What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

37-01 (Subject: RV-12 Fuel Tank Readings)

J

jayapro123B

Member
The same day Vans posted S.B.13-12-19 my flowscan reading went to zero. Time to simplify. Look at revised 37-01 and notice the two floats and the absence of the sight gauge. My tank with 75 hours flying has the sight gauge, the front float, the S.B.11-12-14 completed and no mechanical float gauge.
S.B. 13-12-19 requires that I take the tank apart again and redo the reinforcements.

I think the better solution is to build a new tank with the new reinforcements per S.B.13-12-19. The new tank will not have the sight glass but will have the mechanical fuel gauge which makes redundant the front plate, sender and float wired into the dynon now unnecessary along with the broken flowscan.
I can put a fuel filter in place of the flowscan.

I called Vans and asked them if they would make me a T-1202 without the cutout. They said they would get back to me. New tank parts to include the mechanical fuel gauge, reinforcements, vent kit and a T-1202 without the hole in it is all I need to make a simple light weight tank.

I hope Vans recognizes that the two floats pictured in 37-01 appear redundant and my proposed solution will make a light weight and safe fuel tank.
 
jayapro123B said:
I hope Vans recognizes that the two floats pictured in 37-01 appear redundant and my proposed solution will make a light weight and safe fuel tank.
Click to expand...

Actually Vans considers the simple mechanical gauge a fueling and preflight tool only (just like the site window only more user friendly). The mechanical gauge does not read the top 4 gallons of so of fuel capacity and it is not dampened at all so in turbulence the reading tends to bounce around a lot.
 
Milbern,

The way your airplane is currently configured you have three ways of determining fuel aboard on the ground, and two good ways in the air. In your proposal, you will be reduced to one method both ground and airborne - no redundancy. And you will have to have a lot of upper body flexibility to twist around to look at the Moeller gauge while seated in the pilot's seat because you will have no fuel quantity information on your panel.

Now we all know, in the experimental world we are allowed a lot of freedom to modify our aircraft to our own specifications, but for me this would not be the best way to go. Not trying to be critical - just give it some thought.

John
 
As the one who first installed it - -

I am still very happy with the Moeller mechanical fuel gauge. As Scott stated above, it mainly is good for fueling, and you can turn around to check it during flying if you want. I look at mine maybe once during a flight. After you get used to the mechanical gauge, you know just where you are during the filling. It has been very dependable so far. I'm sure the on Van's supplies now is a good one also. I originally selected the Moeller figuring if it was made to be bounced around in a boat, it should work well in an RV-12. So far, so good !
 
I still like sounding the tank with a length of translucent brake line. Just put your thumb over the end and pull it out to see your level. I calibrated mine when I calibrated the float sensor.
 
If I haven't flown for a few days - -

( like now when it has been super cold ), it is nice to walk in and just look at the Moeller gauge. Know right away how much fuel I have.
 
Jay, sounds to me like you are giving up the Dynon fuel data which I find comforting to look at while flying, and yes I did add the Moller gauge a few weeks ago so I have that advantage as well. Even if I am wrong about that I would not want a tank made without the front sensor mounting plate which provides access to the inside. I mean it's hard enough to reach inside to deal with the never ending tank mods, but you will have no choice other than removing the entire top skin, or buying another new tank. Just something for you to consider.
Dick Seiders 120093
 
Sight gauge works fine

I have my sight gauge calibrated in gallons (somewhere back in the archives there's the calculation posted of inches per gallon) and that reads all the way to 19 gallons. Before every flight I check the sight gauge (rocking the airplane lets me see the fuel level), turn on the Dynon and compare readings. For 220 hours they've always matched perfectly (below 16 gallons, that is) and I know the fuel burn. That's triple redundancy without adding another mechanical system (Moeller gauge) that can (and will, at some point) fail.

Wayne 120241/143WM
 
I got my fuel tank upgrade, and in looking it over decided I had a question. Was there an accident where the first modification failed, resulting in this 12-13-19 stuff? I thought someone asked that question, but cannot find it nor an answer now.
 
Don, I posted the question in the "New Fuel Tank SB" thread post#47.

"After thinking about the accident aircraft that precipitated this latest mod to the fuel tank attachment, I'm guessing that the aircraft in question had both the frangible bolt and the gear leg mod done since the first flight was 9-26-13. If that was the case, then I'd like to know if the the gear failed and the fuel tank mount failed before the frangible bolts let go, thus the reason for the beefed up mount?????"

