N2953L off runway at Fort Meade, MD

[DXB]

No injuries fortunately, but hate to see a nice '67 C model get trashed. Maybe a porpoise, gear collapse type situation?  Looks like this plane recently changed hands.  

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/tipton-airport-plane-skids-off-runway/65-578a03a9-18b3-42f3-8f17-535f013a0125

[carusoam]

Looks familiar... via the video drone...

If I only knew how to have it open to the OP instead of the last post...

-a-

 

[Huitt3106]

This airplane looks like one that sat for sale on Controller for a couple months this summer. Not sure it is, but looks just like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Huitt3106]

Now that I search further I’m pretty certain this one was the one for sale. It had very little time on the engine but had flown very little for the past 3-5 years (15 or so hours iirc). I called about it but was turned off by how much it had been sitting and the tone the broker used when asking about it. According to the Kathryns report it occurred during training.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1980Mooney]

Final is out.  Lots of water in the tanks. Although they sumped the tanks, they did not drain the gascolator.  Water found in lines and 5 oz of water in carburetor bowl.

Engine sputter on takeoff and nosedive crash landing into end of runway which collapsed nose gear and bent left wing, prop, engine sudden stop, etc.

Great pics of bubble testing in the NTSB "Docket".  O rings leaking and doublers around fuel filler openings on wings were all leaking.

It has never flown again so probably scrapped.

Go to NTSB Carol -N2953L - look at Docket and Final.  I have run out of file space on MS

From witness:

12:47 PM -2953L begins to throttle forward for takeoff. Approximately 100 feet down runway 33 you could it sounded like the engine was not at full power. As 2953L continued rolling down runway 33, about Y down the runway he is directly center to the building and you can hear what sounds like him throttling down. About 100 ft. passed the midway point 29S3L becomes airborne and is about 20ft off the ground. Engine sounds like its struggling, as the pilot continues to pull upward to continue his take off.

12:48 PM -2953L begins to nosedive and eventually hit the runway at about the displaced threshold of runway 15. Engine still did not sound like it was running at its fullest capacity

From FINAL REPORT - Go to NTSB Carol -N2953L - look at Docket and Final.  I have run out of file space on MS

On April 3, 2021, about 1248 eastern daylight time, a Mooney M20C, N2953L, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near College Park, Maryland. The private pilot was not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 
personal flight.

The pilot stated that he intended to perform a recreational flight lasting 2 hours or less and during his preflight inspection he found, “a bunch of water” in the left fuel tank, which was he sampled five times before he got all the water out of it. He then dried his collection tube and sampled it twice more reporting the sample was clear with no water. He did not drain the selector valve sump drain as part of his inspection. The pilot selected the left fuel tank for takeoff and performed an engine run-up before departure, noting the only discrepancy was related to the auxiliary fuel pump, which was left off for takeoff. During takeoff he rotated at 83 mph and when over the runway the engine began to “cough/sputter.” He looked to his left but continued straight ahead. The next thing he remembered was hearing a loud sound from ground contact. The airplane came to rest upright near the departure end of the runway.

A pilot-rated witness at the airport reported the engine was “really running rough” when the airplane was still on the ground about ½ way down the runway. He clarified that the engine was rapidly losing power, running rough, and surging to higher rpm. He then noticed the elevator made a nose-up deflection after the abnormal engine sound occurred. A video of the accident flight provided by the airport manager depicted the airplane over the runway in a slight nose up attitude less than a wingspan high. The main landing gear were extended. The airplane continued over the runway gaining altitude slightly. The airplane then began to descend and while at an altitude less than a wingspan above the runway, the left wing dropped. The airplane descended in a nose low attitude with the left wing impacting the
runway. The airplane then rotated clockwise coming to rest upright. 

Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the left wing. Following recovery of the airplane from the runway, 8 ounces of water were drained from the left fuel tank, and water was detected in the flexible fuel hose from the firewall fitting to the engine-driven fuel pump inlet. Additionally, about 5 ounces of fluid containing equal parts of fuel and water were drained from the carburetor bowl. An on-wing pressure check of the fuel caps performed using a maintenance procedure for later 
models of the airplane revealed large bubbles around the outer perimeter of the left fuel cap and small bubbles on the aft side of the right fuel cap near the lever; no bubbles were noted around the axle for either fuel cap. The outer perimeter of both fuel tank access panels were tested and no leaks were noted. The fuel caps were then sent to the manufacturer’s facility for testing.

