Mogas-Sipping Cessna 172G

[172flyer]

1966 Cessna 172G N3906L, s/n 17254075
3420 TT
Continental Engine majored with new main and rod bearings and Six New
Superior Millenium cylinders
Yellow tags from Aircraft Specialties and Piedmont Triad for camshaft,
lifters, and crankshaft.
Marvel-Schebler Carburetor rebuilt

Fresh Annual
Autogas STC
Wingtip strobes
Lord Shimmy Dampener
Garmin GMA 340 audio panel with 4-place intercom and 4-place headset
jacks
King KX155 with glideslope
Spare Narco Comm for 123.45
King KR86 ADF with Separate Nav Head
Garmin GTX 320 Transponder with encoder
Electronics International 6-probe EGT for Economy Cruise

Gorgeous fresh interior-new carpet, upholstery, headliner, ABS
restored, leather glareshield, new eyebrow, leather hand-holds
Yokes refinished in satin powdercoat
New Spinner bulkheads
Rebuilt Nosegear with new nosegear O-rings and seals
Engine Baffling rebuilt and alodined, with new reinforced baffle seals
Fuel system rebuilt with new Cessna selector valve O-rings

Fresh Exterior cosmetics, including new fiberglass wing and tail tips
New ELT Battery
Excellent Complete Logs
Rebuilt Battery Box
Airframe Treated against Corrosion with ACF-50
Excellent Tires
200 Hours on New Slick Magnetos
Fresh Brake Pads
Clean Airframe --- No Corrosion, No Hail Damage

Great IFR airplane
Fresh IFR Certification

$41,500

E-Mail for photos.

[RST Engineering]

Why would you have a spare comm for 123.45 unless the aircraft is in Europe
where this is a legitimate, legal frequency to use?

Jim



"172flyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 1966 Cessna 172G N3906L, s/n 17254075


> Spare Narco Comm for 123.45

[172flyer]

Public Notice


I've done some research on the frequency 123.45 and, although having
never used it, find it is not the proper frequency to use for USA
air-to-air, pilot-to-pilot communications, which should be on
frequencies like 122.75 or 122.85.

Always check the FAR's and AIM.

Weir says improper use can result in a prison sentence and $10,000
fine. In addition I saw an older post indicating he is very touchy
about this frequency and even threatens to sue anyone in his bailiwick
who uses it without authorization.

[Robert Chambers]

172flyer wrote:
> Public Notice
>
>
> I've done some research on the frequency 123.45 and, although having
> never used it, find it is not the proper frequency to use for USA
> air-to-air, pilot-to-pilot communications, which should be on
> frequencies like 122.75 or 122.85.
>
> Always check the FAR's and AIM.
>
> Weir says improper use can result in a prison sentence and $10,000
> fine. In addition I saw an older post indicating he is very touchy
> about this frequency and even threatens to sue anyone in his bailiwick
> who uses it without authorization.
>
Perhaps he invented it?

It's quite a popular frequency around the northeastern US. The other
day I heard what sounded like Russian over it. Nobody uses tail numbers
though.

[RST Engineering]

No, the FCC invented it. I wouldn't have given a damn if they had invented
ANY frequency in the VHF com band, but the FCC has designated 123.4 and
123.45 as Flight Test frequencies. You know, like assembling expensive
aircraft time, engineering time, test pilot time, and all that stuff
together, getting halfway through some critical test where time is a factor,
and having the whole test blown out of the water with Jerknose Joe gabbing
about nothing in particular with Wingman Wally.

You MIGHT ask the pilot of the Coors Silver Bullet BD-5 how much it cost him
when the FCC nailed him using these frequencies as his airshow-to-ground
frequencies.

Capiche?

Jim



"Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
...


>
> It's quite a popular frequency around the northeastern US. The other day
> I heard what sounded like Russian over it. Nobody uses tail numbers
> though.

[172flyer]

What DID it cost the Silver Bullet pilot?

It might be good for more pilots to know because I just talked to
several pilots here in the East who say they have used that frequency
for informal pilot-to-pilot communications.

It is so easy to remember, much easier than the chat frequencies so
designated.
So naturally they're going to dial that one in if they can.

[Dave Stadt]

Maybe not legal but is commonly in the midwest also.

"172flyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What DID it cost the Silver Bullet pilot?
>
> It might be good for more pilots to know because I just talked to
> several pilots here in the East who say they have used that frequency
> for informal pilot-to-pilot communications.
>
> It is so easy to remember, much easier than the chat frequencies so
> designated.
> So naturally they're going to dial that one in if they can.
>

[RST Engineering]

"172flyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What DID it cost the Silver Bullet pilot?

The Fed that reported back to me said that part of the settlement was
"substantial monetary fine" and that part of the settlement was an agreement
to keep the particulars confidential. What is "substantial" to one may be
pocket change to another. I did not attempt to pry.

>
> It might be good for more pilots to know because I just talked to
> several pilots here in the East who say they have used that frequency
> for informal pilot-to-pilot communications.

And I know several pilots who think that right traffic is always OK so long
as the field is uncontrolled. Somehow that part of the regs didn't imprint
on them during their training.


>
> It is so easy to remember, much easier than the chat frequencies so
> designated.
> So naturally they're going to dial that one in if they can.

And it is easier for me just to go ahead and land unannounced at ORD rather
than go through all the hassle of approach, tower, ground control and all
that mess. Easy and legal generally don't bear much resemblance to one
another.

Jim

[RST Engineering]

I wouldn't do it around Wichita, Olathe, Alexandria, or anywhere else there
was an airframe or accessory manufacturer.

Jim


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Maybe not legal but is commonly in the midwest also.

[Scott Skylane]

RST Engineering wrote:
> No, the FCC invented it. I wouldn't have given a damn if they had invented
> ANY frequency in the VHF com band, but the FCC has designated 123.4 and
> 123.45 as Flight Test frequencies./snip/

123.45 is also designated for "Air to Air, Worldwide Remote Oceanic Areas".

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[RST Engineering]

No argument. However, my original answer asked why a single engine Cessna
had a radio installed for 123.45. Not many single engine Cessnas for sale
in the Northeastern USA are going to be flying in Remote Oceanic Areas.

The reason, of course, is that there won't be any interference with R&D
testing by manufacturers in Remote Oceanic Areas.

Jim



"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> No, the FCC invented it. I wouldn't have given a damn if they had
>> invented ANY frequency in the VHF com band, but the FCC has designated
>> 123.4 and 123.45 as Flight Test frequencies./snip/
>
> 123.45 is also designated for "Air to Air, Worldwide Remote Oceanic
> Areas".
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane