Item dropped into fuel fill stem

[stormalong]

Originally Posted by hpeer

If fuel supply is really that big a deal then a day tank is very cheap insurance.

An day tank has it's own drawbacks. It has to be filled - a chore easily forgotten.We were rammed in a crowded mooring field because a guy forgot to fill his day tank and ran out of fuel. Instead of steering the boat he went below while still moving to transfer fuel. Not very smart on his part. Big headache for us.

[a64pilot]

There are so many things that can stop a motor pretty much instantly, from a fuel pump to a broken camshaft, to a drive train problem, picking up a line, props have actually fallen off, the list is nearly endless.
To do something that you are actually relying on the engine to the point that if it quits could result in your death is foolish.
I’ve not really even done that with an airplane, but a boat motor is not as reliable.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Lots of boats have crossed oceans successfully with tanks that have never been cleaned in 40 years.

Best practice? Certainly not, but let’s not get too ridiculous.

I don't think the importance of proper fuel tank maintenance in ocean going vessels can be overemphasised. People have crossed oceans with neglected tanks, but people also drive drunk and take heroin. That people do it does not make it a good idea.

A major cause of the loss of all kinds of vessels is the loss of propulsion. The most common cause of loss of propulsion is fuel. Proper fuel tank maintenance is elementary seamanship.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I can only think of maybe once or twice in the last five years where I’ve been in a situation that if the engine quit it would be any more than an annoyance.

I can’t think of a single time where my life depended on the little Diesel, and if your ever in such a situation with any kind of regularity, your foolish to be doing it in a single engine boat.

By the logic wouldn't everyone who flies a single engine plane be a fool? Of course not, but you are careful with that single engine and its fuel system, and it pays to take the same kind of care with our boats.

In the latitudes and waters where I and many other people sail, your life's dependence on propulsion is an everyday event - crossing river bars in rough weather, getting around breakwaters with the tide ripping, getting into and out of tricky harbours in bad weather, maneuvering in heavy traffic. If you don't have any situations like that, then I'm glad for you, but many of us do.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

.

IMHO, it is unreasonable to inspect the inside of the tank prior to every outing, (like one does the engine and transmission fluids, correct?)

.

I don't think anyone suggested that. Tanks should be inspected and cleaned as often as necessary. Maybe every couple of months with an unfamiliar boat or unfamiliar fuel supply, then less often if the tank is staying clean, but not less than once a year. More often if there is any suspicion of a problem.

Russian Air Force ground crews have these little pots on long handles, into which they drain off a cup of fuel from the very bottom of every tank during each preflight and carefully inspect it. I don't know whether that's done in our military or not ; maybe A64 can tell us. Seems like awfully good practice and I WOULD do that before every engine start, together with checking oil, belts, coolant, if I had the means to do it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

. . .To do something that you are actually relying on the engine to the point that if it quits could result in your death is foolish.
I’ve not really even done that with an airplane, but a boat motor is not as reliable.

Just out of curiosity, how do you fly an airplane without the engine's running being a potential matter of life and death? Don't you ever fly at night, or over water, or over big forests? Do you only ever fly within gliding distance of an airfield? I'm not a pilot, but I spent a couple hundred hours in the second seat of a Pilatus PC-12, and I can tell you I felt somewhat nervous flying over the Siberian taiga in that thing, with nothing but trees for hundreds of miles around, looking over the long cowl at that single prop and musing about metal fatigue and wondering if the ground crew had a hangover that morning.

[Wotname]

FWIW.

The PC-12 is powered by a Pratt & Whitney PT-6A which has a catastrophic failure rate of around once every 160,000 hours.

At 30,000', it will glide about 80 nm.

Even with an engine failure at 500' after take off, it can return to the field (IIRC).

It's one of the best performing singles available.

Of course, a fuel sample is drained daily

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

FWIW.

The PC-12 is powered by a Pratt & Whitney PT-6A which has a catastrophic failure rate of around once every 160,000 hours.

At 30,000', it will glide about 80 nm.

Even with an engine failure at 500' after take off, it can return to the field (IIRC).

It's one of the best performing singles available.

Of course, a fuel sample is drained daily

Yes, my friend who owned it was very proud of it. Claimed it was safer than any light twin. But 80 miles of gliding is not much help in the middle of Siberia, if something does go wrong.

[sanibel sailor]

All these recommendations are very design dependent. If it is possible, clean and inspect regularly. My tank is underneath the cockpit, about six inches of clearance above it, has an access port and 2 baffles. I don't think fuel polishing would do anything beyond the end one accessible thru the fill. Baffles would prevent the polishing stream to the other sections. I doubt the polisher guy would be willing to crawl down into the engine room thru the cockpit locker to do the center one with the access hole, assuming his equipment could fit in the space. AND... The overhead prevents removal of the pickup tube without taking the tank out of the boat. To really clean and inspect the tank would require removal as well. It is designed to come out the cockpit locker hatch but that requires a good bit of effort, not something I would do on a routine basis.

I used to have a bad fuel problem. Tank was steel, top had become dished and held water, then pinhole rust holes, water in fuel, etc.
I replaced fuel tank about 8 years ago, top is now crimped upwards to prevent water pooling on top. I am absolutely meticulous about fuel cleanliness, replace O-ring on fill cap regularly, and replaced every hose/fitting/clamp, etc in fuel system all the way to the injection pump. My Racor looks perfect, I did not change the filter for 5 years, and then only because I thought I should. Still looked new. On engine filter is now 8 years old. Might replace it soon as it is getting some surface rust on the canister.

Boats get in trouble when the engine dies because they put themselves in situations where they are dependenton the engine. A good number of boats have sailed extensively without engines. My fuel problems changed my thought process a bit- I am always thinking about what my plan is if the engine quits.

[sanibel sailor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes, my friend who owned it was very proud of it. Claimed it was safer than any light twin. But 80 miles of gliding is not much help in the middle of Siberia, if something does go wrong.

Depends which part of Siberia. Many people do not know but it is not at all uniform. Parts are taiga, others look like Iowa with vast ag fields, some like the Great Plains.

[sanibel sailor]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Not true. Lots of boats have screens on the pick-up tube, straight from the factory.

If you buy a tank, it won’t likely have one.

If you by a pick-up tube, it may not have one.

They are usually purchased separately, like bindings on skis.

If one doesn’t know to buy and install the screen, they will go without.

It won’t be the end of the world.

Any debris in the tank will hopefully stay in the bottom, and if not get drawn to the water separator and trapped there, or in the secondary filter.

But from an engineering viewpoint, there is a risk of debris getting caught at the end of the pick-up tube, and fuel pump suction holding it there, or the debris getting into the pick-up tube, and then lodged somewhere, between the end of the tube and the water separator.

I don’t doubt that some, who have had a screen plug, and had a helluva time finding the issue (perhaps cause they didn’t really know how to troubleshoot) or because they hadn’t removed the pick-up tube before and realized how easy it is to do.

Removing the pick-up tube is completed by removing the fuel hose, putting a wrench on the hex nut fitting, and turning it ccw. About the same effort as removing a filter.

Additionally, there should be a shutoff valve either on the pickup tube (outside end) so one can shut this off, to avoid spilling fuel and emptying lines, making the job even easier.

Installed properly, the screen can be removed as easily and quickly as a fuel filter.
(A temp plug will need to be used if doing it in rock and roll conditions for the open pick-up tube tank fitting. Good practice to tie one to the tank for this purpose.) If one buys a hardwood plug package for through hulls, they will likely have several smaller ones left over, perfect for this application.

The screen should be much larger mesh than the first fuel filter in the line.

Do you have a published reference that says the pickup screen is a good idea? There is a reason it is not on new tanks. I see this recommended at dockside and on forums, but I've never seen it in a reliable resource.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by sanibel sailor

Depends which part of Siberia. Many people do not know but it is not at all uniform. Parts are taiga, others look like Iowa with vast ag fields, some like the Great Plains.

The steppes are only in the South. I said taiga. You can fly all day at 39000 feet in a commercial plane over the taiga and never see anything but trees, thousands of miles of them.

[RoseLoper48]

I've adopted the habit of putting our fuel additive in a measure beaker, then into the tank.

[gregfreed]

I was having trouble getting full RPM’s on my Perkins 4108. Eventually the engine quit.
I switched tanks, bled the system and it ran fine
Upon investigation I found a small piece of fuel diaper jamming the fuel line at the 90 degrees elbow exiting the fuel tank.
Personally I would get in the tank and find it, probably won’t ever be a problem, but you can bet on dark scary nights you’ll be wondering.

[Carl-T705]

Here a quick, short, cheap answer, get a good quality hand pump like a Guzzler ( my favorite, you can draw a bikini through one of those pumps) and the largest clear flex hose that will in the fuel fill tube, a container to support all the contents of the fuel tank and start pumping the tank dry, make sure the hose reaches to the bottom of the tank,keep a good steady flow of fuel going and drain the tank, watch for the can seal to flow through the intake hose and you may draw the seal out in short order. If your tank has a sloped bottom I would have the pickup hose reach to the lowest corner. If you don't have it found when the tank has emptied, then use the shop vac on the clear hose to vacum the tank. . Even if the seal won't flow through the hose it will surely block off the intake hose of the pump and you'll be able to tell when the full stops drawing through the line

Suggesting to leave it in the tank and hope for the best is not a method at all. It would never make it to the fuel filter, it will just plug the fuel line at the first turn in the line.
I once sucked a whole paper towel through a 1/2" fuel line for six feet before the engine quit, it took about two months before the problem arose about 3000 miles after it fell....was dropped into the tank by the fuel attendant.
That piece of "cardboard" is not going to be dissolved by the fuel, it is impervious to fuel or the additive would have destroyed it long before you opened the can.