Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

129 Excellent

About Freemasm

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Orlando, FL
  • Model

Recent Profile Visitors

1,588 profile views
  1. Opinion. Not starting a debate. Just another option to think about. Bought a used four person golf cart for less than the cheapest battery drill powered tow bar. Not a single use tool. Carries people, tools (back seat folds down to a “flat bed”), whatever, all over the field. Far more versatile and cheaper than yet another dedicated use tool. Boy I miss that Mooney.
  2. Go to the EAA and/or Vans Air Force websites and look at their threads, videos, tutorials. Wealth of direct knowledge there. Like so many things, it's all in the prep. Application is no big deal but wear multiple layers of gloves and clothes you never want to see again. Make sure you mix by weight, not volume. I've built three tanks from scratch now. No leaks. Tested with fuel and ultra-violent dye
  3. Mr. Taylor, Sorry they didn’t fit your installation (original were retrofit Amsafe reels, IIRC) and the other AZ connection doesn’t work out, PM me. Send them back this way and I’ll refund your money. Sorry about that let me know Scott F
  4. The castings can be quite porous which off-gases and bubbles-up the Powder Coat/CeraKote finishes. If you experience this, a long(er) bake prior to application will help rid the castings of said gases. Crinkle/texture finishes will help hide some of the casting imperfections; probably the reason early yokes were plastic coated.
  5. Yes and no. Flame quenching of any sort leads to the aforementioned incomplete combustion and subsequent soot. This would certainly make things worse from a smoke perspective but it was already bad without water injection.
  6. Mach number? One number seems unrealistic and the other impossible but if bragging rights was everything, I'd assume some fudging by those involved.
  7. I 'm old AF so I remember it quite well. I've been blessed to work with a lot of very smart people. Visible carbon (soot) is the result/product of incomplete combustion. When an engine is optimized for cruise conditions and little method for airflow management, there was no hope for the decent emissions in those old turbines; especially when it wasn't considered a priority. Of course, it's entirely possible they had to burn super-rich at low speeds for enrichment cooling of the burners. I don't have those old design details. Modern turbine engines do a much better job in that regard. NOx is quite different. The vast majority of oxides of Nitrogen are combustion temperature dependent. When thrust/weight is such an important design factor, there's little choice but to drive the combustion temps up (away from the low emissions corridor of ~2100 degF). It's complex with no easy answer. (Begin Sarcasm Font) This is all a waste of time anyway. In case you didn't hear, electric aircraft will be taking over. What's better. They are charged by electricity that has no environmental impact. (End Sarcasm Font).
  8. Another aspect that’s probably not considered by most, emissions. Those RR engines were NOx mega-producing, OZone killing super machines. Unless the emissions technology is greatly improved, I don't know that you could certify an equivalent engine for commercial use today.
  9. I rebuilt a heavily damaged Piper Saratoga many years back with a Charles Taylor award winner. A great learning experience for a recently graduated Mechanical Engineer. Having first owned a Beechcraft and then a Mooney, both very well designed structures, the Piper really opened my eyes to other design approaches. Forgive the opinions/observations. Not saying something isn't right, sufficient, etc. just a different design approach. Obviously can't include all details and considerations: You're not going to beat a single piece wing for strength. I understand a carry through spar. It's got to be great for production, especially maximizing production space. The Piper recent spar failure started at the outer most bolt hole. I haven't done any specific analysis (or seen any) but you'd assume a fairly significant stress concentration at the end of the bolted assembly where the fractures occurred. There's obviously a lot of moment at this point as there would be with any wing. This is the fracture surface. The "shiny" part is typical of a fatigue crack before the rupture. There was also the spar failure of the pipeline aircraft in ~1987. Was looking to possibly buy a Piper as my first aircraft when that happened and the subsequent AD. If you don't believe in the contribution of skin loading to monocoque construction techniques, see how much/how easily you can twist a wing with a skin panel or two removed. Building a single piece wing in a jig has non-obvious benefits. That wing will be true(er) . The forward attach points on the Piper were quite different; side to side. From what I was told, the wings are installed into the carry through and fall