johnggreen

Talked to a CAV engineer. The replacement of the stall strip with non-porous aluminum is fine as a stall strip. If it is on a known icing installation, no. Doing so would take the TKS system and the airplane out of the known ice category. And for us TKS owners, Tim is no longer with the company; much to everyone's dismay. He took a job teaching A&P for Kansas State University. Jgreen

Meaning no disrespect to Jose', I cannot imagine that a non-porous fabricated aluminum strip would be a qualified repair. I could be proved wrong, but it will take a letter from a FSDO office and CAV to convince me. If for no other reason, I think there would certainly be a dissimilar metal corrosion issue. Jgreen

The overhead light on my Bravo is wired in like fashion. I lost a battery like that as the result as a complete discharge. The biggest problem is not leaving it on, but accidentally hitting it with my left hand while in flight, then shutting the airplane down without knowing it is on. Since there are other interior lights which are on the master buss, the best solution is to simply remove the bulb. Jgreen

Romair, As promised, I asked my shop how they flushed the coagulated fluid out of the system. They said that they went to the brake valve which in my Bravo they accessed by removing the belly pan. At that point there is apparently a valve, parking brake???. They removed the lines there and at the brakes themselves and injected mineral spirits through the lines using air pressure. Jgreen

In flight, an airplane is completely oblivious to wind direction; crosswind, headwind, or tailwind. It only affects the ground track. Not meaning to insult or seem condescending, but there really is no room for argument or discussion. It is elementary. Jgreen

Romair, You can apparently "drain" the fluid until nothing comes out and still leave the coagulated fluid. My mechanic told me how he flushed the coagulated fluid out, but I wasn't paying enough attention or didn't ask enough questions. I just recall that it took him about 4 hours to get all the coagulated fluid out of the system. Tomorrow, I'll try to remember to call him and ask how he got it done and post tomorrow night. Frankly, I'm kind of surprised someone else who has experienced the problem also hasn't posted. Jgreen

Not meaning to disparage, just an observation. Though the Katmai will produce pretty impressive STOL performance, the Skylane is simply not designed for utility use. In a rough field operation, the tricycle gear will fail sooner than later compared to a conventional gear 180/185 and the cabin volume is limited compared to the 206. That being said, I own a stock 1975 Skylane that I can dependably take off and land in 700 feet and cruise at 140 knots, so I'd have to say that for $300,000 the Katmai delivers very, very little additional performance. The canard does make it look "peculiar" though if you like that. While in the construction business, I operated owned two Helio Couriers. In a 15 knot wind, they would take off in less than 100' and climb backwards. They would also operate from a field so rough as to give a Jeep pause. I used to take the middle seats out and carry a small "dual purpose" dirt bike with me on most flights so I'd have transportation no matter where I went. Try that in a Skylane. There is a Katmai owner on the Cessna Pilot's forum that has a 1200TT Katmai with 200 hours since the conversion. He claims he has $300,000 invested, asking $220,000, and crying for a buyer if you feel that urge. Jgreen

Stefan, A while back, I had a problem with soft brakes on both sides. I posted under the Bravo forum and you can read the info posted there. As it turns out,, my problem was that the brake fluid had coagulated to a thick brown syrup. It took my shop two tries to get the system completely flushed. The first time they tried the "drain and refill" and it did NOTHING. To their credit, they bit the bullet and immediately flushed the system which was a much bigger task. As a response to my post, several other members reported the same problem and the same solution. In a Mooney, particularly with co-pilot brakes, flushing the system and fresh fluid about every three years seems to be a smart practice. Jgreen

Of the Velocity, I know nothing other than it's dog ugly. The Piaggio is in a niche bracket between turboprops and jets. It is a very good airplane with moderate sales numbers. Just too easy for a buyer to move to a jet. In 1994, I was at the Beech factory to purchase a new A-36. There was a Starship there with about 500 hours on it as I recall. Beech would have sold it to me for barely more than the A-36. According to the salesman, the airplane simply didn't deliver compared to the tried and true "big" King Airs. Over weight and not nearly as fast as promised, the support structure for such an advanced plane was limited. People/companies that can afford such an airplane want a mission ready aircraft and they already had that in the King Air with a broad support structure that reached far beyond the Beech factory and service network. That being said, the Starship development probably did as much to advance composite technology as any single event and it was one bitchin' looking airplane (that means good). Jgreen

MJC, You asked a question and I answered it as honestly as I could. I didn't realize that I needed to skirt around the truth for sensibility sake. As for being a troll, there is one other ordinary prerequisite; anonymity. If you will notice, my name is fully displayed and always has been. If the site change didn't alter it, so is my locale which is KGNF for future reference. Jgreen

