Does an annual confirm the compliance with all ADs? Can compliance be assumed?

Tractor Supply 110 gallon buddy tank with 12V pump and self cut off nozzle. It's shaped like an 'L' and goes up under the toolbox.

You could buy another length of hose or two and fuel any plane ...

~$1200.00 for the entire rig.

 
RotorAndWing said:
You can also buy all of that stuff at Tractor Supply locally.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the thing - all of their tanks I looked at had the remark 'They are not designed for flammable liquids such as gasoline' in their description.
 
German guy said:
Well, that's the thing - all of their tanks I looked at had the remark 'They are not designed for flammable liquids such as gasoline' in their description.
Click to expand...

They do that for liability. I had one of those tanks and farmers use them for gas and diesel.

Plus Tractor Supply sells the pump, filter, nozzle and hose. You can also get a trailer there as well. Just make sure you also do a grounding cord.
 
Like many things in life, there is "legal" and "safe" they aren't always the same.

Is carrying four 5-gallon plastic jugs really any safer than _________ "unapproved for gasoline" tank?
 
Oliver.... All 55gal drums have a 2" main bung and a 3/4" vent bung.... Since I use unleaded. those nozzles fit the 3'4" bung perfectly to fill the drum... My original intent was to be able to fill the drum from a bulk fuel farm /bulk truck... If I even need to do that then the Tee will come in handy...
 
German guy said:
Well, that's the thing - all of their tanks I looked at had the remark 'They are not designed for flammable liquids such as gasoline' in their description.
Click to expand...

Can also Google boat tanks that are plastic. I considered them also but they seemed a bit more money than I wanted to pay.
 
German guy said:
Henning, I understand your concerns and value your input. Yes, I really do, even though I would think that a few jugs per week can't be bad for the back, if its done right.
But then again, I have no personal experience, so maybe I'm underestimating the risks.




Now, this is where you lost me. :mad:


@ Ben:
Interesting. I would have thought that the nozzle at the gas station has a larger outside diameter than the drum's 3/4" drum's venting hole. I actually spent quite some time yesterday evening to search for drums with two 2" fittings, but couln't find any. :rolleyes:

Currently, I am leaning towards getting one of the small ultily trailers, onto which I would install a plywood deck and a transfer tank. I think a transfer tank will be easier to mount than a 55 gal. drum. What still puzzles me, though, is why most tanks are not approved for gasoline and if there is possibly a good reason for that!? :dunno:

Anyway, this one here holds 110 gal., is DOT certified, approved for gasoline and also seems to better made than the cheaper ones. The price is also still acceptable: $607.14 + $165 for freight.
18-7338-Product_Primary_ImagejmeProductImageSize.jpg

http://www.jmesales.com/product/110...angular-refueling-transfer-tank,7338,5056.htm

Their refurbished transfer pump / filter package also seems to be a good offering. $302.69
18-10923-Product_Primary_Image.jpg

http://www.jmesales.com/product/gpi-repackaged-115v-12gpm-transfer-pump-w-filter-kit,10923,4530.htm

The tank-depot apparently sells the same tanks. Lower cost per tank, but higher freight: http://www.tank-depot.com/productdetails.aspx?part=ATI-TTR110

I know that quite a few people fly their O-300 exclusively with Mogas, I would however feel more comfortable if the engine would still get some lead. For AVGAS, I would stick with gas cans / jugs.

This setup should be perfectly legal, safe and will probably run somewhere between $1,000 and $1,500.
Click to expand...

It is not the quantity of cans you lift except for increasing the odds that you make the incorrect motion with one. It's not a degenerative issue, it is loading the weight onto the disc (not designed to be in compression. Our spines are not yet evolved into an upright design, our vertebrae are the same design as quadrupeds and are meant to be horizontal with the disc just acting as lubricating buffers under tension if anything.), if you load it assymetrically, twist just a bit and lean forward, guess what? You're heading for surgery, and between then and the injury, you get to deal with 24-7 searing nerve pain.
If it happens at the top of the ladder, guess what? You're going to fall, because the pain is so intense it will buckle your knees.

As you see, there are perfectly good tank solutions. Look for a used one in Craigslist and you may get in trailer and all for <$1000.
 
