Flying with fuel leak?

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
As delivered from the factory, Maules spill fuel when completely filled.
Owners
learn not to completely fill the tanks. If the flying club people are
nuts,
then Maule owners ...... Never mind.

Please George.... never mind.... but now that you brought it up (again), are
you aware of a fix? Or is it "As delivered from the factory" and for
evermore?

I've come to believe that keeping the tank switched to L or R while filled
helps but not really sure. Perhaps just the power of suggestion.

Roger Long wrote:

If you knew that the pipe
that was intended to conduct overflow fuel from the tank to the ground was
sending it somewhere else in your Mooney or Maule, would you keep flying it?

If the vents to a tank become plugged on a Maule, the fuel will vent into the
wing and come out the flap area - at least, it will when the plane is on the
ground. Now. That does require that two conditions be met. 1) you have to
fill the tank to within 1.5" of the filler tube, and 2) something has to plug
the vent.

The vents are 1/8" tubing. There's a type of insect (probably a dirt dauber)
that thinks these are just perfect recepticles for eggs. When the larva gets
big enough, you have a blocked tube with no external signs.

I discovered this when I put too much fuel in one tank at Oneonta, NY. I flew
home. Cleared out the tube (I thought). The larva got big enough to completely
block the tube returning from Oshkosh that year. That resulted in an unscheduled
fuel stop and more work on the vents.

So, yes, I keep flying and fix it when possible. On the other hand, I don't have
electric flaps.

George Patterson
The British drink warm beer because they all own Lucas refrigerators.

"Roger Long" om wrote in message ...
I was looking over the web site of a flying club that posts the minutes of
their meetings. One item said that fuel was running out of the wing of
their 172 when the flaps were fully extended because the overflow drain was
broken. They asked that the tanks not be completely filled until this could
be fixed.

Am I just overly compulsive about maintenance or are these people nuts?

I'm not going to say I've never flown an airplane with a fuel leak,
but it all depends on the situation. Without knowing the situation,
it's hard to judge.

Example, when I was towing banners. The company had 8 airplanes, and
all of 'em were 40-60 years old. Things break, and when you're using
planes to make money, sometimes you have to prioritize things.

On the first flight of a freshly restored plane (tow plane mind you,
so any luxury item has been removed, things like radios, windows,
doors, interior, ect.) everything was going well. Plane flew well,
engine was running ok, and everything seemed to work. Of course, we
only put 15 gallons in her for the one hour flight, so the tanks were
nowhere near full. The next day, when I showed up for work, I filled
the tanks and got ready to work.

Problem- fuel leak. The PA-12 has a fuel system simlar to a Cessna,
the left tank has a vented cap, and the right tank is vented to the
left, and there is a seperate shutoff valve for each tank. The cross
vent had fuel dripping right onto my shoulder. Heck with it, it'll
stop once I burn off a few gallons, and it's evaporating anyway and
without doors and windows, it's not like I'll have a problem with
fumes.

After 5 minutes it stopped and I was able to replace the fuel line at
the end of the day. It ammounted to MAYBE 4 or 5 oz. of gas lost, and
I was able to get the work done.

When it's your airplane that you're using for pleasure you can have
the luxury of downing the plane for a week to fix something as soon as
it breaks. But if there's no room in the shop until Thursday, well,
maybe you can fly it until then.

I'm not defending places that let the maintinace go, I've worked for
them before, but not for long. They don't do "maintinace," that's
what you do to keep something from breaking. They did damage control;
run it until it won't run no more then clean up the mess and fix it.
Is that what this club is doing?

It doesn't sound like it. It sounds like they want to fix it, but
don't want to inconvenience it's members for a minor squak while the
plane waits in the shop. I've flown out of places like that, you show
up to fly, but there's no airplanes available. The only one left is
grounded because of a bad attitude gyro. On a clear VFR day. But
it's not getting worked on, it's waiting in the shop because there's a
2 day backlog.