I don't think there was a response to my question.
 
My points exactly. I get so darned frustrated over this "secrecy" of accidents. If this is the one earlier mentioned, neither the NTSB nor the FAA even bothered to go see the wreck (it is even listed as a Rans 12)! I have a lot of faith in Vans, but are we doing all this for a valid reason or not?
 
Guys,
I assure you Van's would not put a bunch more research and testing effort, along with the expense of supplying free modification kits, just to cause customers frustration and make them modify there tank... for no good reason.

I thought it was pretty clear ion THIS post.

If you are looking for an analysis of that accident and a detailed explanation of why the modification was issued based on the referenced accident, sorry, I am not going to do that. A factual NTSB report hasn't even been issued yet.
 
DonFromTX said:
My points exactly. I get so darned frustrated over this "secrecy" of accidents. If this is the one earlier mentioned, neither the NTSB nor the FAA even bothered to go see the wreck (it is even listed as a Rans 12)! I have a lot of faith in Vans, but are we doing all this for a valid reason or not?
Click to expand...

I get so darned frustrated at frustrated frustrations. Especially the secret ones ! This conspiracy talk is absurd.

It's really no secret. The NTSB archives are full of typos. I've seen Piper listed as Pepper. Granted, it should be fixed to VANS. I bet the whole gov't shutdown in October delayed the fix !

There are so many different forces in play in nearly an "infinite" number of circumstances due to "hard landings" / crashes that an engineered solution will only help so much. Even if it were a poly tank or fuel cell..... Somehow, someway, it will fail.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Actually Vans considers the simple mechanical gauge a fueling and preflight tool only (just like the site window only more user friendly). The mechanical gauge does not read the top 4 gallons of so of fuel capacity and it is not dampened at all so in turbulence the reading tends to bounce around a lot.
Click to expand...

If the mechanical gage is supposed to be an aid while fueling, so that you don't have to run around to keep looking at the sight glass (assuming you're alone), but it can't read the top 4 gallons, then of what possible use is it???

" After you get used to the mechanical gauge, you know just where you are during the filling."

How can you, if it doesn't read the last 4 gallons? The last few gallons are the important part, if you want to prevent overfilling, as well as ensuring that you have, in fact, filled the tank. Without the sight glass, and just the Moeller -- that doesn't read to the top, sounds to me like your SOL.

The electrical float gage also doesn't read to the top, having the same problem as the Moeller. Only the sight glass allows you to ensure you have really filled your tank (or the mentioned dip-stick tube), or filling the tank until you can visually see the fuel level in the fill tube.

As far as the reliability of Moeller gages, or Moeller-type gages, I have run half a dozen in assorted fuel tanks in small boats for 25 years and count me as totally unimpressed. Not one of them ever lasted or were accurate or were reliable, and I never left the dock without pulling the fuel tank cap and looking in, and inserting a wood dip stick I carried for the purpose.

I'm sticking with the sight glass until it leaks so bad on me that I seal it up in frustration - so far, so good - knock wood. Then, I'll go to some sort of dip stick arrangement. The Floscan has never been very good or useful. My first one was DOA, and the next, while operational, was difficult to calibrate and has what I consider to be dubious accuracy. I wish I could delete the reading from the Skyview screen, but Dynon's customization doesn't go so far as to allow that - so I never look at it.

Bob Bogash
N737G
 
NASA515 said:
If the mechanical gage is supposed to be an aid while fueling, so that you don't have to run around to keep looking at the sight glass (assuming you're alone), but it can't read the top 4 gallons, then of what possible use is it???

" After you get used to the mechanical gauge, you know just where you are during the filling."

How can you, if it doesn't read the last 4 gallons? The last few gallons are the important part, if you want to prevent overfilling, as well as ensuring that you have, in fact, filled the tank. Without the sight glass, and just the Moeller -- that doesn't read to the top, sounds to me like your SOL.

The electrical float gage also doesn't read to the top, having the same problem as the Moeller. Only the sight glass allows you to ensure you have really filled your tank (or the mentioned dip-stick tube), or filling the tank until you can visually see the fuel level in the fill tube.

