philiplane

If Bendix mags fail with relatively low hours, chances are the distributor block bushings were not lubricated per the manual at the last repair or overhaul. This involves heating the bearing to allow oil to soak into the bushing. Forgetting this step will make the distributor gear get hot and eventually it will strip a tooth, and the mag will no longer work.

The oil level should be correct when the plane has sat overnight. If it changes after 8 hours, you have something else going on. The turbos have check valves which can account for some variation in level if they are not seating properly.

Use Stabilant 22 on the contacts at least annually and your problems will likely disappear.

The orifice is normally very small, I will have to look but I think it's supposed to be .040". The correct fitting is not modified, they are made specially that way in one piece. The one you have is home made.

The baffle placement has to do with the way air comes off the prop and into the cowl inlets. #5 is on the front right, where the descending blade forces too much air into the cylinder's forward fins, so the baffle deflects that air up to distribute the air more uniformly. Cylinder #6 on the left side is in front of an ascending blade, so there is less ram pressure at the blade root to cylinder fin interface. So no baffle is needed on that side.

Don't worry how strong the wing is, because the tail will fail long before you reach the limits of the wing.

Bandits are operating on the peninsula so be very careful. You need cash to pay your fees but that also makes you a target. If the airport offers a handling service, use it. It may give you some protection. If you refuse a handler, you will certainly be a target for gas theft, kidnapping or robbery.

Lycoming does not require a tear down. You are subject to the crank gear AD as a result of the prop strike. That is simply removal of the accessory case, inspection of the gear, and replacement of a bolt and lock tab. It is recommended to inspect the magnetos if the engine was subject to sudden stoppage. In any event, insurance companies are always happy to foot the bill for the inspections and repairs but not for a full overhaul. It gets an insurer off the hook for future claims. So the question is, why didn't the engine get a tear down inspection? When they said the repairs were done due to the AD, that is the minimum level of repair and doesn't involve any internal engine inspection other than the single gear on the back of the crankshaft. If there was no tear down done, you have no way of knowing that the crank and rods are unaffected. More than one crankshaft has failed just behind the propeller flange as a result of an old prop strike where the engine was not torn down. A simple run-out check will tell you only if the flange is straight, not if it has been overstressed. You need a magnetic particle inspection of the crankshaft which can only be done during a tear down. Again, any insurance company is happy to pay for this. Of course, the owner may not have had hull insurance, and wouldn't pay the $8k or more cost out of pocket. In which case the shop simply does the gear AD and bolts on a new prop. Cheap. By the way, if the propeller had damage requiring blade replacement, the hub is considered scrap and you would have to replace the prop. Was that done?

I have the iPad Mini 2 32GB which is recommended as the optimum configuration for Garmin Pilot. It hooks to a GDL39 3D receiver and gives traffic, weather, and synthetic vision. I use it in several planes because the form factor fits where a full size iPad will not. The processor is fast. The iPad 3 only gives the fingerprint recognition and isn't worth the extra money.

I have seen that plane at Premier before, and I wouldn't be surprised if they caused the problem. They are one of the worst quality and most expensive shops in Florida.

I find I don't get reliable information from pilots when they have an out of rig plane. I have developed a flight test profile and checklist that I use. I do the test flight myself, with the plane loaded evenly, and then fill in all the blanks on my list. I usually make just one set of ground adjustments and one verification flight to solve any rigging problem. If you are trying to get your mechanic to fix an out of rig condition, and he's not an instructor, or at least seasoned pilot, then you will spend too much time figuring each other out.

Aircraft oil viscosity is rated at 210 dF, and thermal breakdown doesn't occur till above 265-280 dF. Your engine will operate just fine with oil temperature in the 190-210 degree range. 240 and above is cause for concern. Below 190 is also cause for concern. Water doesn't boil out of the oil until it's in that range anyway. Most aircraft engines suffer internal wear and rust due to low oil temperature. That's much more harmful than your temperature range, which is just about ideal. If you have lower pressure at 210 than at 180, your oil pressure spring probably needs replacing, and the pressure needs adjusting while the engine oil is at 200 dF, and the CHT exceeds 300 dF. This allows the regulating parts to be at the correct temperature. Calibration of the gauges is important because you need accurate information to make adjustments. Many gauge problems stem from poor grounds in the airframe, so you can get different readings depending on the electrical load.

