I still have one on my C172. The problem is the big 6 cylinder
engines induce a torsional vibration that the pump is resonant to.
This fatigues the shear point on the shaft and the pump can quit in
less than 100 hours when used with certain 6 cyl engines.
I have over 200 hours on my Aero Advantage pump but I am using a 4
cylinder Lycoming 0-320 and have had no problems.

I have had 3 Airborne pumps fail so far. Not a single one got to the
published Airborne TBO hours. One lasted 900 hours, one lasted 250
and one only lasted 50 hours. Is the Airborne pump better? Not in my
opinion unless you have a 6 cyl engine.
At least the feds are letting me keep the vacuum warning system.
Anybody got real world reliability data on the AEON pump yet?
John F

On 23 Feb 2006 07:20:29 -0800, "rdant" wrote:

Am I the only one that still has the Aero Advantage Dual Pump
installed? I see that the AD to remove the pump has finally arrived:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p84/385862.pdf

This is a stupid AD, in my opinion. The reason for the AD is that both
chambers might fail at the same time. But, how is that any worse than a
single-chamber pump failing?

Fortunately, the FAA updated the AD to allow owners to retain the
monitoring system, but unfortunately, the FAA has not yet granted
FAA/PMA approval to Phoenix Group (www.aeroadvantage.com) to
manufacture the simple part that is needed to do the mod.

My choice of replacement will probably be yet another new style pump,
the Sigma-Tek AEON pump (http://www.sigmatek.com).

Interestingly, the guy at Phoenix Group (the company that took over
Aero Advantage) implied that they a solution to the original flaw and
still plan to bring an update to market, if they get financing. And,
they'd overhaul the old units.