As far as the reliability of Moeller gages, or Moeller-type gages, I have run half a dozen in assorted fuel tanks in small boats for 25 years and count me as totally unimpressed. Not one of them ever lasted or were accurate or were reliable, and I never left the dock without pulling the fuel tank cap and looking in, and inserting a wood dip stick I carried for the purpose.

I'm sticking with the sight glass until it leaks so bad on me that I seal it up in frustration - so far, so good - knock wood. Then, I'll go to some sort of dip stick arrangement. The Floscan has never been very good or useful. My first one was DOA, and the next, while operational, was difficult to calibrate and has what I consider to be dubious accuracy. I wish I could delete the reading from the Skyview screen, but Dynon's customization doesn't go so far as to allow that - so I never look at it.

Bob Bogash
N737G
Click to expand...

Actually, you can delete it on the skyview. Or change it's style.

Our skyview calibrated per the PAP is reliable, however I use time and known fuel burn to be safe. The fuel flow on the skyview is nice to look at, but I don't trust it 1oo%.

When we drained fuel at inspection time, the skyview read zero, but there was a bit left in the tank. But not much. Between the 2 or some cases 3 ways to determine fuel quantity...... It's not that difficult!

http://www.av8n.com/fly/fuel-gauges.htm

Nice read on fuel gauges vs FAA regs
 
My Moeller gauge - -

works like this. When it pegs, you can add about 2 gallons to get it to the very top. I fill with gas cans. It is very easy to know if you have 2 gallons left in a can. I feel the gauge is very good quality and have had no problems. Obviously I have had one in the longest, and the most hours, so I still depend upon it. If the day comes where I fill with a standard pump, I think I will get used to how much time is required to put in the last 2 gallons. You can get used to nearly any system. Do what you feel comfortable with. I use mine mostly for walking up and seeing how much is in the tank without doing anything else. I also turn around maybe once per flight to see if the gauges match approximately. They always do. I just did the 2nd tank mod, and could have changed things, but didn't even think about it. Until someone shows me something better, I'm happy.
 
Sorry, I guess I am dense, I just cannot understand why that information would constitute a threat to national security if released. What would it compromise for Vans to show us photos of the damage (assuming they actually saw it) and share the test results? After all, it is OUR butts that are going to be sacrificed if the fix fails (as the first one did apparently). To me, that means of all people, WE have an important right to know the facts. This is after all EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, we are big boys that can handle the facts I think

rvbuilder2002 said:
Guys,
If you are looking for an analysis of that accident and a detailed explanation of why the modification was issued based on the referenced accident, sorry, I am not going to do that. A factual NTSB report hasn't even been issued yet.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DonFromTX said:
Sorry, I guess I am dense, I just cannot understand why that information would constitute a threat to national security if released. What would it compromise for Vans to show us photos of the damage (assuming they actually saw it) and share the test results? After all, it is OUR butts that are going to be sacrificed if the fix fails (as the first one did apparently). To me, that means of all people, WE have an important right to know the facts. This is after all EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, we are big boys that can handle the facts I think
Click to expand...

Two points...

1. Van's Aircrafts' relationship with the FAA and NTSB may not be important to you but it is to us. Any co-involvement in an accident investigation usually includes a nondisclosure agreement (google it if you are not sure what that is).

2. At the risk of offending some people (possibly even you), the reason test info will never be published (other than in very general terms) is that people twist the info and start all kinds of wild speculation. I know it is the nature of our personalities (pilots in particular), but no matter how carefully the info is presented, the outcome usually hurts the situation more than it helps.

Example: Vans publishes that static testing to ultimate load on the wing for model X was successfully completed, equal to XXXX pounds and 9 G's. The internet is full of people that will then ask "if they tested to 9 G's, why do they publish that the airplane is only good to 6 G's?

Some may call them ignorant. The problem is, the people that are, don't think they are.

Thought for the day... When we get all hot and bothered about something, maybe we should ask our selves... "Do I even have the knowledge to make a judgement on this situation"?

Something good for all of us (myself included) to keep in mind.


BTW, comment 2 is not targeting you specifically Don.
 
NASA515 said:
If the mechanical gage is supposed to be an aid while fueling, so that you don't have to run around to keep looking at the sight glass (assuming you're alone), but it can't read the top 4 gallons, then of what possible use is it???

