Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


pmccand last won the day on November 7 2012

pmccand had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

187 Excellent

1 Follower

About pmccand

  • Rank
    Lives Here

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. If it's technically totaled, buy it back from the insurance company and FIX IT! I bought a B with far worse damage from landing gear collapse 15 years ago and repaired it expertly (thank you very much). Asphalt rash damage extended from tip to tail, dinged a couple flap hangars and had LOTS of bent and cracked bulkheads, stringers and metal. The prop hit the HARD asphalt under a "no power" condition and the only thing damaged on the engine was the prop. We magnafluxed ALL the rotating steel parts and crankcase on the engine, added new lifters, bearings, bolts, gaskets and put it back together Cost less than 8K total when you DIY with AP assistance. Found an overhauled McCauley prop for $5k. I was lucky, but just because you have a bent prop doesn't necessarily mean that you will have a $35k engine repair bill. Yours hit soft dirt. Chances are really good that if it wasn't under power and hit at idle, you probably have minimal damage to the engine but anything is possible. a good screening test is to put a dial gauge on the flange and read the run-out. If you have under 0.010" you likely don't have a problem. Flanges can be straightened up to a point. I had a plane with a bent flange on an O320 and I sent the crankshaft in for straightening. 20 years later it's still running smooth.
  2. Yep. Been there, done that. Partnerships as well... NEVER AGAIN! I really must have access 24/7. Something about sharing I can’t stand. Never was good at it.
  3. Can man. Scrap aluminum recyclers and eBay. I would save and sell things as I could like the engine, control surfaces, instruments, radios. Although with Mooney out of business and parts becoming increasingly rare, I suspect some of the goodies would fetch a pretty penny.
  4. Transport on a totaled plane amounts to a power saw and a flat bed tow truck. I can disassemble a complete plane for eBay sales in under a day or two. Not that I WANT to, but I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.
  5. A friend of mine owns seven or eight aircraft all at one time, all being smaller and mid 60’s Cessna 150, Citabria’s, Tomahawks. He is an attorney, so he is well-to-do, but not to the point where he has unlimited funds. To that end, he can only afford the absolute lowest cost cutting maintenance, storage and insurance options. Since each aircraft is flown only a maximum of 10 hours/year, he decided that it did not make sense to buy full coverage as each aircraft was sitting on the ground 99.36% of the time anyway. Fast forward to me. I own the world-famous 30-mile Mooney (fly it 30 miles.. fix it...rinse and repeat). In 30 years of (nearly) accident-free flying, I have never flown more than 10-15 hours per year and ALL but an occasional flight is outside the my question is, why do I need full in-motion coverage on a 50 year old hull valued at a price that I can self cover? Ground only, not-in-motion seems like a good option for me. I still retain liability coverage if I have to make an emergency landing which covers some passengers medical costs and smacking into a farmer’s cow or shed, but will not cover repairs to the plane. (I will probably wind up repairing the damage to the plane myself anyway if things got damaged with or without coverage so labor isn’t going to matter). Costs for in-motion have risen DRAMATICALLY this year. Looking at $1,600 this year (up from $900 last year) for in-motion, and $900 for not-in-motion coverage. Incidentally, I was paying just a little over $900 for FULL coverage last year! This year, I get the privilege of paying TWICE or HALF the coverage. Over many years of accident-free-premiums, I could have bought a new-to-me airplane. It just doesn’t make sense to cover a 50 year-old plane that is rarely flown any more. Insurance is pricing themselves out of business. PS.. just checked liability only option and that was only $335 annually with no hull coverage at all... seriously considering this as well.
  6. From the download page of the EAA web site... ”EAA Members may download the software and obtain a one-year license to use the software. EAA members may renew their license annually subject to the program terms and conditions in effect at the time of renewal.” I read the first sentence So I thought it was a one time deal. I am not too sure about what the second sentence is all about with the “terms and conditions”. Generally, SolidWorks has supplied their product to schools and individual users “free” for the first year or as long as they are still in school, but they are quick to pull the rug from under your feet as soon as you are hooked and working for some large design firm. I spoke with a local metal machine shop design studio and he was paying $20,000 annually for his CAD setup with all the license fees, module add ons and multi-user fluff. The basic cost is around $7 AMU’s basic barebones. So if EAA allows repetitive renewals for private individuals, that is an amazing deal.
  7. LOTS OF MONEY! That is by FAR the most expensive CAD program I have ever come across... the industry standard, but very few humans can afford the license. The first year is is free, but want to continue next year, expect an earth shattering increase ... many many AMU’s
  8. Use a mild buffing/wax compound. But be careful, it will look so shiny when you are through, you will have to do the rest of the plane.
  9. True, a 337 is not required for INSTALLATION, but the BELTS THEMSELVES MUST BE FAA APPROVED. I noticed that PMA or STC was granted for American Champion and Cessna models, but nothing granted to Mooneys. I could be wrong, but I probably am just mistaken...
