cliffy

Yes our wing is stiff but only to a point Think of the pressure point from the landing gear and the "flexing" that the spar will go through as you impact the runway. The gear is at the outboard end of the tank right on the back wall of the tank. The wingtips bend down inertia while inboard of the gear point tries to go up. You also get the spar between the main wheels trying to fold up from the pressure at the same time. If the sealant is old and dry it can't flex as much as it used to. The Cessna doesn't have the same dynamics with the pressure point and it has a much longer force absorption time frame due to the longer flex time of its gear to absorb the landing impact. Feel how hard old Mooney pucks are compared to new ones. Rubber gets hard with age and doesn't absorb impact near as well the older it get.

Some people can't open that type of file

As an addendum- What most folks don't realize is that the program to get an A&P certificate is as much teaching the proper methods of aircraft repair as it is a "weeding out" process to eliminate those who may not be of the mindset to do proper work on airplanes. My A&P class had @ 40 who started and 2 years later we had less than a dozen graduate. The rest fell by the wayside. It emulates SEAL training to some extent as it eliminates the less than dedicated. But just as in any other profession there is one who graduated at the top of the class and someone who graduated last in the class. Just remember- someone always graduates from medical school at the bottom of every class. Its no different with A&Ps.

Maybe I'm wrong but? We take a 400+ HP engine (LS3 in just ONE form of supply from GM as a "crate" engine) and "de-rate" it to MAX output of 300 HP we have and engine running at 75% rated power (could be done by just picking a set MAX RPM in the HP/Torque curve. If we further take it to 7500 feet we lose an additional 25% of the 300 HP (NA engine) so we are cruising at 225 HP which would be 56% of the original HP rating. So MAX Continuous would be 300 HP (75% power of the original rating) and Normal output would be about 225 HP (56% for most flying) Are we saying that the engine can't produce this output effectively for hours on end? It would be interesting to put one on a dyno and see. Would this be considered running for hours at MAX HP? Would we still be fighting such a heat rejection issue as we would at 400+HP (water and oil)? North American figured how to get cooling drag into cooling "push" with the correct design of the P-51 belly radiator. Ram air provides usable pressure for cooling far above electric fans. I read some where that WWII fighters were designed for a life of 400 hrs. They were throw away airplanes in time of war. Expendable commodities along with the pilots Just food for thought

Granted the operating regime for car engines is different but they do use them in long distance racing running hrs on end with throttle changes every turn. Think how much less abuse an LS3 might have running at a constant RPM. What about industrial engines running for months driving pumps etc?

FlyingDude- I think the large tolerances are more attributable to being air cooled as opposed to water cooled. Especially in the cylinders.

I would think that the DA would affect the Heat Rejection (cooling) more than any mechanical issue at altitude. 200 HP is 200 HP to the crankshaft. Also I looked at the torque/HP curves on the engine. They're pretty good. kodiak-power-curve-62LS3.pdf

You posted at the same time I did :-) It all comes down to MTBF Even 1 plug per cylinder. You now have 1 coil per cylinder there by having less chance of a single point failure, 8 cylinders suffer an output loss one half as severe as a 4 cylinder engine and a 6 cylinder suffers a 17% loss opposed to a 12.5% loss on an 8 cylinder engine. When was the last time you had a spark plug fail in your car (2000 or newer) if it had proper maintenance? Never? Ford had 100,000 mile plugs in my 2006 truck and I started to have a plug misfire at 97,000 miles. That's about 1500 hrs of use with no maintenance. Sure beat plugs at every 100 hrs don't it? A back up computer at the flick of a switch would take care of the ignition dual back up. I'm not worried about plugs and when was the last time your engine computer failed? As I said it all comes down to MTBF AND as I noted after you- equal HP output continuously. And I mentioned - cooling would have to be surmounted. Merlin did it. Allison did it. Just to name a couple from history. Its only a physics problem.

I wonder what the MTBF is between an LS3 engine and an IO550 engine? Giving that an LS3 can sustain an equal HP output constantly- IF all the Fed regulations are for SAFETY and IF the LS3 is anywhere near the same MTBF it might show just how kittle more SAFETY we get by using antiquated systems in the name of certification.

We had a guy at our local FBO do that but the Feds wanted the A&P to sign off every week (detailed jobs) that he worked on. Got the OK to get test done so he went to a prep school for the written and then passed the test easily. His practical was not easy but not hard either. He did fantastic detailed work even before he got his license. Lets see- A&P with 6 airline schools on various big iron/ 56 years turning wrenches on airplanes MEATP with 7 jet type ratings/ Commercial SE rating/MU-2 SFAR Rating Licensed US Coast Guard Master's Certificate Certified FAA ASC (Airport Security Coordinator) Pt 139 Airport Manager Inventor Unique Aircraft VOR & Com Antenna System in use today Licensed Commercial Swimming Pool Technician/Los Angeles County Author with published periodical articles on aviation topics and one small book on Aircraft Antenna Design Its funny how things add up over the years

The LS3 looks to be a great idea who's time has come. My original thought was why couldn't a mount be designed to accept the engine as a plug & play with the reduction drive contained in the mount system and the engine just bolts on ? That way the mount takes all the prop torque (and gyroscopic torque) directly to the engine mount and on to the airframe without the engine having to be stressed that way. Weight might keep this engine out of smaller lower power airframes. But there might be other good candidates for smaller engines. Heat rejection might be the biggest issue faced when pulling higher powers. Again, radiator drag is heavy but the P-51 found a way to solve it with thrust instead of drag. GM would still have to sign off on its products being used in an airplane.

