Electric Fuel Pump

[AlexLev]

I ended up buying a new unit from Aircraft Accessories (Weldon 8164A) when mine hit the crapper. It was $1,150 which hurt and I had it overnighted. Part of it was that I had a trip planned and didn't want the downtime.

[Marauder]

1 minute ago, AlexLev said:

I ended up buying a new unit from Aircraft Accessories (Weldon 8164A) when mine hit the crapper. It was $1,150 which hurt and I had it overnighted. Part of it was that I had a trip planned and didn't want the downtime.

Hopefully it will be the last one you replace. I installed my Weldon in 1997.

[Shadrach]

On 3/21/2019 at 11:27 PM, Jim Peace said:

why mess around with something so important?

http://cjaviation.com/contact-us.html

Because CJaviation is using the same crap tech that makes the Dukes such a fragile piece of glass in the first place. They charge more than twice as much to convert your broken piece of shite to a newly overhauled piece of shite.   Given how "important" the pump is, I'll take the robustly upgraded Aeromotors unit over the wheezy, iffy, 1-5hour run time between overhauls any day.  I'll give Aeromoters a pass on this as an anomaly with the suspicion that there there may be more to the story.

For a detailed understanding of how Aeromotors has improved the existing Dukes unit, see my write up after spending almost a half hour discussing the pump with Ole, the owner of the company and the individual that developed the FAA approved upgrades.  My newly overhauled pump is demonstrably more powerful than it's ever been. I have had to shorten my prime times accordingly and have noted that it boosts pressure to red line in flight and on the ground (would never happen with previous overhauls).  An Aeromotors pump is an excellent upgrade to any lawn mower!

 

Edited March 23, 2019 by Shadrach

[Jim Peace]

11 hours ago, Shadrach said:

An Aeromotors pump is an excellent upgrade for any lawn mower!

When the time comes again I will consider Aeromotors

for now the CJ one I bought was brand new from their line and so far so good....

[DCarlton]

My electric fuel pump is INOP.  I'm assuming the red one installed is a Dukes (P/N 4140-00-19A).  Aeromotors doesn't have one on the shelf for quick ship but they are quoting $550 overhauled and turn around within a few days.  A new Weldon Pump is available at several dealers, P/N 18020-A for $1300 - $1400 plus a $300 core charge.  I've been in a maintenance cycle since last Nov with little flying.  Can't get an appointment with my local shop for at least two weeks.  Should I order the Weldon new now and have the part on hand, or wait for the Dukes overhaul at Aeromotors.  Opinions welcome...  

Yes I'm going to check power at the pump and tap it with a hammer to see if it starts between now and my appointment with the shop.  

[Ragsf15e]

15 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

My electric fuel pump is INOP.  I'm assuming the red one installed is a Dukes (P/N 4140-00-19A).  Aeromotors doesn't have one on the shelf for quick ship but they are quoting $550 overhauled and turn around within a few days.  A new Weldon Pump is available at several dealers, P/N 18020-A for $1300 - $1400 plus a $300 core charge.  I've been in a maintenance cycle since last Nov with little flying.  Can't get an appointment with my local shop for at least two weeks.  Should I order the Weldon new now and have the part on hand, or wait for the Dukes overhaul at Aeromotors.  Opinions welcome...  

Yes I'm going to check power at the pump and tap it with a hammer to see if it starts between now and my appointment with the shop.  

Just do the aeromotors.  They come back much better than the original dukes.  I also think there’s some slight mounting bracket modifications to switch to the weldon.

[Shadrach]

4 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Just do the aeromotors.  They come back much better than the original dukes.  I also think there’s some slight mounting bracket modifications to switch to the weldon.

^^^^^This!
 

Also, there is no legal requirement for a credentialed A&P to remove the pump. You can pull it and send out for OH now, and then have a freshly overhauled pump ready for your A&P to install in a week or so.

[DCarlton]

20 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

^^^^^This!
 

Also, there is no legal requirement for a credentialed A&P to remove the pump. You can pull it and send out for OH now, and then have a freshly overhauled pump ready for your A&P to install in a week or so.

