Need Help Finding Tank Resealer

[M20F-1968]

32 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

That’s debatable. I know some of the fsc will not allow their pilots to fly with one tank. A bad seal in your selector will mean you’ll suck air into the fuel system.

some people go multiple years without changing the seals in the selector. 

-Robert 

You are correct, however just be sure the selector is in good shape.  Rebuild it is necessary.  The test could be, put 1-2 gallons on fuel in the tank that you will want to be dry, and fill the tank you will be taking the trip on.  If I am not mistaken, after the flight, the 1-2 gallons in the proposed empty tank will be gone as the fuel selector will be drawing fuel from both tanks due to a bad seal.  I think this test will work, but check with someone more knowledgeable of the functioning of the selector.

John Breda

[gsxrpilot]

I flew mine with one tank stripped. Carl had stripped the right tank and found come corrosion on the spar cap. I filled up the left tank and flew it back to SWTA to get the corrosion repaired. The right tank was completely dry and wouldn't even hold fuel. I wasn't worried about it at all. You obviously don't need to move the tank selector.

[Ragsf15e]

2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I flew mine with one tank stripped. Carl had stripped the right tank and found come corrosion on the spar cap. I filled up the left tank and flew it back to SWTA to get the corrosion repaired. The right tank was completely dry and wouldn't even hold fuel. I wasn't worried about it at all. You obviously don't need to move the tank selector.

I might be “comfortable” with that too, but I’d probably get a ferry certificate to fly it like that.  I don’t think there’s any way to placard half the fuel storage “inop” and be legal.

[Niko182]

55 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

I might be “comfortable” with that too, but I’d probably get a ferry certificate to fly it like that.  I don’t think there’s any way to placard half the fuel storage “inop” and be legal.

I would just fill it up half way and fly that way. 1 and a half tanks should do just fine. Stop every 500 miles.

[gsxrpilot]

2 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

I might be “comfortable” with that too, but I’d probably get a ferry certificate to fly it like that.  I don’t think there’s any way to placard half the fuel storage “inop” and be legal.

That's certainly one way to think about it. But another way is that there is no requirement to have fuel in both tanks for flight. There's no prohibition against adding fuel to only one tank and going flying. I didn't test to prove that the one tank wouldn't hold fuel. I just didn't add any fuel to that tank. And as long as the plane has a current annual inspection, it's up to the pilot to determine if it's airworthy. It was in my estimation.

Of course I didn't come to this determination on my own, but it was the shared opinion of several top MSC's that I consulted.

[Andy95W]

I think it falls into the category of it's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.  

I might have done the same thing but probably wouldn't have told anyone about it.

[Raptor05121]

On 1/12/2020 at 1:31 AM, RobertGary1 said:

Just have any A&P patch it. Then decide if any further extensive work needs to be done. This isn’t rocket science. Most all aircraft have wet wings. 
 

-Robert 

This. As long as you have the supplies and correct procedure, its not hard to do. Between myself and my mechanic, we did mine in about a week chipping away a few hours a day. Most of that time is spent scraping everything 100% clean

[Ragsf15e]

15 hours ago, Andy95W said:

I think it falls into the category of it's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.  

I might have done the same thing but probably wouldn't have told anyone about it.

Now that I agree with!

[MinneMooney]

If I remember correctly, it was going to cost about $7000 to reseal both of the tanks on my 65C when I checked with Paul Beck in Wilmer, MN about a year ago, just before I purchased my plane. Although that would not have included the cost to move the plane, sales tax, etc. 

[cliffy]

There is a plan in the works to take it somewhere to have it done. 

[alextstone]

On 1/12/2020 at 2:24 AM, FloridaMan said:

Before going too far to look into it, check the gaskets on the fuel level senders. My M20F was dripping and it ended up being a failed sender gasket. 

I am in the process of changing a fuel sender now and I looked on Aircraft spruce for a gasket with no luck.  Anyone know of a good fast source for these?

[Andy95W]

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pnpages/05-00285.php

[alextstone]

Just now, Andy95W said:

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pnpages/05-00285.php

Awesome!  Thanks Andy!  Go MooneySpace!

[LANCECASPER]

11 minutes ago, alextstone said:

I am in the process of changing a fuel sender now and I looked on Aircraft spruce for a gasket with no luck.  Anyone know of a good fast source for these?

I can't even find the gasket in the Mooney parts manual, but if the one at Aircraft Spruce doesn't work, here's another shot: https://lasar.com/search?q=sender gasket

Dan at Lasar will know for sure.

 

[alextstone]

Just now, LANCECASPER said:

I can't even find the gasket in the Mooney parts manual, but if the one at Aircraft Spruce doesn't work, here's another shot: https://lasar.com/search?q=sender gasket

Dan at Lasar will know for sure.