Examination of the fuel caps at the manufacturer’s facility revealed both had loose handles and exhibited very little resistance and no audible snap when the handle was closed and locked. Testing of the left fuel cap could not be completed because of the extensive leakage, while the right fuel cap failed the pressure testing. Both caps were completely disassembled revealing both contained unapproved, modified, and/or missing parts. Both fuel caps were reassembled with new hardware as required and passed the acceptance testing which included pressure testing to 25 psig. The fuel caps were returned to the salvage facility to repeat the on wing testing, which revealed leaks from both caps. Each wing plate with attached doubler, adapter, and fuel cap were then sent to the fuel cap manufacturer’s facility for further testing to determine the source of the leakage. Following manufacturing of a fixture, no leakage was noted between either fuel cap and its mating adapter, but leakage was noted between the adapter and the doubler of each assembly at low pressures (.45 psi and .28 psi) which increased in intensity as the pressure increased.

Post accident examination of the fuel tanks in accordance with Mooney Service Bulletin M20-230 revealed no anomalies; all drain holes were open. Additionally, the fuel tank drain valves were correct. Thus, there was no capability for trapped water. Airworthiness Directive (AD) 85-24-03, with an effective date of January 6, 1986, applicable to 
the accident make and model airplane required in part an inspection of the fuel tank bays and ribs, but only a visual inspection of the fuel caps in accordance with Mooney Service Bulletin (SB) M20-229, dated February 12, 1986. Service Bulletin M20-229A specified not only a visual inspection of the fuel caps but also pressure testing of them by applying .5 psi to the fuel vent line and check for leaks around the fuel cap.

The mechanic who performed the airplane’s last annual inspection in July 2020 stated that he did comply with AD 85-24-03, and as part of his compliance he applied a window cleaning solution to the top of the wing in the fuel cap area and blew into the vent tube by mouth pressure then looked for bubbles; no bubbles were noted. One co-owner stated that on February 4, 2021, he and the other co-owner replaced the o-rings of each fuel cap as part of preventative maintenance because of water in the fuel tanks. He 
reported their maintenance actions to the fuel caps seemed to diminish the water infiltration during rain events. An additional measure to reduce water infiltration into the fuel tanks was to install covers over the wings when the airplane was on the ramp, but they did not entirely stop the water infiltration and those covers were off when the pilot arrived at the airplane for his intended flight. The mechanic who serviced the airplane was not contacted by the owners regarding the fuel tank water issues. 

A review of the NTSB database for accidents and incidents of Mooney airplanes from 1982 to June 15, 2021, revealed a total of 1,351 investigations, which included foreign investigations. From 1982 to January 6, 1986 (effective date of AD 85-24-03), there were a total of 228 investigations, of which cases with the probable cause published, 4 cited water contamination. From January 6, 1986 (effective date of AD 85-24-03) through June 15, 2021, there were 1,123 investigations, of which cases with the probable cause published, 24 cited water contamination.

[DXB]

On 3/21/2023 at 4:53 PM, 1980Mooney said:

Final is out.  Lots of water in the tanks. Although they sumped the tanks, they did not drain the gascolator.  Water found in lines and 5 oz of water in carburetor bowl.

Engine sputter on takeoff and nosedive crash landing into end of runway which collapsed nose gear and bent left wing, prop, engine sudden stop, etc.

Great pics of bubble testing in the NTSB "Docket".  O rings leaking and doublers around fuel filler openings on wings were all leaking.

It has never flown again so probably scrapped.

Go to NTSB Carol -N2953L - look at Docket and Final.  I have run out of file space on MS

From witness:

12:47 PM -2953L begins to throttle forward for takeoff. Approximately 100 feet down runway 33 you could it sounded like the engine was not at full power. As 2953L continued rolling down runway 33, about Y down the runway he is directly center to the building and you can hear what sounds like him throttling down. About 100 ft. passed the midway point 29S3L becomes airborne and is about 20ft off the ground. Engine sounds like its struggling, as the pilot continues to pull upward to continue his take off.