CDT should be below 200 dF for best results. Above that and you get high CHT and run close to the detonation margin, even with 100LL fuel. There are some mods you can do to decrease the engine's inlet air temperature. Add a 1-2" ID blast hose routed from the engine aft baffle, clamped to blow cooling air on the rajay outlet. Adding some finned alumnum heat sink such as that used on oil filters can help. Anything to increase surface area and increase airflow on the outside of the turbo outlet will help dissipate heat. No where near as good as an intercooler, but anything at all helps. The Rajay setup generates higher heat the farther up you climb. Above 15,000 feet is where you can exceed 200dF intake temperatures.

The capacity check is the only method of driving the electrons to the respective plate so the battery will have full capacity. Discharging the battery according to the manual, and then recharging it accordingly, is what restores the balance to the plates. Concorde and Gill list the proper charge rates which MUST be done according to schedule. Each one missed will reduce the service life of the battery. Operating 15-20 of both types of batteries in one fleet, I found that neither had an advantage. The Concorde RG was far more likely to suddenly die in the 30-36 month period than a flooded battery. This is starting IO-550 Continentals in an ideal environment, where the plane is flying almost daily and logging 400-800 hours annually. The higher the batteries' output, the shorter the expected life will be because of one simple fact. Installing more plates to increase capacity reduces the spacing, making internal shorts from overcharging or high current inrush much more likely. So the -15 battery is more likely to fail than the -11 battery. The same with the AXC versus the standard 35 series.

I drive by Premier's ramp at FXE many times each week and I'm always amazed that so many planes sit outside for days or weeks without the cowl on. They do put the top cowl on most of the time, but in Florida downpours that doesn't keep lots of salty rain from getting all over the engine. Shoddy.

Neither the G243S nor the RG11 series batteries are intended to last more than 3 years in service without proper care. Build it into your budget. The problem is that no one is really servicing these high performance batteries correctly. You have to do the 12 month and thereafter 6 month capacity checks to ensure long service life. If you aren't equipped to do them, then replace the battery after 36 months in service since its no longer possible to do a proper deep cycle and recover full capacity. It's in the maintenance manual.... the one that comes with the battery but virtually no one reads.

The Garmin will automatically shut down when low voltage is detected. It is about 11.5 -11.8 volts if I recall.

If the inspection and servicing itself takes more than 2 days, you have the wrong shop. The inspection, engine & airframe servicing should be done at the end of day two, and you should have a list of items to discuss and fix. If they have normal inventory of common wear items you should be flying again on day 4. If they don't stock basics like tires, spark plugs, brakes, etc, you are getting hosed with freight charges. I don't want a plane at my hangar longer than 5 days, unless it is a gear up repair..

I teach short field and spot landings based on weight, which is what really matters. Figures in the POH are for gross, and are way too fast. I load the plane and calculate the stall speed for the weight, then we go practice minimum controllable airspeed to get familiar with the handling and sight pictures. A few approaches and landings later, the pilot will have the experience he needs but never got in primary training.

It's all about airspeed. If you float, you are too fast. You'll need to knock 5 knots off your over the fence speed. You'll have the correct speed when you can plant it on a runway stripe (120' long) with no bounce.

Some of the LS series starters had bolts that were 1/16" too long, so the motor would not be solid against the base. After 50-100 hours it would loosen and the motor needs to be tight to have a ground path to the engine. The simple solution is to pull the two long bolts, add a washer, and re-torque the bolts. It solves the weak turning problem that develops because the motor is not properly grounded. Any plane with 200 hp or more should use the NL version. The LS is only good up to 180 hp. Skytec will tell you that as well.

