A64Pilot

Should, if it has the wire in the hose like it should and the wire doesn’t have an open circuit, but also believe it or not but static builds from fuel falling in the air, that is why the tanker trucks that top load have the dip tube https://www.chevronwithtechron.com/content/dam/external/chevron/en_us/marketing-support/all-other/Static_Electricity_Hazards_and_Prevention_from_CBT.pdf8v https://docslib.org/doc/12963317/petroleum-loading-and-unloading-procedures-top-loading As I said probably over cautious and when was the last time you heard of a GA aircraft catching fire being fueled, so probably not real necessary, but why not do a couple of things that require nothing special like be sure you touch the wing to dissipate static from you before you stick that nozzle in the tank? I refuel inside of my hangar so I guess I’m overly paranoid. But if you care when we refueled from a truck, (Military) the truck had to be grounded, the truck bonded to the aircraft and the nozzle bonded to the aircraft before being attached to the aircraft, we never open port refueled too, because of the danger from vapors, and that was Jet fuel which is harder to ignite than gasoline

@Ragsf15e No, ALL mooney’s are CAR3. I have never heard of anyone wanting burn certs for a pre-buy, but they aren’t expensive or hard to obtain, most anything will pass as the reg pretty much says if it doesn’t burn vigorously it’s OK. Surely Airtex can or will supply burn certs on request, it’s just not tough or expensive to meet Certs so why wouldn’t they? From memory your supposed to placard the airplane no smoking if you don’t have burn certs, but even if you have certs if you don’t placard it you have to have an ashtray for each seat, there is no way if I were paying big bucks for an interior that I would have ash trays, so I’d placard it anyway. For anyone who is replacing the foam in your seat I strongly recommend Oregon Aero cushions, Maule has absolutely horrible seats, couldn’t fly an hour without my back killing me, Oregon aero seat foam transformed the seats, it’s not so much the foam as it’s the foams shape that made the difference. It will seem like a lot of money for just foam, but it’s worth it.

I had no idea they cost that much to overhaul. I’ve been an A&P for a long time, I remember thinking about 1990 or so while I was still in the Army that my cost in parts and services that I would have to farm out to overhaul an engine was less than $2K a cylinder, meaning 8K for a four cylinder engine, new cylinder kits complete with everything were I think about $500. I think I spent about $10K to overhaul my IO-540 in roughly 2007 or so and I cut no corners, actually spent more than I should buying new Millenium cylinders rather than having mine overhauled, that was a mistake. In truth I don’t keep track of costs as if I did I’m sure I couldn’t logically justify owning an aircraft. I prop struck it at about 1800 hours or so and I decided that if it was coming apart for inspection that I was going to overhaul it. It was so cheap to overhaul largely because it was low time and I didn’t have to replace anything except bearings etc. I did send the rods off to be rebuilt, crank to be inspected, it still met new tolerances and only needed polishing, cam and lifters to be ground and nitrided, I had the counterweight bushings replaced. Cases went to Divco, they found a crack to weld, but you could not find the repair, I looked. Its a lot like your brakes on your car, if you change pads when they are about half gone and flush the fluid, it’s easy, takes only a few min per wheel and is cheap, but if you wait until it’s metal to metal, well then your buying new disks and pads and as it’s been years since the calipers were flushed maybe calipers too. I’m a strong proponent of preventative maintenance. If you run your engine until it’s making metal, best I think to buy a factory overhaul and turn in yours as a core, because once it’s making metal, it’s very likely your crankshaft, cam, oil pump etc are gone, your oil lines, cooler need replacing, and your prop and governor need overhauling as well, anything that oil touches is contaminated

100K MORE to overhaul than to top? You must be flying a Twin and wanting to do both? Nothing says you have to replace all accessories, hoses etc. When I overhauled my Maule I didn’t, and didn’t have any real issues from not doing so. If I were 300 from TBO, I’d either nurse the thing or more likely IRAN the cylinders and start saving for an Overhaul. If they are as worn as you say you can most likely have them honed to next size, new pistons and rings, have valves at least inspected and refaced and get at least another 500 hours out of them. The fear of removing cylinders is way overstated, really all that’s needed as a min is remove a cyl, place spacer or I have seen a few fender washers and torque them down, go to next cylinder. The torque plates for Lyc are cheap, surely the same is true for a Conti. Too cheap to justify fender washers. One of I’m sure many sources for Lyc torque plates https://flyboyaccessories.com/products/cylinder-torque-plate-for-lycoming-engines

OK so nothing has changed then, only Rebuilt gets new tolerances. Overhauled gets serviceable limits. Only the manufacturer or their designated representative can Rebuild an engine, the rest of us can only Overhaul or of course repair. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_43-11.pdf

Probably over safety conscious but if you’re refueling you should have the nozzle in contact with the wing to discharge any static build up, especially in cold dry air. If you watch a tanker truck get top loaded they always have a long tube that goes down in the fuel to prevent that static build up. Usually they bottom load though so it’s not an issue. https://safetymeetingtopics.net/images/Toolbox_Topics/refuelingstatic.pdf We really should bond the nozzle to the aircraft, Military does but I’ve not seen it in the Civilian world and as I assume refueling fires must be rare, I guess it’s a one in a million problem. But still any fuel company should know not to show something like that on the internet.

They get engines in they disassemble and parts are segregated, Cams, Cranks, Cases etc go into separate piles if you will and are inspected, reworked or whatever is necessary, then engines are built from these, they do not keep the parts together so it’s not arguably the same engine that came in. But unless things have changed there used to be two different engines you could buy, the ones that met new limits were zero timed with new logbooks etc and many would say as the cases etc are “seasoned” they are in fact superior to a true brand new engine. I’m in that camp. The other engine you could buy was overhauled to service limits and not zero timed, but in truth for most uses is indistinguishable from a new or zero timed motor. What can make a field overhaul better is if the overhauler has the knowledge, equipment and skill to basically remove any differences between parts as in make them dimensionally identical, balance within a ridiculously small weight etc and port and polish and CC the heads improving flow and therefore power, perfectly aligning valve guides and honing not reaming to extremely close tolerances, multi angle valve jobs etc. Of course all this takes much longer and therefore cost more money, but sometimes you get what you pay for.

That’s the key because just going off of what @201Steve stated in his case it’s not much, so using that as an example if the overhaul cost is a few thousand more than the repair and you are even halfway to overhaul your money ahead to pay for the overhaul. The key is to ask one of the brokers if it’s still like it was a couple of decades ago, that is you take the cost of overhauls of the components, divide that by TBO to get the value of one hour, multiply that by the number of hours left until overhaul and that number is what the airplane is worth more than the identical airplane that’s run out. If the difference between repair and overhaul is real significant in cost, then almost certainly there is a whole lot left undone and the odds of having an engine that will won’t live long is much higher. It’s really similar to the difference between a pre-buy and an Annual, an Annual is defined legally as to the min standards where a pre-buy is not. An overhaul has a Manual that every item must be followed. I don’t understand the insurance theory of the cost, are they saying that they charge higher insurance rates per each overhaul, or are they saying that if you do one then you pay a higher rate, meaning that shop can’t do any overhauls? Other than the legally required hangar keepers insurance etc. I doubt that any except the very large shops carry insurance for the liability of their work, small shops don’t have the income to pay for such luxuries, and they are pretty much judgement proof anyway as they don’t have large assets. I’d bet Lunch for example that Mooney doesn’t carry liability insurance, they couldn’t afford it, and if they can’t do you think the small shops could?

My 46 C-140’s NC number is 77121, a neighbor has a 140 only a couple of numbers from mine, I had always assumed Cessna had reserved a block of numbers from the CAA, CAA came into being in 1934 I think? I don’t think Military aircraft were issued numbers?

ANYTHING a DAR or a DER can do, the FAA can do. DAR’s and DER’s even IA’s were created to offload work for the poor overworked FAA. So what I’m saying is that you might get old and grey before the FSDO will issue you a new AW Cert, new is different than a re-issue, they will do that. FAA is free, Designees are not But maybe things have changed maybe the FSDO will.

I’ve been using a good Makita soft start 7” I think buffer for years, bought it for a boat in 2013, since then I’ve used it on several cars and aircraft. My advice is buy a good buffer first as it’s likely you will use it like I do, that is often, buy a quality tool once, and start with something less expensive than your airplane like a boat or old car. Gel coated boat is good to learn on as Gel coat is thick and tougher than paint, harder to screw up. Buy good polish, I like 3M machine glaze, it’s meant to remove the swirls left by machine polishing so it’s very gentle polish. Do not use any polish that has silicone in it, most do and it’s often not on the label, but pretty much any polish that claims to “rejuvenate” paint likely has silicone, silicone does look pretty, brings out the shine, but does not last and keeps waxes and I’m sure polymers like ceramic coat from adhering to the paint correctly, because after polishing ideally you want to wax it, my go to used to be Carnauba, but lately I’ve been using Rejex and am happy with it. I think polishes that say they are paint shop safe or similar are saying they don’t contain silicone, but am not sure on that. I use a grey waffle pad, but also will on occasion use wool pads, they are aggressive, and there are also very soft pads that will really put a nice shine on wax just as a final shine after you have removed the wax. I have polish compounds but rarely use them I’m a little afraid of them to be honest as I have damaged my old Miata’s paint. (it’s been repainted since) Be very careful with higher speeds you can put down an amazing amount of heat in a very short time and actually burn the paint.

