Got *that* call today...

[Doug Vetter]

Well, the 172 went into annual this Monday. Only 35 hours on the clock
this year (criminal, I know). But I rationalized that number by figuring
there wouldn't be any surprises this week. Hehe. Boy was I wrong.

Yea, I knew going in that we'd have to pull the prop because our hub got
caught by a Hartzell AD. Courtesy of a blue light special from Hartzell
(bless their selfless hearts), the hub was 50% off for a limited time.
Add a reseal + shipping, and we're talking 2.2 AMUs for that alone.

Aside from a few minor issues we figured the annual inspection +
incidentals would run less than 2 AMUs as it usually does, or a bit over
4 AMUs.

And then I got the call.

Cracks in the spar of the horizontal stabilizer. Looks like we'll need
to send it out and have a new spar installed, which means a strip and
repaint so it doesn't look like garbage. He also found cracks in the
flap that, while not as critical, are best addressed at the same time
with new skins. Both parts can share the shipping crate and we'll be
mixing paint anyway...

The IA says the spar cracks are a fairly common issue with 172s. I knew
something like this plagued C150s (there was an AD on it), but regarding
the 172 this was news to me. Has anyone with a 172 or 182 been hit by
this?

If so, was there any means of compliance OTHER than a new spar?

Where did you have the work done?

What did it cost?

Thanks,

Doug
http://www.dvatp.com/

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Doug Vetter > wrote:

> The IA says the spar cracks are a fairly common issue with 172s. I knew
> something like this plagued C150s (there was an AD on it), but regarding
> the 172 this was news to me.

The easiest way to turn a 172 around on the ramp is to push down on the
horizontal stab until the nosewheel comes off the ground, then spin it
around wherever you want it.

It sounds like a great plan until your mechanic tells you your horizontal
stab spar has cracks in it.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> And then I got the call.

Every owner dreads that call. I think this is one main reason I have always
done owner-assisted annuals. It keeps me close to the action, and I don't
have to worry about "the call"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:
>In article >,
> Doug Vetter > wrote:
>
>The easiest way to turn a 172 around on the ramp is to push down on the
>horizontal stab until the nosewheel comes off the ground, then spin it
>around wherever you want it.

That's why I was taught to push down on the spine.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Vaughn Simon]

"Edward A. Falk" > wrote in message
...
> That's why I was taught to push down on the spine.

And why I was taught to always use the towbar. I haven't seen anyone push
down on a Cessna's tail in decades.

Vaughn

[Mark T. Dame]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Edward A. Falk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That's why I was taught to push down on the spine.
>
> And why I was taught to always use the towbar. I haven't seen anyone push
> down on a Cessna's tail in decades.

When I was in flight training for my private I flew 152s. It was common
practice to push down on the spine to spin it. However it was strictly
prohibited to do on the 172s. Now they prohibit doing it on the 152s as
well because too many people push down too hard smacking the tail into
the ground.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime
rates in the country."
-- Marion Barry, Mayor, Washington, D.C.

[[email protected]]

Doug,

Do you have a 180hp or something that uses the cs prop?

For learning, how did they observe the horizontal stab spar cracks?

Looking in from where? Can you see them?

Bill H. Loveland CO


On Feb 28, 7:00*pm, Doug Vetter > wrote:
> Well, the 172 went into annual this Monday. *Only 35 hours on the clock
> this year (criminal, I know). *But I rationalized that number by figuring
> there wouldn't be any surprises this week. *Hehe. *Boy was I wrong.
>
> Yea, I knew going in that we'd have to pull the prop because our hub got
> caught by a Hartzell AD. *Courtesy of a blue light special from Hartzell
> (bless their selfless hearts), the hub was 50% off for a limited time. *
> Add a reseal + shipping, and we're talking 2.2 AMUs for that alone.
>
> Aside from a few minor issues we figured the annual inspection +
> incidentals would run less than 2 AMUs as it usually does, or a bit over
> 4 AMUs.
>
> And then I got the call.
>
> Cracks in the spar of the horizontal stabilizer. *Looks like we'll need
> to send it out and have a new spar installed, which means a strip and
> repaint so it doesn't look like garbage. *He also found cracks in the
> flap that, while not as critical, are best addressed at the same time
> with new skins. *Both parts can share the shipping crate and we'll be
> mixing paint anyway...
>
> The IA says the spar cracks are a fairly common issue with 172s. *I knew