Interesting analysis. Have you ever owned a Bravo? Ever maintained one? In eight years of ownership, I have not cancelled a flight once. Never had an issue finding a part. I have a detailed record of every maintenance repair and every part replaced for preventive maintenance. In fifteen minutes, my head book keeper can print out every $ paid for fuel, oil, maintenance, insurance, etc. I can tell to the penny the expense of owning the Bravo and it is completely in line with other high performance, turbocharged aircraft. So, having actual experience and knowledge of the airplane, i am very curious what would classify it as "fringe"? Jgreen

MJC, I don't see that as a bold statement at all and have no idea what a "troll-like" claim is. The import of my statement should be obvious. The Socata is a fringe market airplane. Most potential aircraft buyers would not consider purchasing one at any price. As other posters have noted, parts supply is an issue and unlike Piper, Beech, Cessna, and Mooney there is no inventory in salvage yards. I have had acquaintances who purchased fringe market aircraft before, a Siai Marchetti, a Socata, and a Meyers 200 coming immediately to mind. Their experiences were extraordinarily bad. I currently own a Piper, a Mooney, and recently purchased a 1975 Skylane, the Skylane being the 33rd aircraft I have owned in my aviation career. I bought it for one of my sons and am beginning the process of a complete refurbishment. Virtually no part on the airplane is more than a phone call and two day shipment away including interior and exterior plastics, control surfaces, glass, etc. In fact, I can't think of a single part on the airplane that either I or my mechanic don't know the source from memory; he has most of them on speed dial. The gentleman who started this thread asked a realistic question. I will assume that he is serious and has the financial ability to move up from the M20C. My answers were accurate and pertinent. If that makes me a troll, I suppose that is a good thing. Jgreen

A Skylane will give you everything you seek with maybe, MAYBE, a fifteen minute penalty on a 500 nautical flight with equal cabin loads and probably less. You are going to have to worry about parts availability and cost with almost anything other than the Cessna. If you really want to make the buying mistake of your life, the Trinidad will sate your desires. Jgreen

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night. Jgreen

Fantom, Finally, a scientifically proven use of Camguard !! Though I don't seem to need any of the above, for future reference, what about erectile disfunction? Thanks for the humor bud. Jgreen

Until yesterday, I have ignored Camguard. Why? Though it had been "recommended" to me by several acquaintances in the aviation industry, when I read up on it, I found no independent testing. That was several years ago and several million dollars of sales of Camguard past. Yesterday, on reading this thread, it brought the question up again. Now that the product has been here so long with some significant degree of acceptance by the aviation community, has there still been no independent verification of its worth? I can find nothing other than the Avweb article by Camguard's "inventor" and the Aviation Consumer articles that again do not reflect any authentic testing by a reputable testing institution. Again, I ask why? Camguard's claims are not subtle. To quote from their literature, "designed to dramatically improve the performance of all mineral based, semi-synthetic and fully synthetic motor oils in the area of corrosion protection, wear reduction, and seal protection." Camguard uses the word "dramatic", not me. So, should something so "dramatic" not be easily proved? And if so, why not? Where is the legitimate, independent test? Jgreen

Don, That obviously does not even address my question. In fact, it is an obvious evasion. Do you or anyone else have the answer to the question I asked? Jgreen

I found this from an article in Aviation Consumer. "ASL CamGuard. Our bench tests of CamGuard have proved promising, especially with regard to corrosion prevention, which we are increasingly inclined to believe is the more critical consideration than running wear. We recently performed an informal in-service test of CamGuard and we’re reporting on a more extensive test done by our AVweb colleague Mike Busch in his Cessna 310. His findings mirror our own." "Bench test" by Aviation Consumer? "More extensive test" by Mike Busch? I wasn't aware that Mr. Busch was a metallurgical engineer or qualified for such tests. And I still doubt. Silly me. Jgreen

Yes, I will admit to being a skeptic simply because life has taught me that it is advisable to be so. Like Allsmiles, I would be, not only interested, but grateful, for independent empirical evidence, i.e. an independent lab, which shows any benefit of Camguard. I would indeed like to know that the protection claimed by the manufacturer is available for my aircraft. I have googled and read every response that promised such evidence. I'm sorry Fantom, but like Allsmiles, I find nothing other than articles either written by the "inventor" of Camguard or some statement that tests were "promising". Promising? Are you kidding. This product has been out for years and again, I will ask, if it works then why doesn't the inventor/manufacturer submit the product to a truly, in depth, independent review? You may rest assured that if the results are positive in the least, I will become a regular user. One more question: is there any component of Camguard that is patented? It would seem that if there is any ingredient in the product that actually works, oil manufacturers would use it and if patented, pay for the privilege. Please educate me. Please point me to real evidence that I can better protect my $81,000 TIO-540 engine better than what I am doing now. Please. Jgreen

