There always has to be one out there... seriously limit the directional control of the fuel nozzle... Never knew that was a “legal” requirement.

Local FSDO rep said: Great idea, certainly qualifies as a minor alteration, write it up as such. In layman speak, no 337, field approval, etc, required.

Took a couple hours on the lathe to manufacture the appropriate adapter rings out of 6061 (if memory serves) and thread the holes (had to find a metric tap). Then it was just a matter of gooping them up with sealer and tightening the screws. BTW, my Spruce reference is in error, they are actually 300 series caps, not 200.

I just had to jerk Tom Cooke's chain a bit... It is always fun to hear folks that either don't know the regs, or simply don't bother to read them blast out "YOU CAN'T DO THAT... IT'S ILLEGAL!!! Oh really, care to elaborate exactly why?? A better question would have been something like "Looks nice, what was required paperwork wise??" Guess it's more fun to come out guns a blazing with a condescending comment; but it's the internet, I have kind of come to expect it.

Cheers, Jeff

Jeff,

I'm impressed. It is a beautiful and practical mod. Of course, I don't need it on an Aerostar now. It looks like it could easily be made to work on any airplane

Jg

Thanks John,

I got the idea from Cirrus when we hosted an open house at our place some years ago in Palmer. in exchange of them using our office for scheduling and the ramp space for parking a couple of their planes we got to go "play" with their planes (that's a story in itself) at the end of the last day. And I got to sell them some gas, hence the chance to inspect the neat little fuel caps and thought these are really cool, they don't leak, rust, or require a pocket knife to open like the Shaw Aero caps.

Cessna had the good sense to abandon the flush caps in their SE line in the late 70's and I considered installing a set of these but my vanity prevented me from installing a cap that stuck up in the air on that clean sleek wing... The Cirrus cap appeared to be a good compromise.

Jeff

[co

You don’t like the way I ask a question? I don’t care. You interpret my post as condesending, well, that could be. I have asked others to read my post and they have interpreted it the same way you have to a greater or lesser extent. Get over it Jeff.

By the way Jeff, my personality on the internet or off the internet is no different.[/quote]


Is that three piece horn set or four?

ok, question why is everyone running from Aerostar?

If you feel like you need a twin why not?

I’m not sure what you mean about “running from Aerostar.” Interest seems to be at nearly an all time high after “American Made” came out and the AOA (Aerostar Owners Association) has been getting multiple new members a month. It seems hull values have increased a bit the last few years. Right now they seem like a relatively hot commodity (as piston twins go). There are few planes that can match the joy of flight with outstanding handling, speed, and carrying capacity.

They have a reputation that's hard to shake and in most instances, aslo untrue. Those OWT that come to mind:

1. Deathstar. Hard to handle.
2. The most complex fuel system in the world.
3. Deadly stalls.
4. Hard to work on.
5. Unsupported orphans.

Out of the above, only 4 has a sliver of truth. They're not hard to work on if you know what you're doing, but these are not aircraft to have new A&P's "learn on the job" on. You need experts that have worked on them before, or they can get expensive to work on. All the other points are simply untrue.

The fuel system is actually one of the simplest and most straightforward ones there is. The reputation stems from the earliest days when the Aerostar came with one fuel gauge that measure each of the three tanks by toggling. This caused a lot of confusion and misunderstanding and a lot of pilots flew in the dreaded "double crosssfeed" mode simply because they didn't understand the system. Which resulted in them crashing with empty wing tanks but a full main tank! If you just leave the system alone, this can never happen.

It got so bad that there was an AD to install the 3 tank gauge in the end, so as to clear up the confusion. And since then, the fuel mismanagement accidents have plummeted. It's a "set it and forget it" fuel system you never need to switch or change tanks on and that you simply can't screw up unless you actively seek to do so.

It's a "set it and forget it" fuel system you never need to switch or change tanks on and that you simply can't screw up unless you actively seek to do so.[/quote]


Adam...that’s a little optimistic!

Walter

Adam...that’s a little optimistic!

Walter[/quote]

Ok, maybe a bit optimistic but I am with Adam.

After reading the cautions/warnings of what a complicated fuel system I was getting in the Aerostar Lester Kyle and I went over it a couple times on the Idaho-Florida flight.

Biggest question I had for him after he explained fuel system was:

That’s it??

Left engine: OFF-ON-CROSSFEED

Right engine: OFF-ON-CROSSFEED

on startup I check to be sure valves are working then set to ON and go.

I NEVER need to use cross feed since I ALWAYS keep wings perfectly level in cruise

Having owned a 601P for five years, I would agree with Adam's assessment. The only codicil is dealing with fuel imbalance which I found easily manageable. The only important point to remember is DON'T TRY TO TAKE OFF OR LAND IN CROSS FEED.

I sold the Aerostar simply because my mission for it evaporated.

Jg

The A* fuel system is about as simple as it gets, off, on, cross-feed; that's it. Not sure how it could get much simpler. And the gas gauges actually work.

Once I replaced the gas caps on the wings the issue with fuel imbalance in the air disappeared. The only time I do anything other that turn the selector to "on" is when I want max range. I read somewhere that in the descent, especially a steep one, the last few gallons of fuel will not gravity flow to the main tank due to the thin wing. Therefore I will use double cross-feed to burn the wings out leaving all remaining fuel in the main tank where it is accessible in any attitude for approach and landing. One of the coolest things about the A* fuel system is all the fuel in the main tank is accessible to both engines, if you have any fuel left at all, both engines can use it. None of this one engine craps out on short final when the other still has plenty left.

Like so much else about the A*, if you ask the people that actually fly them, the story is usually quite different. Want a complicate fubar prone fuel system? Try a tip tank Cessna with aux and locker tanks that draws fuel from one tank, but returns some to another. Or even my twin Comanche with six tanks and two gas gauges. One of the best was my old single Comanche, six tanks, two selectors, and one gauge. And the gauge had it's own selector so you could be burning one tank while looking at another. One good thing about the arrangement was if I happened to have an overly talkative passenger I would simply leave the gauge on the previously selected tank when I switched tanks, the net result is the annoying pax would sit quietly and stare at the gauge pointing to "E" (it was positioned right in front of the co-pilot) giving me some piece and quiet.

Jeff

There are active, perhaps even heated discussions on the Aerostar discussion boards on the wisdom of doing DCF. Just pointing out that this is a common but not AAC recommended procedure.

After 33 years of flying my Aerostar I am still totally in love with it but I don’t like to see “simple” used to to describe any system in any plane....yes many other planes are more complicated but I have had a fuel valve fail in flight...fuel imbalance due to a turn and bank installed 1/8 ball of center ...gauge failure...rivet failure fuel leak in flight...rusted Ray O Vac flashlight (not causing any problem) discovered in a wing tank besides a complete engine failure.,,double vacuum failure and complete electric failure while trimmed up for climb.