> something like this plagued C150s (there was an AD on it), but regarding
> the 172 this was news to me. *Has anyone with a 172 or 182 been hit by
> this? *
>
> If so, was there any means of compliance OTHER than a new spar? *
>
> Where did you have the work done?
>
> What did it cost?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Doughttp://www.dvatp.com/

[Marco Leon[_5_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5gLxj.54596$yE1.25832@attbi_s21...
>> And then I got the call.
>
> Every owner dreads that call. I think this is one main reason I have
> always done owner-assisted annuals. It keeps me close to the action, and
> I don't have to worry about "the call"...

So I guess for you Jay, it's a tap on the shoulder. "Umm Jay? Take a look at
this..."

Same damage to the wallet, no?

Marco

[Ross]

Doug Vetter wrote:
> Well, the 172 went into annual this Monday. Only 35 hours on the clock
> this year (criminal, I know). But I rationalized that number by figuring
> there wouldn't be any surprises this week. Hehe. Boy was I wrong.
>
> Yea, I knew going in that we'd have to pull the prop because our hub got
> caught by a Hartzell AD. Courtesy of a blue light special from Hartzell
> (bless their selfless hearts), the hub was 50% off for a limited time.
> Add a reseal + shipping, and we're talking 2.2 AMUs for that alone.
>
> Aside from a few minor issues we figured the annual inspection +
> incidentals would run less than 2 AMUs as it usually does, or a bit over
> 4 AMUs.
>
> And then I got the call.
>
> Cracks in the spar of the horizontal stabilizer. Looks like we'll need
> to send it out and have a new spar installed, which means a strip and
> repaint so it doesn't look like garbage. He also found cracks in the
> flap that, while not as critical, are best addressed at the same time
> with new skins. Both parts can share the shipping crate and we'll be
> mixing paint anyway...
>
> The IA says the spar cracks are a fairly common issue with 172s. I knew
> something like this plagued C150s (there was an AD on it), but regarding
> the 172 this was news to me. Has anyone with a 172 or 182 been hit by
> this?
>
> If so, was there any means of compliance OTHER than a new spar?
>
> Where did you have the work done?
>
> What did it cost?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Doug
> http://www.dvatp.com/

I have a 172 with a 360 hp lycoming. Where are the cracks and how did he
find them? I have not heard of this.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Ross]

Ross wrote:

> Doug Vetter wrote:
>
>> Well, the 172 went into annual this Monday. Only 35 hours on the
>> clock this year (criminal, I know). But I rationalized that number by
>> figuring there wouldn't be any surprises this week. Hehe. Boy was I
>> wrong.
>>
>> Yea, I knew going in that we'd have to pull the prop because our hub
>> got caught by a Hartzell AD. Courtesy of a blue light special from
>> Hartzell (bless their selfless hearts), the hub was 50% off for a
>> limited time. Add a reseal + shipping, and we're talking 2.2 AMUs for
>> that alone.
>>
>> Aside from a few minor issues we figured the annual inspection +
>> incidentals would run less than 2 AMUs as it usually does, or a bit
>> over 4 AMUs.
>>
>> And then I got the call.
>>
>> Cracks in the spar of the horizontal stabilizer. Looks like we'll
>> need to send it out and have a new spar installed, which means a strip
>> and repaint so it doesn't look like garbage. He also found cracks in
>> the flap that, while not as critical, are best addressed at the same
>> time with new skins. Both parts can share the shipping crate and
>> we'll be mixing paint anyway...
>>
>> The IA says the spar cracks are a fairly common issue with 172s. I
>> knew something like this plagued C150s (there was an AD on it), but
>> regarding the 172 this was news to me. Has anyone with a 172 or 182
>> been hit by this?
>> If so, was there any means of compliance OTHER than a new spar?
>> Where did you have the work done?
>>
>> What did it cost?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Doug
>> http://www.dvatp.com/
>
>
> I have a 172 with a 360 hp lycoming. Where are the cracks and how did he
> find them? I have not heard of this.
>

Let's make that a 180 hp / O-360 Lycoming! With that engine I should
have cracks...

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Edward A. Falk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That's why I was taught to push down on the spine.
>
> And why I was taught to always use the towbar. I haven't seen anyone
> push down on a Cessna's tail in decades.
>


Didn't have a tow bar for the Cessna I flew. But it just took a little push
to pop the tailwheel out of the detent, then it was real easy to move.
;-)
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:21:58 -0500, "Marco Leon"
> wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:5gLxj.54596$yE1.25832@attbi_s21...
>>> And then I got the call.
>>
>> Every owner dreads that call. I think this is one main reason I have
>> always done owner-assisted annuals. It keeps me close to the action, and
>> I don't have to worry about "the call"...
>
>So I guess for you Jay, it's a tap on the shoulder. "Umm Jay? Take a look at
>this..."
>
>Same damage to the wallet, no?
>
>Marco
>
>
The only difference is that when Jay's around the mechanic says Uh-Oh
instead of Cha-Ching. :)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Drew Dalgleish) wrote:

> The only difference is that when Jay's around the mechanic says Uh-Oh
> instead of Cha-Ching. :)

I've told my mechanics over and over that I do NOT want to hear "uh-oh"....

(I've also learned to hate "ya know, while you're at it....")

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:56:23 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote:
>
>I've told my mechanics over and over that I do NOT want to hear "uh-oh"....


Mine sez... "Ahhh... Jeeez..."

Same meaning!

[Doug Vetter]

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:42:42 -0800, wrote:
> Do you have a 180hp or something that uses the cs prop?

Yes on both. Avcon conversion, O-360-A with a Hartzell.

> For learning, how did they observe the horizontal stab spar cracks?
> Looking in from where? Can you see them?

I have not had the time to visit the shop this week so I haven't seen
them myself, but my partner did go to the shop this morning. He said the
cracks are on the forward spar (the one that always cracks because people
push down on the tail). They are "hairline" cracks a little over 1"
long. He said he can understand why our regular IA did not spot them.
They are quite hard to see.

This is reportedly a known weak point in the Cessna design and Cessna
provides a repair kit that apparently prevents the need to replace the
spar. We will have to remove one of the skins to install the kit,
though, and that's a job that will need to be sent out. The plus is my
IA has been through this before and even has a shipping crate on standby
for this...he won't have to build one from scratch (thank God for small
miracles).

FYI, the new Cessnas have this kit installed at the factory, so the
chance of them failing in the same way is somewhat less.

The strange thing about this is we do NOT push down on the tail to move
this airplane as a matter of course. I can count on one hand the number
of times I've pushed on the tail in the 14 years we've owned it, and I've
put virtually all of my weight on the whole tail section and not the
horizontal stab.

I hope to have pictures of the cracks up on my site at some point when we
get the old parts back.

Doug
http://www.dvatp.com/

[Doug Vetter]

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:23:04 -0600, Ross wrote:
> I have a 172 with a 360 hp lycoming. Where are the cracks and how did he
> find them? I have not heard of this.

See my response to Bill.

Doug
http://www.dvatp.com/

[[email protected]]

On Feb 29, 5:23 am, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Edward A. Falk" > wrote in ...
>
> > That's why I was taught to push down on the spine.
>
> And why I was taught to always use the towbar. I haven't seen anyone push
> down on a Cessna's tail in decades.
>
> Vaughn

And that's why Cessna has installed retractable pull-out handlebars in
the sides of the fuselage, just in front of the tail, on some later
model 182's. I don't know if this was standard or an option, but my
neighbor's 1978 C182 has them and they're quite handy for turning the
plane around in a tight area. It does take both of us to push down on
the handlebars enough to raise the nosewheel off the ground since the
182 is such a noseheavy beast. Too bad they didn't have these
handlebars as standard equipment on all 172's and 182s from the
beginning.

[Scott Skylane]

wrote:

>
> And that's why Cessna has installed retractable pull-out handlebars in
> the sides of the fuselage, just in front of the tail, on some later
> model 182's. I don't know if this was standard or an option, but my
> neighbor's 1978 C182 has them and they're quite handy for turning the
> plane around in a tight area. It does take both of us to push down on
> the handlebars enough to raise the nosewheel off the ground since the
> 182 is such a noseheavy beast. Too bad they didn't have these
> handlebars as standard equipment on all 172's and 182s from the
> beginning.

Actually, that's an aftermarket mod, never was a factory option. See:

http://www.basinc-aeromod.com/

It's intended for taildragger's, but a good idea for nosedragger's, too!

