troublesome to you, assume this is a cargo carrier with spring...) plane weight is the actual cargo (excluding fuel)? Does the location of the "jumping" cargo matter? Tail vs. Cockpit What happens if all pax/cargo suddenly jumped to tail or cockpit section
Wikipedia provides some numbers (typical empty weight, MTOW, max fuel capacity, etc.), but I can't seem to find more detailed figures. For a purpose of this question, let's assume a fully loaded A380 in typical 3-class configuration (~530 passengers) and fuel for a long haul flight (>10h). So, what is the typical weight of the passengers + luggages? Is any additional cargo typically carried? If so how much? What about the weight of crew and catering? And fuel weight? (Fuel weight will depend on actual flight duration, so the answer should mention the corresponding flight duration.)
I recently saw an argument in a forum I frequent that sumping the tanks when the system was below freezing was a bad idea, as you can't drain solid ice from the fuel system, and there is a chance that ice may jam the drain open, causing your entire tank of avgas to empty onto the ramp. While this is certainly a possibility, is it a reason to skip sumping the fuel system during preflight, or do the reasons for checking the fuel system outweigh the risk of a tank of fuel winding up on the ground?
? I've heard that they can refuel your plane, move it to a hangar, clean it, provide preflight planning facilities, etc. Is there a charge for these services (I guess so) and if so, what can be expected? I've also seen many airports with multiple FBOs. How does that work? All I know is that FBO stands for "Fixed Base Operator". This may seem like a very stupid question but in Europe there's no such thing. If you need fuel you either taxi to the pump and fill up or call up the fuel provider (if you're lucky because they usually only serve private jets).
Lead in gasoline for automobiles has been banned from nearly every corner of the world, with most bans dating from the nineties. Why are we still poisoning ourselves with lead in Avgas? I understand that Tetraethyllead (as it's apparently technically called) is an octane booster, but the Wikipedia article also mentions that advances in the production of high octane unleaded fuel have pretty much nullified that argument. There are more reasons of course, but none the automotive industry wasn't unable to overcome many decades ago. I know it's 'low-lead' with very little lead compared