12:48 PM -2953L begins to nosedive and eventually hit the runway at about the displaced threshold of runway 15. Engine still did not sound like it was running at its fullest capacity

From FINAL REPORT - Go to NTSB Carol -N2953L - look at Docket and Final.  I have run out of file space on MS

On April 3, 2021, about 1248 eastern daylight time, a Mooney M20C, N2953L, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near College Park, Maryland. The private pilot was not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 
personal flight.

The pilot stated that he intended to perform a recreational flight lasting 2 hours or less and during his preflight inspection he found, “a bunch of water” in the left fuel tank, which was he sampled five times before he got all the water out of it. He then dried his collection tube and sampled it twice more reporting the sample was clear with no water. He did not drain the selector valve sump drain as part of his inspection. The pilot selected the left fuel tank for takeoff and performed an engine run-up before departure, noting the only discrepancy was related to the auxiliary fuel pump, which was left off for takeoff. During takeoff he rotated at 83 mph and when over the runway the engine began to “cough/sputter.” He looked to his left but continued straight ahead. The next thing he remembered was hearing a loud sound from ground contact. The airplane came to rest upright near the departure end of the runway.

A pilot-rated witness at the airport reported the engine was “really running rough” when the airplane was still on the ground about ½ way down the runway. He clarified that the engine was rapidly losing power, running rough, and surging to higher rpm. He then noticed the elevator made a nose-up deflection after the abnormal engine sound occurred. A video of the accident flight provided by the airport manager depicted the airplane over the runway in a slight nose up attitude less than a wingspan high. The main landing gear were extended. The airplane continued over the runway gaining altitude slightly. The airplane then began to descend and while at an altitude less than a wingspan above the runway, the left wing dropped. The airplane descended in a nose low attitude with the left wing impacting the
runway. The airplane then rotated clockwise coming to rest upright. 

Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the left wing. Following recovery of the airplane from the runway, 8 ounces of water were drained from the left fuel tank, and water was detected in the flexible fuel hose from the firewall fitting to the engine-driven fuel pump inlet. Additionally, about 5 ounces of fluid containing equal parts of fuel and water were drained from the carburetor bowl. An on-wing pressure check of the fuel caps performed using a maintenance procedure for later 
models of the airplane revealed large bubbles around the outer perimeter of the left fuel cap and small bubbles on the aft side of the right fuel cap near the lever; no bubbles were noted around the axle for either fuel cap. The outer perimeter of both fuel tank access panels were tested and no leaks were noted. The fuel caps were then sent to the manufacturer’s facility for testing.

Examination of the fuel caps at the manufacturer’s facility revealed both had loose handles and exhibited very little resistance and no audible snap when the handle was closed and locked. Testing of the left fuel cap could not be completed because of the extensive leakage, while the right fuel cap failed the pressure testing. Both caps were completely disassembled revealing both contained unapproved, modified, and/or missing parts. Both fuel caps were reassembled with new hardware as required and passed the acceptance testing which included pressure testing to 25 psig. The fuel caps were returned to the salvage facility to repeat the on wing testing, which revealed leaks from both caps. Each wing plate with attached doubler, adapter, and fuel cap were then sent to the fuel cap manufacturer’s facility for further testing to determine the source of the leakage. Following manufacturing of a fixture, no leakage was noted between either fuel cap and its mating adapter, but leakage was noted between the adapter and the doubler of each assembly at low pressures (.45 psi and .28 psi) which increased in intensity as the pressure increased.

Post accident examination of the fuel tanks in accordance with Mooney Service Bulletin M20-230 revealed no anomalies; all drain holes were open. Additionally, the fuel tank drain valves were correct. Thus, there was no capability for trapped water. Airworthiness Directive (AD) 85-24-03, with an effective date of January 6, 1986, applicable to 
the accident make and model airplane required in part an inspection of the fuel tank bays and ribs, but only a visual inspection of the fuel caps in accordance with Mooney Service Bulletin (SB) M20-229, dated February 12, 1986. Service Bulletin M20-229A specified not only a visual inspection of the fuel caps but also pressure testing of them by applying .5 psi to the fuel vent line and check for leaks around the fuel cap.

