Contact with Alaska Skycraft?

Anyone know how to contact Alaska SkyCraft? I called their number 907-279-1850 and it says to check my number. No answer to email either.

I don't know what the future holds for Skycraft. Its a family company owned by Terry Smith, the pilot of the Ted Stevens accident airplane.

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/?p=27728

SB

Thanks Stewart, I did not know.

Wanting to buy a cargo/fuel belly pod for a Cessna 180.

Contact with Alaska Skycraft

Aeroset is rumored to have bought the molds and STC for the cargo pod and fuel/cargo pod, My company Plaschem built the molds and all of the parts to date. I would check with Aeroset and see when they will have them for sale.
Randy Apling

Will they come with a Rockstar too?! Meet you on skidmark sometime. :lol:

Thanks, I will check with them.

skycraft

I talked with Matt from Aerocet 2 weeks ago and they should have the pods available sometime near january. They are changing the fuel tarnsfer switch to a manual one which should work better, i am thinking about one for my 180 or 185 with 29 gallons extra fuel. You can run them on floats also with the front flying wires going through the pod. Having 8 1/2 hours fuel range running lean of peak on my tours through the arctic would be nice in the 185.

I just sent an inquiry to Aerocet about the availability of the skypod for the 180/185, and they told me they are in the process of updating or re-designing the cargo/fuel version of their pods, and the project was placed on hold in favor of bigger projects. So if anyone is interested, I'd encourage you to reach out and let them know there is interest in a solution for early wagons.

Get a field approval for the Alaska Bush Pod. Bigger and better than the Skycraft. Probably why Aerocet is changing it.

I don't want bigger. I want the 26.5g of gas and a little extra cargo at low/aft cg. Also, will the firmin pods for the PA18 even work for a 180? Do you know of anyone who's successfully done that?

There’s a Skywagon model, and yes, lots if guys have it.

soyAnarchisto said:

I don't want bigger. I want the 26.5g of gas and a little extra cargo at low/aft cg. Also, will the firmin pods for the PA18 even work for a 180? Do you know of anyone who's successfully done that?

Click to expand...

For just gas, these wing tip options work great: https://flintaero.com If you have a 185 you can use either the internal or the wing extension version. The internals hold one gallon more than they claim and are placarded for.

I presume they do better work now than they did 40 years ago. Check them for pin hole leaks before installation ... there are 4 or 5 wing rivets which need to be removed to get them out. :evil:

The 2 hours extra gas sure is nice when flying out in the boonies.

Another plus for the wing tanks over the belly tank is the wing tanks can gravity feed while the belly tank requires pumping.

Aerocet doesn't even want to build little floats for Cub type. They are concentrating more on big floats and I doubt they get involved in the pods unless float sales tank.

Flint was back ordered two years last I talked to them.

Steve Pierce said:

Flint was back ordered two years last I talked to them.

Click to expand...

This is interesting. Based upon the many discussions here, it appears that no matter what the members are looking for there is a long or unknown wait period. What is going on? Are the suppliers short handed? Is there an unusually high demand for stuff? There appears to be an unlimited number of excuses. I'm glad I'm not needing anything important to me.

I have a '55 180 so that doesn't much help. I'm not really interested in tip tanks - 95lbs way out on the furthest lever arm away from the fuselage on the wign doesn't sound like the right choice even though I know it's approved. Plus you need a ladder to fill them which kinda sucks, and I may go to floats and WingX some day. I really prefer all that weight down low over the cg - or just a little aft as I'm moving my cg way forward in an effort to reduce overall weight. Flint doesn't do gravity feed at all according to their web site - only electric transfer pump.

And finally - a cargo pod seems about as easy to remove and disconnect as say floats or the wingX - so I envision maybe having it for the yearly Alaska trip where the 50% more fuel capacity would be welcome. I dunno fully - still trying to work out the pros and cons.

To install a pod on a Cessna requires a whole bunch of rivnuts and screws to attach through the pod flange. That was what stopped me from installing one even with an approval in hand. I couldn’t bear drilling all those holes in my airplane for something I didn’t really need.

soyAnarchisto said:

I'm not really interested in tip tanks - 95lbs way out on the furthest lever arm away from the fuselage on the wign doesn't sound like the right choice even though I know it's approved. Plus you need a ladder to fill them which kinda sucks, and I may go to floats and WingX some day.
Flint doesn't do gravity feed at all according to their web site - only electric transfer pump.

Click to expand...

Your right questioning the lever arm. When the tanks are full you can notice the weight in the tips. It does fly better when they're empty.
The original Flint internal tank had a manual shut off valve in the wing root area in the cabin. Totally gravity feed. The electric pumps were optional. Once you opened the manual valve the fuel would seek a level with the main tanks so that you could not empty the Flints until the mains were also empty. With the electric pump, the tips can be emptied regardless of the level in the mains, in 20 minutes. Also once the pump pushes the air bubble out of the line between the pump and the main tank, the tips will gravity feed through the electric pump, just not 100%

Yes they can be a nuisance when refueling on floats. Turning around at the dock or crawling out on top of the wing to fill them. Which tank do you fill 1st, which 2nd etc due to the weight shifting?
Do you have any friends in your local FAA office? Extra fuel tanks of whatever type or method require an STC from engineering. I did this on a Widgeon.
You could consider a "ferry" tank which could be installed in a cargo pod to be used for specific flights. I did this on a PA-18 with a homemade aluminum 18 gal fuel belly pod which the FSDO field approved on a 337 for a "ferry" flight from Mass to Alaska. Once the -18 arrived in Alaska the owner got a field approval to keep it permanently.

I mention all this to give you ideas. Whatever you decide, you will welcome the extra capacity.

I had the internal Flint tip tanks installed on my O-360 powered C-170B. The only other option for that airplane at the time was the baggage compartment tank, which was also approved for the early 180s, I believe. I’ve also flown one 185 and a couple 206s with Flint tanks. The 206 tanks extend the wings, so put fuel even further outboard.

I operated the 170 on wheels, skis and floats with the Flint tanks installed, but only used them occasionally, when a lot of fuel was required. Yes, draining alternately from each tip is a bit of monkey motion, but it gives you something to do on a looooong cross country. The weight thing I never considered a big deal, and BTW, there are no restrictions on landing or takeoffs with fuel in the tips. I tried to avoid landing with more than half fuel in the tips.

I understand your concern with CG, but the Flints lie very close to empty CG, so don’t effect CG much, empty or full. If you’re wanting to get more aft CG, install an extended baggage, and put your survival stuff all the way aft in it. Then, install a composite prop. Voila!

Or install one of those baggage tanks. I wouldnt do so, too much CG change, plus gas in the cockpit? No thanks.

But, I’d install Flint tanks again, if I needed more gas.

MTV

mvivion said:

Yes, draining alternately from each tip is a bit of monkey motion, but it gives you something to do on a looooong cross country.

MTV

Click to expand...

Yes it is placarded to drain from one tank at a time. ..... I never did, always both together. I wondered why that restriction was in place, perhaps it was to keep the FAA happy? Did they think it would prevent an air bubble from getting in the system to stop the engine? That seems unlikely as they both feed their respective wing tanks and do not feed the engine directly.

Flint mentions that in their FAQ: https://flintaero.com/faq/

flint said:

Question[FONT=&quot]: Why can’t I transfer from my Flint Aero aux system to my main tanks while I’m using my mains?[/FONT]
Answer[FONT=&quot]: The short answer is because it’s illegal. When the FAA approved our system, they wanted to isolate it from the engine for added safety. Technically speaking the only real danger is if you have bladder tanks. Our fuel system ties into the fuel line in the door or windshield post with bladder equipped aircraft. Since you are deliberately trying to pump the aux tanks dry you run the risk of introducing air into the fuel line to the engine when the aux tank is empty. Metal tanks aren’t as critical, as the transfer from the aux tanks go directly into your main tanks.

Click to expand...

[/FONT]

skywagon8a said:

Yes it is placarded to drain from one tank at a time. ..... I never did, always both together. I wondered why that restriction was in place, perhaps it was to keep the FAA happy? Did they think it would prevent an air bubble from getting in the system to stop the engine? That seems unlikely as they both feed their respective wing tanks and do not feed the engine directly.

Click to expand...

skywagon8a said:

Yes it is placarded to drain from one tank at a time. ..... I never did, always both together. I wondered why that restriction was in place, perhaps it was to keep the FAA happy? Did they think it would prevent an air bubble from getting in the system to stop the engine? That seems unlikely as they both feed their respective wing tanks and do not feed the engine directly.

Click to expand...

Pete,

I experimented with pumping from both tips to both mains in my 170 at a safe height, and didn't seen any issues. I called Flint at one point, and asked the question. They said FAA was concerned the pump could pressurize the fuel delivery to the engine...... I never figured that'd be a bad thing, but....

HOWEVER:

Maules have a similar system, though their tip tanks pump into the Mains directly on the outboard end of the Main, whereas Flint's tip lines just T into the outlet of the mains, so, gas has to back up into the mains in that system.

In the Maule, there's no prohibition on pumping from both tips to both mains at the same time.

I had a friend who was killed in a Maule after an engine failure. It turns out that the Maule had had the mains topped off some time before the accident flight. Between then and the accident flight, the area experienced a torrential rain event. Just before that rain, a fueler had refilled the Maule owner's bulk tank on the shore, and left the filler cap off the tank.

The pilot filled the Maule's tip tanks just prior to the accident flight, which resulted in the tip tanks having a lot of water in them, but the mains did not. As you know, it's tough to sample those tips for water, but.....can be done.

Pilot loaded two passengers and headed north. Landed on a lake up north, walked around, re-boarded and departed. Presumably, while climbing out of the lake, the pilot turned on both transfer pumps, therefore contaminating both main tanks, and shutting down the engine.

This is a very specific set of circumstances indeed, but it happened and resulted in the death of three individuals. The NTSB was petitioned to consider this, but blew it off, didn't come from their investigation.

Since then, I have always recommended to Maule pilots I've flown with NOT to pump from both tips simultaneously. Pump from one first, if engine continues to run, fine, now you've got a pretty good idea that side is good. NOW, switch to right main and right tip pump on, and see what happens there.

After all, while this accident was a very specific set of circumstances, very often pilots leave those tips empty, then fuel them frequently at a different time and perhaps pump than the mains were filled from.

MTV

See, I knew it was the FAA wanting to provide some input to feel important. 8)(I'm from the FAA and here to help you!:evil The fuel line from the aux tanks T into the rear drain line from each wing tank about halfway down the rear doorpost. Actually the next post aft behind the window. If any air bubble gets in that line from the aux tank it will flow up to the main tank. The two outlets from the wings flow down the front and rear door posts and T together under the floor. It's highly unlikely that an air bubble in the middle of the rear doorpost could go down two more feet to merge with the line which goes to the fuel valve and then to the engine. The weight of the fuel entering the T would over power any possible air bubble.

I have run both pumps long after the tanks are emptied. I'm certain that none of the air bubbles entered the system.

Mike,

Is this the Maule accident site you're referring to> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLrh_NO3dXc She was a interesting person to visit with.

Gary

mvivion said:

Pete,


As you know, it's tough to sample those tips for water, but.....can be done....

...Presumably, while climbing out of the lake, the pilot turned on both transfer pumps, therefore contaminating both main tanks, and shutting down the engine.

...Very often pilots leave those tips empty, then fuel them frequently at a different time and perhaps pump than the mains were filled from.

MTV

Click to expand...

My guess is that you are being specific to when on floats in the first statement, on wheels it is easy- guess that goes for any plane on floats vs wheels, and birds with tips. Well, a beaver tip tanks suck no matter what because you need a ladder when on wheels.

Checking drains on any tip tank requires turning the plane around on the dock, or having a U dock, when on floats.