Cans are a pain in the butt. That's why I went with a diesel buddy tank and a diesel lawn mower. And hauling around cans with gasoline in them is dangerous.

Always set a plastic can on the ground when fueling it at a gas station. Metal cans too for that matter ...
 
txflyer said:
Tractor Supply 110 gallon buddy tank with 12V pump and self cut off nozzle. It's shaped like an 'L' and goes up under the toolbox.

You could buy another length of hose or two and fuel any plane ...

~$1200.00 for the entire rig.

Click to expand...

Is that with a gasoline rated pump? BTW, not everyone drives a pickup.:D
 
Henning said:
Is that with a gasoline rated pump? BTW, not everyone drives a pickup.:D
Click to expand...

That tank works perfectly on a small trailer. and will fit under a wing in his hangar.
 
Henning said:
Is that with a gasoline rated pump? BTW, not everyone drives a pickup.:D
Click to expand...


Can't say...:dunno:

It's the cheapest pump tractor supply sells.

It's pumped maybe ten thousand gallons of diesel and I'm still here ...
 
txflyer said:
Can't say...:dunno:

It's the cheapest pump tractor supply sells.

It's pumped maybe ten thousand gallons of diesel and I'm still here ...
Click to expand...
I have the similar vane pump....and have pumped just about everything with it....to include 100LL.
 
bnt83 said:
It says "Applies to Aircraft Incorporating Wood Electric Corp Model 105, 106, 107, 108, 147, 152, 254, 447, 448, or 2100 series circuit breakers" how do you know if you plane does or doesn't have them without inspection. :dunno:
Click to expand...

How do I know that my aircraft doesn't have a Lycoming GO-435 engine with a certain Romec fuel pump.

Yeah, sometimes you need to look to make sure it doesn't apply, but there's no obligation to make any sort of log entry to "comply" with this AD as it doesn't apply. Of course, you're free to make a notation "No such fuel pump on this engine" in your log to save someone having to look again, but it's not required.

If they said "This AD applies to all aircraft: Inspect your plane to make sure it has not Wood circuit breakers" then I would have to log the compliance with that AD.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
keep in mind....fuel hose is internally grounded....out to the nozzle.
Click to expand...

And that, by itself, introduces a risk if the aircraft isn't grounded by a spearate wire. If the fueller opens the cap (releasing fumes at a combustible mixture) and touches the nozzle to the filler, he can get a spark that set the fumes off. Just his clothing rubbing on the wing, or accumulated static on the airframe, can make that spark if the airplane isn't grounded. We always touch the nozzle to a screw or some other airframe point away from the filler neck to equalize it just before filling. At night, you can sometimes see a spark when you do that.

Worse yet, an otherwise-ungrounded airplane can get itself afire if the fueller doesn't keep the nozzle in contact with the filler neck. Fuel flowing though the hose generates static as well, and if there's a gap between the nozzle and neck you can get a spark.

Dan
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
I still laugh every time I see the ground on the exhaust. There was a huge thread about how poorly grounded the exhaust is to the airplane somewhere. It might have been vansairforce.net and many many people checked theirs and most were a poor ground.


Click to expand...

According to Ohm's law, you don't need a no-resistance connection. The static is of a very high voltage and very small current, so resistance has a small effect on draining off static charges. This article http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c99s2c14.pdf calls for a grounding point that has less than 10,000 ohms between it and the airframe. That's a long ways from no resistance at all.

There are some refuellers who won't use the exhaust as a grounding point. There have been a couple of instances where a fire broke out when the guy connected the ground wire and got a small spark that set off fumes from a leaky carb or fuel strainer. The fumes are heavier than air and flow out of the bottom of the cowling.

Dan
 
Last edited:
That's why radio racks, flight controls, landing gear doors, composite fairings and static wick bases are required to be verified by calibrated ohm meter to ensure very good electrical bond to the airplane? That's why jets have dedicated ground points for refueling equipment?
 
