This month's issue has an informative, and for me timely, review of Vac Pump options. It's time to proactively replace my Parker Hannifanb model at annual in Dec (1,000 hours). They review 3 possible replacements Tempest, Rapco and Aero Advantage (dual chamber). The former 2 have wear view ports.

They didn't cover the new wet pump which had caught my eye.

The Tempest may be my choice. Any opinions?

> Maule Driver wrote:
>
> The Tempest may be my choice. Any opinions?

They had a booth at Expo, and I was a little impressed. Somehow their units
look better than the Rapco to me. I think I would do a little more checking
into the wet unit, though.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

Maule Driver wrote:
> This month's issue has an informative, and for me timely, review of Vac
> Pump options. It's time to proactively replace my Parker Hannifanb
> model at annual in Dec (1,000 hours). They review 3 possible
> replacements Tempest, Rapco and Aero Advantage (dual chamber). The
> former 2 have wear view ports.
>
> They didn't cover the new wet pump which had caught my eye.
>
> The Tempest may be my choice. Any opinions?

I haven't seen the article. Thanks for the heads up. We just installed the Aero
Advantage STC at our last annual. Seems fine so far. Installation was smooth
even in the tightly cowled Mooney.

See http://www.employees.org/~dgbutler/201/201.html for some comments and links.
Look for "Vacuum redundancy".

Dave

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

wet pump, wet pump, rah rah rah

Maule Driver wrote:
> This month's issue has an informative, and for me timely, review of Vac
> Pump options. It's time to proactively replace my Parker Hannifanb
> model at annual in Dec (1,000 hours). They review 3 possible
> replacements Tempest, Rapco and Aero Advantage (dual chamber). The
> former 2 have wear view ports.
>
> They didn't cover the new wet pump which had caught my eye.
>
> The Tempest may be my choice. Any opinions?

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:06:58 -0500, Dave Butler
> wrote:

>Maule Driver wrote:
>> This month's issue has an informative, and for me timely, review of Vac
>> Pump options. It's time to proactively replace my Parker Hannifanb
>> model at annual in Dec (1,000 hours). They review 3 possible
>> replacements Tempest, Rapco and Aero Advantage (dual chamber). The
>> former 2 have wear view ports.
>>
>> They didn't cover the new wet pump which had caught my eye.
>>
>> The Tempest may be my choice. Any opinions?
>
>I haven't seen the article. Thanks for the heads up. We just installed the Aero
>Advantage STC at our last annual. Seems fine so far. Installation was smooth
>even in the tightly cowled Mooney.
>
>See http://www.employees.org/~dgbutler/201/201.html for some comments and links.
>Look for "Vacuum redundancy".

Wet pumps forever!
I've left the one in the Deb alone as it's working good. I think it
has some where around 3000 hours on it.
They are worth the money. Mine doesn't create any extra mess either.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

>
>Dave
>
>Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

rip > writes:

> wet pump, wet pump, rah rah rah
>

I believe Airwolf just introduced a "new" wet pump model?

-jav

Maule Driver wrote:
> This month's issue has an informative, and for me timely, review of Vac
> Pump options. It's time to proactively replace my Parker Hannifanb
> model at annual in Dec (1,000 hours). They review 3 possible
> replacements Tempest, Rapco and Aero Advantage (dual chamber). The
> former 2 have wear view ports.
>
> They didn't cover the new wet pump which had caught my eye.
>
> The Tempest may be my choice. Any opinions?

I finally got my copy in yesterday's mail. I am disappointed in their dissing of
the Aero-Advantage dual vacuum pump. Bill, I know you're near RDU. Stop by and
take a look at my installation of the Aero-Advantage, if you'd like.

Their objections:

It's expensive:

The difference in price between the pumps they liked and the Aero-Advantage is
not that great, just a top-off or two of aviation fuel. In the scheme of prices
of aviation things, it's insignificant. In my view, you get a lot of redundancy
for the extra change. Also the price is discounted sometimes. I got mine for
$745 as an Oshkosh "show special". If it fails the cost to replace with
overhauled-exchange is competitive with standard pumps.

It doesn't have a wear inspection port:

True enough. I suppose they could choose to add one. The engineering challenges
of adding a wear inspection port don't seem insurmountable. I don't know whether
Aero-Advantage plans to add this feature, but it might be a good idea, for
marketing reasons if not for engineering reasons. Nevertheless, I don't
understand why Aviation Consumer values the wear inspection port over the
redundancy offered by the dual rotor pump.

It's bigger than a standard pump, so might not fit:

True enough. It fits my Mooney. I've read that it's a tight fit in a T210.
There's a new model coming out that's only 1/4 inch longer than a standard pump.
Check http://www.aeroadvantage.com

If one pump chamber fails, the other will probably fail soon:

OK, maybe so, but if it gets me down without me having to exercise my partial
panel skills, I'm going to replace it, so if it fails within the next 25-50
hours (as the article claims) who cares? I'm not going to fly on one pump for
25-50 hours. In the unlikely event that both chambers fail at the same time, I'm
no worse off than with a single pump.

Inconvenience of a pump failure keeping you grounded until you can get an
overhaul-exchange from Aero-Advantage:

Most buyers will have a spare pump sitting around anyway, the one they removed
when they installed the STC. In any case, Aero-Advantage claims they can
overnight an overhaul-exchange unit.

For my money, I'd rather be saying "look honey, one of the vacuum pumps just
failed, I guess we'd better land", than "look honey, the one and only vacuum
pump just failed, gee, I wish I had looked at that wear-inspection port, let's
see how I do on partial-panel".

Of course, before someone jumps on me with the obvious: partial panel recurrent
training shouldn't be neglected, dual rotor vacuum pump or not.

I have no financial connection with Aero-Advantage, I'm just a satisfied
customer who wants to see a good company with a good product succeed.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Dave

>
> True enough. I suppose they could choose to add one. The engineering challenges
> of adding a wear inspection port don't seem insurmountable. I don't know whether
> Aero-Advantage plans to add this feature, but it might be a good idea, for
> marketing reasons if not for engineering reasons. Nevertheless, I don't
> understand why Aviation Consumer values the wear inspection port over the
> redundancy offered by the dual rotor pump.

Ditto, I have the Dual Rotor system in my Bonanza that I bought at
OSH2003, and
it seems that you should pull the pump at 700hrs anyways and take a
look. There's a light that illuminates in the cockpit if one dies
anyways, and if one chamber shears they cover the cost at rebuild
anyways..

Is the wear indicator a restricted invention?
If not, I agree adding it would be nice.

>
> It's bigger than a standard pump, so might not fit:
>
> True enough. It fits my Mooney. I've read that it's a tight fit in a T210.
> There's a new model coming out that's only 1/4 inch longer than a standard pump.

Fits my B35 Bonanza with E-185 Engine fine. But you should check
before you purchase/install There are big warnings allover the package
to measure before starting the project.

> Check http://www.aeroadvantage.com
>
> If one pump chamber fails, the other will probably fail soon:
>
> OK, maybe so, but if it gets me down without me having to exercise my partial
> panel skills, I'm going to replace it, so if it fails within the next 25-50
> hours (as the article claims) who cares? I'm not going to fly on one pump for
> 25-50 hours. In the unlikely event that both chambers fail at the same time, I'm
> no worse off than with a single pump.

Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. I'd rather have the second chamber
available than not have it available. Human behavior can alter the
statistics on accident rates beyond what seems sensible. MOST ALL
pilots would not continue with a failed rotor, but some will and may
die of getthereitis just like always.

>
> Inconvenience of a pump failure keeping you grounded until you can get an
> overhaul-exchange from Aero-Advantage:
>
> Most buyers will have a spare pump sitting around anyway, the one they removed
> when they installed the STC. In any case, Aero-Advantage claims they can
> overnight an overhaul-exchange unit.
>

Ditto. Chances are that you're happy you survived an actual failure in
IMC than worry about how you're going to get a replacement. You can
always buy/borrow a used cheaper rapco or other pump if you're
suffering get-there-itis so badly.

> For my money, I'd rather be saying "look honey, one of the vacuum pumps just
> failed, I guess we'd better land", than "look honey, the one and only vacuum
> pump just failed, gee, I wish I had looked at that wear-inspection port, let's
> see how I do on partial-panel".

Ditto.

>
> Of course, before someone jumps on me with the obvious: partial panel recurrent
> training shouldn't be neglected, dual rotor vacuum pump or not.
>
> I have no financial connection with Aero-Advantage, I'm just a satisfied
> customer who wants to see a good company with a good product succeed.

Me Either.

>
> Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
>
> Dave

I love knowing that I have lots of indication that my gyros are
suspect, The bright red lights that blind you, the flags which I hope
you opted for in your gyros for the $60 extra, and your recurrent
partial panel training.

You know the warning lights work when you're taxiing at superlow rpm
settings and they start blinking on and off with each cylinder
powerstroke. Kinda cool.
Kinda hard on the switches too, I suspect. Oh well. =;^)