Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


A64Pilot last won the day on January 22

A64Pilot had the most liked content!

About A64Pilot

  • Birthday 12/02/1958

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    flying, diving
  • Model

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

A64Pilot's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well
  • One Year In
  • Dedicated
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges



  1. That would be the old engine that was designed in the late 50’s by Detroit Diesel for an Army requirement for a light observation airplane or a helicopter. Military designation of T63-A700 318 SHP or 720 420 SHP, Civilian designation of C-18 and C-20 I think. I was an OH-58 Crew Chief for a few year and the 58 used this motor as did the OH-6 and many Civilian helicopters, the BO-105 had two of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Model_250 Installed on many Bonanza’s and C-210’s etc and the Turbine Maule. Its not a bad engine really but I’m sure a modern design would be much better, if anyone had Government money to design and build one.
  2. It’s not a problem, as the quote on the Thrush, it’s still that way on the Pratt models, but no Avgas. I don’t think Avgas was ever allowed except maybe as an emergency fuel, lead deposits is the problem. All Garrets on their fuel controls can be adjusted to run Diesel etc., the settings are based on the specific gravity of the fuel, but most turbines don’t require anything. Even though it’s still allowed no Ag pilot I know of burns Diesel anymore, bought in volume Jet is cheaper, being Ag they get some kind of tax exemption, but Diesel burns dirty and your fuel injectors require more frequent cleaning, which is a bigger job than it sounds like and has bad consequences if you don't. Actually #1 and #2 Diesel don’t exist anymore it’s all ULSD, so technically you can’t burn ULSD in a Thrush. ‘But tax wise think of all of the large amount of Autogas STC’s, none of them of course pay the aviation tax, but it’s legal.
  3. You should replace the wire to carry the potential higher amperage and replace the CB with a higher rated one, but if the original CB is left in place then it should be fine safety wise, but the possibility exists that the alternator could output more amperage than the CB could handle causing it to trip. Would it reset or just trip again? I don’t know. What would it take to max out an alternator? Maybe a dead battery? Bottom line, you have to do whatever the STC calls for, if it says just R&R the alternator and regulator then that’s all you have to do. Putting a Plane Power on my little C-140 the STC called for bigger wire and CB, but that was to replace a weak generator.
  4. That’s a pretty big hole, I’d be curious as to what’s stopping it up and why it can’t simply be cleaned out?
  5. Very often approval for an off the shelf part comes when the manufacturer inducts it into their Quality Control system. I’m not saying this is what was done with the valves but is how some things like off the shelf filters become vacuum filters for example, or how for example an OMC starter solenoid is installed on a factory airplane. The catch to that is of course the identical solenoid bought from OMC isn’t an approved part, in order for it to be approved you have to buy it from the aircraft manufacturer. That can get complicated when that manufacturer goes out of business and is one reason why the FAA has become so much more lenient on parts for antique aircraft like ours. Some IA’s will stick their neck out a little and go by the “form, fit and function” rule and will substitute parts that comply with that, but if the approved part is available but just costs more than you think it should then that’s tougher to justify.
  6. I love how people who don’t like something like to claim it’s some kind of unsubstantiated belief. However it’s not. I’ve spoken with a few Hartzell Engineers and Joe Brown a couple of times on this subject as well as Igor Brunchelik owner of Avia propellor and Zbynek Tvrdik one of Avia’s Engineers and if all things are equal the fewer the blades the less the drag, so fewer blades are more efficient, being more efficient means greater thrust. This has been known forever and because of this single blade props have been tried. I can’t seem to find it on the internet but I believe way back Hughes Aircraft even built an Experimental single bladed helicopter to see how much more lifting power it would have. Any perceived increase in efficiency was I believe more than washed out by the problems a single blade caused. You go to multiple prop blades for many reasons, but primarily it’s because of ground clearance, some other reasons are to enable lower tip speed as when tip speed gets up to roughly .84 Mach its noisy and inefficient. For example the smallest Crop Duster we built had a three blade 106” prop that could turn a 2200 RPM which is about .9 Mach, working with Pratt and Whitney we were allowed to increase engine torque from 58.7 PSI to 64 which still gave us 750 SHP reducing the prop tip speed to .83 Mach which both increased performance and reduced noise significantly. Multiple blades can reduce noise somewhat and can be slightly smoother, but as there is more surface area there is more drag. There are other considerations of course, for example when Hartzell undertook designing a new prop for the GE H-80 engine they ended up with a four blade prop, they were trying to exceed the performance of the three blade Avia prop, but the required blade profile to do so exceeded the centripetal force limits of any of their existing hubs so they had to go to a four blade prop. It’s entirely possible that a three or even four blade prop could outperform a two blade, but it would be because of a superior airfoil, not due the number of blades. At the air speeds we fly at all things being equal, the fewer the blades the better, unless of course someone builds a three blade with an airfoil that’s efficient enough to overcome the increased drag