 

Yes that is is the one that matches mine.  I was able to pull the number from the Lasar site (sold out there) and find it on Aircraft Spruce...it's listed as a Piper gasket...

 

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/MC462_021.php?clickkey=3060725

 

Thanks for the help!

 

Alex

[LANCECASPER]

5 minutes ago, alextstone said:

Yes that is is the one that matches mine.  I was able to pull the number from the Lasar site (sold out there) and find it on Aircraft Spruce...it's listed as a Piper gasket...

 

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/MC462_021.php?clickkey=3060725

 

Thanks for the help!

 

Alex

Teamwork!

[RobertGary1]

On 1/12/2020 at 9:35 PM, gsxrpilot said:

That's certainly one way to think about it. But another way is that there is no requirement to have fuel in both tanks for flight. There's no prohibition against adding fuel to only one tank and going flying. I didn't test to prove that the one tank wouldn't hold fuel. I just didn't add any fuel to that tank. And as long as the plane has a current annual inspection, it's up to the pilot to determine if it's airworthy. It was in my estimation.

Of course I didn't come to this determination on my own, but it was the shared opinion of several top MSC's that I consulted.

But how can you be sure the seals are perfect in your selector? If they aren’t you’re going to have an engine out situation. 

[Jeph357]

But how can you be sure the seals are perfect in your selector? If they aren’t you’re going to have an engine out situation. 

I would fly on 1 tank seals on selector not perfect turns it into what an extra vent in the system? Fuel is going to go to the lowest point in the system which is the strainer. Unless the dry tank is pressurized it will do nothing but act as a vent, maybe get fuel backing up the line until it equalizes with the level in filled tank? Either way the fuel will still go to lowest point and fill it before air from other tank

[RobertGary1]

4 minutes ago, Jeph357 said:

But how can you be sure the seals are perfect in your selector? If they aren’t you’re going to have an engine out situation. 

I would fly on 1 tank seals on selector not perfect turns it into what an extra vent in the system? Fuel is going to go to the lowest point in the system which is the strainer. Unless the dry tank is pressurized it will do nothing but act as a vent, maybe get fuel backing up the line until it equalizes with the level in filled tank? Either way the fuel will still go to lowest point and fill it before air from other tank

Idk. It’s not a gravity system. The pump is sucking the fuel up and air is easier to suck than fuel. 

[RobertGary1]

2 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Idk. It’s not a gravity system. The pump is sucking the fuel up and air is easier to suck than fuel. 

Maybe it would behave like cutting a slit in a straw and prevent the pump from filling fuel. 

[cliffy]

Hasn't anyone ever run a tank dry and changed to the other one? Same scenario. 

Its done all the time 

[RobertGary1]

12 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Hasn't anyone ever run a tank dry and changed to the other one? Same scenario. 

Its done all the time 

Assuming the seal is bad in the selector?

[Jeph357]

The pump is after the strainer/selector and sends it to the engine after. I agree it is not a gravity system not using head pressure. But it does pretty much gravity feed/equalize to the the strainer. Here's a fun exercise, empty one tank, fill the other. Turn selector to empty tank remove the strainer bottom/bowl then turn your selector to the full tank and see if you get fuel. My point is up to the strainer it pretty much does gravity feed/equalize unless the fuel pickup goes higher than fuel in the tank. 

41 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Idk. It’s not a gravity system. The pump is sucking the fuel up and air is easier to suck than fuel. 

 

[gsxrpilot]

2 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

But how can you be sure the seals are perfect in your selector? If they aren’t you’re going to have an engine out situation. 

There was certainly a risk. But there is risk every time we fly. In my estimation, the risk was exceedingly small. I was also flying in south east Texas which is flat, unpopulated, with endless landing opportunities. I wouldn't take off on a flight across the Rockies, night or IMC, in such a situation. But in this case, it was acceptable for me.

[RobertGary1]

2 hours ago, Jeph357 said:

The pump is after the strainer/selector and sends it to the engine after. I agree it is not a gravity system not using head pressure. But it does pretty much gravity feed/equalize to the the strainer. Here's a fun exercise, empty one tank, fill the other. Turn selector to empty tank remove the strainer bottom/bowl then turn your selector to the full tank and see if you get fuel. My point is up to the strainer it pretty much does gravity feed/equalize unless the fuel pickup goes higher than fuel in the tank. 

 

If the pressure in the line were near atmospheric I would certainly agree. My hesitation is because the pump creates negative pressure in the line would it suck in air much like a straw with a hole in it. You’d have to have a failed selector to test it though.  How low does the pump draw the pressure in the collator?? The picture you show would work for a small amount of air but maybe not with a continuous supply of air.