Magneto 500 hour

[Guest]

I just got a set of mags back from Aircraft Magneto Service in Montana for a customer’s Ovation.  The pile of left overs is typical of normal replacement parts.  Also both distributors were replace by a Continental service bulletin.

Clarence

[kmyfm20s]

Serious pile of parts! I recently had a magneto go out in my plane in less than 500 hours since inspection. I have had 3 magneto failure in various planes over my flying lifetime. I ended up just buying to 2 freshly overhaul mags and keeping my cores. I plan on just overhauling the cores just prior to the 500 inspection and swapping them. It’s seems to me the cost is negligible for a overhaul vs 500 hours when you factor in labor and down time.

[PT20J]

Orcutt’s shop does superior mag work. Bet they’ll run great. 

[Guest]

Here’s a better picture of the replacement parts.

http://www.aircraftmagnetoservice.net/

Clarence

[carusoam]

Did the O owner discuss going electronic magneto at all?

That would be the time the discussion may come up...

Best regards,

-a-

[Guest]

There was no discussion of electronic ignition.  I don’t know if it exists for the IO550?

Clarence

[carusoam]

I’m still years away on this...

http://www.electroair.net/stc_ignition_kit2.html

A testimonial by a possible MSer...

http://www.electroair.net/testimonials.html#

Best regards,

-a-

[carusoam]

It is interesting in the pile of parts...

• the capacitor looks like it is designed to be a quick replacement item... where it sits in/on the mag.
• No plastic gears on that mag?

Best regards,

-a-

[alextstone]

39 minutes ago, carusoam said:

I’m still years away on this...

http://www.electroair.net/stc_ignition_kit2.html

A testimonial by a possible MSer...

http://www.electroair.net/testimonials.html#

Best regards,

-a-

Man, that is very interesting!  Yet another way for me to "invest" in my airplane.  Last night, my wife and I were watching TV as I leafed through a flying mag.  I stumbled on an ad for a single engine very light jet.  I wistfully mentioned that if we suddenly come into LOTS of money, I'd like to trade up.  Then, in a flash, I corrected myself and said, "no, I'd just like to have lots of time and money to fly my Mooney and install upgrades."  I'm so prudent sometimes I surprise even myself.

[0TreeLemur]

2 hours ago, alextstone said:

Man, that is very interesting!  Yet another way for me to "invest" in my airplane.  Last night, my wife and I were watching TV as I leafed through a flying mag.  I stumbled on an ad for a single engine very light jet.  I wistfully mentioned that if we suddenly come into LOTS of money, I'd like to trade up.  Then, in a flash, I corrected myself and said, "no, I'd just like to have lots of time and money to fly my Mooney and install upgrades."  I'm so prudent sometimes I surprise even myself.

I have come to the same conclusion.  A Mooney is fast enough for me.   Are planes are more that twice as fast as you could ever hope to drive safely, and 1/3 to 1/2 the speed of an RJ depending on how much Mooney you have.

[Hank]

8 minutes ago, Fred_2O said:

I have come to the same conclusion.  A Mooney is fast enough for me.   Are planes are more that twice as fast as you could ever hope to drive safely, and 1/3 to 1/2 the speed of an RJ depending on how much Mooney you have.

Missing the 2-1/2 drive to ATL plus 2 hours of Security Theater helps beat the airlines, too, even at Mach 0.24.      My seat cost is also less, especially when I use more than one.

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, Fred_2O said:

I have come to the same conclusion.  A Mooney is fast enough for me.   Are planes are more that twice as fast as you could ever hope to drive safely, and 1/3 to 1/2 the speed of an RJ depending on how much Mooney you have.

Remember that the time it takes to prep, preflight, taxi and runup counts in your speed as well.  I'm guessing it takes longer to get any kind of turbine up and running if you have to do it yourself...

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Remember that the time it takes to prep, preflight, taxi and runup counts in your speed as well.  I'm guessing it takes longer to get any kind of turbine up and running if you have to do it yourself...

To save time, avoid the run up.

Clarence

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, M20Doc said:

To save time, avoid the run up.