You're mixing facts. NFPA 77 defines fueling standards for commercial aircraft. I believe what you describe as a grounding point (actually a bonding point) is directly attached to the fuel tanks. That's an important point as some aircraft builders don't take any care to bond their tanks to their airframes. For most of us we're used to seeing a fuel truck or pump attendant attach a bonding wire to our planes. In an FBO situation their tank is likely grounded. A truck is not. In our cases it's not critical that it is or isn't as long as we equalize the static potential between the fueler and the airframe. Further into the specifics the value of a bonded fuel hose is that it maintains an equalized potential as fuel is pumped, because we know that static is generated simply by moving the fuel through the hose. Bring that full circle back to plastic jugs and the problem is that fuel movement makes static and the jug is a very poor conductor so equalizing the static potential is unlikely. In that case the best practice is to minimize the creation of static.
 
You lost me at "That's an important point as some aircraft builders don't take any care to bond their tanks to their airframes."
 
Specially E-AB guys. In my circle of friends experimental Cub guys. It's important to bond the tanks to the airframe. Your earlier example stated the exhaust wasn't a good bonding point. That may or may not be true depending on the tank installation.
 
Stewartb said:
Specially E-AB guys. In my circle of friends experimental Cub guys. It's important to bond the tanks to the airframe. Your earlier example stated the exhaust wasn't a good bonding point. That may or may not be true depending on the tank installation.
Click to expand...

There is enough corrosion in the attach points that a good electrical bond of the exhaust to the airframe doesn't exist... That was the whole basis of the initial post.
 
Tom-D said:
That tank works perfectly on a small trailer. and will fit under a wing in his hangar.
Click to expand...

Yeah, tanks are no problem, all you do is change the cap or neck to approved venting depending on where you live. It's the pumps that are the big $$$ difference when you go to an electric pump. Big diaphragm pumps are the most economical, safe, option. A good one typically displaces a full gallon in a compled stroke cycle.
 
txflyer said:
Can't say...:dunno:

It's the cheapest pump tractor supply sells.

It's pumped maybe ten thousand gallons of diesel and I'm still here ...
Click to expand...

Right, it's a Diesel pump. You may or may not get away with pumping gas with it, it's like roulette, they don't always blow up, but they do sometimes blow up. It says on it, "Not for use with Gasoline", I used to have the same tank and pump, but my tool box was behind the tank.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, tanks are no problem, all you do is change the cap or neck to approved venting depending on where you live. It's the pumps that are the big $$$ difference when you go to an electric pump. Big diaphragm pumps are the most economical, safe, option. A good one typically displaces a full gallon in a compled stroke cycle.
Click to expand...

The big problem with hand operated Diaphragm pumps is.... On a high wing.. there is NO way to pump and fill at the same time.. You are either on the ground pumping or standing on a ladder watching to make sure you don't overfill...:rolleyes:
 
N801BH said:
The big problem with hand operated Diaphragm pumps is.... On a high wing.. there is NO way to pump and fill at the same time.. You are either on the ground pumping or standing on a ladder watching to make sure you don't overfill...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:confused: Broom stick and 2 hose clamps solves that in 2 minutes.:dunno:
 
Fill Rite and GPI pumps are readily available in gasoline-approved models. I've pumped lots of avgas through both brands. Not a problem. For example.....
http://www.northerntool.com/shop/to...ci_sku=10957&gclid=CPveg8zN78QCFUuTfgode1YA2Q

And BTW, for anyone considering self-dispensing avgas, this little in-line GPI fuel meter is a must. Put it on the nozzle end and you'll know how much gas you're pumping when you're up on the wing. https://excel-equipment.com/gpi-01a...cel Shopping&gclid=COykpa7R78QCFQiUfgodTocAbA
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
That's why radio racks, flight controls, landing gear doors, composite fairings and static wick bases are required to be verified by calibrated ohm meter to ensure very good electrical bond to the airplane? That's why jets have dedicated ground points for refueling equipment?
Click to expand...

Static wicks are checked with a megohmmeter. Millions of ohms. We're talking the same sort of high voltage/low current in that situation. Radio racks and flight controls and stuff like that are low-voltage, high-current applications; not the same thing at all.

A 10,000 ohm resistance will drop the voltage a miniscule amount at the microamp levels of a static spark. Works just fine. A 10,000 ohm resistance between a radio rack and ground does fatal things to a five-amp current.

The dedicated grounding point is a clean and regularly checked point to make sure that corrosion or other factors don't raise the resistance to dangerous levels. I could see a heavily oxidized exhaust tailpipe, worn so that its connection with the manifold is loose, might have issues with staying below 10,000 ohms.

