A64Pilot

Of course and except for insurance which I don’t know because the company was paying for it, in all honesty the cost of ownership of a 210 and a J model Mooney seem similar, now the acquisition cost surely is much higher for the 210 depending on which Mooney. It’s a six cylinder engine vs a four cylinder being the biggest difference, because everything else is essentially the same, just it’s bigger. If you think about it there are no more additional systems on a 210 that aren’t on a Mooney, there is an inspection AD of the main spar which isn’t unusual for older aircraft, Bo for example. I just don’t have any need of a 210 myself, in truth it’s becoming hard to justify a Mooney to just fly to Lunch which has pretty much become the majority of my flying. If it’s looked at logically aircraft selection is all about the mission

But you have to get up there which takes fuel and means that it’s pretty much restricted to long trips. The fuel you burn in climb you didn’t get back in the descent. A turbo is I think a mountain airplane and or a long distance traveller, but then you have to be on O2 which brings the next step, pressurization which is hugely expensive and most often turns one into a dog and a maintenance headache. Just trying to point out that a C-210 can be operated very efficiently, while you will save some with a -6 but not nearly as much I don’t think because of drag There are two ways to go moderately quick, one way is use HP to overcome drag (the Van’s RV way) or reduce drag and be efficient, the Mooney and C-210 way. Realize the L Model 210 I had was only a 285 hp engine (300 for 5 min) and it was honestly probably twice the interior volume of a J model, but carried a whole lot more and was at least 10 kts faster. The 210 and 206 are I believe the same fuselage, the 210 doesn’t have the cargo door and does have a hump in the floor to accommodate the wheels, sort of like the driveshaft tunnel in cars, but you have to load one to believe how much they will haul. When I was hauling heavy and taking the kids I took the middle row of seats out and put the kids in the third row, put all of our clothes etc in the baggage compt and packed loaded coolers full of food and ice where the middle row of seats go for CG. Things useful load was honestly close to a Ton which is significantly more than your F-150, standard fuel was 90 gls but I carried 120 with the flint tanks that came with a gross weight increase that wiped out their weight. That 120 gls of fuel gave me a theoretical 10 hours of fuel if LOP and a zero wind range of 1500 NM with no reserve. If I had need of an 1800 lb useful load and interior space of a Suburban I’d want a C-210, it’s also the best IFR airplane I’ve flown, which means it’s very stable and not sporty at all, heavy control forces, you learn quickly to land using electric trim. Just do NOT get into a departure stall in a 210, at TO power it will roll left and go over on its back, with power on you can’t stop it It’s interesting to see how newer airplanes have evolved, seems anything newer has dropped retracts in favor of bigger motors and higher fuel burn for the same speed, cheaper to build I think.

The C-210 would burn if I was in a hurry and about 7500 ft about 10 MPG, but surprisingly if you were willing to back it down to 150 kts and run LOP it would return 14 MPG or so, which is really very respectable. To put that in perspective a J model Mooney at the often quoted 155 kts and 10.5 GPH is 14.8 MPG. I just ran the numbers on a 500 mile trip at cruise the 210 would burn 2 more gallons of fuel than the J model Mooney, at the same airspeed. You can’t I don’t believe run 150 kts in a J model LOP, some will say they do, but I wouldn’t try at that high a power However if I slow to 135 kts at 23 squared LOP I burn 8 GPH and get 17 MPG in my J model, slowing down is the key to burning less fuel and significantly extends engine life. A Turbo 210 is a 200 kt airplane at altitude also, but not having flown one I don’t know what it’s fuel burn is at that speed, but surely not over 20 GPH, which still gives it 10 MPG? I’m convinced that yes it possible to make a fixed gear aircraft go quick by putting a big enough engine in a small enough aircraft, it’s going to burn a lot of fuel doing so and to be efficient your going to have to retract the gear.

Now I don’t have a Bravo and haven’t operated one, but going from nearly no oil consumption to a qt an hour doesn’t make sense for an engine. I’ve seen engines that when run hard consumption increases some but nothing like that. Makes me wonder if the oil isn’t going out of the turbo?

You could de-mate the wings, but why? If you can change spar caps you certainly can de-mate wings Never pulled them but assume you have to get them off the aircraft first so why would anyone want to do the work to de-mate them and put them back together?

