I actually do look at the glass sump bowl first, if no water present is where actually any need to draw fuel from that point in the system ??

Mapleflt wrote:I actually do look at the glass sump bowl first, if no water present is where actually any need to draw fuel from that point in the system ??

I'm paranoid and do so just because it could be all water that you're staring at, right? [emoji2371]

Aryana wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:I actually do look at the glass sump bowl first, if no water present is where actually any need to draw fuel from that point in the system ??

I'm paranoid and do so just because it could be all water that you're staring at, right? [emoji2371]

Yikes, if it's full of H20 you'll have some work ahead of you I'd say !!

Mapleflt wrote:
Yikes, if it's full of H20 you'll have some work ahead of you I'd say !!

Very true! I've read at least one NTSB report of a pilot that got fooled because the entire sample was water without any separation.

62150B wrote:....I prefer the glass so I can actually see if i'm getting water or any other issues.....

My 180 has a Steve's gascolator & I like it,
but my last 2 airplanes had glass gascolators & I liked them too.
Not so much for seeing water, which you can discover by sumping,
but because you could see any debris that might be present.
I can't see the gascolator on the 180 very well with the cowl in place so that's not as much of a factor.

Here's a video of the pipes: https://youtu.be/NUy8x1q00Bw

Glass one has served faithfully for 67 years and no end in sight

I can see clearly now the glass is on, I can see all water that could ruin my day, gone is the metal bowl that kept me blind, its gonna be a bright, bright, bright sun shinny day

That took me a second [emoji1787]

Well... Time for me to chime in...

Before you read any further my replay IS NOT to criticize anyone or to berate anyone for his or her choices and aircraft. I am simply showing the main reasons why I came up with our STC gascolator and the reason aircraft owners buy and install my product... I will NEVER and have NEVER pushed my product on anyone...

The NUMBER ONE reason why my gascolator gets used and installed is for SAFETY of the fuel system. Glass breaks, it may be a thick wall but all of those early gascolators are 60 or more years old and the glass is becoming brittle sitting in a hot environment I/E the engine compartment... Also, in the unlikely event of an accident involving landing gear departure, that glass will not stand a chance against a rock... I have had numerous calls from owners that have been involved in a event that have thanked me for my design because their aircraft did not end up in a pile of burned wreckage and are absolutely convince it would have been a different outcome if they had the original parts..

Try doing this with a glass bowl and NOT starting a fire with the hot engine and exhaust...





This airplane had one of my gascolators on it... You can see it in the next pic, covered in mud but NOT leaking fuel.



I will admit, most of my sales to early Cessna's are from guys that dropped the glass and broke it...

Hopefully this short replay will give you an understanding of my position... AGAIN, I am not saying CALL ME NOW, I'm just pointing out some of the possible issues that the original gascolators have...

On another note, I am an A&P IA and maintain 100 plus airplanes a year and several of those are still running the stock gascolator. Owners choice and I don't push.

Brian
.

It is always a hard choice to change something that has lasted for 60 years for something "better". I am constantly amazed that so much of these planes has lasted so well, and if the "better" thing is built heavier to prevent the failure in another 60 years again I won't be around to see it.

My gascolator had a missing piece of the aluminium lip that locates the glass so it was an easy choice to replace it. It was also very easy to find a willing taker for the glass!

The sliding down the runway on the belly argument is a good one.

The other thing about the Steves gascolator is that it is just so darned nicely made. I had it on my desk for a few weeks before install and it is a thing of beauty. Looks just as nice 5 plus years later.

I'm exhausted [emoji1787]

Aryana wrote:I'm exhausted [emoji1787]

I prescribe a few hundred hours of model making on your 170 model:)

Brian-StevesAircraft wrote:Well... Time for me to chime in...

The NUMBER ONE reason why my gascolator gets used and installed is for SAFETY of the fuel system. Glass breaks, it may be a thick wall but all of those early gascolators are 60 or more years old and the glass is becoming brittle sitting in a hot environment I/E the engine compartment... Also, in the unlikely event of an accident involving landing gear departure, that glass will not stand a chance against a rock... I have had numerous calls from owners that have been involved in a event that have thanked me for my design because their aircraft did not end up in a pile of burned wreckage and are absolutely convince it would have been a different outcome if they had the original parts..


Brian
.

I get the roll the airplane up in a ball argument. I am not sure I buy the glass becomes more brittle over time thing, though.

https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask- ... over-time/

Brian, your fuel bowl is a work of art, I meant no harm, no foul in any shape or form. Cheers

Aryana wrote:I'm exhausted [emoji1787]

On that note I just ordered a Vetterman exhaust for the 0-360 installation in my 170B.

daedaluscan wrote: I prescribe a few hundred hours of model making on your 170 model:)

I have no choice but to comply [emoji16]

Mapleflt wrote:On that note I just ordered a Vetterman exhaust for the 0-360 installation in my 170B.

Very excited for you! Flying behind this new (more powerful) engine is going to be a treat.

Aryana wrote:

daedaluscan wrote: I prescribe a few hundred hours of model making on your 170 model:)

I have no choice but to comply [emoji16]

Mapleflt wrote:On that note I just ordered a Vetterman exhaust for the 0-360 installation in my 170B.

Very excited for you! Flying behind this new (more powerful) engine is going to be a treat.

I was very "conflicted", I really like my Conti but was facing a substantial overhaul that was essentially equal to the price the 0-360 was offered to me. The extra ponies will be nice for floats and ski operations, especially on those muggy and humid August days we get at our Lat/Long.

Since this thread has really drifted now the exhaust on my Delaire STC sounds great. I have about three hours on it and it is exhilarating. Awesome acceleration and takeoff. I am a little behind the plane on my power on descents ( Engine re builder says run it hard) as it is FAST. Delighted.

1500 fpm at sea level with (fat) me and full tanks. 125 mph at 24 squared.

daedaluscan wrote:Since this thread has really drifted now the exhaust on my Delaire STC sounds great. I have about three hours on it and it is exhilarating. Awesome acceleration and takeoff. I am a little behind the plane on my power on descents ( Engine re builder says run it hard) as it is FAST. Delighted.

1500 fpm at sea level with (fat) me and full tanks. 125 mph at 24 squared.

We seem to be getting back on the right "exhaust" note, now I wonder if we can all "hold a tune"

Mapleflt wrote:

Aryana wrote:

daedaluscan wrote: I prescribe a few hundred hours of model making on your 170 model:)

I have no choice but to comply [emoji16]

Mapleflt wrote:On that note I just ordered a Vetterman exhaust for the 0-360 installation in my 170B.

Very excited for you! Flying behind this new (more powerful) engine is going to be a treat.

I was very "conflicted", I really like my Conti but was facing a substantial overhaul that was essentially equal to the price the 0-360 was offered to me. The extra ponies will be nice for floats and ski operations, especially on those muggy and humid August days we get at our Lat/Long.

Hope you have enough money left over for shoulder harness.

Kurt