So is my CAR 3, 1977 airplane un-airworthy because I dont have 23G seats? No, you aren't changing seats so you don't have to comply with any new regs. Or 50 FPS gust loading at the top of the green arc? No, you aren't changing certification basis, so new loading does not apply. It didnt come equipped with shoulder harnesses, must I have those too? No, you are not required to install them since you are not required to have them for Part 91operations of CAR3 aircraft, unless the plane originally had them and they are listed in the Type Certificate notes as required equipment. What about an airspeed indicator marked in knots? Do I need one of those? No, your airspeed indicator must match the markings in your TC and flight manual which are MPH. How about parts subsitiution, IE a Dayco green stripe alternator belt in lieu of the 67$ Lycoming version. Yes, the original parts manual referenced the Gates part number, you may use it. I must buy parts from the same source as the manufacturer, and only PMA parts are allowed? No subsitutions? That is correct. Unless you can affirm Fit Form and Function are equivalent. Is a Mandatory service bulletin from Mooney or Lycoming (not an AD) required to be performed by me? No Service Bulletin is mandatory unless referenced in an AD. Is a component replacement time, listed in the "airworthiness limitations" section of the AMM required for airworthiness? (lets asume its published after 1977) Any time limit listed in a Chapter 4 Airworthiness Limitations section is Mandatory. No exceptions. What about a 1947 Aeronca Champ? What about it? Be specific. I guess the point is, I fail to see how FAR 23 affects the maintenance and certification of my CAR3 airplane. There is newer and far better stuff out there, but I am required to maintain my airplane to the FAR part 43 standards in effect as of April 1977 unless dictated by AD? Ah, here is the sticky part. You are required to maintain your airplane to the current standards, and those were the standards current at the date of manufacture, PROVIDED you have the maintenance and parts manuals of that period. If you do not, you must maintain it in accordance with the reference material you do have. Remember, you are not complying with Part 23, you are complying with Part 91 operations rules, which may reference newer standards than CAR3. That is what binds you to newer standards, not the fact that Part 23 exists. So this is where the linkage to the current 14CFR Part 21, 43, and 91 comes in. If you are operating a plane today, it is in accordance with Part 91, which links to lighting regulations, which in turn links to maintenance rules, in turn to certification standards for parts. All of those are currently enforced by our Friendly Aviation Advisors, not the CAA of yesteryear. And is my aircraft bound by the FAR 23 standard or the CAR 3 standard as of April 1977? It depends. If you change parts to newer parts, the parts must comply with the regs at the date of the parts manufacture, since they are required to be eligible for installation via an 8130 Form, a 337 Form, an STC, a PMA, or as an exact replacement that maintains Fit Form and Function, or is produced by you as an Owner Produced Part, with reference to the standards used to create the original part you are replacing.The aircraft as a whole is not boundary newer standards. Only the replacement parts are, because someone has to verify that they are eligible for installation on Type Certificated aircraft. I've already run this LED scenario past FAA personnel and one of the country's top enforcement defense attorneys. Installing non-approved parts is one violation by the installer, accepting them at annual is another violation by the IA, and flying the plane is a violation, times the number of flights that it was unairworthy. There is no good outcome here. Id like to see the PMA or certification standards on a GE 4522 landing light bulb and fiurther, since its not required to operate a Part 91 airplane not for hire, how it is inferior to an incandescent bulb. heres some more reading. http://www.avweb.com...y_203196-1.html Certification standards on landing lights govern brightness, depth of field, and width of field. They are spelled out in several documents such as the AC23-17 which also concern halation, radio interference, and other details. AvWeb is typically a poor source for regulatory information. Suspect Unapproved Parts have been a priority of the FAA since 2006, mostly to prevent bogus turbine engine parts from getting into jet engines, but the SUP process is very well defined within the # 8300 guidelines in the Inspector's Handbook. These discussions came about as part of the STC process for HID landing lights. I am a pioneer in the process, and the Cessna Citation HID lights offered by Lopresti was one of my recent projects. I know lighting, regulations, and the approval process better than your average owner's group website contributor. My airplane has a 50W Xevision HID landing light installed as a minor alteration before the FAA published the "EFIS in small airplanes" AC back in October 2010. Its is by definition a minor alteration, its several times brighter than the GE 4522 bulb that came originally. Speaking of which, I cannot find any TSO on landing light bulbs nor the PMA on the GE 4522. Can you help me find it? You cannot install a XeVision HID as a minor alteration, because the light does not have any installation eligibility. A Field Approval is needed. I have done dozens of them.Minor alterations can only be done using Approved Parts of the same Fit Form and Function. HID does not qualify because Form and Function are significantly different, They also have to be tested to the DO-160 standards governing RFI interference with radios and navigation equipment. Incandescent lamps do not produce RFI. HID's do, sometimes too much to be installed in some locations. I also have run a Part 145 Repair Station, served as a Part 135 Director of Maintenance, been a Part 135 pilot, and have taught classes in regulatory compliance. If you really want LED nav lights, you just pony up for the Whelen Orion nav & strobe assemblies. They are amazing. I agree totally. I think the certified options offered by Aveo are a better value but the clear resin they are made of yellows in sunlight over time.