My bet is that if you keep it soaked with Corrosion-X and keep it in a hangar there will be zero, as in no further corrosion. It will still be flying when you aren’t. Idea is of course to keep it dry. I used to maintain helicopters that were often flown over salt water, they had magnesium gear boxes and magnesium and salt water don’t mix. Corrosion-X honestly pretty much stopped all corrosion, but it’s not a one time application, for max protection it’s a yearly application. We sprayed the gearboxes whenever we washed them, the corrosion occurred in the seam where they were bolted to another component as it was bare metal there, the Corrosion-X would wick in by I guess capillary attraction.

Oil turns color as a function of blow by, lots of blow by it turns black in an hour or two, very little color = very little blow by. Lack of blow by is desirable, but sort of uncommon as our engines being air cooled have loose tolerances, they have to as cylinder temp variation and therefore expansion is so great. Run one at water cooled engine tolerance's and it will seize. So why low blow by is the goal, it’s not often achieved. Oil does not turn color as a function of wear or breaking down etc, it’s carbon from blow by. Diesels turn oil black fast from the soot from the Diesel fuel burning. Ever drained the oil on an engine that runs on Propane? It looks just like it came out of the bottle, no carbon from propane so the oil stays looking new. When I sample I do so at oil change just get it as it’s about half drained. Military we sampled at time intervals but didn’t change oil, then we used a dip tube, like a soda straw just bigger. Personally I’d be very happy about it, low blow by is good, less acid build up in the oil, less carbon is good because carbon is abrasive etc. There was a study done a very long time ago that tied cylinder wear to oil consumption, meaning one that used oil had lower wear, assumption is of course the oil being used lubricated the compression rings on its way to being burnt. But if there is wear, oil consumption will soon follow, not excessive, but probably “normal” but in all honestly there doesn’t seem to be a normal oil consumption, average of course, but low time engine with good compression that make good power etc have oil consumptions all over the place and it just doesn’t seem to make much difference, they last just as long etc. But having cleaner oil for longer can’t be anything but good.

I had a factory reman IO-520 about 2005. It would honestly burn 1 gt in 50 hours, and I ran it ROP at best power and never backed off full throttle until time to land, ran it about 1000 hours with 0 problems, not even a fouled plug, then I Retired from the company. Only engine I have ever seen that burnt so little oil, it didn’t even leak a drop either. It was the Company’s airplane and they bought the fuel, and time is money.

Actually the Pilatus and the TBM engine cores are pretty much identical, the core is what makes the HP, both can make roughly at least 1700 SHP at sea level like the -67F can. Point I’m making is that while on paper there is roughly 350 to 400 SHP difference, there isn’t at altitude, and pressurized turbines usually fly high. The -67F is a crop duster engine specifically for the 802 and meant for the 1002 that never was, so it has a gearbox that can take all the motor can make. I built a military aircraft, the customer wanted the -F because on paper it’s 1700 SHP, I tried unsuccessfully to sell them on the Pilatus motor because it was more optimized for high altitudes where the mission was and it had a second generator pad so it could carry a back up electrical supply. The mission was to fly at FL 250 and drop laser guided ordinance. But they wanted to market 1700 SHP of course. I tried to get them to go with the GE-T700 and kind of glad they didn’t because that would have been a lot harder, but it would blow the doors off of any PT-6. But the Pilatus is more of a Station Wagon and a surprisingly good off airport airplane, great for short grass strips, and has that wonderful cargo door and all that room. The TBM is a cramped hot rod by comparison and about as good off road as a Ferrari is, but it is faster but not as much as you would think, maybe 10% or so? I assume the TBM engine has much longer life cycle limits due to it not being run nearly as hard. If I won the Lottery the PC-12 would be really appealing to me, which brings up what happened to the Cessna Denali?

Ref the Bo vs Mooney, if you consider the same year models and similar equipped, the Bo will in my opinion come up way on top. (my opinion) But it’s going to cost twice as much at least to purchase and operate so therefore it’s a silly comparison, may as well bring in a TBM and Piper Meridian into the discussion if $$$ isn’t a consideration.