There are lots of tip tanks in the world, and many stories of contaminated fuel- and it sucks when it happens to you. Bottom line is check the tank's quick drain after you fuel to see what you actually got from the pump! Look at most twin engine fuel systems and you will really get an eye opener on how many ways you can starve the engines, or push bad fuel from one tank to the engines.

As far as climbing out, one good rule is to get above 500' before transferring fuel. At least you will have a few seconds to find the best possible site to put it down.

Beavers, Maule, twins... common theory is to burn out the fuel furthest from center line first, wether direct use or transfer asap. Helps roll rate, less stress on wings especially when you land the plane. Every training I have attended has that suggestion or operational procedure. Not much tip tank use for single engine charter operations, not many trips pay well enough for super long flights.

However, there are lots of specific places, (flights to Katmai) that take all the fuel you can hold, and tips may get used daily. Like all fuel tanks, keeping the quick drain in your pre-flight and an eye on what comes out of them is important.

Soy, does your 180 have extended baggage? Airglas makes a nice one. For most ops it’s more useful than a pod.

BC12D-4-85 said:

Mike,

Is this the Maule accident site you're referring to> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLrh_NO3dXc She was a interesting person to visit with.

Gary

Click to expand...

Yes,

MTV

aktango58 said:

My guess is that you are being specific to when on floats in the first statement, on wheels it is easy- guess that goes for any plane on floats vs wheels, and birds with tips. Well, a beaver tip tanks suck no matter what because you need a ladder when on wheels.

Checking drains on any tip tank requires turning the plane around on the dock, or having a U dock, when on floats.

There are lots of tip tanks in the world, and many stories of contaminated fuel- and it sucks when it happens to you. Bottom line is check the tank's quick drain after you fuel to see what you actually got from the pump! Look at most twin engine fuel systems and you will really get an eye opener on how many ways you can starve the engines, or push bad fuel from one tank to the engines.

As far as climbing out, one good rule is to get above 500' before transferring fuel. At least you will have a few seconds to find the best possible site to put it down.

Beavers, Maule, twins... common theory is to burn out the fuel furthest from center line first, wether direct use or transfer asap. Helps roll rate, less stress on wings especially when you land the plane. Every training I have attended has that suggestion or operational procedure. Not much tip tank use for single engine charter operations, not many trips pay well enough for super long flights.

However, there are lots of specific places, (flights to Katmai) that take all the fuel you can hold, and tips may get used daily. Like all fuel tanks, keeping the quick drain in your pre-flight and an eye on what comes out of them is important.

Click to expand...

Trying to avoid the concept of casting stones, George. We all make mistakes, I certainly have made a few. Also, if you sump a tank immediately after filling it, you may not get ALL the water out of it. Water and gas don't mix, but there's a lot of splashing around that happens during fueling and chunks of water can take a while to get to the sump.

Anyway, yes, I'm quite familiar with the concept of draining sumps-. Would that we were all perfect.

MTV

stewartb said:

Soy, does your 180 have extended baggage? Airglas makes a nice one. For most ops it’s more useful than a pod.

Click to expand...

Yes. I just replaced my air metal fabricators extended baggage with the ski tube and put in airglas. My issue is not baggage, it's fuel. I really like the idea of carrying an additional fuel tank on the belly - low cg for less nosing over moment when on the brakes ala the belly tanks of the DHC2 beaver.

I don't think I can put the Javelin tank in the back any more now that I have the extended baggage. A ferry tank is an idea - but I'd kinda like the idea of a semi permanent option and not just a ferry permit.

soyAnarchisto said:

........I don't think I can put the Javelin tank in the back any more now that I have the extended baggage. .....

Click to expand...

I'm curious why this might be the case?

FWIW there's a javelin tank listed on Barnstormers right now-- $3K, in Spokane.

BARNSTORMERS.COM Find Aircraft & Aircraft Parts - Airplane Sale, Jets, Helicopters, Experimental, Warbirds & Homebuilt

And a guy I know had one for sale not too long ago.

Edit: FWIW Griggs Aircraft now owns the old O&N STC's,
they make a fuselage tank similar to the javelin.

Griggs Aircraft Refinishing | Aux Fuel System STCs