" After you get used to the mechanical gauge, you know just where you are during the filling."

How can you, if it doesn't read the last 4 gallons? The last few gallons are the important part, if you want to prevent overfilling, as well as ensuring that you have, in fact, filled the tank. Without the sight glass, and just the Moeller -- that doesn't read to the top, sounds to me like your SOL.

The electrical float gage also doesn't read to the top, having the same problem as the Moeller. Only the sight glass allows you to ensure you have really filled your tank (or the mentioned dip-stick tube), or filling the tank until you can visually see the fuel level in the fill tube.

As far as the reliability of Moeller gages, or Moeller-type gages, I have run half a dozen in assorted fuel tanks in small boats for 25 years and count me as totally unimpressed. Not one of them ever lasted or were accurate or were reliable, and I never left the dock without pulling the fuel tank cap and looking in, and inserting a wood dip stick I carried for the purpose.

I'm sticking with the sight glass until it leaks so bad on me that I seal it up in frustration - so far, so good - knock wood. Then, I'll go to some sort of dip stick arrangement. The Floscan has never been very good or useful. My first one was DOA, and the next, while operational, was difficult to calibrate and has what I consider to be dubious accuracy. I wish I could delete the reading from the Skyview screen, but Dynon's customization doesn't go so far as to allow that - so I never look at it.

Bob Bogash
N737G
Click to expand...

I thought you had the Skyview system?
It can be configured to show or not show anything you want, and where you want it.
It does come preconfigured for RV-12 builders so that the info is presented in a way that matches the POH, etc., but nothing is locked.

All the info for changing it is in the Skyview manual.

BTW, it becomes quite obvious to someone filling the tank from a truck or in ground tank pumping at 15-20 GPM, that there is a benefit to knowing when to change the flow to 3 - 4 GPM;) After doing that, it is quite easy to hear the change in the fuel gurgle as the tank fills the rest of the way.
 
"...it is quite easy to hear the change in the fuel gurgle as the tank fills the rest of the way"

I wish! I have lost count of the number of times fuel has spilled over the the fuselage and starboard flap - today being the most recent. Taxying aircraft and, particularly, helicopters make it impossible to hear the change in tone.

Fortunately I have good quality paint, so the plane is not affected, but I have killed plenty of grass, and the ramp tarmac is at risk of breaking up.

Cheers...Keith
 
gblwy said:
"...it is quite easy to hear the change in the fuel gurgle as the tank fills the rest of the way"

I wish! I have lost count of the number of times fuel has spilled over the the fuselage and starboard flap - today being the most recent. Taxying aircraft and, particularly, helicopters make it impossible to hear the change in tone.

Fortunately I have good quality paint, so the plane is not affected, but I have killed plenty of grass, and the ramp tarmac is at risk of breaking up.

Cheers...Keith
Click to expand...

Do you have a means of visually knowing when it is within a couple of gallons of being full?
That was the context of the above statement.

Anyway... nothing in life is an absolute. With countless RV-12 cross country trips of 1500 + miles, I also have been splashed. This and other reasons are why effort is being invested to keep improving the airplane. The combination of the Mollier gauge and the new vent system greatly reduces the likelihood of backsplash. I have not been splashed since these modifications (but not saying that it for sure still wont happen).
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
I thought you had the Skyview system?
It can be configured to show or not show anything you want, and where you want it.
It does come preconfigured for RV-12 builders so that the info is presented in a way that matches the POH, etc., but nothing is locked.

All the info for changing it is in the Skyview manual.

BTW, it becomes quite obvious to someone filling the tank from a truck or in ground tank pumping at 15-20 GPM, that there is a benefit to knowing when to change the flow to 3 - 4 GPM;) After doing that, it is quite easy to hear the change in the fuel gurgle as the tank fills the rest of the way.
Click to expand...

If you go into the SV customization menu - or at least when I go into the menu - and I have customized the screen over and over again, it allows you to adjust and/or delete a range of indicating widgets, via a drop down menu - but NOT everything - or at least not on mine (and I have had several installed.)

As mentioned earlier, my first Red Cube was DOA, and I flew for several months without a valid FF indication. I tried deleting that widget at the time but was unsuccessful. And, yes, I have worn the pages out on the Skyview Installation and Users Manual.