Pretty good article on the big singles https://www.aviationconsumer.com/aircraftreviews/load-hauler-bargains-pipers-have-an-edge/

I’ve run the numbers, assuming you pull the Mooney back to 60% power or so LOP pretty much everything uses more fuel over a distance, some like a Piper Cub will burn less per hour but return less MPG. Yeah, I know it’s darned tough to believe, but run the numbers yourself, even my C-140 which is about the most efficient of the little airplanes burn more fuel than a Mooney, but they can burn car gas though as can a Cub. But when you get to four place airplanes with about the same useful load, it’s not even close, nothing Certified that I’ve found is as fuel stingy as a Mooney Fuel milage or cost per mile is often not what you think, even for Auto’s. Years ago I had a little Dodge Dakota with the 318, it my Fathers K-3500 Diesel Dually and my Brothers 3/4 ton Suburban all had almost exactly the same fuel cost per mile. Diesel back then was cheap, the Dodge required Premium and the Suburban didn’t. But back to airplanes, the M6-235 Maule I had and the C-210 had identical MPG, but the 210 carried a whole lot more and was 30 kts faster. The old Cherokee 6 is seriously underestimated, meaning you can get a real deal on them, but they are old and many have been freight dogs which they excell at, so buyer beware. A 6 can do most things a C-206 can if your not after skis or floats, for a whole lot less money. BTW a C-206 is nearly identical to the C-210, just quite a bit slower and of course you can’t put floats / skis on a 210

My guess is during the pandemic social sites traffic was way up, but as people have been able to return to life that they are spending more time out doing things.

I would have expected it to be resolved by now. Has this person logged on more than once since this thread started? Have you messaged them? If the answer is yes to both I think I might “out” them, but admit I have no real idea of the possible consequences in doing so. How long have they been a member and how many posts did they have? If it’s a significant amount of money as you have a delivery address that I’m sure you put in Google Earth to see if it’s a legit address, you may have recourse as in contacting their Sheriff office etc.

Those may be valves and not ports, if there is a thin cover remove that and under the cover there is usually a valve stem. If you have any trouble with the system taking refrigerant check those valves especially if you are working on an inop system that was inop when you bought the aircraft and or the compressor has been replaced.

That may change things then What they had originally done was to raise parts prices in order to raise prices of field overhauls, yes I know about PMA parts, but the theory was raise field overhauls high enough and people would buy factory overhauls, keeping the factory in business of course, because sales of new engines is down, because numbers of new aircraft are down, I’d bet the majority of new Lycomings go into Experimental aircraft now, leaving I think the market open for an Experimental Lycoming knock-off, surprised tgat hasn’t happened. I don’t think the manufacturers are trying to do anything but stay in business. If they have jacked up the prices then they have followed the general trend, but the problem is self compounding. Factory doesn’t sell enough parts, so they jack up the prices to return profitability, but it tends to actually reduce sales as many learn alternatives, repair the part, buy PWA, buy used, OPP, very often find the actual source and purchase from there etc. I went through that as one of my jobs was product support putting spares sales in my lane and I couldn’t convince the Boss that jacking up parts prices didn’t mean he would get more money, it worked short term but soon the market adapted

Sorry to keep beating the Sleep Apnea drum, but if you suspect an issue or just want to know it’s very easy, all you need is a recording pulse oximeter, you probably wanted one for flying anyway and they are cheap. Put the pulse Ox on your finger, put a sock over your hand to keep from knocking it off in your sleep and sleep, next day download it and if your O2 saturation level crashes several times during the night you have an issue, probably OSA but maybe not so you need to see the Doc and find out, you’ll need a sleep study for the prescription to buy a CPAP anyway. Not all apnea is obstructive some can be from the central nervous system, but I don’t know anything about that other than it exists Of course if your O2 saturation isn’t crashing then maybe your just overworked or have a different issue. My Wife argued she didn’t have an issue but I could hear the way she breathed when she slept, I did the pulse Ox thing and that convinced her to do a sleep study. We both have mild apnea.

