gahorn wrote:If you are experiencing fuel vomiting out onto the cabin roof, you are likely wheel-landing coupled with hard-braking while the tanks are topped-off with fuel. (You can operate without over-filling the tanks, or at least avoid hard-braking when so filled.)
If that is causing stains which damage polyurethane paints you are likely using auto gas and/or aftermarket additives. (Avgas only/rarely leaves residue (does not actually stain), which can be easily wiped away using acetone or mek.)
n2582d wrote:If fuel "vomiting" through the gooseneck is a real problem, it seems to me the simple solution would be to add two check valves in the overhead vent line. Put one on each side of the gooseneck to allow air in but prevent fuel from flowing out the gooseneck. Get the approval through Blueldr!
kidalways wrote:Okay - so I believe I have touched on a nerve with some 170 owners. My next question - why hasn't someone done the paperwork to remove the vent? Honestly it provides nothing but drag, stains all over the wing and possible water in the fuel. The only place this belongs is either somewhere where it is protected from the elements getting in or in the trash can. My PA-12 has just vented fuel caps - and that was the way the plane was certified. My intention with this plane is to make a nice plane better - keeping the plane original for the sake of it all is not my intention. I like the suggestion of the check valves but still not convinced that flying in a rain situation wouldn't lead to some type of fuel contamination. I mean really guys if there wasn't a problem then why are people spending the money to put two vented fuel caps on their planes????
You might want to talk with Steve or his son Brian at Steve's Aircraft. He's "been there, done that" and found that there is not enough interest to pursue the mod. See the end of page three of this thread.kidalways wrote:I just find it hard to believe that in this day in age no one has pursued changing the venting system given it's problems. Cessna certainly changed it when they manufactured the 172. Oh well - I will pursue this more - maybe even get an STC for it.
Users browsing this forum: canav8, Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests