Airborne 212CW-6 vacuum pump

How to keep the Cessna 170 flying and airworthy.

Moderators: gahorn, Bruce Fenstermacher

Airborne 212CW-6 vacuum pump

Postby Lee » Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:04 am

Hi ... first, I appreciate the help I have been getting regarding our '54B back in the air! Further question: I have an STCd Airborne vacuum pump installation. I may have to overhaul/replace the pump. Any ideas on who has a replacement or can overhaul or provide overhaul parts? The pump was fine the last time the bird flew 9 years ago but, the IA I have been working under thinks it might be a good idea to go ahead and update the pump ... an "amusing" project if the engine is buttoned up. Note that as near as I can tell, the 212CW-6 is a bit odd as the shaft uses a woodruff keyed shaft instead of a splined shaft. Thanks! Regards, Lee (N1967C)
User avatar
Lee
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:26 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: Airborne 212CW-6 vacuum pump

Postby Bruce Fenstermacher » Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:00 pm

Lee, let us know what you find to replace it. I believe the popular opinion is those pumps are no longer available new at any price.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email:
N7A '49 170A -More original than most making folks GREEN with envy
N42532 '45 J-3 Clipped Wing Cub
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Telford, PA Based at UKT

Re: Airborne 212CW-6 vacuum pump

Postby Lee » Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:09 pm

Will do ...I have yet too see a problem that could not be solved and there is bound to be a work-around on this one!
User avatar
Lee
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:26 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: Airborne 212CW-6 vacuum pump

Postby flyboy122 » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:44 am

Lee wrote:Will do ...I have yet too see a problem that could not be solved and there is bound to be a work-around on this one!



Lee, absolutely. In this case you solve it by chucking the vacuum pump and replacing the gyros with the STC'd Garmin or Dynon units. It's an order of magnitude more cost, but something worth considering if you actually fly IFR. Vacuum pumps fail with frightening regularity, and something like 30% of failures in IMC are fatal. (And if you don't fly in IMC, why have it in the first place.)

Yes, my plane has vacuum gyros. Yes, they scare the heck out of me. Yes, when it craps out I won't replace it. No, I'm not comfortable flying IMC in it. And yes, millions of pilots have flown millions of hours behind vacuum pumps. Lots of people used buggy whips too.

DEM
flyboy122
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:30 am

Re: Airborne 212CW-6 vacuum pump

Postby Dennis » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:10 am

Hi Lee, Tempest will make you a brand new 212CW-6 vacuum pump. Look them up on the internet for contact info. Let us know this adventure works out. Regards, Dennis
User avatar
Dennis
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: Los Osos, CA

Re: Airborne 212CW-6 vacuum pump

Postby mit » Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:00 am

I have one and would be very interested what you find out! The crashes are not due to vacuum pump failure. They are due the inability of the pilot to deal with the failure. Risk management.
Tim
User avatar
mit
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:54 am
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska

Re: Airborne 212CW-6 vacuum pump

Postby flyboy122 » Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:10 am

mit wrote: The crashes are not due to vacuum pump failure. They are due the inability of the pilot to deal with the failure.


Correct. Sit in a room full of pilots and ask "raise your hand if you consider yourself an above average pilot?" Just about all of them will. Yet 1 out of 3 won't be able to handle a vacuum pump failure when it counts.

I'm not trying to be a chicken little here. Just providing a different perspective.

DEM
flyboy122
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:30 am

Re: Airborne 212CW-6 vacuum pump

Postby mit » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:13 am

flyboy122 wrote:
mit wrote: The crashes are not due to vacuum pump failure. They are due the inability of the pilot to deal with the failure.


Correct. Sit in a room full of pilots and ask "raise your hand if you consider yourself an above average pilot?" Just about all of them will. Yet 1 out of 3 won't be able to handle a vacuum pump failure when it counts.

I'm not trying to be a chicken little here. Just providing a different perspective.