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 8:17 pm, Scott Skylane > wrote:
> Actually, that's an aftermarket mod, never was a factory option.

185s had them. Factory, I think.

For those that want to see the cracking spar, take off the two
fairing covers at the base of the fin. Four screws in each. With a
good flashlight, look forward from the rear of the airplane through
the big hole in the top of the middle of the stab and see the
lightening hole in the forward spar. Cracks will (hopefully not) be
seen radiating from that hole in a X fashion, diagonally upward and
downward. If you're really unlucky, there'll be four of them. With a
mirror, you can stand forward of the stab and get a good look, too. I
prefer that way, because I can then check the attach bolts through
that spar.

The OP should know that the SB says that cracks that do not reach
the spar flange radius can be stopdrilled and monitored. His mechanic
should take a close look at the SB again. The amount he flies, they
might go no farther.

I wonder how this airplane's previous owner moved the airplane. Or
has he had it since new? Has it had a lot of heavy, wet snow sitting
on it?

I once flew a 172 that handled all funny. When we got it home,
we opened thing up and found that spar cracked all the way through
both flanges. Only the skin was holding things together. I had one guy
hold one end of the stab still and I was able to move the other end up
and down an inch or two. Dangerous. And the wing strut lower attach
bolts had no nuts on them and were backing out. All this just after an
"annual." A drive-by annual, I think.

Dan

[karl mcgruber]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mar 4, 8:17 pm, Scott Skylane > wrote:
>> Actually, that's an aftermarket mod, never was a factory option.
>
> 185s had them. Factory, I think.
Both 180s and 185s had them from the factory. BTW, Bud (BAS) passed last
year. GREAT guy.

"Curator" Skywagon 185

[Dave[_19_]]

YIKES!

Ummmm..Cezznas don't really fly very well without these bolts.. :(

Dave


On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:32:52 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>On Mar 4, 8:17 pm, Scott Skylane > wrote:

And the wing strut lower attach
>bolts had no nuts on them and were backing out. All this just after an
>"annual." A drive-by annual, I think.
>
> Dan

[Scott Skylane]

karl mcgruber wrote:

>
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> On Mar 4, 8:17 pm, Scott Skylane > wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, that's an aftermarket mod, never was a factory option.
>>
>>
>> 185s had them. Factory, I think.
>
> Both 180s and 185s had them from the factory. BTW, Bud (BAS) passed last
> year. GREAT guy.
>
> "Curator" Skywagon 185

To clarify my un-clear post, I was referring only to 182's. Sorry to
hear about Bud.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Doug Vetter]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:32:52 -0800, Dan_Thomas_nospam wrote:
> The OP should know that the SB says that cracks that do not reach
> the spar flange radius can be stopdrilled and monitored. His mechanic
> should take a close look at the SB again. The amount he flies, they
> might go no farther.

I should have obtained a copy of the SB but I've been way too busy this
week to deal with this. Still haven't seen the cracks myself, but my
partner in the airplane is a professional photographer and he took some
pictures of them yesterday. I should have them soon.

From my IA's description, the cracks radiate from the edge of the
lightening hole about 1" each. Not sure if they reach the flange
radius. I'll call him and ask.

Thanks for the info.

Doug
http://www.dvatp.com/

[Doug Vetter]

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:00:14 +0000, Doug Vetter wrote:
> Well, the 172 went into annual this Monday.

A follow-up on this topic:

Saw the cracks today -- well, pictures of them anyway, as the stabilizer
itself is well on its way to the repair facility.

The cracks don't reach the spar flange. If the information provided by
Dan is correct I suppose the cracks could have been stop-drilled. But
the cracks weren't the only problem -- the spar is buckled in that area
as well. That is particularly surprising given that the area is already
doubled up. The crack penetrated both layers.

I still can't be 100% sure of how or when the damage occurred but to my
admittedly untrained eye it appears to be the result of an asymmetrical
load, as would be the case if someone applied a force to one side of the
horizontal stabilizer to move the airplane. If the damage was caused by
a flight load I would expect the cracks and buckling to take the form of
a triangle like /\ or \/ depending on the direction of the load, rather
than the angled (/) nature of this damage. Perhaps someone with a
mechanical or aeronautical engineering background could shed some light
on my hypothesis.