That's what I was thinking.  I want to make sure it's getting power too before I go to the shop.  Dumb question.  Can I remove it without spilling too much fuel or draining the tanks if I put the selector valve in the off position.  Thanks.  

[Shadrach]

12 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

That's what I was thinking.  I want to make sure it's getting power too before I go to the shop.  Dumb question.  Can I remove it without spilling too much fuel or draining the tanks if I put the selector valve in the off position.  Thanks.  

You can test power to the pump with a multimeter. The leads are likely handshake connectors wrapped in plastic or heat shrink. They appear to be zip tied to the left brake line (see red arrow).  

 

Once you have verified the pump is the problem.  Turn the fuel selector to the off position. Put a catch can under the gascolator and drain it using the pull ring on the selector in the cockpit.  When loosening the pump plumbing, you will get some some leakage, but it should only be a few ounces. Nevertheless, have a catch can ready.  

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Also, there is no legal requirement for a credentialed A&P to remove the pump. You can pull it and send out for OH now, and then have a freshly overhauled pump ready for your A&P to install in a week or so.

I'd advise talking to one's A&P/IA before proceding as that is not a universal interpretation of the regs.    It takes a bit of a liberal interpretation of "preventive maintenance" to reach that conclusion.   I could see that one getting sticky with some maintainers on installation if there is not coordination ahead of time.

 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

I'd advise talking to one's A&P/IA before proceding as that is not a universal interpretation of the regs.    It takes a bit of a liberal interpretation of "preventive maintenance" to reach that conclusion.   I could see that one getting sticky with some maintainers on installation if there is not coordination ahead of time.

 

It’s always a good idea to coordinate with your maintenance professional and communicate your plans.

That being said, I think your interpretation is the one that is liberal and I’ll explain why.

1) Removing parts is not preventive maintenance. Preventative Maintenance is a specific category of maintenance that a non credentialed owner can perform and return the aircraft to service with a log book entry. 

2) Maintenance means (per FAR) inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts, but excludes preventive maintenance.

Notice that “removal” of parts is not included?

By FAR definition, the “Removal” of parts does not fit the definition of Maintenance nor the definition of Preventive Maintenance.  It is simply the removal of parts and there is nothing illegal about it.

Anyone can make an aircraft unairworthy…only an IA or A&P can perform the Maintenance needed to return the aircraft to service. However, they are under no obligation to work on machine they don’t wish to work on.  
There may be good reason for an A&P I/A to avoid an aircraft from which an owner has removed parts, but that’s a personal choice that has nothing to do with FARs.  Hell, we have a credentialed IA on my field with a reputation that makes other credentialed pros loath to touch airplanes with his signature in the logs…

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

It’s always a good idea to coordinate with your maintenance professional and communicate your plans.

That being said, I think your interpretation is the one that is liberal and I’ll explain why.

1) Removing parts is not preventive maintenance. Preventative Maintenance is a specific category of maintenance that a non credentialed owner can perform and return the aircraft to service with a log book entry. 

2) Maintenance means (per FAR) inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts, but excludes preventive maintenance.

Notice that “removal” of parts is not included?

By FAR definition, the “Removal” of parts does not fit the definition of Maintenance nor the definition of Preventive Maintenance.  It is simply the removal of parts and there is nothing illegal about it.

Anyone can make an aircraft unairworthy…only an IA or A&P can perform the Maintenance needed to return the aircraft to service. However, they are under no obligation to work on machine they don’t wish to work on.  
There may be good reason for an A&P I/A to avoid an aircraft from which an owner has removed parts, but that’s a personal choice that has nothing to do with FARs.  Hell, we have a credentialed IA on my field with a reputation that makes other credentialed pros loath to touch airplanes with his signature in the logs…

You're assuming a couple of things that are not widely assumed.

1.  The process of "replacement" of a part may include the removal of the part being replaced.    If a shop gives you an estimate for "replacement" of a part and then charges you more after the fact for the additional labor for "removal", you'd be justified in being upset, imho.