I fill to the top one or two holes and then use the gurgle method. I believe it was you, Scott, in an earlier thread who noted the problem with ramp noise and using that scheme, as Keith did today.

Also, in an earlier post, you extolled the virtues of having a direct and positive visual way of checking the fuel quantity, as is done on Cessnas and Pipers (and Boeings.). I agreed with you whole-heartedly. That's why I was surprised to see Vans adopt the Moeller while simultaneously deleting the sight glass entirely. Now, only non-positive, non-visual ways remain to check the fuel quantity.

The Moeller serves a benefit - I guess - in providing a cross-check for the float system, but neither of them read-out to the last few gallons of filling. In my opinion, that is unsatisfactory, and if I ever got rid of the sight glass, I'd have to adopt a dip stick scheme. The gurgle system is just not adequate to ensure you have a full tank of gas.

As to slowing the flow for the last few gallons of filling, if that's all the Moeller will do for you - that's not much. I can - and do - use that method anyway, with no Moeller gage. I try to keep my tank filled most of the time. I don't even start out looking at the sight glass. If I fly 2 hours, I figure I have used about 10 gallons and will need 10 gallons. And the float and Red Cube can be used on shutdown to confirm that that is approximately correct. After I add about 5 or 6 gallons, I start paying attention to the flow rate, the sight glass, and the gurgle.

I have nothing against the Moeller but have no plans to add one.

Bob Bogash
N737G
 
The float gauge that drives the Dynon tops out at just over loading 16 gallons, then shows "16+" My moeller gauge shows a bit past "F" about 3 gallons higher but the filler neck is still empty.
 
NASA515 said:
Also, in an earlier post, you extolled the virtues of having a direct and positive visual way of checking the fuel quantity, as is done on Cessnas and Pipers (and Boeings.). I agreed with you whole-heartedly. That's why I was surprised to see Vans adopt the Moeller while simultaneously deleting the sight glass entirely. Now, only non-positive, non-visual ways remain to check the fuel quantity.
Click to expand...

I disagree (and I imagine pretty much everyone else that has experience using the Moeller gauge does also).

If you disassemble the gauge that is being used, it is very obvious that it is a works or doesn't work type of device. If you put in fuel and the indicated level changes, you can pretty much count on that level indication to be correct.

Regarding my comment on noise... that is one of the things the float gauge helps with the most. You can see the gauge while filling, and visually watch for the indicator to reach full. Then slowly add a couple more gallons (after waiting 30 seconds for the loud jet to taxi past). With the previous method, sound was the only indicator you had.
 
Disagree 1000% -- but then that's nothing new between you and me, Good Buddy!

"Then, slowly add a couple more gallons"..... That' not the way I fuel airplanes - big or small. Lot's of accidents in the database due to fuel exhaustion, including my close pal Buzz Nelson, who put the Boeing 307 Stratoliner into Elliot Bay in Seattle, and the Air Canada 767 "Gimli Glider" that had a FQIS problem and problems with the conversion between pounds and kilos.

All those pilots ran out of gas because they departed on a flight and THOUGHT they had enough fuel, and..... didn't.

Waiting for the jet to taxi past so I can listen for the gurgle after the Moeller gave me a "heads-up" a couple of gallons earlier is pale compared to watching the fuel level rise in the sight glass - passing jet or no passing jet.

Worrying about whether "pretty much everyone else" agrees with me or not, has never been part of my gene pool.

Bob Bogash
N737G
 
T-1202

Have not heard from Van's on my request for a T-1202 without the cutout. Appreciate all the response on the tank issues. Have not solved the original problem of the failed flowscan because I put off dealing with it for now.
I like the sight glass but need a flashlight to read it and I am concerned about the reports of eventual leaks. Also, Van's has apparently abandoned the sight glass in favor of the dual float system shown in 37-01. I did not find the skyview fuel displays all that reassuring as I could not get consistent readings. Maybe that has something to do with the failed flowscan. For now I plan to wait and see what Van's is going to offer for the new kits. I was not concerned as much about the vent system because I seldom fueled with anything other than 5 gallon containers. I still lean toward the simple mechanical visual gauge as the only fuel quantity indicator and then rely on usual methods of careful record of fuel loaded, fuel burn and time in flight to keep safe. However, I would also like to keep my 12 current with the latest offering from Van's so I will be checking back with them for possible order of a new tank kit to build while I continue to enjoy flying my current set up.
 
