Visual Wing-tank guages

[Shadrach]

On 9/16/2022 at 8:20 PM, N201MKTurbo said:

Most likely changing out the capsule would make it read right. The height of the tanks are the same.

An IA is responsible for making sure the aircraft meets the type certificate as amended by STCs. Those gauges are not in the type certificate or an STC. They are an optional accessory.

Yep, we installed a set back in 2008 using nothing more than Mooney‘s installation drawings and a logbook entry referencing them. There might be a creative workaround as I’m pretty sure the dial is the only difference between models. I’d be surprised if Mooney didn’t have some Dials in stock. That’s a cheapie item that makes sense to have manufactured in relatively large quantities.

[1980Mooney]

I find them accurate and very reassuring.  I have occasionally punched in the wrong amount of fuel on my fuel totalizer after refueling on a long trip and then started wondering if my panel fuel gauges or totalizer was in error. This is a great tie breaker.  Also if there is ever a panel or complete power failure these gauges will still show me my fuel level.

[1980Mooney]

25 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

..... I’d be surprised if Mooney didn’t have some Dials in stock. That’s a cheapie item that makes sense to have manufactured and relatively large quantities.

The same could be said of the landing gear actuator "no-back spring"....Given the Mooney Factory history there I would be surprised it Mooney has anything manufactured in relatively large quantities.

Edited September 17, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[Bolter]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

You can read the pilots side easily, but the passenger side requires you to stick your head on the passenger window, and you almost have to scoot into the passenger seat. Or you can have your passenger read it.

I find them most useful for filling the tanks and seeing if you have enough fuel to make a flight. I find them very accurate.

I take a photo of the wing gauge with my phone, then zoom it in.  Knowing the increments, you do not need to "read" the gauge as much as verify where the pointer is.

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, Bolter said:

I take a photo of the wing gauge with my phone, then zoom it in.  Knowing the increments, you do not need to "read" the gauge as much as verify where the pointer is.

Beat me to it! I use the same technique unless I have a passenger. That being said, I really don’t have to lean over very far to get a look at it. 
 

I trust them far more than I do the factory sending units.  My mechanical wing gauges are very accurate on the ground up and close enough when in the air to give useful information 

[ArtVandelay]

They are way more accurate than a stick IMHO.

Plus you can check them during a flight in case you have an issue with standard fuel gauges.

[Will.iam]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

You can read the pilots side easily, but the passenger side requires you to stick your head on the passenger window, and you almost have to scoot into the passenger seat. Or you can have your passenger read it.

I find them most useful for filling the tanks and seeing if you have enough fuel to make a flight. I find them very accurate.

They are so accurate i was testing my  gauge by filling the tank with 5 gallons reading the gauge. I thought it was off by 1 gallon at each level. Towed the plane back to the hanger and noticed it was at exactly 25 gallons. Took a level and verified the hanger floor was level. Went back out to the gas pump pad and found it was not level! Yes the gauges are that accurate. Also why in flight not as accurate as on the ground sitting still as different speeds will have different AOA changing the gauge reading but it’s not more than a few gallons. While in the air fuel totalizer is my most accurate followed by wing gauges then original which are good for only showing me out of gas. With wing gauge 0 is 4 gallons or less. 

[kortopates]

The wing gauges are designed to be accurate only in the ground (where pitch is above level), while the instrument panel gauges are designed (or intended) to be accurate in flight (where pitch is level in cruise).
That said, the mechanical wing gauges may still be better than poorly working electrical gauges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pinecone]

You could come up with a calibration chart for in flight.

Fill to the a bit over a mark (3/4 or 1/2, 0r some gallon mark), then in flight, fly off that tank until it reads 1/2 or 3/4.   Change tanks.  Check and note the electric fuel gauge.  Land and see with the in wing reads.

My 252 reads in 1/4 tanks, not gallons.

[Shadrach]

7 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

You could come up with a calibration chart for in flight.

Fill to the a bit over a mark (3/4 or 1/2, 0r some gallon mark), then in flight, fly off that tank until it reads 1/2 or 3/4.   Change tanks.  Check and note the electric fuel gauge.  Land and see with the in wing reads.

My 252 reads in 1/4 tanks, not gallons.

The internal gauges on the vintage birds read in lbs. I always thought that was kind of a silly nod to wannabe jet jocks.

[Pinecone]

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

The internal gauges on the vintage birds read in lbs. I always thought that was kind of a silly nod to wannabe jet jocks.

Yea, a bit pretentious.  

I like the fractional notation.  I have the Monroy tanks, so any gallons or pounds will be off.

My electronic gauges have 18 and 27 gallon marks.  When it reads 27 gallons, there  is actually 31 gallons.

Eventually, I plan on putting in Garmin EIS and CIES senders.

[Will.iam]

20 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

You could come up with a calibration chart for in flight.

Fill to the a bit over a mark (3/4 or 1/2, 0r some gallon mark), then in flight, fly off that tank until it reads 1/2 or 3/4.   Change tanks.  Check and note the electric fuel gauge.  Land and see with the in wing reads.

My 252 reads in 1/4 tanks, not gallons.

Really? That’s interesting. Mine in gallons but starts at 10 then 15, 20, 25, 30, 35