The mechanic who performed the airplane’s last annual inspection in July 2020 stated that he did comply with AD 85-24-03, and as part of his compliance he applied a window cleaning solution to the top of the wing in the fuel cap area and blew into the vent tube by mouth pressure then looked for bubbles; no bubbles were noted. One co-owner stated that on February 4, 2021, he and the other co-owner replaced the o-rings of each fuel cap as part of preventative maintenance because of water in the fuel tanks. He 
reported their maintenance actions to the fuel caps seemed to diminish the water infiltration during rain events. An additional measure to reduce water infiltration into the fuel tanks was to install covers over the wings when the airplane was on the ramp, but they did not entirely stop the water infiltration and those covers were off when the pilot arrived at the airplane for his intended flight. The mechanic who serviced the airplane was not contacted by the owners regarding the fuel tank water issues. 

A review of the NTSB database for accidents and incidents of Mooney airplanes from 1982 to June 15, 2021, revealed a total of 1,351 investigations, which included foreign investigations. From 1982 to January 6, 1986 (effective date of AD 85-24-03), there were a total of 228 investigations, of which cases with the probable cause published, 4 cited water contamination. From January 6, 1986 (effective date of AD 85-24-03) through June 15, 2021, there were 1,123 investigations, of which cases with the probable cause published, 24 cited water contamination.

Good reminder that if you find a lot of water when draining from the sump, simply continuing to drain until it's gone is insufficient.  Would also draining from the gascolator have made much difference here?  I doubt it.  What was sitting in the gascolator at startup was already burned off before the takeoff attempt, and continuing to drain through the gascolator using the fuel selector ring may not have been sufficient to clear the water settled in some areas of the tank.  People describe a cyclic process of agitating the wings from the tips, high speed taxi, letting the plane sit for >30 min before draining from the sump again several times before being sure the water is gone.  I'm not sure I'd even be satisfied with that.

[Shadrach]

On 4/11/2023 at 2:20 PM, DXB said:

Good reminder that if you find a lot of water when draining from the sump, simply continuing to drain until it's gone is insufficient.  Would also draining from the gascolator have made much difference here?  I doubt it.  What was sitting in the gascolator at startup was already burned off before the takeoff attempt, and continuing to drain through the gascolator using the fuel selector ring may not have been sufficient to clear the water settled in some areas of the tank.  People describe a cyclic process of agitating the wings from the tips, high speed taxi, letting the plane sit for >30 min before draining from the sump again several times before being sure the water is gone.  I'm not sure I'd even be satisfied with that.

Agreed. I'm not against draining the gascolator (though I rarely do), but the notion that this accident would have been prevented by doing so is silly.  Not sure about the O360 but the IO360 will die from fuel starvation in about 5 secs when fuel selector is turned to the off position with the engine at idle power. Maybe the carbureted version has a bit more fuel stored in the system between selector and the main jet, but the plane is not making it through start up and taxi without pulling fuel from the tanks.  What's most likely here is that the combination of acceleration, vibration and nose up pitch concentrated sufficient water at the fuel pick up to cause water ingestion and power loss.

[DXB]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Agreed. I'm not against draining the gascolator (though I rarely do), but the notion that this accident would have been prevented by doing so is silly.  Not sure about the O360 but the IO360 will die from fuel starvation in about <5 secs when fuel selector is turned to the off position with the engine at idle power. Maybe the carbureted version has a bit more fuel stored in the system between selector and the main jet, but the plane is not making it through start up and taxi without pulling fuel from the tanks.  What's most likely here is that the combination of acceleration, vibration and nose up pitch concentrated sufficient water at the fuel pick up thereby causing water ingestion and power loss.

I only drain the gascolator every few flights, and mainly to clear any sediment that might eventually plug up the screen - I don't bother to collect it to examine for water.  

[A64Pilot]

Understand when water gets into the gascolator it separates out and goes to the bottom and fuel stays on top and flows to the engine, water won’t go onto the engine until the gascolator fills up and overflows. That’s the gascolator’s function. It’s the only water separator on the airplane.

So if you drain out all the water in the wing, then drain the gascolator, where is enough water to kill the engine?

Nothings perfect, there will be some trapped water in the wing, but supposedly not enough to fill the gascolator if it’s emptied 

So draining the gascolator most definitely will help, water sitting in the gascolator does not burn off.

What happens is the gascolator fills, then water is passed onto the carb which also begins to fill until the engine quits.

But what does the POH say about sumping tanks and water?

I’ll say this again, getting water in your fuel, ever is not normal. If you ever get water you need to find out where it’s coming from and fix it.

Of course from the description, I can’t explain why he didn’t reject the takeoff.

