Any thoughts on

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: jetdriven

 

[jetdriven]

We should start a file section like in CSOB.  There is so much information out there, and I hoard all of it.  A few minutes reading can really fix the problem, and less expensive than the "replace and see how it goes" method.

[John Pleisse]

Quote: Shadrach

With all due respect John, I appreciate that you take issue with Mike advocating for 900 or whatever number of hours past TBO. However, I don't ever think that he's advocated that everyone or anyone in specific do it, only that it's not necessary to tear down a perfectly running engine because of numbers in a log book and replace it with an unknown quantity. I've heard some awful overhaul nightmares...

I know more than a few people who take the "I add oil and gas and turn the key" approach... While this may work fine for you (I know of some [mostly Bonanza guys] who wear this doctrine like a badge of financial status, albeit a foolish one), it's not the best nor most safe way to maintain an aircraft in my humble opinion. Somehow as a community, we've gotten the false notion that spending money equals safety. It does not in my very factual experience. Maintaining Aircraft to a high standard equals safety; money can be well spent or poorly spent to that end (I've spent many $1000s on both in the past).

It was only after years of bloody knuckles and taking on in-depth projects that most owners would avoid that I saw how unacceptable the MX/owner relationship can be.

Just a few of the things that have happened to me personally:

1) Broken pieces from careless disassembly. Hidden only to be found years later.

2) Screw holes and nut plates stripped from improper hardware and sheet metal pierced from inappropriate length screws.

3) Bills padded for work not done or time billed exceeding what was realistic for work completed. (2.5hrs to replace an exhaust hangar last year.) 

4) Nose truss bent (likely at a MSC of all places)

5) A DOM that wanted to replace a bent nose truss with a new $1800 dollar one and insisted that LASAR was an illegal "chop shop" and that the legality of their beefed up unit was "questionable" at best.

I could go on, and on and on... with my own experiences as well as those of others that I've witnessed first hand. The point is, the skepticism that I've gained as I've become more mx savvy was hard won and far more expensive in terms of cash and time than $500

If spending $500 with Mike Busch could help an unknowing owner detect just a small fraction of the times when he's being had, then the seminar will pay for itself many times over inside of a few years... 

The other side of this is that as a white collar guy who exchanges it for a blue one on the weekends; I see guys get screwed on both sides. Lawyers, bankers, stock brokers, etc...often times stick it to a working guy who's not savvy enough to know when he's assumed the position. So he pays just the bill.  Just as a Lawyer has no idea if his "just out of warranty" BMW really needs 2 new $450 front brake calipers. So he pays just the bill.

Maybe it's a subtle cosmic balance for those that have specialized themselves out of any other process other than their own vocation... 

Mike Busch is just trying to make an honest dollar off of those who "know what they don't know", he's not telling anyone to fly there engine into the ground (figuratively... For those that "don't want to know what they don't know" ignorance is bliss. It's great for them to have the safest, most well maintained wnd expensively serviced bird on the field. Even it's only true in their head.  

BTW, I have never taken a Savvy Owner MX course, but I have enjoyed Mike's free webinars, lots of good and inexpensive info especially for a first time owner!

 

[jetdriven]

Thats great.  Until the plane wont start because of a bad impulse coupler ands you get a 3K bill to R&R it.  Hey, pay up buddy, if the mags are more thsan 3 degrees out of time they must be overhauled too with 12 hours labor to R&R.   

You should consider taking the plane to a different mechanic after 13 years.  Does he look at everythign, every time?  Lube the tail jackscrew every hundred hours? That's in the service manual. There is likely a whole list of things he hasnt noticed.  Of course, the buyer of your plane might.

 

Not to bust your butt. I am glad you have a good relationship and youre airplane expenses are nominal and your plane is maintained. There are a lot of hucksters out there, and lots of things covered up, etc.

[Becca]

Quote: Shadrach

3) Bills padded for work not done or time billed exceeding what was realistic for work completed. (2.5hrs to replace an exhaust hangar last year.)

[alex]

Quote: Becca

And? Is it for sale???

Let's see with the gear-up and in this condition, maybe a Savvy Aviator graduate would love to have it.  Of course, they could recognize the value in something that hasn't yet failed.

 

[alex]

Quote: jetdriven

And? Is it for sale???

Let's see with the gear-up and in this condition, maybe a Savvy Aviator graduate would love to have it.  Of course, they could recognize the value in something that hasn't yet failed.

 

[jetdriven]

Neither Mike Busch nor do I suggest flying past FAR requirements, AD's, or FAR 23 limitations. Those are non-negotiable. But replacing a primary alternator in a dual alternator airplane because it has 600 hours on it is completely asinine. 

For hire 135 operators are generally required to overhaul at TBO but our 135 company, for example, had a waiver for 20% over TBO based on their maintenance program.  121 airlines run everything on condition,  they take trend monitoring for this. Our GE CF34 CRJ engines were "power by the hour", it took automatic trend data and GE would say "do a hot section" or "take it off" based solely on condition. No calendar or hourly limits were considered.  Airlines also do ETOPS which has proven to be as reliable as a 4-engined plane.