  10. Leave your hearing aids in your pocket. The dynamic compression range of modern hearing instruments are designed to compensate for speech loudness in a "typical" daily, relatively noise free sound environment, with maximum amplification gain at a mere 45db SPL input and minimizes to negligible gain above about 70dB SPL input. That means that amplification gain is reduced significantly as input increases to keep the sound from becoming too loud at your ear when things get noisy. SPL's inside your aircraft is around 100 dB (A) and about 70-80 dB under your earphones. Ergo, your hearing aids are not amplifying much at these high input levels, and are probably highly distorted if anything comes out at all. All the amplification you probably need happens from your radio/intercom through your headphones and overcome most hearing loss with enough turn of the volume control knob. Realize that mild to moderately-severe hearing losses that cause great communication difficulty in typical daily communicative situations may pose little problem with hearing impaired pilots while using headphones alone because of a phenomenon called "loudness recruitment". (Loudness recruitment from cochlear or inner ear hair cell hearing loss is the most common cause of hearing loss in adults.) The interesting thing about a cochlear hearing loss and recruitment is that the hearing loss deficit that occurs at low levels in typical quiet areas, may not be evident at higher presentation levels such as that under headphones. In other words, most people with cochlear hearing loss can often hear just as well as someone with normal hearing at higher presentation levels. That's exactly what happens in airplane communications...high headphone levels are required to overcome the background noise of the aircraft, so most people with moderate hearing loss don't have significant problems hearing ATC because they can simply turn the earphones up loud enough to overcome their elevated hearing threshold levels. It may not be COMFORTABLE,but you should be able to maximize speech intelligibility by simply turning it up. So why do you still have trouble understanding ATC using regular headphones? Do you still need hearing aids under your headset? The answer is still no. Let's turn to the Noise cancelling headset to see if this can help. You will find that often the answer is NO as well. The biggest misconception that the public has about ANR (or ANC) headphones is that the ANR CANNOT reduce noise levels in the frequency range that can help improve speech intelligibility. ANR is an electrical noise reduction system that augments and adds to the effective "quietness" of the passive ear cups of a typical ear muff. However, the electronic portion of the ANR has a frequency response range limited to 500 Hz and below, which can make a cockpit sound quieter and more comfortable, but these frequencies are too low to be useful in quieting the mid frequency noise that DIRECTLY INTERFERES WITH SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY . It is the masking of speech from MID FREQUENCY noise that interferes with communications in the cockpit, and the only remedy for this is to find a system that better isolates or removes the mid frequency noise from the ear canal so that speech can be best understood at lower (more comfortable) levels. Insert earphones are the best solution for those with hearing loss and communication difficulties in the cockpit. PROPERLY INSERTED foam eartips are able to achieve up to 30-45 dB attenuation across the critical speech frequencies (300-4,000HZ)- better than most ANR systems. Speech from ATC can be optimized at levels significantly lower than traditional headphones directed through the ear plugs where you have the best direct access of speech to your ear. Simply put, leave your hearing aids in your pocket, and put on your insert earphones instead.
  11. I requested an official statement from SNF on Saturday re. the C-virus, and yesterday I received an official statement in my email suggesting strongly that the show will go on unless they hear differently from the State department of Health or other government officials stating otherwise. 22 days to go. Lots can happen till then. I am setting up a booth on the day before the opening, and will be tearing it down the last day. In between, I probably will not be staffing the booth due to my own low immune health, but will have an interactive computer screen Kiosk to answer questions and instructions on how to place an order. That is what I am comfortable with right now if the show goes on as planned.
  12. I read a post by a well-respected epidemiologist who stated that if it weren’t for the worried population, the disease would quickly spread to its maximum contagious distribution rate and overwhelm the ability of the healthcare system to respond and care for the sick. There is some benefit to some amount of beneficial worry. Excessive worry is counterproductive when it interferes needlessly with daily activities. I have a personal threshold of worry that I am comfortable with and that is that I personally don’t think it prudent to seek out Petri dishes such as booking cruises, taking the subway, flying commercial airlines, or going to expos or conventions such as Sun and Fun. I do have a booth at Sun and Fun and my business demands that I have a corporate presence for customers who have the Alfred E. Newman “What, Me worry” approach to this recent outbreak and decide to go anyway. Since I am not comfortable about going, I will be modifying my exposure while there. My plans are to set up the booth then take it down at the end of the week, but I will likely not be manning the booth during the show. Instead, I will be automating a self-serve kiosk with computer touch screens available for those who have questions or want to order a product. I don’t thing I am over reacting to this virus, I am being prudent.
  13. I agree with this applying only to the 360/McCauley, but the TCDS and POH is not the only source of restrictive data..... If you go to McCauley docs library, you will find a very obscure SB that also restricts continuous operation below 1900 RPM and low manifold pressure on the 360 engine. (I believe it was 1900 rpm and below 15in, I just don’t remember the actual numbers, but it IS there).
  14. Yes, losing an engine happens and emergency procedures due to engine failure should be first and foremost a part of your training routine. I lost an engine on FIRST UNSUPERVISED SOLO 500 feet AGL just after takeoff! Turned out to be a broken valve boss assembly on one of the cylinders of a Cessna 150 essentially locked the engine. As part of my training prior to the emergency my instructor showed me how to make an emergency landing that would save my life one day! Turns out that I used the maneuver the very next day! Never take takeoffs or landings for granted. ALWAYS keep in mind the emergency "what-if" procedures and work them out verbally what you would do at any given instant while near the ground. Let your instructor drill it into your head time and time again so that it is the FIRST thing going through your head during each and every takeoff and landing.
  15. Actually, No OOPS...not so easy to find. That’s why it took THREE TIMES to find it. After 50 years of thermal expansion and contraction, improper fittings of the past, the face of the induction tube flange was warped which could only have been found using the flat plate of a machinists bar and a feeler gauge. Alternatively, one could have used a plate of glass, but for whatever reason, it had a small amount of warpage that could not be detected by the eye, but was large enough that the gasket could not take up the gap. Again, check your intake tubes for warpage or small dents.