|
Dear Mr. Benvin, Thanks for the reply. I do understand where you are coming from however I do think Canada's maintenance engineers, as I believe they're known, and the regulations they operate under, are more restrictive than most. While it is true that later models relocated the pumps from the wings to a position closer to the fuel strainers, in the nose gear wheel well for the front and in the upper engine compartment for the rear, the pumps used are all the same make, model & part number. And so it escapes me why units PMA'd & STC'd to replace that part number should be rejected as unacceptable just because the early aircraft were omitted from the manufacturer's eligibility list. I've spoken with an IA who, although somewhat reluctantly, said that he could approve the installation so long as it involved matching part numbers or their equivalent. But I do not wish to cause him any discomfort unnecessarily.
Dear Mr. Clipper, Thanks. My short term memory is also measured in minutes, not hours or days.
I've not committed to a purchase as yet and so I remain interested in anyone's experience with any of the aforementioned pumps. The one I just pulled out has a date of manufacture of 5/6/1977 and so I suppose the Dukes has served a useful life although even 48 years probably only amounts to maybe an hour or so of run time. Given their limited use the motors would likely last forever, it's the seals that perish over time. And I believe that the rotor vanes have undergone a redesign so that may be a small improvement as well.
|
03-05-25, 05:48 PM
Threaded Mode