Agreed, But come sell day, do you think your airplane with an engine that’s 500 hours since overhaul will bring more money than one day 500 hours past TBO? Sure you will save money now by just having one repaired, but it’s not unlikely that one day you will lose more than you saved. I assume your engine had just been overhauled? If so then it may not have been worth the extra money to reset the clock by just a few hours, but one that’s run out, it most probably is.

To start with most terms we throw around are not recognized terms by the FAA, like field overhaul for example. People mistakenly have the belief that the best is factory, and often they are correct but not necessarily. Decades ago you could get a properly done field overhaul for much less than a factory one, this is when the factory was running hard to produce new engine for the thousands of new aircraft, but then the new aircraft market fell apart and to keep the doors open and not layoff employees the factories got heavy into overhauls, in order to compete price wise with the field overhauls as they obviously have a much higher overhead they jacked their parts prices up thereby raising the price of a field overhaul so they could be competitive. This is where the big PMA manufacturers came into their own, the Factories learned there is a limit to how much they could charge for parts because the PMA guys would build possibly better for less. Sadly what Keeps Lycoming in business is I’m sure overhauls and I bet most new engine sells are for Experimentals. Having said that the “best” engines are from speciality engine shops, they run smoother, longer and make more power than a brand new factory engine, but of course they aren’t cheap. Then even what an overhaul means differs, some overhaul or replace everything, fuel system, alternator, starter, mags, prop, prop governor etc. remove engine mount have it inspected for cracks and some powder coat, most don’t, most do just the “core” engine. Not too many years ago an aircraft’s value was determined to a great extent by how many hours were on the engine, prop etc. Using say 50K for the engine overhaul an aircraft with a new overhaul was worth 50K more than one at TBO. The newer theory of hours don’t matter won’t last I don’t think, and those running past TBO will I think be in for a shock when that engine starts making metal, because the cost to Overhaul an engine once it starts making metal is way higher than it is for one that isn’t. I think what’s driving it is we are flying older and older aircraft, and the cost of overhauls goes up every year, what used to be 10% of the value of an airplane is now 50% or maybe higher, that coupled with we fly less on average than we used to means a couple hundred hours may be years. But remember the commercial about oil changes I think it was, the “Pay me now or pay me later” one, well I believe that has merit. But that’s my opinion

I’ve never heard of an insurance difference between a repaired and Overhauled engine, the actual difference is for it to be an Overhaul, the Overhaul manual has to be followed as in if there is a list of parts to be replaced, they have to be replaced, where a repaired engine they don’t have to. I’ve even heard that some mechanics may even put on the beer googles and only replace what failed and not measure the other parts to ensure they meet serviceability requirements. I do know that when it’s time to sell that an aircraft with a recently overhauled engine vs one that past TBO and has been repaired will sell for a lot more.

I’m not sure what the triplicate form tango is, but you did get a DAR to reissue you a new Airworthiness Certificate didn’t you?

Attached article is the Deny and make Counteraccusations part of “being caught” Issue is as I see it is that unlike automobiles for example the average GA aircraft was built 50 years ago, https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/05/27/aging-pilots-aging-airplanes/ that’s the AVERAGE. So whatever solution is adopted it needs to be applicable to a 50 yr old aircraft. Requiring the entire fuel system to be replaced is unrealistic, and I maintain that the more “aggressive” fuel will significantly shorten even new components life, replacement / reseals every 7 years isn't viable from an economics perspective.

Most probably as there is a min climb grade requirement that must be met, and that’s one of several things that can determine gross weight. It’s sort of self correcting of course because altitude reduces MP. Perhaps the charts for 5,000 DA might be close enough to be acceptable to keep from having to do a complete performance test profile. ‘I’m using 25MP from the ADI number, but think it’s very conservative, 94UL would I assume allow higher than 25 MP. Not sure what would happen with the Cyl head temp limit though because it’s probably at least as important as MP. War birds if we are talking real Warbirds anyway have by Civilian standards an excessive power to weight ratio that combined with the fact that they were never Certified means I’m sure that they easily have enough power, but as they weren’t Certified that requirement doesn’t exist. AH-64 could climb at sea level in excess of 5,000 FPM, but I bet P-47’s, P-51’s etc without ordnance would beat that even with 100 LL. 94UL just might require engine modification maybe? I keep using 94UL as Auto fuel has all kinds of other issues like vapor pressure, phase separation etc that 94UL shouldn’t, and I’d prefer a fit for purpose Aviation fuel myself.