Aaron, I'm no mechanic or engine rebuilder or a mechanical engineer, but I think you are simply making a connection between two basically unrelated events. I have read countless "debates" on aviation blogs about "magic additives" that produced amazing results in engine and airplane performance. Sooner or later, there is enough real evidence to debunk them. If your engine is cleaner from either LOP or Camguard, it is hard to make the connection that it would have increased the compression on a properly maintained and regularly operated engine. I do not use Camguard, not because I don't believe in the superior lubrication capabilities of synthetic oils, I do, but because I believe it to be overkill if you use a semi-synthetic product which i do. From the legitimate data I have read, if Camguard is beneficial, it is because it has the benefit of retaining an oil covering on engine parts after shut down to prevent rust; a benefit that its makers do, in fact, claim. As to other claims, I will fall back on the old adage "if it is sounds too good to be true, it probably is" for support to my position. I will also say that for Camguard or any other additive, an independent monitoring of an engine on a dyno, with and without the additive would pretty much prove the claim and make the producer millionaires many times over. So, when they don't come with that kind of "PROOF", I pretty much ignore it. That's my two cents. 99% of these products are snake oil; they don't do any good, but thankfully they don't do any harm either. Jgreen

I will be contacting the reference/recommended shops for quotes and info. Saltair, thank you for the information on time and cost which seems perfectly in line to me. Personally, I can't imagine a shop working for a 10% "profit". I will also contact you for a quote. Good information and I appreciate it all. Jgreen

Go to the Aerox website. The cascade filling system will be just under $500. You will need to rent two tanks, the cost will be minimal, maybe $60 per year. The refills about $35 each. With my ox saving cannulas, I probably get about 20-30 hours of oxygen for two people in my Bravo, probably more. The cost is so minimal, I don't pay too much attention. Note that you be sure to get aviator oxygen, not medicinal oxygen. The aviator oxygen has less moisture. Once you get used to using Oxygen, you get spoiled. I usually put it on over 8m in daytime and 6m at night. If I'm hard IFR, l'll go with 6m even in day. It makes a big difference in your alertness and a bigger one with night vision. Jgreen

Thanks for the inputs. I would appreciate more comments as there are lots of items to be considered. The two quotes I have gotten are $11,000 and $15,000. The 15 included complete clear coat; I wonder if that will make it that much better. Both prices are "basic" without SS screws (extra) and is for base and two trim colors. Both had big upcharges for two base coats, white over something else for instance. Maybe that is really the ballpark for today's costs. Jgreen

I recently purchased a nice 1975 Skylane for the use of my grown sons to upgrade their licenses. The Skylane has no dents, dings, corrosion, or hail but original paint. It is a good solid airplane with lots of years of use so I imagine it will, eventually, get a complete remake. Right now, though presentable, i would like to start with paint. I'm not talking low end, I want a nice paint job that with care and hangaring will last many, many years. I called a couple of good shops and was a little taken aback at the cost of a complete restrip, and paint job. I will admit that it has been several years since I had an aircraft repainted, but OUCH !! I had rather not say how much until I get some input on costs that members here have seen. It would seem to me, that a Mooney and Skylane would be fairly close in cost. So, for those of you who have had a really nice job done recently, how much did it cost? And did anyone go the extra mile for clear coat, which according to my research adds about $------- by itself? And if anyone has had really good experience with a particular shop, please let me know. Numbers please. Jgreen

After having flown my Bravo for eight years now, I have had a problem with "hot starts" only twice. Interestingly, neither time was the engine really hot. In fact, both times the airplane had been sitting for at least an hour when I tried to start it. The first time, I had been on the ground about an hour and the OAT was at least 90. It must have taken ten tries and with starter cool downs, ten minutes. I tried every known combination and don't really know what worked. The most recent time, last Monday, I had flown to Mobile. The OAT was only about 50 degrees and I was there for well over an hour. When I went to start, I boosted for a couple of seconds and tried a normal start. Well, anyway, it took four or five tries before I got her going. I'm not really looking for hot start procedures as that is not my problem. Warm start seems to be a culprit though not often. The real question I have is this. I understand that the "hot start" is a result of the fuel in the lines and injector absorbing the heat from the engine and vaporizing. I recently read a thread on a Beech site and one commenter said that on a Continental, if you turn on the boost pump, it will circulate the hot fuel out of the lines and injector and back into the tanks and bring the cooler fuel from the tanks into the lines and injector solving the problem. Does anyone know why this won't work on a Lycoming and, if so, would you have the mixture rich or full lean while running the boost pump? I certainly don't want to flood the engine and exhaust system doing this. Experiencing only one backfire on a Bravo will make you very, very cautious. Jgreen