Clarence

But then how would you "circulate" fresh, warm oil to the prop hub? Any prudent pilot would do at least 3, mid-range, RPM pulls just to ensure the prop is purged of all that nasty cold stuff and replaced with that extra fresh, warm elixir.  9 out of 10 mechanics agree...unless of course they work for a prop shop and know better.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Shadrach

[0TreeLemur]

14 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Here’s a better picture of the replacement parts.

http://www.aircraftmagnetoservice.net/

Clarence

Just curious- why replace all those machine screws?   Aren't they reuseable parts?

[Andy95W]

32 minutes ago, Fred_2O said:

Just curious- why replace all those machine screws?   Aren't they reuseable parts?

For $1.50 worth of hardware, why bother?

For a 500 hour inspection, they'd most likely be reused.  For an overhaul, usually not for a reputable shop.

[jaylw314]

11 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

For $1.50 worth of hardware, why bother?

For a 500 hour inspection, they'd most likely be reused.  For an overhaul, usually not for a reputable shop.

Most standard aircraft screws are steel with cadmium plating to prevent dissimilar metal corrosion.  Every screw is supposed to be visually inspected for intact plating before reusing them.  Practically, the amount of time this would add to your shop time would probably cost more than replacing them with new.

[PT20J]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

But then how would you "circulate" fresh, warm oil to the prop hub? Any prudent pilot would do at least 3, mid-range, RPM pulls just to ensure the prop is purged of all that nasty cold stuff and replaced with that extra fresh, warm elixir.  9 out of 10 mechanics agree...unless of course they work for a prop shop and know better.

Good point - made me chuckle. All that prop cycling has always mystified me. I think it's a holdover from old military manuals since the hydramatic props sometimes required cycling several times to get reasonable response in cold weather (been there, seen that). I have no idea what's magic about  three cycles, but that procedure even made it into my M20J POH! 

To Clarence's point about skipping run up: I've flown for two Part 135 seaplane operators, and the FAA-approved SOP at both was run up on the first flight of the day only.

Airplanes are meant to fly. Engines don't cool so well on the ground, and there's sand and gravel and whatnot in the run up areas to erode your prop. Do we wear our airplanes out ground checking stuff too much?  Something to think about.

Skip

[flyboy0681]

7 hours ago, Fred_2O said:

I have come to the same conclusion.  A Mooney is fast enough for me.   Are planes are more that twice as fast as you could ever hope to drive safely, and 1/3 to 1/2 the speed of an RJ depending on how much Mooney you have.

Here's what I experienced last Sunday while riding along on a cold front coming through the state. Not bad for a 35 year old J model.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Fred_2O said:

Just curious- why replace all those machine screws?   Aren't they reuseable parts?

I’m told that it’s in the Magneto overhaul manual, so doing it by the book means new hardware.

Clarence

 

[MB65E]

It is in the book.

One time use screws they have the lock washers pressed into the screw shaft. 

Only the harness cap screws get reused. The mag case screws and fastening hardware all get replaced each time the mag is opened per the manual. 

-Matt

[Guest]

3 hours ago, PT20J said:

Good point - made me chuckle. All that prop cycling has always mystified me. I think it's a holdover from old military manuals since the hydramatic props sometimes required cycling several times to get reasonable response in cold weather (been there, seen that). I have no idea what's magic about  three cycles, but that procedure even made it into my M20J POH! 

To Clarence's point about skipping run up: I've flown for two Part 135 seaplane operators, and the FAA-approved SOP at both was run up on the first flight of the day only.

Airplanes are meant to fly. Engines don't cool so well on the ground, and there's sand and gravel and whatnot in the run up areas to erode your prop. Do we wear our airplanes out ground checking stuff too much?  Something to think about.

Skip

When you do the run up on a seaplane, do you use the water brakes or the anchor?

Clarence

[PT20J]

13 hours ago, M20Doc said:

When you do the run up on a seaplane, do you use the water brakes or the anchor?

 

Well, I usually get all tangled up in the anchor line when I try that, so water brakes are the way to go.