On edit, water being more dense than gas if you put water into a parked aircraft the water will go to the lowest point, which is the gascolator, even if there is no fuel flow, so checking the gascolator for water is the most important place to check.

[A64Pilot]

For those that leave their aircraft outside.

My C-140’s factory fuel vents are two 1/8” holes drilled into the caps, as you can image with two holes in the tops of the caps they don’t keep water out very well

If I ever have to leave it outside or if I wash it, I cover the fuel caps with cheap toilet plungers, just remove the stick of course.

They are cheap and being rubber won’t hurt anything and are heavy enough that they stay in place if the wind is blowing.

I don’t see why they wouldn’t work on a Mooney, just in case your caps might leak.

like this guy.

 

[carusoam]

Let’s invite @jrod_stat to see what water in a tank can do… (in a current conversation)

The M20C is a bit unique… its carb bowl is quite large.

If you shut the fuel tank off by setting it to both…. The actual surprise doesn’t show up for a minute or so… while taxiing towards the run up area…

My first lesson in Mooneys came with transition from a C152… 

I also learned that sharing what I was doing with the other pilot might be a good idea as well….  
 

The darn fuel selector switch was so worn… it didn’t have any ‘click’ left to denote the proper position… aka detents
 

Best regards,

-a-

[DXB]

13 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Understand when water gets into the gascolator it separates out and goes to the bottom and fuel stays on top and flows to the engine, water won’t go onto the engine until the gascolator fills up and overflows. That’s the gascolator’s function. It’s the only water separator on the airplane.

So if you drain out all the water in the wing, then drain the gascolator, where is enough water to kill the engine?

Nothings perfect, there will be some trapped water in the wing, but supposedly not enough to fill the gascolator if it’s emptied 

So draining the gascolator most definitely will help, water sitting in the gascolator does not burn off.

What happens is the gascolator fills, then water is passed onto the carb which also begins to fill until the engine quits.

But what does the POH say about sumping tanks and water?

I’ll say this again, getting water in your fuel, ever is not normal. If you ever get water you need to find out where it’s coming from and fix it.

Of course from the description, I can’t explain why he didn’t reject the takeoff.

On edit, water being more dense than gas if you put water into a parked aircraft the water will go to the lowest point, which is the gascolator, even if there is no fuel flow, so checking the gascolator for water is the most important place to check.

I can’t say I fully understand your points but do appreciate the helpful discussion.  My POH preflight list says to dump some fuel from the gascolator first, switching tanks once during the process, before sumping the tanks.  I assumed this was to clear any water and sediment in the lowest part of the fuel system that is distal to the tanks’ low points at the wing tank sumps.  As this accident shows, significant water can also persist in the tanks proximal to the wing tank sumps even after pulling out a lot of water and then presumably clean fuel at the sumps.  I fail to see how dumping fuel from the gascolator at any point in the preflight process would be much more effective at clearing that water in the tanks than drawing more fuel from the sumps.  It would be effective at clearing water distal to the tank sumps in the fuel system, but I suspect that water alone isn’t enough to get me to the runway and kill the engine on takeoff - therefore I don’t follow item 1 on my POH preflight checklist every time and didn’t think failing to drain from the gascolator was a key omission in this accident.  

What am i missing here?

[carusoam]

Some oddities in water collecting…

1) Somebody today reported possible blockage of the rib holes that drain fluids from the far reaches of the tanks to the wing root end of the tanks…

2) If a bad seal job blocks these holes… a significant amount of water can be held on the uphill side of the ribs…

3) Change of attitude… will surely allow  the water to move around…

4) Usually, nose high… will have the water collecting towards the trailing edge… where the fuel pick ups are physically located…

 

5) When sumping fuel out of a C152… the training was to vigorously sway the plane on the ground… the large motion of the fuel in the tanks would better move water out from its hiding places where gravity could then move it towards the drains…

Ever try to vigorously move a Mooney on the ground?

Try it with an LB full of fuel…

Best regards,

-a-

[DXB]

23 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Some oddities in water collecting…

1) Somebody today reported possible blockage of the rib holes that drain fluids from the far reaches of the tanks to the wing root end of the tanks…

2) If a bad seal job blocks these holes… a significant amount of water can be held on the uphill side of the ribs…

3) Change of attitude… will surely allow  the water to move around…

4) Usually, nose high… will have the water collecting towards the trailing edge… where the fuel pick ups are physically located…

 

5) When sumping fuel out of a C152… the training was to vigorously sway the plane on the ground… the large motion of the fuel in the tanks would better move water out from its hiding places where gravity could then move it towards the drains…

Ever try to vigorously move a Mooney on the ground?

