fbpx

 

Getting more educated on fuel filter from replies here on fuel filter issues, browsed a bit further and came across these items of info that raised questions that I wonder if anyone here can comment on:

From a more-or-less reputable source :
"...The Rotax supplied fuel pumps are actually automotive fuel pumps with both having a mesh filter inside them....."
Well, that raises for me two questions ....


"....accordance with the current Maintenance Manual LINE all mechanical fuel pumps have a 5 year life. Fuel pumps prior to 2008 (with S/N starting 07. or 06.) should have already been replaced in line with the routine maintenace requirements. If this 5 year replacement has been omitted the pump should be replaced with immediate effect. It is necessary to check the part no. & S/N of any pumps previously replaced to ensure that are not in the affected range.. "

Well, ours was not in rhe range of the specifically suspect pumps, but is over five years old.

Anyone know if that replace fuel pump every five years is a current recommendation?
More important... R&R pump looks straightforward at first glance under cowl...but are there sny tios or gotchya's good ti knkw if?
Amy page/site with an idiot's step by step fir R&R?


(BTW......Discard a pump every five years _seems-, intuitively a bit excessive considering that in decades of car ownership, including some very old ones, i've never had a fuel pump fail, and given that in the plane, unlike the cars we have a auxiliary fuel pump ...But it's not terribly expensive and looks like it eould be a pretty simple job..So I'd be willing to replace it. Are any here replacing the pump every five years?)



Alex
  • Re: Tips fir replace fuel pump?

    by » 8 years ago


    Hi Alex,

    The current thinking from Rotax is to replace the pump every 5 years along with the hose change.
    That is what some will do and some will wait until it shows signs of going bad. You'll have to pick which side of the fence to fall on. Will the current Corona pumps last longer than 5 years, yes. Could one fail sooner, yes. Could one make it let's say 8+ years, yes.
    Do some people just replace it on condition, yes. Do they shows signs of issues and not just totally fall apart in the air, yes.
    A good pre-flight and an inspection schedule will usually pick up any problems just starting. Depending on what country you live in they may have laws that influence what has to be done as far as following Rotax's recommendations.
    The other consideration is that they haven't been out for many years to show a longevity history. Time will tell. Maybe when there is enough long term history Rotax may say on condition, but that is pure speculation on my part and may not happen.

    So it's your choice. Replace at 5 years or on condition.

    Roger Lee
    LSRM-A & Rotax Instructor & Rotax IRC
    Tucson, AZ Ryan Airfield (KRYN)
    520-349-7056 Cell


    Thank you said by: Al C

  • Re: Tips fir replace fuel pump?

    by » 8 years ago


    Thanks for your considered response Roger.

    In our case ours is old enough (...won,t even say how old, except to say "we're either real lucky or these pumps are way better than Rotax implies".....) that we lean to replacing.
    We purchased the new replacement pump about 1.5years ago when the vendor was having a bit of a sale.
    Only reason we haven't replaced it yet was/is we lean to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" side.

    ********Any tips , cautions, directions, on the job?*****

    It LOOKS like it should be simple...but it wouldn't be the first time what looked like a simple job was complicated or had some gptcha,s to what's for .

    Al

  • Re: Tips fir replace fuel pump?

    by » 8 years ago


    ".....the pump every 5 years along with the hose change........"

    I know thie whole "five year" thing has been kicked around before and probably everything that can be said has already been.
    But, FWIW , my quarrel is with _almost_ any flat flat elapsed YEARS of existance rule.
    Hours of operation? Sure? Conditions of service? Sure.
    But it totally lacks credibility that pumps or rubber on a 912 flown 30 hous per year in a temoerate climate snd hangered in a climate controlled hangar would be at same level or risk of degradation as one flown 400 hr per year and parked out in the 130 degree blacktop in the Arizona sun. ;-)

  • Re: Tips fir replace fuel pump?

    by » 8 years ago


    "But, FWIW , my quarrel is with _almost_ any flat flat elapsed YEARS of existance rule.
    Hours of operation? Sure? Conditions of service? "


    When determining times of service you just have to put a line in the sand someplace and you have to take into consideration early failures and trying to save the people that want to wait longer from hurting themselves and others if you have an in air failure. No failure has a clock to go by so you try and pick a time that may help save everyone's engine and their hide.

    Safety and trying to error on the "Best Practice" side is always the better way to go. It may even keep you out of court and from being sued by a passenger or their family member.

    Roger Lee
    LSRM-A & Rotax Instructor & Rotax IRC
    Tucson, AZ Ryan Airfield (KRYN)
    520-349-7056 Cell


  • Re: Tips fir replace fuel pump?

    by » 8 years ago


    Hi Roger,
    Pardon my drifting :unsure: us off the real practical stated topic.

    ".....when determining times of service you just have to put a line in the sand someplace ....."

    Understood! Really.

    But why not draw it in hours of operation, or both hours and years?
    Such as "X hours of operation or N years of service, which ever is shorter"?
    And/Or conditional, sort like auto manufacturers do, such as
    "Change oil every 7000 miles, or 3000 miles under severe service".....then they define "severe service" as toeing, or dusty environments, or high temperature operation, or short trips, etc.

    One other problem with drawing _some_ lines in the sand that are or sound intuitively sound overly cautious or "unreasonable" (such as my take of "how can a Rotax with 100 hours and hangared in a climate conrolled hangar have rubber as degraded as one with 1500 hours outside on 130 degree Arizona blacktop") can lead to a boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome ....where other really solid engineering and data-based recommendations are also taken with too much skepticism. If it possible to be "too conservative" "Too safe?" On the face if it it would seem the answer is "no."
    But, In short, it risks losing the source's credibility. That can kill people too.

    I recall when young, decades ago, learning that traffic speed markings on curves were very conservative...that a curve marked "limit 30mph" could safely be navigated at 40 or even 45 when dry. Then one day I went into a curve marked 30 that was an exception in that it was not very conservatively rated....that REALLY needed a to be taken at face valve.... and came damn close to going over sn embankment.

    Can't help mentioning in this context that AFAIK no other aircraft engine maker has anything like a five year flat "change all rubber every five years" requirement or even recommemdation. (Correct me if I'm wring on that.) Does maybe at least raise suspicions of overkill a bit?

    Finally: unless the owner is that rare "unlimited budget...cost-is-no-object" person, every dollar used on a what might be an unnecessary required parts replacement is sometimes dollar not available for something else that could increase safety or functionality:
    Does putting $3500 into a five year rubber replacement buy me and those who share airspace with me more safety margin than, say, installing an ADS-B in-and-out transceiver? a BRS?

    Just my ponderings and two cents.

    Alex

You do not have permissions to reply to this topic.