In any case, the "real" damage appears to be 1.2 AMUs for the repair,
plus any painting required. Interestingly, an outright exchange
horizontal stabilizer was quoted as 3.2 AMUs, so I'm glad we went the
repair route.

On another note, the flap skins (being done by the same shop) will
reportedly run a "mere" 0.8 AMUs, but the flap will definitely need to be
painted and we're not yet sure how best to approach that. Two basic
options: take it to an aircraft refinisher and have it shot with the
original Jet-Glo, or take it to a trusted auto body shop and shoot it
with a base coat / clear coat system. The Jet-Glo will probably produce
a better result, but at substantially higher cost.

On the plus side, we also got the prop back with the new hub installed.
The design improvements are substantial and obvious. I would say to
anyone on the fence about the hub upgrade -- just do it. Expensive, yes,
but it beats the odd chance of throwing a blade. Compare the new and old
hubs in my gallery:

http://www.dvatp.com/gallery/

Thanks to all who responded to the thread.

Doug
http://www.dvatp.com/

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 4:10 pm, Doug Vetter > wrote:
> I still can't be 100% sure of how or when the damage occurred but to my
> admittedly untrained eye it appears to be the result of an asymmetrical
> load, as would be the case if someone applied a force to one side of the
> horizontal stabilizer to move the airplane. If the damage was caused by
> a flight load I would expect the cracks and buckling to take the form of
> a triangle like /\ or \/ depending on the direction of the load, rather
> than the angled (/) nature of this damage. Perhaps someone with a
> mechanical or aeronautical engineering background could shed some light
> on my hypothesis.

Either someone push down well out on the stab, or some twerp
sat his kid on the thing. That sort of thing happens, especially at
airshows or fly-ins where the non-aviation public is allowed near the
airplanes, or if the thing is tied down at some unfenced airport. I've
read stories of guys with their precious expensive aircraft having to
shoo people like that away, just because they're going to climb on or
let their kid climb on or set their kid on the airplane. I wonder how
they'd react if you climbed on their nice cars?
Anyhoo, if the spar is buckled it's not airworthy regardless of
any cracking.

Dan

[Doug Vetter]

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:00:14 +0000, Doug Vetter wrote:
> And then I got the call.
>
> Cracks in the spar of the horizontal stabilizer.

Just figured I'd post a follow-up to this thread. Our horizontal stab
and flap came back from the repair station recommended by our mechanic -
Williams Airmotive in Indiana.

Aside from a small communication problem with regard to payment, they
turned the parts around quickly. My estimate is that the parts took
three days to make the trip each way from NJ and they had the work done
in two days.

The fix to the horizontal stabilizer appears to be a new center section
that doubles the forward spar and binds it together farther outboard,
thus reducing the effects of any twisting moments. The skins are peeled
back only slightly, which means we'll only need to touch up the rivets --
we have been spared a costly repaint of the entire stabilizer. The flap,
of course, will need to be fully stripped and painted.

It may be another couple of weeks before we get the airplane back in
flyable condition, but all in all I'm glad we got this fixed. Williams'
cost for the horizontal stab was 1.3 AMUs while the flap was 0.9 AMUs,
including shipping. Paint for the flap will probably be 0.3 AMUs, and we
expect to paint the new rivet heads on the horizontal stab using a bottle
of touch up from the paint mixed for the flap. Should look as good as
new in a couple weeks.

Pictures are in the gallery:

http://www.dvatp.com/gallery/

Doug
http://www.dvatp.com/

[~^ beancounter ~^]

jump seat in a 737?? sweeettt.........

‹(•¿•)›





On Mar 30, 7:28*am, Doug Vetter > wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:00:14 +0000, Doug Vetter wrote:
> > And then I got the call.
>
> > Cracks in the spar of the horizontal stabilizer.
>
> Just figured I'd post a follow-up to this thread. *Our horizontal stab
> and flap came back from the repair station recommended by our mechanic -
> Williams Airmotive in Indiana.
>
> Aside from a small communication problem with regard to payment, they
> turned the parts around quickly. *My estimate is that the parts took
> three days to make the trip each way from NJ and they had the work done
> in two days.
>
> The fix to the horizontal stabilizer appears to be a new center section
> that doubles the forward spar and binds it together farther outboard,
> thus reducing the effects of any twisting moments. *The skins are peeled
> back only slightly, which means we'll only need to touch up the rivets --
> we have been spared a costly repaint of the entire stabilizer. *The flap,
> of course, will need to be fully stripped and painted.
>
> It may be another couple of weeks before we get the airplane back in
> flyable condition, but all in all I'm glad we got this fixed. *Williams'
> cost for the horizontal stab was 1.3 AMUs while the flap was 0.9 AMUs,
> including shipping. *Paint for the flap will probably be 0.3 AMUs, and we
> expect to paint the new rivet heads on the horizontal stab using a bottle
> of touch up from the paint mixed for the flap. *Should look as good as
> new in a couple weeks.
>
> Pictures are in the gallery:
>
> http://www.dvatp.com/gallery/
>
> Doughttp://www.dvatp.com/