Try it with an LB full of fuel…

Best regards,

-a-

And then I bet there's differences in how water traps and dislodges for those of us who have bladders vs. wet wings...  less data on the former perhaps

[carusoam]

7 minutes ago, DXB said:

And then I bet there's differences in how water traps and dislodges for those of us who have bladders vs. wet wings...  less data on the former perhaps

Oddities related to bladders…

They have detailed instructions about putting foam blocks under the fuel cells… for draining purposes…

Ensuring the install occurs properly, and gets maintained properly… down the line is a good idea….

 

Less data, and fewer people have the fuel cells…

Fortunately, the fuel cell people were real, and not non-aviation people converting a good idea from some other form of business…

Use caution if you seen any unusual folds develop in the floor of the bladders…

Best regards,

-a-

[Pinecone]

If bladders get wrinkle, all sorts of not good things can happen.  See C-182 AD.

We had a C-T182R on the field back in about 1984.  After the reports of issues, we went out with the owner, sumped the tanks and got no water.  Shook the wing, waited a few minutes and got more than a quart of water out of it.

[Will.iam]

I was under the assumption that draining the wings first then do the gascolator so that you don’t draw water from the wing into the lines to the gascolator. I also have that pint gas drain bottle that allows you to drain long enough to get a good flow current going in the tank to help carry water out. 

[Fly Boomer]

1 minute ago, Will.iam said:

I was under the assumption that draining the wings first then do the gascolator so that you don’t draw water from the wing into the lines to the gascolator. I also have that pint gas drain bottle that allows you to drain long enough to get a good flow current going in the tank to help carry water out. 

Not sure who you are responding to, but my assumption is exactly the same as yours.  Older POH advice notwithstanding, draining the gascolator first risks pulling water from the tanks into the lines.

[Shadrach]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:50 AM, carusoam said:

Ever try to vigorously move a Mooney on the ground?

Try it with an LB full of fuel…

Best regards,

-a-

Many times with my F body. Rocking the wings with max fuel load is not a big challenge. I would not think an LB much trouble either, even with the increased capacity

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, Will.iam said:

I was under the assumption that draining the wings first then do the gascolator so that you don’t draw water from the wing into the lines to the gascolator. I also have that pint gas drain bottle that allows you to drain long enough to get a good flow current going in the tank to help carry water out. 

This is my view as well. The reason why rarely drain the gascolator is because almost never get water at the sumps. When I do it is a trace amount that I associate with condensation (fractions of tsp). Also pulling the gascolator plunger without a catch can is a problem. Airport management sent out a strongly worded letter many years back about dumping sumped fuel and the associated fines.

[larrynimmo]

In my history of owning my plane….after my first annual, I began to do some overnight flights…a couple had light rain showers…

and I had a few take-off “burps” (even though I had sump both tanks and gascolator). I looked in my log book and sure enough, the AI had replaced my “O” rings in the fuel caps, just as he had done every annual and it was cafefully logged in the log book….upon inspection of my own the external “O” rings were split and cracked…but the real sin was the little center shaft was cooraoded and leaking horribly…

that AI was never allowed to touch my plane again!

[jlunseth]

1 hour ago, larrynimmo said:

In my history of owning my plane….after my first annual, I began to do some overnight flights…a couple had light rain showers…

and I had a few take-off “burps” (even though I had sump both tanks and gascolator). I looked in my log book and sure enough, the AI had replaced my “O” rings in the fuel caps, just as he had done every annual and it was cafefully logged in the log book….upon inspection of my own the external “O” rings were split and cracked…but the real sin was the little center shaft was cooraoded and leaking horribly…

that AI was never allowed to touch my plane again!

I am surprised you didn’t notice it earlier if the center shaft was leaking. My one experience with that, the low pressure over the top of the wing causes fuel to spray out of that shaft. Can’t miss it.

[larrynimmo]

 my “mission” was training and only short flights, I never filled the tanks….a second reason is that the more fuel “weight” I had in the plane caused fuel to leak through the fuel sender gasket.

my go to was 20/25 gallons