Dan
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
Fill Rite and GPI pumps are readily available in gasoline-approved models. I've pumped lots of avgas through both brands. Not a problem. For example.....
http://www.northerntool.com/shop/to...ci_sku=10957&gclid=CPveg8zN78QCFUuTfgode1YA2Q

And BTW, for anyone considering self-dispensing avgas, this little in-line GPI fuel meter is a must. Put it on the nozzle end and you'll know how much gas you're pumping when you're up on the wing. https://excel-equipment.com/gpi-01a...cel Shopping&gclid=COykpa7R78QCFQiUfgodTocAbA
Click to expand...

Yep, but that is not the cheapest pump available, it's $300, the cheap ones are $20-$50.

Those flow meters are awesome. When I had my commercial assist tow boat rig I had 250gallons of gas and 250 gallons of Diesel that I would sell at $6 a gallon delivered anywhere in the CA Delta. I used those meters (not quite legal, but wasn't particularly regulated, and people smiled and paid happily) and found them really accurate.
 
Henning said:
Yep, but that is not the cheapest pump available, it's $300, the cheap ones are $20-$50.

Those flow meters are awesome. When I had my commercial assist tow boat rig I had 250gallons of gas and 250 gallons of Diesel that I would sell at $6 a gallon delivered anywhere in the CA Delta. I used those meters (not quite legal, but wasn't particularly regulated, and people smiled and paid happily) and found them really accurate.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the accuracy,,,, I have bought 3 over the years. To start off, I always run 50 gallons through them to check their flow numbers... Most I have seen was 5 gallons off in 1000 gallons of fuel run through them......

Biggest error happens when ethanol laced Mo Gas is used.. My plane fueling rig is the best one yet since I only have to add a correction factor of .998......

Probably closer then most state approved and inspected fuel pumps at gas stations....:yes:
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0904.JPG
    DSCN0904.JPG
    4.8 MB · Views: 5
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Hardly a must IMHO. Pretty easy to use a dipstick to verify fuel burned then just top it or fill to tabs. Would be nice tho.
Click to expand...

If you have a totalizer, you get some extra utility/performance benefit from being able to accurately dispense a specific amount of fuel though, so all in all they're pretty worth it to me. More critical with a twin where tankering fuel is a trade off agains takeoff safety in a OEI situation than in a SE plane, although maximizing climb performance and fuel economy is nice there as well.
 
Stewartb said:
For you guys who may be curious about fuel handling and static risks here's an article for you. Knowledge is always better than ignorance although it's often said that ignorance is bliss. Your choice.

http://nciaai.com/articles/doc_download/8-static-electricity
Click to expand...
Great read, thanks for sharing.

bnt83 said:
Interesting statement. Kinda shoots a hole in the dispenser being the actual problem. I still laugh every time I see the ground on the exhaust. There was a huge thread about how poorly grounded the exhaust is to the airplane somewhere. It might have been vansairforce.net and many many people checked theirs and most were a poor ground.
Click to expand...
Actually didn't know about this at all. My default grounding point for aircraft at work has always been the exhaust because it's metal and easy to reach. :eek:

Dan Thomas said:
And that, by itself, introduces a risk if the aircraft isn't grounded by a spearate wire. If the fueller opens the cap (releasing fumes at a combustible mixture) and touches the nozzle to the filler, he can get a spark that set the fumes off. Just his clothing rubbing on the wing, or accumulated static on the airframe, can make that spark if the airplane isn't grounded. We always touch the nozzle to a screw or some other airframe point away from the filler neck to equalize it just before filling. At night, you can sometimes see a spark when you do that.

Worse yet, an otherwise-ungrounded airplane can get itself afire if the fueller doesn't keep the nozzle in contact with the filler neck. Fuel flowing though the hose generates static as well, and if there's a gap between the nozzle and neck you can get a spark.

Dan
Click to expand...

Dan Thomas said:
There are some refuellers who won't use the exhaust as a grounding point. There have been a couple of instances where a fire broke out when the guy connected the ground wire and got a small spark that set off fumes from a leaky carb or fuel strainer. The fumes are heavier than air and flow out of the bottom of the cowling.