But not everyone has the luxury of flying something that looks like it
just came off the showromm floor. Now, if you're paying for a rental,
that's another story. If I were paying top dollar for something like
that, I'd want it to work properly too. But there are always two
sides to every story. Alot of times what's recorded in a club's
minutes is the distillation of a 30 or 40 minute debate into 3
sentence.


--
Mike O'Malley

The "as delivered from factory" isn't the issue. If you could establish
that the tanks leaked like this due to the design, and when the plane was
certified, the leaks would then be OK. Not only would the be OK, it would
make the aircraft unairworthy to fix them. Flying the aircraft with tanks
that didn't leak would invalidate your insurance, expose you to license
suspension, cause your hair to fall out, your pecker to shrivel, hair to
grow on the palms of your hands, and your descendents cursed unto the
seventh generation.

--
Roger Long

Here's my perspective as maintenance officer of a different flying club:

Although we are all owners in common who have a say in the maintenance
policy, all of the members except myself are more removed from the issues
than the individual owner who talks directly to the shop. We are an
organization making an aircraft available to a group with a wide range of
understanding of aircraft systems and attention to what is going on. This
implies a higher standard than the guy who goes out and flies his personal
airplane.

Although we need a certain number of flying hours to afford to keep the club
going, every individual flight we make is optional.

I don't require that the aircraft be in perfect condition to be released for
flight but I do insist that it be legal. If something is inop and on the
required equipment list as part of the certification, it gets fixed before
the plane flies. If it can be placarded, it is and we fix it at the
earliest opportunity.

We maintain our aircraft very proactively. Failures have become rare.
Insisting on a standard of airworthiness and legality such that I wouldn't
worry about a ramp check on any flight has not cost us a single hour of
flying in the last year.

I can see where operators who do minimum maintenance and defer everything
possible get backed into a position where they have to constantly compromise
with the regulations. Since we started maintaining to a high standard,
usage is up, cash flow is better, and everyone is proud of our aircraft.
--
Roger Long
Mike O'Malley wrote in message
m...

I'm not going to say I've never flown an airplane with a fuel leak,
but it all depends on the situation. Without knowing the situation,
it's hard to judge.

Example, when I was towing banners. The company had 8 airplanes, and
all of 'em were 40-60 years old. Things break, and when you're using
planes to make money, sometimes you have to prioritize things.

On the first flight of a freshly restored plane (tow plane mind you,
so any luxury item has been removed, things like radios, windows,
doors, interior, ect.) everything was going well. Plane flew well,
engine was running ok, and everything seemed to work. Of course, we
only put 15 gallons in her for the one hour flight, so the tanks were
nowhere near full. The next day, when I showed up for work, I filled
the tanks and got ready to work.

Problem- fuel leak. The PA-12 has a fuel system simlar to a Cessna,
the left tank has a vented cap, and the right tank is vented to the
left, and there is a seperate shutoff valve for each tank. The cross
vent had fuel dripping right onto my shoulder. Heck with it, it'll
stop once I burn off a few gallons, and it's evaporating anyway and
without doors and windows, it's not like I'll have a problem with
fumes.

After 5 minutes it stopped and I was able to replace the fuel line at
the end of the day. It ammounted to MAYBE 4 or 5 oz. of gas lost, and
I was able to get the work done.

When it's your airplane that you're using for pleasure you can have
the luxury of downing the plane for a week to fix something as soon as
it breaks. But if there's no room in the shop until Thursday, well,
maybe you can fly it until then.

I'm not defending places that let the maintinace go, I've worked for
them before, but not for long. They don't do "maintinace," that's
what you do to keep something from breaking. They did damage control;
run it until it won't run no more then clean up the mess and fix it.
Is that what this club is doing?

It doesn't sound like it. It sounds like they want to fix it, but
don't want to inconvenience it's members for a minor squak while the
plane waits in the shop. I've flown out of places like that, you show
up to fly, but there's no airplanes available. The only one left is
grounded because of a bad attitude gyro. On a clear VFR day. But
it's not getting worked on, it's waiting in the shop because there's a
2 day backlog.