  7. They do work better, if your mag(s) are weak they will make the engine start easier. Whether they save any fuel or not is arguable, they wouldn’t on my engine as it will run smoothly way more LOP than optimal with massives. IF and that’s a big if, but if treated well, they will last the life of the engine, at least to TBO any way. When I ran them I would only dig out any clinkers with a dental pick and never clean them with any kind of abrasive blast. I never had any problem with them, but in truth I’ve never had any issues with plugs really, but until very recently I removed, cleaned and rotated them at every oil change and maybe that’s why I’ve never had a fouled plug? I see them as being similar to tires. I doubt many wouldn’t say that Goodyear flight custom III tires aren’t better than say an Airhawk, but are they worth three times the price? Not to me the Airhawks work just fine from what I can tell.
  8. It’s my understanding that as far as cruise speed, nothing outperforms the stock two blade Mac that came on the 201. That’s second had info, I’ve not tested multiple props on my airplane. From my experience with other aircraft the primary advantage of three blade props is appearance However and I’ll get arguments on this but few aircraft actually achieve “book” performance.
  9. Yes, but as you found out a piece of 3/4 “ pipe and a jack is better. There is not as far as I have been able to discover any approved method for lifting a mid body Mooney for retract tests. However as PT20J points out lifting the engine mount isn’t prohibited, that was how I used to lift my Maule when going from 8.5” to 29” tires, it lifted almost the entire aircraft that way due to it being a tailwheel aircraft. Engine mounts are very strong. Personally I lift my McCauley prop with two soft nylon straps I got at Harbor freight, each rated I believe for at least 5,000 lbs. They each wrap three or four times around each blade. I think if done correctly all methods are fine, but any if done incorrectly can cause damage. Personally I’m uncomfortable lifting from the engine lift point, now if someone built one that connected to two bolts or built a spreader bar that attached to at least two points like used on turbines then I’d be more comfortable, it’s just that a possible crack in the case is SO expensive it makes me nervous but then I’m risk averse.
  10. As with a great many things, “better” very often exists, just the difference is often slight, difficult to quantify and frankly impossible to justify as a money savings measure. Take tires as an example. However many do feel better with only using the “best” for their airplane, car or whatever, and there is real value in that.
  11. Crimp or using a pointed punch you can partially collapse the end barrel, the punch method looks better and is more easily overcome to remove the wire. As opposed to bending I’ve seen collars used, the type that’s used to hold model airplane wheels on landing gear. They come in different sizes of course. https://www.amazon.com/RiToEasysports-Airplane-Stainless-Exquisite-Craftsmanship/dp/B0BR5D55C7/ref=asc_df_B0BR5D55C7/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=663370313222&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=12415214475177995436&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9011535&hvtargid=pla-2253726245277&psc=1&mcid=c65d4b728afe3a98ad209527ab1398f3 Then if you need to remove the wire you can use a punch and tap enough of it out to get ahold of it. More useful on longer hinges but once you get enough wire sticking out to chuck it in a drill, spray the hinge with penetrating oil and the drill will walk the pin out very easy without damaging anything, some aircraft leading edges are held on with a hinge and the drill makes a tough job easy. Way back in the last Century I learned the drill trick pulling the tail rotor drive shaft covers off of UH-1’s.
  12. It’s been years but just to get through the Atl airport by the time you include traffic, parking etc was sometimes three hours or more depending how backed up the lines were but to make your flight you had to plan worst case, then add in whatever it’s going to take to clear the arrival airport if you had checked bags is over an hour, so that’s four hours without flight time, if you have a connecting flight that could add hours more. Then all the fat people bringing their bags of Mcdonald’s food on the airplane, crying babies and the freaks, people who immediately on coming onto the airplane that stuff their bags in the overhead up front, not where they are seated etc., makes that Bus look awful good to me, one assumes you skip all that and if you have bags they are in the basement of the Bus, so they don’t get lost. I’m assuming the Bus leaves some kind of small terminal and yiu don’t have to be X-rayed etc? Back in the day you went straight to your gate, then flying Commercial was OK and the Walmart shoppers took the Bus, seems like that’s flipping now in some cases.
  13. Yeah I looked it up, looks like a deal to me. I won’t fly Commercial unless I have to, sure Business class is fine once you get on the airplane but all the drama and hassle you have to go through before hand makes it where I don’t want to go, yiu skip all that with that bus and I bet the bus is actually faster. Public transportation when I was in Germany was exceptional, mostly because of the people that took the bus were middle class, not what we have in the US. I had a Crew Chief that worked for me that built City Busses as a Civilian, he told me that they built the entry steps from fiberglass because urine rotted out steel. Think about that for a second
  14. I think but am not sure it’s Statute miles not Nautical and possibly you get the milage from a driving App. I never did the milage thing with my aircraft though so unsure
  15. Other than gas I didn’t think anything dissolved silicone
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.