where they may. The forward attach points are match drilled to the fuselage attach points. It is very common for the same aircraft models to have a significantly different performances. A flap is rigged down to pick up a heavy wing. Mooneys "cheat" too but requires a much subtler method. The stall strips are moved to get the plane to fly true. From my experience, the performance spread is much less in Mooney world. There's no sub-floor in the majority of a Saratoga structure (and some other Pipers). When you place your feet on the cabin floor, the only thing between your shoes and the outer skin is carpet and a thin layer of foam. The floor is rigidized by long longitudinal U channels along the outside. From a production standpoint, this is probably much cheaper and easier to effect. There were a lot of other discoveries but I can't remember them all. Despite their bankruptcies, Piper is still in business. That said, be glad that you are flying an airframe that is extremely well designed from a structural integrity perspective.
  10. There's actually more to consider than most would guess. If you're an acoustics engineer, relax. I realize I'm simplifying things. I had a C model with the original one piece windshield. What a piece of S%$#! design. For aerodynamic experts, the Mooney bros flatted flubbed it putting a vertical jeep style windshield on an aircraft. I replaced the original one piece some time ago with a thicker one piece design and more recently with a 201 style. Some technical musings: The original one piece windshields transmit the most energy (pressure waves some of which are audible sound waves) into the cockpit and occupants than the original two piece designs. It's also at lower frequencies where the waves tend to carry more energy. The thicker one piece designs are a little better but not by much. than the two piece designs. They just can't be made reasonably thick enough. Place your hand on the windscreen when flyng some time and feel the ocillations (especially the original one pieces). Even with headsets, no matter how advanced, this is doing damage to your hearing. Three dBs is double the sound power (or half if you remove 3). The human physiology issue, our hearing isn't that acute so we don't perceive double the sound until ~every 10 dbs. Meanwhile, the dog is having a much tougher time when you crank the music at home. Why does this matter? Short answer = the sustained damage is related to the real sound power, not the perceived. Additionally, this flexing will prematurely craze the polymer. The 201style, besides being sexy, aerodynamically superior, and cruel AF if you hate your avionics installer, is quite superior. The compound curve shape makes it quite stiff; therefore, it doesn't transmit nearly the same amount of energy into you. It was quite cool hearing the wind noises in flight after final replacement. They'd always been droned out by the low frequency rumble before. @flyingchump You'll have to pick which design compromise best suits your needs and finances. Enjoy.
  11. This is not a debate. For you Kroil fan boys (like me): Two King size aerosol cans for $14.50 total plus $6.00 for delivery. You order straight from Cano Labs and use GOOGLEdeal as the coupon code. The website is still quite spartan but they will honor this over the phone as well. If you’re bought this retail in the past, you’ll know what a monster deal this is. You’re also sure it’s not some import counterfeit, crap because you’re dealing straight with the manufacturer
  12. All that you mention are dynamic seals; all of which will leak over time through wear. People can bash the design of seals, related glands, related materials as 1900's technology but honestly, it is quite appropriate. The tolerances and clearances kept the systems working for many decades despite leaks. Chances are, we'll be dead and/or the aircraft retired from service before they need replacing again. Just sayin'. All of the system components you've mentioned are re-buildable for the cheap cost of O'rings, replacement fluid, and some your time; basically "free" in aircraft ownership terms. If your masters are leaking, the calipers are probably close behind. I'd do those too while you're at it. .Best of luck.
  13. The adapter holding the ring will unscrew from the shaft, sometimes inadvertently through use. Mooney may have added a set screw at some point. You'll need to verify. The issue is holding said shaft to intentionally torque/detorque. You could get lucky with some hemostats from the top side. The better bet is someone will have to secure from underneath to remove. Learn those systems. It could save your a$$.
  14. Like most things, it comes down to craftsmanship, attention to detail, etc. You can get a very good looking interior from using Plane Plastics and AirTex products. It won't come without some pain. The seats were done by a somewhat local craftsman (with burn certs) for only ~10% more than the Airtex kit alone. I really miss this aircraft.