2.  "Preventive Maintenance" does not include every "removal" process of anything you might want to remove.

Part 1 of the FARs defines "Preventive Maintenance" this way:

Preventive maintenance means simple or minor preservation operations and the replacement of small standard parts not involving complex assembly operations.

I think it would be very difficult to extend that to include removal of anything you so desire, as long as you didn't put it back.   Even the additional ACs and legal opinions put limits, albeit sometimes vague ones, on what constitutes "Preventive Maintenance", with my favorite being AC 43-12A Chg 1 indicating that  pilots must use "good judgement" in determining what Preventive Maintenance is.

Taking the assumption too far of what can be "removed" with an owner logbook entry might easily get one in the position of nobody being willing to sign off putting it back on if it can't be determined that the removal wasn't improperly done.    A local IA friend was asked to help somebody replace the engine on their airplane for overhaul.   When they arrived the engine had already been removed and dissassembled by the owner and was in pieces scattered around the owner's hangar.   My IA friend (and apparently everyone previous) just declined to touch any of it or get involved.   

OTOH, nearly anything can be done by an owner under "supervision" of an A&P.   In practice that means pretty much anything you can negotiate with your A&P, which goes a lot more smoothly if you do it ahead of time.

[N201MKTurbo]

Why is your pump crooked? It has spacers on one side to make it crooked. That ain’t right…

[Shadrach]

On 5/21/2024 at 9:24 PM, EricJ said:

You're assuming a couple of things that are not widely assumed.

1.  The process of "replacement" of a part may include the removal of the part being replaced.    If a shop gives you an estimate for "replacement" of a part and then charges you more after the fact for the additional labor for "removal", you'd be justified in being upset, imho.

2.  "Preventive Maintenance" does not include every "removal" process of anything you might want to remove.

Part 1 of the FARs defines "Preventive Maintenance" this way:

Preventive maintenance means simple or minor preservation operations and the replacement of small standard parts not involving complex assembly operations.

I think it would be very difficult to extend that to include removal of anything you so desire, as long as you didn't put it back.   Even the additional ACs and legal opinions put limits, albeit sometimes vague ones, on what constitutes "Preventive Maintenance", with my favorite being AC 43-12A Chg 1 indicating that  pilots must use "good judgement" in determining what Preventive Maintenance is.

Taking the assumption too far of what can be "removed" with an owner logbook entry might easily get one in the position of nobody being willing to sign off putting it back on if it can't be determined that the removal wasn't improperly done.    A local IA friend was asked to help somebody replace the engine on their airplane for overhaul.   When they arrived the engine had already been removed and dissassembled by the owner and was in pieces scattered around the owner's hangar.   My IA friend (and apparently everyone previous) just declined to touch any of it or get involved.   

OTOH, nearly anything can be done by an owner under "supervision" of an A&P.   In practice that means pretty much anything you can negotiate with your A&P, which goes a lot more smoothly if you do it ahead of time.

I have not assumed any of the things you say that I’ve assumed. There is no need for assumptions in this case. Removing parts and or components is not preventative maintenance, nor is it maintenance. It is disassembly. Nothing more, nothing less. Disassembling an airplane without credentials does not violate any FARs. One can legally remove any part they wish from their airplane. It goes without saying that a credentialed mechanic with the appropriate ratings must return the aircraft service by either replacing/installing the removed parts or supervising their replacement/installation.

You’re needlessly muddying the water with “assumptions” when the regs are quite clear about defining maintenance and preventative maintenance. Disassembly is not included in either definition.  I’ve had this conversation with an FAA PMI and it was not a controversial opinion. 

If I remove the prop from my engine and send out for overhaul, what reg have I violated? 

 

 

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Why is your pump crooked? It has spacers on one side to make it crooked. That ain’t right…

Hum... must have been someone's idea of getting it to line up with the tubing.  