But not everyone has the luxury of flying something that looks like it
just came off the showromm floor. Now, if you're paying for a rental,
that's another story. If I were paying top dollar for something like
that, I'd want it to work properly too. But there are always two
sides to every story. Alot of times what's recorded in a club's
minutes is the distillation of a 30 or 40 minute debate into 3
sentence.


--
Mike O'Malley

"Roger Long" om wrote in message ...
I was looking over the web site of a flying club that posts the minutes of
their meetings. One item said that fuel was running out of the wing of
their 172 when the flaps were fully extended because the overflow drain was
broken. They asked that the tanks not be completely filled until this could
be fixed.

Am I just overly compulsive about maintenance or are these people nuts?


Kinda nuts. A wing with a puddle of evaporating gas inside is not
something I'd want to be flying around under. When my 172 had that
problem (left wing), the gas pooled in the wing and when I held a less
than perfectly coordinated right turn, gas dripped through the
headliner onto my arm. That convinced me to park it.

On less that fully filled tanks, some gas will get into the overflow
when manuevers are performed.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
The "as delivered from factory" isn't the issue. If you could establish
that the tanks leaked like this due to the design, and when the plane was
certified, the leaks would then be OK. Not only would the be OK, it would
make the aircraft unairworthy to fix them. Flying the aircraft with tanks
that didn't leak would invalidate your insurance, expose you to license
suspension, cause your hair to fall out, your pecker to shrivel, hair to
grow on the palms of your hands, and your descendents cursed unto the
seventh generation.


I'll tell you, my tanks leak like a sieve, just like everyone else's. And
I'm proud of it!

I leak and I'm proud!

In fact, I'm going out right now, fill 'em up, taxi around, kill some grass
and then burn some off. Nothing is going to fall out or shrivel here.

seventh generation.


I'll tell you, my tanks leak like a sieve, just like everyone else's.
And
I'm proud of it!

I leak and I'm proud!

In fact, I'm going out right now, fill 'em up, taxi around, kill some
grass
and then burn some off. Nothing is going to fall out or shrivel here.

Reminds me of the Comp Air turbines. A couple of years ago at OSH, we had
to put fuel soak-up bags under two of them.
--
Jim in NC

Maule Driver wrote:

I've come to believe that keeping the tank switched to L or R while filled
helps but not really sure. Perhaps just the power of suggestion.

I have proven empirically that keeping the tank switched to L or R helps. Both
the local ramp by the fuel pumps and my tiedown are on slopes. If I fill the
tanks to 1.5" below the filler tube (which is normally safe), park on my
tiedown, and leave the selector in the "off" position, the right tank (the
uphill one) will be down about 1/4 tank a week later. Leave the selector on R,
and I'll still have full tanks. Similarly, if I leave the selector "off" while
I'm fueling, frequently the downhill tank will overflow before I finish paying
for the gas. I have developed the habit of leaving the selector on the uphill
tank, but I cannot give you a good reason for doing that instead of the downhill
one.

And no, I'm not aware of a fix. Seems to me that Maule would offer that as an
option if there were one.

George Patterson
The British drink warm beer because they all own Lucas refrigerators.

I never turn my fuel off in my 812, there's no reason for it. When on a
hill or refueling and I'm trying to get as much gas in as possible I
will turn it to R or L. It does not matter which one.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Maule Driver wrote:

I've come to believe that keeping the tank switched to L or R while filled
helps but not really sure. Perhaps just the power of suggestion.


I have proven empirically that keeping the tank switched to L or R helps. Both
the local ramp by the fuel pumps and my tiedown are on slopes. If I fill the
tanks to 1.5" below the filler tube (which is normally safe), park on my
tiedown, and leave the selector in the "off" position, the right tank (the
uphill one) will be down about 1/4 tank a week later. Leave the selector on R,
and I'll still have full tanks. Similarly, if I leave the selector "off" while
I'm fueling, frequently the downhill tank will overflow before I finish paying
for the gas. I have developed the habit of leaving the selector on the uphill
tank, but I cannot give you a good reason for doing that instead of the downhill
one.

And no, I'm not aware of a fix. Seems to me that Maule would offer that as an
option if there were one.

George Patterson
The British drink warm beer because they all own Lucas refrigerators.