DEM

Ok here is the other one, they should not have been there in the first place, if they where not ready for the possibility of a failure, again pilot problem not pump problem..................
Tim
User avatar
mit
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:54 am
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska

Re: Airborne 212CW-6 vacuum pump

Postby flyboy122 » Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:12 am

mit wrote:

Ok here is the other one, they should not have been there in the first place, if they where not ready for the possibility of a failure, again pilot problem not pump problem..................


Yes, and since we've failed to fix the pilot problem for 75 years let's fix the pump problem!

DEM
flyboy122
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:30 am

at we

Postby Lee » Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:48 pm

Hi ... first, I will check out Tempest and what they charge. Second, a couple of comments about SE IFR. I have done it in the past flying charter (C-206) and did a lot of night flying while instructing on the T-34C. We used to debate the merits of a night jump or riding the bird down into a previously noted farmer's field. That said, our -170 came IFR equipped and certified and my desire is to maintain that capability for one reason. Millington (NQA), late afternoons in the summer, when it is very hazy, can be hard to see. Looking for traffic can be problematic ... we lie under Memphis Class B and there is a lot of traffic in the area. Essentially, I want the capability to go from known VFR into a localized IFR situation using personal minimums that are higher than published. Departure is the same ... localized IFR into known VFR conditions. The idea of running around single engine IFR and shooting an approach to published minimums has zero appeal to me in my advancing age! I will let you all know what I come up with. I considered going all electric with auto battery backup and may yet do so but, cost is a consideration. I am installing a number of STCs/modifications and at what point do we say "enough" ... at least for this year! Thanks for all of the help, advice and comments ... I consider every one! Regards, Lee (N1967C)
User avatar
Lee
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:26 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Re: Airborne 212CW-6 vacuum pump

Postby rydfly » Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:34 pm

I'll be interested to hear what you find out as well. I still have one of those old vacuum pumps spinning on the front of my 170 also. Please keep us posted!
1953 C170B - N170RP S/N 25865
User avatar
rydfly
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:37 am
Location: Troy, OH

Re: at we

Postby cessna170bdriver » Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:48 pm

Lee wrote:Hi ... first, I will check out Tempest and what they charge. Second, a couple of comments about SE IFR. I have done it in the past flying charter (C-206) and did a lot of night flying while instructing on the T-34C. We used to debate the merits of a night jump or riding the bird down into a previously noted farmer's field. That said, our -170 came IFR equipped and certified and my desire is to maintain that capability for one reason. Millington (NQA), late afternoons in the summer, when it is very hazy, can be hard to see. Looking for traffic can be problematic ... we lie under Memphis Class B and there is a lot of traffic in the area. Essentially, I want the capability to go from known VFR into a localized IFR situation using personal minimums that are higher than published. Departure is the same ... localized IFR into known VFR conditions. The idea of running around single engine IFR and shooting an approach to published minimums has zero appeal to me in my advancing age! I will let you all know what I come up with. I considered going all electric with auto battery backup and may yet do so but, cost is a consideration. I am installing a number of STCs/modifications and at what point do we say "enough" ... at least for this year! Thanks for all of the help, advice and comments ... I consider every one! Regards, Lee (N1967C)


I feel comfortable flying that kind of IFR with my venturi/manifold vacuum system combination. The majority of it was getting out of Picayune Mississippi to go somewhere on those clear-and-one mornings we often had.
Miles
User avatar
cessna170bdriver
 
Posts: 3345
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 5:13 pm
Location: 45G, SE Michigan

Re: Airborne 212CW-6 vacuum pump

Postby gahorn » Sun May 28, 2017 7:14 am

flyboy122 wrote:
mit wrote:

Ok here is the other one, they should not have been there in the first place, if they where not ready for the possibility of a failure, again pilot problem not pump problem..................


Yes, and since we've failed to fix the pilot problem for 75 years let's fix the pump problem!

DEM


You are correct, DEM...the PUMP is the problem. They never should have introduced it and kept the VENTURIIS...!! (No one needs to consider zero-zero takeoffs in a single-engine airplane anyway!)
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
gahorn
 
Posts: 17157
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
Location: Spicewood (Austin), Texas


Return to The Hangar

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests