Wet Vacuum Pump

[smackey]

Well, my dry vacuum pump is getting a little long in the tooth (I've
owned my plane for over 500 hrs now, and still have the vac that was
in it when I bought it). I bought the plane used in 1999- a 1978
C172/180hp. The lit suggests that I'm living on borrowed time for a
dry vac after about 500 hrs. I'm considering the wet pump that is now
out, by "Airwolf" I think. Anyone have any pros or cons on this? The
case against dry vacs is well known to all of us, I'm sure; but I'm
not sure if there are downsides to the wet pump. BTW, I do have an
electric backup vac pump already.

[John]

The only down side to a wet pump is cost and an oily belly from the
pump exhaust.

On 22 Feb 2004 16:14:17 -0800, (smackey) wrote:

>Well, my dry vacuum pump is getting a little long in the tooth (I've
>owned my plane for over 500 hrs now, and still have the vac that was
>in it when I bought it). I bought the plane used in 1999- a 1978
>C172/180hp. The lit suggests that I'm living on borrowed time for a
>dry vac after about 500 hrs. I'm considering the wet pump that is now
>out, by "Airwolf" I think. Anyone have any pros or cons on this? The
>case against dry vacs is well known to all of us, I'm sure; but I'm
>not sure if there are downsides to the wet pump. BTW, I do have an
>electric backup vac pump already.

[Newps]

It would take over a hundred hours to notice much oil on the belly from
a wet pump.

John wrote:
> The only down side to a wet pump is cost and an oily belly from the
> pump exhaust.
>
> On 22 Feb 2004 16:14:17 -0800, (smackey) wrote:
>
>
>>Well, my dry vacuum pump is getting a little long in the tooth (I've
>>owned my plane for over 500 hrs now, and still have the vac that was
>>in it when I bought it). I bought the plane used in 1999- a 1978
>>C172/180hp. The lit suggests that I'm living on borrowed time for a
>>dry vac after about 500 hrs. I'm considering the wet pump that is now
>>out, by "Airwolf" I think. Anyone have any pros or cons on this? The
>>case against dry vacs is well known to all of us, I'm sure; but I'm
>>not sure if there are downsides to the wet pump. BTW, I do have an
>>electric backup vac pump already.
>
>

[rip]

A wet pump uses an air/oil separator to return the oil to the engine.
You can but overhauled Pesco and Garmin wet pumps for about the same
price as a dry pump ($300), and they generally last longer than the
engine. I won't use a dry pump.

Rip

smackey wrote:
> Well, my dry vacuum pump is getting a little long in the tooth (I've
> owned my plane for over 500 hrs now, and still have the vac that was
> in it when I bought it). I bought the plane used in 1999- a 1978
> C172/180hp. The lit suggests that I'm living on borrowed time for a
> dry vac after about 500 hrs. I'm considering the wet pump that is now
> out, by "Airwolf" I think. Anyone have any pros or cons on this? The
> case against dry vacs is well known to all of us, I'm sure; but I'm
> not sure if there are downsides to the wet pump. BTW, I do have an
> electric backup vac pump already.

[smackey]

I'm wondering just how bad or how much hassle the oily belly is. I
guess it's a matter of personal tolerance.
Am I correct in assuming that cost is the only "real" factor in
deciding not to get a wet pump? Even at that, I'm surprised that so
few wet pumps are apparantly in use, especially considering the risks
associated with the dry ones. It seems that the safety difference as
described in the common literature would so far outweigh the cost
factor that cost can't be the only reason explaing why the dry pump is
so prevalent.

[Dennis O'Connor]

I have wet pumps... I have air/oil separators consisting of a one quart
mason jar, on each engine... Oil on the belly is not a major problem.. I
see that there is once again an stc separator available (AirWolfe)
denny
"smackey" > wrote in message
m...
> I'm wondering just how bad or how much hassle the oily belly is. I
> guess it's a matter of personal tolerance.
> Am I correct in assuming that cost is the only "real" factor in
> deciding not to get a wet pump? Even at that, I'm surprised that so
> few wet pumps are apparantly in use, especially considering the risks
> associated with the dry ones. It seems that the safety difference as
> described in the common literature would so far outweigh the cost
> factor that cost can't be the only reason explaing why the dry pump is
> so prevalent.

[Rip]

I've gone through 4 different air/oil setups, and finally settled on the
AirWolf. It works perfectly, unlike the others I've tried. I believe that
historically the dry pumps were introduced because they are cheaper,
lighter, and cleaner. But experience shows they're certainly not safer!

Rip

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> I have wet pumps... I have air/oil separators consisting of a one quart
> mason jar, on each engine... Oil on the belly is not a major problem.. I
> see that there is once again an stc separator available (AirWolfe)
> denny
> "smackey" > wrote in message
> m...
> > I'm wondering just how bad or how much hassle the oily belly is. I
> > guess it's a matter of personal tolerance.
> > Am I correct in assuming that cost is the only "real" factor in
> > deciding not to get a wet pump? Even at that, I'm surprised that so
> > few wet pumps are apparantly in use, especially considering the risks
> > associated with the dry ones. It seems that the safety difference as
> > described in the common literature would so far outweigh the cost
> > factor that cost can't be the only reason explaing why the dry pump is
> > so prevalent.
>
>