Shadrach

I don’t do any climbing these days but what we wore in the 90s and early aughts were pretty uncomfortable and not as pliable (with a foot in them) as one might think. They are designed to be supportive platforms for edging on the tiniest of foot holds (I’ve put almost the entirety of my body weight on “holds” the size of a .177 BB). They do what they do quite well, but they bind the foot and toes together into a sort of single platform… taking them off was always a relief.

I know a few folks that take off their shoes to fly Tailwheel aircraft. I think it’s silly to be honest. I can heel and toe reasonably well in street shoes, which requires a more delicate and precise touch than managing the yaw axis of a taildragger.

It’s my understanding that cold working aluminum (or steel for that matter) strengthens the area where the metal was worked. It is also makes it harder and less flexible making it more prone to cracks if in an area that flexes.

I have two BMWs with aluminum skinned body panels. I have been absolutely stunned by what a good PDR tech has been able to do. My guy was able to erase things that I would have thought impossible correct. It can be done but it is harder as aluminum has no memory unlike steel which has memory and is easily encouraged to return to its original shape.

At the end you can hear the calling him by his nick name (or unfortunate given name), Hog. I wonder if it was earned with years of pig headed behavior.

Chris Gerogaklis (RIP 2021), 85 at the time. One of the weirdest aviation videos I’ve ever seen. He probably should not have done media interviews after.

We’re they checking the timing specs of the entrants? Just race gas and timing advance will increase power a bit. Weren’t some of the GPZ’s turbocharged?

It takes very little to wheel borrow my F model. I discovered so when I first started flying it.

I think it was so light as to be negligible. The stuff we used weighs something like 250g per Sq. Meter. I doubt we used that much to cover the window trim. IIRC the whole job (carpets, ceiling panels, window trim and cabin insulation was small net loss in empty weight. I will post pics so you can see what I mean.

I figured as much. I’ve done a lot of interior plastic work over the years. I had all of our window trim covered in ultra suede. Really upgraded the look and feel of the trim.

Where did the new interior trim pieces come from? Did they trim and join the old ones or is there an aftermarket source? I took my curtains out for a few years. Passengers missed them a great deal. I have since reinstalled.

No worries. You seemed very confident that widows were not a preventative item. I just wanted to make the applicable regulations available.

You should familiarize yourself with Part 43 appendix A paragraph (c) Look at line item 13.

Absolutely. Just need a good blanket. As for the cabin, I would get a space heater to bring it up to temp. Ambient temp of 60° over two hours is not going to do a lot to heat a cold soaked airframe.

Now that I think about it, wheel barrowing is a function of tail AOA, not wing AOA. Nevertheless, I don’t think your statement is correct for an air frame with two airfoils. I don’t see how an aircraft in the wheelbarrow position has a positive wing AOA.

It will likely start to wheelbarrow or take off at some point. Neutral AOA on perfectly level ground is one thing, but that’s not representative of real world conditions.

I guess I’m not the heretic I thought I was…

I have never seen Bearings damaged from normal use. I have seen bearings that were improperly serviced that overheated. I’m used to being the board Heretic, so I will openly state that we no longer service the bearings every year. We check the wheels for play and resistance. We repacked the bearings with SHC 100 when we put new shock discs on in 2021. They have perhaps 150 hours since they were serviced. I will likely service them next year even though I bet dollars to donuts that they will show no evidence of needing it.

Is that a fancy way of saying that all of the procession torque will be limited to the axle and bearings (90° to the wheel)?

That’s a tough one to test without equipment. I will give it a shot if I ever get this thing back in the never ending annual ever wraps up.

That’s a reasonable position with regard to the efficacy of Camgard’s corrosion inhibiting properties. As someone who’s flying behind a 56 year old cam that’s been in service for 3300 hours, My anecdotal experience suggests that perhaps there is a metallurgy issue with certain manufacturing time frames that affects cam and lifter durability. It’s not like I live in Phoenix and it’s not like this engine didn’t experience long periods of disuse. Nevertheless, with or without Camgard, I have no reason not to expect the cam to remain in service through the next overhaul. Whether or not Camgard works is a minor concern compared to whether or not it causes “issues“. I am interested in someone articulating how it’s causing valve guides to fail or whatever other “issues” are being found in Camgard engines. Some might say that Avblend is snake oil (I would) but saying that it’s taking out cylinders (I wouldn’t) is a “whole nother” thing.

Fair enough. However it sure would be nice to have greater detail than “we are seeing issues“. What are these issues? How many engines are running Camgard? We’re clearly also seeing issues with engines that run 100LL. As far as I can tell no one has really done the homework to really establish a reliable correlation. I have been running Camgard for nearly 15 years without issue. Is it a panacea against cam failure, I don’t know. I have no personal interest in policing other people’s lubrication choices. I am typically very skeptical of additives. I started using Camgard because the founder and developer (Ed Kollin) made arguments that I consider to be convincing. He basically stated that camgard is the additive package he would’ve created without the constraints of a Corporate R&D department. Perhaps he’s full of it, but he’s at least made an articulate case as a petro chemical engineer and lubrication specialist. Moreover, Aviation consumer’s moisture cabinet test demonstrated significant corrosion protection over a myriad of other oil/ additive packages. I haven’t seen anyone who is suggesting that Camgard is detrimental take the time to articulate why. Maybe you could take a few minutes to do so or at least point towards someone else who has? I’m all ears if someone has or wants to do so. Until that happens, I will continue to suggest that ascribing failures to a product based on anecdotal correlation without evidence of causation is problematic.

One piece. If you really take your time, it should take about 2 minutes. Removal should take about half of that. It’s helpful to have a dental pick to get removal started…wouldn’t want to risk breaking a nail.

Don, With all due respect, there’s nothing definitive about your cylinder shop’s statement. “More issues from cylinders coming from engines that use camguard”. I would be skeptical of anyone who made unqualified statements like that. If Camguard is causing these “issues”, then why are your other three cylinders running strong? Perhaps the other three should be overhauled as a precautionary measure? The genesis of most old wives tale can be traced to credentialed professionals making foolish statements about subject ancillary to their area of expertise. It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes for this one to spread. In the meantime, if you have any excess Camguard on the shelf consider selling it cheap (i’ll take it off your hands). Statistically speaking, having a bottle in your hangar is probably as detrimental to cylinder health as having a bottle in your engine. You can’t be too careful.