My intent is if I ever have to drive a very long distance to rent. I’ve always said that but in truth I never drive really long distances, I fly instead, isn’t that why we have airplanes? My reasonings are several, mostly don’t rack all those miles on my car and less importantly if it breaks or I have an accident thousands of miles from home it’s not the issue it is if it’s mine. The tesla all you have to do is push the switch on the steering wheel and say “navigate to Laguardia airport” if your say in Fl the route pops up with every stop for charging in the route, the stops are continuously monitored and as the car is internet connected if one were to break, power outage or just busy the car re-routes to another charge point. Never had that happen, but I almost never use Superchargers as you can see in the screen shots. All you have to do is drive, and with Autopilot you don’t even have to do that, just monitor things just like flying on Autopilot. Tesla Autopilot is brilliant on the highway, not as much on two lane roads and pretty useless in city traffic. Another thing, notice in the screen shots that charging at home cost 17c per KWH, but Supercharging costs 40C per KWH. Superchargers require no people, they are just chargers that sit there and I’ve never seen one being maintained so I suspect beyond buying the thing there is very little operating expense, with a 300% profit margin for what he sells the power for compared to what he pays for it, I think Musk is making a HUGE amount of money from Superchargers. I base the 300% off of a guess that he pays less per KWH than I do just like all other Commercial customers, but it’s a guess as I have no idea what he pays. With a profit margin like that why do we think chargers need to be Government subsidized? If you believe Fortune magazine gas station see less than 2% profit, why aren’t they subsidized? https://fortune.com/2022/08/09/energy-profit-margins-gas-stations-proof-fuel-retailers-high-gas-prices-alex-kinnier/

Having gone down the special issuance route for CPAP I think you need to get them to own up to it, because all that’s required is for them to prove that your using the machine and that treatment is effective, both of which the machine shows by downloading the data. Having an issue your hiding can cause real problems and this one is so easy to get approval for. As I said I used Sleepyhead software for the printout, at least have them do the download, ensure it gives the data they need so they know they will be successful, then talk to the Flight Doc. I think if I were them I’d go to a new Dr and get a new prescription and maybe not own up to being on a CPAP for years. Without the machine I wake up with a headache, feel exhausted because I had little sleep, feel like I have a hang over, it increases risk for heart disease, high blood pressure, strokes and other things. Before using the CPAP I would honestly nod off when flying at cruise with the Autopilot on. I had friend who nodded of spraying and put a brand new Thrush G-10 in a cotton field, this was before CPAP though If I wear the mask I have none of that, sure it’s a pain you get used to it though, but I can’t figure out why anyone wouldn’t wear the thing, but it seems many won’t.

For any that are curious after being retired for 20 years I’m finally seeking disability but only after having my knees replaced and the second one getting a Staph infection, which means if I’m lucky I only have to have it replaced twice more for a total of three knees on that leg which means that beyond the years of pain and recovery means knee #3 isn’t nearly as good as knee #1 would have been due to the scarring and bone loss and the fact it’s a cemented joint etc. Moderately lucky I lose the leg above the knee, really unlucky and I don’t survive it. The knees based on my military medical records are definitely service related, first scope right after retirement showed severe degeneration and the Board Certified Surgeon who replaced them wrote a letter that in his opinion Military service is why they wore out. Called a Nexxus Ltr. By VA regulations it’s a slam dunk way more proof than required as any one of the three is enough. So of course the VA has denied the knees since I have so much proof I’m requesting a higher level review. I can’t sue the Government being Military I don’t have that right, I’m restricted to asking and saying pretty please. But they granted me disability for the CPAP which I have no proof for? There is NO logic that I can ascertain, but I think the CPAP decision is Political. I was on a CPAP long before getting fat, I think the knees are largely why I’m fat because my activity level is much lower now, of course I should eat less with lower activity. I’m not trying to screw the Gubermint but I know for sure my knees were from running in the Army, I was an exceptional runner. Army likes good runners and when you’re Enlisted trying for flight school maxing your PT test and being the fastest runner in the unit helps. I could run two miles in 12:30, but after a hard run I had serious pain under my knee caps and my calves, figured it was just weakness leaving the body I knew I had “bad” knees but didn’t know what I was in store for, but knew if I complained much that would get me discharged with a 10% disability or so and My goal was 20 and Retire. So I didn’t complain much Anyway when I get disability for the knees which is assured (I hope logic will finally prevail) when they finally own up to it, that comes with survivors benefits for the Wife should I die from a complication from the disability as it was service related. That’s why I’m doing this, yes I have life insurance for the first time in my life too. I’m sure she would have to fight for that and to be honest I don’t even know what those benefits are, but now that I write this down and think about it, those benefits may be why I’m being denied the knees? Oh, and none of my disabilities would keep me from flying unless of course I lose the leg. Of course I had PTSD, if I didn’t I wouldn’t have been normal, but most people get over that with time just like most do for any other catastrophic event like losing a child or spouse etc. Even then I knew better than to say I had any mental health issues. Not trying to downplay it just I think it’s existed as long as there has been war and owning up to it can seriously degrade your chances for a career after the military.