[~^ beancounter ~^]

some great shots there doug, in your aviation section...thanx !!!





~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> jump seat in a 737?? sweeettt.........
>
> �(���)�
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 30, 7:28�am, Doug Vetter > wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:00:14 +0000, Doug Vetter wrote:
> > > And then I got the call.
> >
> > > Cracks in the spar of the horizontal stabilizer.
> >
> > Just figured I'd post a follow-up to this thread. �Our horizontal stab
> > and flap came back from the repair station recommended by our mechanic -
> > Williams Airmotive in Indiana.
> >
> > Aside from a small communication problem with regard to payment, they
> > turned the parts around quickly. �My estimate is that the parts took
> > three days to make the trip each way from NJ and they had the work done
> > in two days.
> >
> > The fix to the horizontal stabilizer appears to be a new center section
> > that doubles the forward spar and binds it together farther outboard,
> > thus reducing the effects of any twisting moments. �The skins are peeled
> > back only slightly, which means we'll only need to touch up the rivets --
> > we have been spared a costly repaint of the entire stabilizer. �The flap,
> > of course, will need to be fully stripped and painted.
> >
> > It may be another couple of weeks before we get the airplane back in
> > flyable condition, but all in all I'm glad we got this fixed. �Williams'
> > cost for the horizontal stab was 1.3 AMUs while the flap was 0.9 AMUs,
> > including shipping. �Paint for the flap will probably be 0.3 AMUs, and we
> > expect to paint the new rivet heads on the horizontal stab using a bottle
> > of touch up from the paint mixed for the flap. �Should look as good as
> > new in a couple weeks.
> >
> > Pictures are in the gallery:
> >
> > http://www.dvatp.com/gallery/
> >
> > Doughttp://www.dvatp.com/

[Doug Vetter]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:44:48 -0700, ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
>jump seat in a 737?? sweeettt.........
>some great shots there doug, in your aviation section...thanx !!!

Yea, that was a present from some old-timer buddies for getting my ATP.
Couldn't have asked for a more appropriate gift.

Glad you enjoyed the pics.

Doug
http://www.dvatp.com/

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Pictures are in the gallery:
>
> http://www.dvatp.com/gallery/

Hey, I had a "bag phone" just like that one in your photo gallery, bolted to
the floor of my van!

They may have been primitive by today's standards, but I'll tell you what:
The sound quality was a thousand times better than the digital crap we have
nowadays.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Doug Vetter]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:37:29 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:
> Hey, I had a "bag phone" just like that one in your photo gallery,
> bolted to the floor of my van!
>
> They may have been primitive by today's standards, but I'll tell you
> what: The sound quality was a thousand times better than the digital
> crap we have nowadays.

When the signal was strong, I agree. But after driving around a bit with
that phone I was reminded of how crappy analog communications can be with
a marginal signal.

The earliest CDMA digital phones sounded great, but that's because they
used 13Kb vocoders. The reason the latest phones sound worse is because
they're using 8Kb vocoders -- they're trying to represent the human voice
with less data. It's the equivalent of sampling an MP3 at 64Kbps vs.
256Kbps. It just doesn't sound the same. Blame the carriers and their
penny pinching.

The good news is that at least one of the largest providers (Verizon) is
planning to dump the proprietary CDMA phones, transform their networks
into a mobile equivalent of the Internet and allow everyone to operate
whatever hardware devices they want to bring to the party. Presumably
this would allow the use of higher bitrate vocoders and a return to
better audio fidelity...kind of like what Vonage has done for Plain Old
Telephone Service (POTS).

But change like that takes years. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Doug
http://www.dvatp.com/