Dan
Click to expand...
:hairraise: I definitely did not know that. Where should I ground on small planes if there isn't a dedicated ground for fueling then? Tow pins or on the tie-downs? That's about the only place I can think of that isn't painted.
 
Last edited:
It is a good read but like most internet links I doubt more than a small few have taken the time to read it. So it goes. Here's an interesting paragraph taken from page 8. To me that's where the paper addresses things that I do regularly.

Static Protection
The most common of these precautions is electrically connecting the dispensing and
receiving vessels to assure equal electrical potential exists between them. The predominant term
for assuring similar electrical charges are present in all components of a system is “grounding.”
Grounding, however, is arranging conductors so that all parts of a system are connected with
earth. Bonding is similar to grounding in that components are electrically connected.
Realistically, grounding is bonding with the earth. Bonding is the indicated preventive measure
for assuring equal electrical potential in the dispensing and receiving vessels during liquid
transfer.
NFPA 77, Recommended Practice on Static Electricity, indicates that conductivity with
1,000,000 ohms of resistance or less adequately bond materials to assure static charges are
equal between vessels. When transferring gasoline into one’s automobile at a properly
constructed dispenser, bonding between the nozzle and vehicle is more probable when the metal
filler tube remains in contact with the metal fuel fill attached to the vehicle. Filling portable
containers offers less assurance of bonding, especially with plastic containers where bonding is
impossible because the plastic is non-conductive. It should be noted that automobiles have
varying assurance of bonding with the receiving vessel due to widespread use of non-conductive
materials for filler tubes and composite materials for tanks.
When dispensing fuel into metal cans, the tendency for contact between the metal fuel
nozzle and the metal can neck is fair. If contact is maintained, electrical conductivity necessary
to assure electrical bonding results. Plastic fuel cans offer no such assurance of conductivity
because plastic is not conductive, therefore no bonding results from even intentional direct
contact with the earth. Fowler indicates reasoning for placing containers on or near the earth is
not for grounding but rather to reduce the capacitance of fuels within the container. He indicates
that capacitance, the ability of a body to retain electrical charge, increases with distance from
earth. As fuel moves through conduits to the container, charges remain on the fuel and are stored
within the container with voltages relating to their capacitance. “For example, 2 gallons of
gasoline may have a potential of 6,000 volts a few feet above the ground but only 2,000 volts
sitting on concrete.” The potential increases with the distance between the container and earth
even if the container is suspended by a grounded cable.
Click to expand...
 
Stewartb said:
It is a good read but like most internet links I doubt more than a small few have taken the time to read it. So it goes. Here's an interesting paragraph taken from page 8. To me that's where the paper addresses things that I do regularly.
Click to expand...

I actually sat down and read the whole thing :D

I'm just wondering where to actually ground to if the exhaust isn't as safe as previously thought, for improper grounding/buildup/flammable fume reasons.
 
I was thinking of testing the resistance between my filler neck at the fuel tank and the exhaust tailpipe on mine just to see if it's less than the one million ohm limit in the NFPA standards. I may check my exhaust-bonded airplane's filler neck to fuel pump as well. It's hard to believe that it won't pass the test but I'll check it. For me the exhaust is the only unpainted surface. I don't want steel jaws clamping on any other part of my plane if I can avoid it.
 
Personally....

I ain't buying the "exhaust is a bad source for a ground" thing.....

ALL exhaust systems are metal..

ALL exhaust attach to the motor with metal studs, metal nuts, metal washers.ETC..

ALL motors in planes have a robust ground strap from the motor to the airframe ( if they didn't the starter would not work)..

I have full faith in grounding my plane through my exhaust system.. IMHO. YMMV..:yes::rolleyes:
 
overdrive148 said:
Great read, thanks for sharing.


Actually didn't know about this at all. My default grounding point for aircraft at work has always been the exhaust because it's metal and easy to reach. :eek:




:hairraise: I definitely did not know that. Where should I ground on small planes if there isn't a dedicated ground for fueling then? Tow pins or on the tie-downs? That's about the only place I can think of that isn't unpainted.
Click to expand...

The tie down attaches are my go to grounding point. Usually they have clean bare metal from the tiedowns and are secure to a major A&Ps reframe structure that even if the bonding to the battery negative and the rest of the airframe doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top