This subject has come up a couple of times usually ref insurance. Interesting that it’s the fastest growing population, further evidence GA is dyeing it seems This copied from an Email "NAFI - How CFIs Can Evaluate Older Pilots to Keep Them Safe" Topic: The Fastest Growing Pilot Demographic Is Age 70+. Is There Such A Thing As An 'Average' Older Pilot? On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 19:00 Central Daylight Time (17:00 PDT; 18:00 MDT; 20:00 EDT; 14:00 HST; 16:00 AKDT; 17:00 Arizona; Thursday, September 21, 2023 00:00 GMT) Select Number: CE03123940 Description: The fastest growing population among pilots has been in the age group 70 years and older. We will discuss, “to what extent does age impact the performance of the average pilot, and is there such a thing as an average older pilot?” During this program, we will review how CFIs can focus efforts on improving the safety of flying by assisting the more than 200,000 pilots aged 60 years and older. CFIs can help aging pilots: Maintain proficiency Recognize cognitive and physiological deficiencies as they arise Regularly reevaluate their personal minimums Adjust flying to accommodate the inevitable changes that occur with aging If CFIs and older pilots do this together, we can continue to fly safely in our golden years. To view further details and registration information for this webinar, click here. The sponsor for this seminar is: FAASTeam The following credit(s) are available for the WINGS/AMT Programs: Master Knowledge 2 - 1 Credit

If your going to a toggle switch I’d go with a switch breaker, I hate fuses https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/pbcircuitbrkr2.php

I don’t think it’s a concern, but way back about WWII time frame the Brits who probably knew more than anyone did about recip engines conducted a series of tests and determined that an engine that used a moderate amount of oil had significantly less upper cylinder wear than one that didn’t, and that when an engine wore to the point that it started consuming oil, wear went down. Same thing derived at from different directions if you will. Having said that I had a factory overhaul IO-520 that I swear when it burned a quart it was due an oil change because it had 50 hours on it, I ran that engine for over 1,000 hours before selling the airplane with zero issues, not even a fouled plug. Of course I flew it about 200 hours a year too, and most flights were long cross countries. Any of the testing I’m aware of for corrosion prevention on aircraft engines that I’m aware of like Aviation Consumers is pretty suspect, it’s the best a non lab can do without serious money being spent, but it’s not much better than comparing what your flying buddies experience is or isn’t, like my IO-520, I don’t think it was common, it was an outlier. My IO-540 that I overhauled with new Milleniums etc and everything meeting new spec and set up as perfectly in the middle of tolerances that I could had the exact same oil consumption after overhaul that it did just prior to overhaul, 1 gt ever 10 hours or so, so go figure. If I were concerned about it sitting and corrosion, I’d put preservative oil in it, not someone’s additive, but honest storage oil, then upon bringing the aircraft out of storage drain it and keep it because you or a friend may need it in the future, or heck just run it until break-in’s over I think depending on where you are, you have a realistic concern on storage. I think this fits exactly what your looking for https://phillips66lubricants.com/product/aviation-anti-rust-oil/ I’d also plug my exhaust and crankcase vent and take my air filter out, put it in a plastic bag and re-install it, this should keep any air from getting in the engine

I’ve not either, don’t understand how one could work on tapered threads

About the only thing that will force you into an overhaul is one making metal. If you choose to not do anything until it does I’d recommend you to plan on purchasing a factory overhaul, because it’s more likely than not a new cam and crank, oil pump etc will cost you just about as much, but the factory overhaul should get you independent mags, roller cam and greater resale value and all that is worth quite a bit in my opinion. Once metal starts flowing through the thing it does a lot of damage, even takes out the oil cooler However if you choose to overhaul prior to the thing eating itself then you most probably can overhaul for less money. It’s really not uncommon if you overhaul a first run motor to not even have to turn the crank