I just read that Shell will be shipping 100VLL in Europe soon, I assume it’s even lower lead than LL, is an ASTM fuel apparently. I know nothing about it. I’ve come to believe that it’s not achievable either, or it would have been done by now. I’d bet lunch that this G100UL fuels health risks are greater than the lead in 100LL, but that’s just a belief. Way I see it is there is only two paths forward if lead must go, either a yet to exist new engine, or ADI for those that must have 100 Aviation Octane. Well three I guess we could just scrap our airplanes. I can’t afford a yet to exist engine and don’t want ADI, but if lead must go, ADI is all I could afford My bet is a new water cooled four valve engine could meet the HP requirements on Premium car gas, but it’s vaporware at this point and I don’t expect to see one either

If the FAA has any sense and I believe they do, then they know how many aircraft have used it, and face it only people with problems will report, so no report? No problem is a safe assumption. That is why I think anyone with problems should report, because if they don’t then the assumption is they didn’t have problems. But sure report no problems if you want to, can’t hurt. Data is data. My belief is this fuel aggressively attacks “rubber” paint etc., that’s in my opinion been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and I believe given enough time it will cause many more failures of those components, it’s getting the weakest first is a pretty safe bet, but given enough time the percentage of problems will increase. Even if it “only” reduces the average life expectancy of new tank seal job by half, is that to be considered acceptable? How much degradation is acceptable? We know it swells common O-rings well beyond the FAA acceptable limit already, that should have been enough to not issue an STC in my opinion. Then the paint issues are apparently real too, and no level of refueling hygiene is going to keep it from staining and apparently destroying paint around the vents etc. Maybe it would be acceptable to only fill tanks half way if you’re burning the G100UL? That ought to prevent vent staining / deterioration? But the real Damning thing in my opinion is Cirrus saying that they are concerned that this fuel destroys their wings structural integrity, now to be fair I don’t think that’s what they said, they only said they had concerns about the airworthiness of their aircraft that had used this fuel. For Cirrus to come out and say that is huge in my opinion, because they are no Dummy’s, they know that any statement like that they had better be prepared to defend it in a court of law. Of course this is my opinion, and we all know what our individual opinions are worth.

Maybe not, I hate to say it depends but it does. This may sound dumb but I open the cowl flaps on final and if it’s Summer I leave the oil filler door open after shut down, both seem to help and if I had to go around having the cowl flaps open before hand is one less thing to remember to do. 1. Don’t do what I hear so many Bonanza and Cirrus driver do for some reason, and that’s start immediately at a high RPM, sure use full throttle but pull it as soon as she starts. I don’t know why those guys do that, the IO-520 in my C-210 was easy to start when hot or cold. Must be different in them. 2. Boost if she is running rough right after starting seems to help, I believe as has been stated it helps prevent vapor lock / pump cavitation, so once running if she starts surging turn the boost on and see, why not give it a try and see. What happens of course is due to there being vapor and not liquid fuel in the system she goes lean almost immediately after starting eventhough the mixture is at full rich and eventually if it keeps running that vapor will clear and she will run smooth, but your right after firing is not good for the muffler. Excessively lean mixtures may cause after firing. Excessively rich may cause back firing. I haven’t watched any video, but add cold starts to your statement about the normal state for starting is flooded, priming when cold slightly floods the engine unless you get lucky and hit that sweet spot, most don’t. It’s just like the old cars with carburetors, pumping the gas pedal caused the accelerator pump to spray, slightly flooding the engine.

I put mine full rich, throttle to idle and just start the thing. it does take a few seconds but not many. I do this every Sun after we fly to breakfast, often in the Summer when I go to lunch she is still hot and needs the hot start procedure. Done correctly the “hot start” procedure will work at any temp, because it’s simply intentionally flood the thing, crank with zero fuel flow then push mixture in. It will work because turning a flooded engine over at any temp will clear the flooding if you spin it long enough, hot or cold. 95% or more of hard starting problems assuming a good battery are weak ignition, can be as simple as the plugs need cleaning.

Assuming people reply, but honestly I’d expect the STC to be withdrawn first.

ALL of the kids in the paint shop around 1983 or so at Hunter Army Airfield failed their Liver function tests, because they had been painting Imron on landing gear for Army fixed wing aircraft with only dust masks and eye protection. I say kids because they were in their 20’s.

No, if there is rust under powder coat it will bubble up just like it does paint, I think your thinking of primer when you say it shows through. Thats why it’s important to bead blast just before you paint or powder coat. Ideally you go from one directly to the other. Now I’ve never lived in the rust belt, but bet money people that do know exactly what rust under paint looks like.

I think it IS something, for example they didn’t issue one for 20W50XC. PLEASE, anyone who has had difficulty with this fuel fill out the forms, they NEED complaints, that’s what drives the FAA, without complaints or accidents there is no problem