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I have not assumed any of the things you say that I’ve assumed. There is no need for assumptions in this case. Removing parts and or components is not preventative maintenance, nor is it maintenance. It is disassembly. Nothing more, nothing less. Disassembling an airplane without credentials does not violate any FARs. One can legally remove any part they wish from their airplane. It goes without saying but I’ll state it anyway to be clear that a credentialed mechanic with the appropriate ratings must return the aircraft service by either replacing/installing the removed parts or supervising their replacement/installation.

You’re needlessly muddying the water with “assumptions” when the regs are quite clear about defining maintenance and preventative maintenance. Disassembly is not included in either definition.  I’ve had this conversation with an FAA PMI and it was not a controversial opinion. 

If I remove the prop from my engine and send out for overhaul, what reg have I violated? 

I wish you'd understood what I wrote.  Perhaps it wasn't clear.

You can do anything you want to your airplane.   It is your property.   However, if you want it to remain flyable (i.e., returned to service after work is performed, and you can nitpick the definition of "work" if you want, but I do not think it is productive to do so), a maintainer approving work for return to service is indicating that it was performed properly, and if it was neither fully performed by nor supervised by them it should not be surprising if they decline to approve it in some circumstances.   An owner can sign off return to service for Preventive Maintenance, but not work beyond that, and while that line is not finely defined it is not extremely broad, either.   Many disassembly tasks can result in damage or misconfiguration or misadjustment to the aircraft if not performed properly, so many maintainers may care who performed that work or how it was done before approving work.   In many cases it may not matter, but in many it may, and I gave an example of a case where many maintainers would not be comfortable (and indeed weren't) returning work to service where disassembly was performed by the owner.

So if the situation arises where available maintainers aren't willing to sign off work that they did not perform or supervise, which is a reasonable position for them to take, and the owner is not able to sign it off as Preventive Maintenance because it does not qualify as such, then the owner is stuck.

So, yes, you can do anything you want to your airplane.   It is your property.   But if you want it returned to service, if the work isn't Preventive Maintenance the owner can't do that, and if the maintainer isn't comfortable approving work that they neither did nor supervised, they may not either.  Where that line of comfort gets drawn is totally up to the maintainer being asked to return it to service.   It is not necessarily good advice that an owner can remove anything they want and always expect a maintainer to just go from there and finish the job.   In the case in point, fuel lines can be damaged (cracked) if not removed properly.  In the previous example many internal engine parts can be damaged by mishandling.  If the maintainer knows it was removed or disassembled by a non-certificated mechanic who they don't know, there may be reluctance to approve the work.

Coordinating with a maintainer ahead of time can go a long way toward achieving a desired outcome.

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Why is your pump crooked? It has spacers on one side to make it crooked. That ain’t right…

Looks to me like whoever performed SB-20-222 installed spacers to angle the fuel filter away from the rudder control rod.

[Shadrach]

8 hours ago, EricJ said:

I wish you'd understood what I wrote.  Perhaps it wasn't clear.

You can do anything you want to your airplane.   It is your property.   However, if you want it to remain flyable (i.e., returned to service after work is performed, and you can nitpick the definition of "work" if you want, but I do not think it is productive to do so), a maintainer approving work for return to service is indicating that it was performed properly, and if it was neither fully performed by nor supervised by them it should not be surprising if they decline to approve it in some circumstances.   An owner can sign off return to service for Preventive Maintenance, but not work beyond that, and while that line is not finely defined it is not extremely broad, either.   Many disassembly tasks can result in damage or misconfiguration or misadjustment to the aircraft if not performed properly, so many maintainers may care who performed that work or how it was done before approving work.   In many cases it may not matter, but in many it may, and I gave an example of a case where many maintainers would not be comfortable (and indeed weren't) returning work to service where disassembly was performed by the owner.

So if the situation arises where available maintainers aren't willing to sign off work that they did not perform or supervise, which is a reasonable position for them to take, and the owner is not able to sign it off as Preventive Maintenance because it does not qualify as such, then the owner is stuck.