 

So, can you answer my question?

please quantify with data how replacing parts based on some calendar or hour limit improves safety?

 

 

[Becca]

Quote: alex

Because of people like you, we were able to buy this airplane for far less many M20Js.  We paid a reduced value because its gear up history (15 years ago and a new engine since, I'd hardly consider that a risky proposition - after all, prior to this, I was renting planes and you should see THEIR histories!), mid-time engine, and high time prop.   Yet, despite these deductions it is still amazingly reliable (the only things that haven't been reliable were things we replaced shortly after purchase), does 155 kts, and 9 gph (LOP, of course) and the oil analysis we've sent in each 50 hrs (oh, I do the oil changes myself for the price of a case of oil, too cheap for you?) have returned perfect.  And we have money left over to paint it, buy expensive avionics, fly our plane across the country, and vacations to Italy, because we aren't spending it on unnecessary replacements of perfectly good equipment.  And yes, when we put it up for sale, it will be for less than a pristine Mooney because of this history, however, since we bought it for less, that's in the wash and we might do better because we'll be able to spend money on things that increase the value rather than replacing perfectly good parts.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: N4352H

I began a relationship with a Mooney Service Center 10 years ago. I have found an A&P/ IA who has done nothing but work on Mooney's for 30 years since retiring from the Airforce. No on the job training, no waste. My annuals have rarely ever exceeded $4,500-$5,000, which usually includes  pre-emptive, replacement items and maybe an upgrade. Every year, we sit down after they crack open the plane, look at AD's, my squawk list, their concerns from the year prior and the current squawk list. There is no carte blanche.

I simply have never had a problem. 13 years......900 hours. It's a great plane.

 

[jetdriven]

NVM

[Shadrach]

Quote: Becca

We lost an alternator right after we bought the plane.  I asked our highly experienced Mooney mechanic how many hours did he estimate a replacement would take.  The response "Well, honey, how many stars are there in the sky?"  And I said, "I don't know, but I presume you've replaced a few alternators before and can estimate the labor to within an hour or two."  Then I told him he was to call me if his labor exceeded a few hours.  When we picked up the plane, we were billed 1 hr for troubleshooting and 5 hrs (!!) for replacing the alternator.    I broke 5 hours after that because he didn't tighten the bolts, and then we replaced it ourselves under the supervision of a highly qualified non-Mooney mechanic and it took far less than 5 hrs - and that was the first time we replaced a Mooney alternator.  Trust but verify.

[John Pleisse]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

One more time....publicly touting flying engines past TBO by 900 hours, or failure when you are pitching weekend seminars and engine management theories isn't savvy. It lacks prudence and ethicacy.

Your results may vary.

[jetdriven]

I have asked you again this is the third time, what is Lycoming's official position on LOP ops, and has this differed from the paper written in 2000?

Math was discovered some years ago yet it hasnt changed much either.  Also, my graph was from an alternative fuel survey done in 2002, BTW.

Tell you what, engien shops replace plenty of cylinders and overhaul plenty of engines early and I would say that the VAST majoriry of them are run ROP. Just like that book from 1977 says to.  Why did all those cylinders need to be changed?

[Becca]

At any one time, there will be serveral variables affecting 50 LOP ops. Operating 100 ROP? Zero. I'll fly by the book, wait it out a bit longer and do the APS class......but listening to BS like 7 gph, and 260 CHT and listening to guys constantly whine over Lycoming's failed knowlege of 50 ROP.....doesn't do it for me.

 

[Becca]

Mike Busch fills a vaccum if you are hoping for a revelation, deeply frugal, an A&P or ardent do it yourselfer. IMHO, nothing beats a MSC.

 

[jetdriven]

Busch is an A&P, a 30-year aircraft owner (turbo 310 no less), and a comercial rated pilot who flies often. Whewn he speaks, I listen.  I also think he is more credible that a crusty old mechanic that spouts off engine operation philosophy when he is not a pilot anymorew than I would take proper go-around procedure in a 737 from a student pilot.  Some people have it, some people run their mouth.

Now, regarding 50 LOP etc. Continental has come out and admitted the earth is round. Lycoming is having a harder time with it. 1500 hours of single engine time, I finally discovered it myself.  I see no "going out on a limb" with 50 LOP at 65% power when we take regular trend sheets on the aircraft and it is consistently running cooler the leaner from peak. This is fact in our specific M20J, IO-360A3B6D application, and not voodoo "it feels wierd" ouija board decision making.  Come on, al the engineers on this board and you are overriding data on gut feelings?  We monitor all 4 CHT and if 280 or 330 CHT on the hottest cylinder is harming something, then I must be dense.  

I fly turbine airplanes for a living, and if pilots cannot be taught to manage their engine around peak EGT and use "do not exceed" parameters theh we are all in trouble. Turbines operate to within .1% or .5% of rated redline RPM on two different spools, and to within 10-20 of redline temperatures.   Exceed that and you just trashed a million dollar engine.  A Mooney is so much less demanding, it just makes the argument that pilots cannot manage a LOP piston laughable.