I can't believe all this yammering on how to put gas in your airplane. I have the Dynon D-180. I log all my time, and take note of my fuel flow vs the gas gauge. They are seldom off by much. When I go to put fuel in, I have a pretty good idea before I pick up the first can how much I need. Before I put in the Moeller, I made a dip stick. I use it now soley to double check that my computed fill amount actually fills the tank. It only takes a moment to double check it. The bottom line is I don't have to rely on the gauge or flow meter to know how much gas I need. All the gauges in the world are a poor substitute for common sense.
 
Mark Henderson said:
I can't believe all this yammering on how to put gas in your airplane. I have the Dynon D-180. I log all my time, and take note of my fuel flow vs the gas gauge. They are seldom off by much. When I go to put fuel in, I have a pretty good idea before I pick up the first can how much I need. Before I put in the Moeller, I made a dip stick. I use it now soley to double check that my computed fill amount actually fills the tank. It only takes a moment to double check it. The bottom line is I don't have to rely on the gauge or flow meter to know how much gas I need. All the gauges in the world are a poor substitute for common sense.
Click to expand...


That post needs a like button.

If I start with 15 gallons in the tank, fly for let's say 1.5 hours, then I have probably burned 7-8 gallons. In order to get back to my original 15 gallons then I need to replace the 7-8 gallons. Maybe I will splurge and put 12-13 gallons in to get a full tank at 20 gallons.

I am confident that I can put the 7-8 or 12-13 gallons in by pump or by hand (5 gallons at a time) without splashing fuel out the top. No gauge needed. Skyview, moeller, or sight window. ( but the FAA says I need one )

How many times have you witnessed a line guy or pilot filling a Cessna or any other aircraft for that matter..... And run the tanks over and have fuel run down the wings ! A lot.
 
Last edited:
Mark Henderson said:
I can't believe all this yammering on how to put gas in your airplane. I have the Dynon D-180. I log all my time, and take note of my fuel flow vs the gas gauge. They are seldom off by much. When I go to put fuel in, I have a pretty good idea before I pick up the first can how much I need. Before I put in the Moeller, I made a dip stick. I use it now soley to double check that my computed fill amount actually fills the tank. It only takes a moment to double check it. The bottom line is I don't have to rely on the gauge or flow meter to know how much gas I need. All the gauges in the world are a poor substitute for common sense.
Click to expand...
I agree. I have a fuel flow meter and a quick shut off nozzle on my fuel supple tank. The quick shut off nozzle shuts off at precisely the same spot every time and the amount of fuel added never varies more than a tenth or two from the fuel used. I have never spilled a drop.
 
I do NOT like lifting a 5 gallon poly can up so high and filling the tank - even after adding a proper vent on the can (cheap on ebay.) Instead, I use those cans to fill a 15 gal Flo-Fast tank that has a hand crank pump on top. I attached it to a furniture dolly to roll it around the hangar. I find that about 12-13 easy spins on the crank loads one gallon. Total control of the fill rate. And I can be looking at either/or/both the Dynon and the Moeller while I am cranking.
 
I am changing my system - -

I have now added a tank vent along with the latest tank corner mod. I previously made a large funnel that fits tight into the filler neck. I have used a fast-flow can to fill in the past. I now plan to use an aluminum step and a 5 gallon fast-flow can with no cap or hose on it, and just pour it in. Should pour in very fast with a vent now. It is still curing, so will be a few days before I can test it, but expect it to work well. I expect I can dump 5 gallons in under 30 seconds. I realize you still have to lift the can and step up onto the step. I am in good enough shape to do that, so that will be my method until I can come up with something better. I'm hoping the tank vent will allow faster filling with a standard pump also.
 
I use two 5 gal plastic cans with a hand pump system I bought from a supplier in Calif. Have filled tank approx. 90 times since start. Overfilled twice using that system w/o wetting the rear canopy. When traveling beyond my 20 gal limit and burning 100ll (Osh) I filled up 6 times and overfilled twice. Why do I bother this post with this? Pumping from 5 gal jugs is a lot less of a problem than using airport pumps on the road. Even when I was flying my 6A it was always interesting to see the wide differences in fill speed which ocassionally resulted in wet shoes.
Dick Seiders 120093
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top