So, yes, you can do anything you want to your airplane.   It is your property.   But if you want it returned to service, if the work isn't Preventive Maintenance the owner can't do that, and if the maintainer isn't comfortable approving work that they neither did nor supervised, they may not either.  Where that line of comfort gets drawn is totally up to the maintainer being asked to return it to service.   It is not necessarily good advice that an owner can remove anything they want and always expect a maintainer to just go from there and finish the job.   In the case in point, fuel lines can be damaged (cracked) if not removed properly.  In the previous example many internal engine parts can be damaged by mishandling.  If the maintainer knows it was removed or disassembled by a non-certificated mechanic who they don't know, there may be reluctance to approve the work.

Coordinating with a maintainer ahead of time can go a long way toward achieving a desired outcome.

So to summarize the above post:

A maintenance professional may feel uncomfortable installing a part that an owner has previously removed. Before an owner removes a part, it’s good practice to consult with their maintenance professional to ensure the maintenance professional is comfortable reinstalling the removed part. Seems like common sense to me…And I said as much in my first reply to the comment about my “liberal interpretation of the preventative maintenance”.
 

 

 

 

[47U]

16 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Opinions welcome...

This isn’t part of the opinion you were looking for (please forgive) but I would encourage your to perform an investigation to see if this chafe mark on the fuel line is still active… 

[N201MKTurbo]

I have a feeling that hard line used to be reversed and it was rubbing on the rudder linkage. It should be remade so the pump can be put in straight and doesn't contact the rudder linkage and the brake line. I made one for my plane. It is some tricky bendology and I don't think a standard part from the factory will fit without some adjustment.

[Shadrach]

48 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I have a feeling that hard line used to be reversed and it was rubbing on the rudder linkage. It should be remade so the pump can be put in straight and doesn't contact the rudder linkage and the brake line. I made one for my plane. It is some tricky bendology and I don't think a standard part from the factory will fit without some adjustment.

Nothing about this installation makes sense looking at the image.
It looks to me like that pump was installed upside down.  The outlet to the firewall should be on the right side of the pump when looking down (see diagram) looking up from the bottom it should be on the left. Whomever performed the SB did not review the instructions carefully. 

The drain can be fitted to either side. In this case the drain does not appear to be installed.  No bueno. 
 

 

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Nothing about this installation makes sense looking at the image.
It looks to me like that pump was installed upside down.  The outlet to the firewall should be on the right side of the pump when looking down (see diagram) looking up from the bottom it should be on the left. Whomever performed the SB did not review the instructions carefully. 

The drain can be fitted to either side. In this case the drain does not appear to be installed.  No bueno. 
 

 

It's correct.  It's the "View Looking Down" perspective on Figure #2 that makes it confusing.  Since the SB modified the fuel line to accommodate the in line filter, it might be easier to go with an overhauled Dukes.  Wondering now if the in line filter would be removed if using a new Weldon pump.  

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Nothing about this installation makes sense looking at the image.
It looks to me like that pump was installed upside down.  The outlet to the firewall should be on the right side of the pump when looking down (see diagram) looking up from the bottom it should be on the left. Whomever performed the SB did not review the instructions carefully. 

The drain can be fitted to either side. In this case the drain does not appear to be installed.  No bueno. 
 

 

It looks sorta right. The bottom illustration is the installation with the filter. it is basically what he has.

[N201MKTurbo]

Just now, DCarlton said:

It's correct.  It's the "View Looking Down" perspective on Figure #2 that makes it confusing.  Since the SB modified the fuel line to accommodate the in line filter, it might be easier to go with an overhauled Dukes.  Wondering now if the in line filter would be removed if using a new Weldon pump.  

I wouldn't remove the filter. It is there to catch pump parts if they get loose. The Weldon pump can fail too.

[Shadrach]

32 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

It's correct.  It's the "View Looking Down" perspective on Figure #2 that makes it confusing.  Since the SB modified the fuel line to accommodate the in line filter, it might be easier to go with an overhauled Dukes.  Wondering now if the in line filter would be removed if using a new Weldon pump.  

If one is looking up and the other is looking down, how can the filter be on the same side in each image?

31 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

It looks sorta right. The bottom illustration is the installation with the filter. it is basically what he has.

Look at the labeled images very carefully and then reconsider.