Although the CAR 3 rules applied during manufacturing, unfortunately you can't OPERATE it under those rules today. Or maintain it. Unless you have a time machine... So this is where the linkage to the current 14CFR Part 21, 43, and 91 comes in. If you are operating a plane today, it is in accordance with Part 91, which links to lighting regulations, which in turn links to maintenance rules, in turn to certification standards for parts. All of those are currently enforced by our Friendly Aviation Advisors, not the CAA of yesteryear. I've already run this LED scenario past FAA personnel and one of the country's top enforcement defense attorneys. Installing non-approved parts is one violation by the installer, accepting them at annual is another violation by the IA, and flying the plane is a violation, times the number of flights that it was unairworthy. There is no good outcome here. Suspect Unapproved Parts have been a priority of the FAA since 2006, mostly to prevent bogus turbine engine parts from getting into jet engines, but the SUP process is very well defined within the # 8300 guidelines in the Inspector's Handbook. These discussions came about as part of the STC process for HID landing lights. I am a pioneer in the process, and the Cessna Citation HID lights offered by Lopresti was one of my recent projects. I know lighting, regulations, and the approval process better than your average owner's group website contributor. I also have run a Part 145 Repair Station, served as a Part 135 Director of Maintenance, been a Part 135 pilot, and have taught classes in regulatory compliance. If you really want LED nav lights, you just pony up for the Whelen Orion nav & strobe assemblies. They are amazing.

Those parts are accepted as part of the Type Design, and do not require a PMA when the manufacturer installed them. When you replace them, you must use the same parts, from the same source, or go to a PMA holder for their equivalent part. Navigation lamps are different from standard parts because they are required to meet color & visibility requirements. So the wingtip nav lamps , which have reflectors built in, are indeed all PMA approved parts. And GE holds a PMA for all of its aircraft lamps, because they are required to do so in order to offer them for sale to aviation markets

There's no "gray area" when it comes to replacement parts for Type Certificated aircraft: 5. Who Needs A PMA? a. General Requirements. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 21.303(a) requires any person producing replacement or modification parts for sale for installation on a type-certificated product to get a PMA. A PMA is a combined design and production approval for replacement parts. Also we may use a PMA for the production of modification parts from supplemental type certificates (STC). The prior STC approves the design and installation of these modification parts in products. However, if any replacement part alters a product by introducing a major change, then 14 CFR § 21.113 requires an STC for the approval of these parts. See FAA Order 8110.4, Type Certification, for STC procedures. b. Getting a PMA for Technical Standard Order (TSO) Articles. We at the FAA may issue a PMA for replacement parts for articles produced under a TSO authorization when these articles are in the product’s type design. Then the replacement part is for the eligible product not the article. The installation of a PMA part may result in a minor design change in a TSO article yet meet the product’s airworthiness requirements. We require the installer of this part to place a modifier’s nameplate on the article. See FAA Order 8150.1, Technical Standard Order Program, for more details. Replacement parts approved under the basis of identicality do not change the article’s design and do not require a modifier’s nameplate. The NavStrobe bulbs, and paddle style LED's are sold as replacement parts, so they require a PMA. Or an STC, or Field Approval. End of story.