Agree 100% with your above as opposed to never calibrating I had a compression tester go way out years ago on both pressure gages in 1 year (- 10 psi) It does pay to check them somehow

I have known a couple Feds who could query you on the calibration issue even Pt 91 due to the man'f specifying a specific torque setting for certain jobs and it may fall under Pt 23 "Certification" instead of Pt "91 General Operation and Flight Rules" And actually in 43.13-1b Section 7-40 Torques paragraph 7-40a below- a. Calibrate the torque wrench at least once a year, or immediately after it has been abused or dropped, to ensure continued accuracy. calls out specifically for a calibration check as ACCEPTABLE METHODS, TECHNIQUES, AND PRACTICES AIRCRAFT Although only an Advisory Circular it "could" be used for action against anyone doing "maintenance" without a calibrated wrench within "a" above.

Shouldn't the "calibrator" unit be calibrated to make sure it doesn't go "out of calibration" over the years? I think Snap-on used to have a calibrator in their trucks at one time.

Only want a small patch on one tank. Used to fly into PDX in Boeings all the time and in fact I flew from KVNY to SEA in my C-140 in one day (9+46) when I was 19. Stayed low leaving all the way to Calif to stay under the cloud deck. Have new self imposed limitation of no IFR anymore. Just don't want to do it.

The weather might be a big issue there in March

I have one tank to do a small patch in a top corner and I'm now in St George UT. Looking to get it done next month but don't know who does it out here. Any Ideas? Will need a place for the annual also in 2 months Any Ideas out here?

Speed always has its limitations. Use the same powerplant and the same weight and you have essentially the same performance BUT younger people do look at the technology of the build. We can build tube and fabric airplanes that travel fast Why don't we anymore? Because aluminum construction came along. You couldn't sell a fast tube and fabric today (Maule excepted to a small audience). New pilots (and their wives) are attracted to the sleek and slippery designs More akin to what they see in their cars today. The Pamthera does have a chute which does sell and another big item not yet out too much in public- it will recover from a 10 turn spin with 4 on board in about half a turn.

If this doesn't get fixed quickly I predict this will spell the demise of the AV-30 Very disappointing

As I was watching this video I was struck by the fact that we are hanging onto technology that is more than 60 years old and feeling that it is the cat's meow today but lets look back. What if we were hanging onto technology 60 years before Mooney in 1960? We wouldn't even have anything to compare to. Let's say 55 years before Mooney we'd have the Wright Flyer we were trying to keep in the air in 1960. No different than trying to produce a 1960 Chevy Corvair and sell it in today's world And today we have the technology in the video and we wonder why no one can make a go of Mooney (with 60 year old technology)? I like my Mooney but? The world moves forward and waits for no one!

All we ever did on Boeings was patch work. Never did a complete strip and reseal. And they were old Boeings with lots of hours. Some leaked like a sieve. Even had "number of drops per minute" limitations. Had special "crayons" that we rubbed on the leaking rivets to stop the leak for a short period of time.

Just remembered to try Google for MS postings and I got a couple but still would like to hear from others THX

Can't find much searching here (probably me) but I may need to change my headsets out, Currently Have new Halo headsets but the wife doesn't like them (doesn't like the ear plug style). We haven't used them but twice but I haven't got her convinced to keep them yet SO I'm thinking Bose QC 35 with NFlightMic systems. We will also have a need to Bluetooth from our phones while on long airline trips this year so maybe the Bose ones will handle both situations well. Looks like all I need to do us unhook the mic and use them as just headphones on the death tube (airliner) I see ebay has many options for QC 35s (ebay cautions noted) but the NFlightMic looks to be only factory direct. Anyone have a report on how well the Bose 35s are doing with the NFlightMic ?

I remember one airline that did manual W&B in the cockpit at departure and they were allowed 1/2 weights to standard paxs for kids. Many a Capt opened the door and looked back and said "I see 15 half weights" and miraculously they made it under MAX T/O weight allowed. :-) Midway became "sporty" on a hot summer day for them. The old 1011 system could be easily duplicated today with much more reliable, cheaper and accurate technology IF THEY WANTED TO DO IT BUT no "fudge factor" room

Just to add- How many here even look at their OTHER gages once you open the throttle for T/O? I have time to peruse the entire panel at least 2 times before 60 mph I check RPM, MP, FF, Volts, Oil pressure and Temp each time. Catch a problem before you're airborne. You'll live longer.