Quote: N4352H

Nobody argues the science, its the practical application and execution. This is Lycoming's rub. This is what varies widely. Just ask Performance or other overhaulers.....they won't go out on a limb until Lyc releases the hounds.

Mike Busch fills a vaccum if you are hoping for a revelation, deeply frugal, an A&P or ardent do it yourselfer. IMHO, nothing beats a MSC.

 

[jetdriven]

Here is some data for you.  LOP   If you want the blank excel sheet, you are welcome to it.   Let's see some more.

[Becca]

Park...I am cool with LOP, I cocede yet again it is fine to do......if you are up to the task.

 

[scottfromiowa]

I just ordered the G3 on "trial" for two months.  I look forward to installing as it will really graphically show the eninge temps and where I am from peak lean/rich for all four cylinders.  The device should be called EMME instead of G3 or "Engine Management Made Easy"...

[jetdriven]

Scott, couldnt hold out for the G2?

[bnicolette]

I'm with you John.  I put a lot of stock in an MSC and also my local shop.  Between the three of us I firmly believe that we have one of the most solid airplanes around.  I have good working relationship with my local shop as he used to work with me before working on the larger equipment as well, but was "raised" up working on the smaller aircraft and engines.  I can change the oil in my plane, but I elec to have my shop do it as it gives my plane another set of eyes looking at here when the cowling is off.  I also have him check the brakde reservoir back by the batery and that get's his eyes back into the fuselage.  I try and do this along with him but it's not always possible.  I ALWAYS want a second pair of eyes looking at my arplane no matter what and I consider myself pretty mechanically nclined and have the time (& lack) of money to just let him do it himsef, but it works out really well as we aer both looking over things when the airplane is opened up.  There are so many things that can be overlooked and probably do.........but we'll do what we should be able to do bast as pilot and that is manage risk.  I'm sure there are those out threre that think I am just wasiting money, but in my mind, it is spending money for a piece of mind that I did about all I could do to make sure that it is airworty at any given time.

It's all a trade off.  Mike's company is GREAT for those BIG money guys out there hthat have very little time, mechanical skills, knowhow, etc. and need somebody representing them in the maintenance shop.  We all know that there are those shops out there that will just rape and pillage you to the end if then can and this is where Mike's program really comes into play.  Kudos to mike for setting up that company.  I sort of have that relationship with my current shop in that they know my airplane so well by now that they would be my first call in the even of a mechanical while being a transient at an unfamiliar airport and not knowing exactly what is happening with my airplane.  It is just coporate aviation on a much smaller scale.  Owever wants an airplane but has no time to deal with that airplane and just wants to fly it.  He hires a person like Mike to manage the airplane for him.  It's a good service and will keep that owner much safer than he would be without Mike watching over his maintenance. (I think)

Let's face it.............There needs to be a bottom line in this discussion somewhere..................There are all kinds of planes, owners, mechanics, shops, etc.  The best thing to do is find a balance owner/mechanic/shop 3rd party maintenance management of this regarding your time, pocket power, knowledge.  I know that most of us have the way we do things, some may or maynot be as safe as others, some others may be overkill on what needs to actually be done on these things to be safe, well you get my drift.  it takes all kinds.  Thankfully, these things are very reliable and will more than likely start giving you signs she needs some attenetion wasy before she puts here foot down and just says..........okay........I quit..........I want it now.  We all need to be prudent to pay attention as the planes do talk to us and then take care of it in the best fiscal method you can.

 

Blue skies everybody,

B~

[John Pleisse]

Quote: jetdriven

 

[M016576]

Quote: jetdriven

Airlines are "cheap", by that definition too.

Here we go again with voodoo feelings vs. hard data.   I work for an airline, and everything is run on condition. We have engines with 20,000 on the last overhaul.  These airplanes have a safety record soem 50 times better than your "open checkbook" airplane.  Throwing money at the problem is not a solution. People soend 10K getting their autopilot worked on, and it still does not work. If you have the service manuals, and do some troubleshooting, and have an A&P with that mindset as well, you can fix it for 10% of the amount, and it works when it leaves.

Again, please quantify with data how replacing parts based on some calendar or hour limit improves safety? The part that is on your plane is working. The part you are putting on it may have an infant mortality event.

We just installed an electric ADI in our plane, and now we are going to run our 800 hour vacuum pump till failure.  Yes, right up until it quits.  What are the consequences of it failing? none. Does it affect safety?  no.  dispatch reliability?  no.

Prop has 12 years since new and 1400 hours.  Past the McCauley TBO.  Airworthy? yes.  Legal? yes.  Does replacing it with an overhauled unit make that next single hour more safe?  I believe, less safe.  What about the next ten hours? It might be trouble free, where it is as reliable as the one we took off. But more safe?  no.   Its just money.

Our cylinders are first run and yes, we are going to take those past TBO unless there is a reason to pull them off.  A reason, not a feeling.   So, there it is.

 

[danb35]

Quote: N4352H

 24KTG30....