Depression after Washing [Archive]

Mike[_22_]

June 27th 08, 03:45 AM

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> My kid and I just washed the plane. Even after washing it, there are
> still chips of paint missing, a bit of rust, a drip-stain of fuel, and
> so on. The panel looks like it has been modified every once in a
> while since 1966. My plane is relatively nice compared to the other
> ones on the field, but it's still in worse cosmetic condition than my
> car.
>
> None of these problems is a safety issue, and none of them could be
> fixed without spending significant time and/or money.
>
> One of the reasons we own airplanes is pride of ownership.
>
> This makes me sad. Makes me want to sell and rent.

It's possible to restore old paint. You'd be surprised what you can polish
out. Older planes were actually painted with very high quality paint that
can be restored. Chips can be polished and filled with paint. There's not
much you can do with rust spots other than remove it and have the paint
matched, but it should at least be tended to before it gets worse. You can
either have all that done professionally or you can do it yourself. The
following web site would be a great place to start:

http://www.autopia.org/forum/guide-detailing/

Maxwell[_2_]

June 27th 08, 03:52 AM

Mike[_22_]

June 27th 08, 03:54 AM

"GMOD10X" > wrote in message
...
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Renting is far more depressing,.
>>
>> Yes, but the depression only lasts for a short while. When I leave
>> the airplane, and all the problems and expenses of ownership, sitting on
>> the ramp, I always leave with a happy smile on my face. Renting rocks!
>>
>> Vaughn
>>
>>
>>
>
> In this day and age of high cost's and excessive liability renting is
> becoming more economical and practical than owning

It depends on how much you fly.

Renting sucks. Squawks that never get fixed (even those that are safety
issues). Availability. Minimum hour charges that make it practically
impossible to take a vacation for more than a weekend. People who bitch if
you bring the plane back 5 minutes late. Many FBOs are now requiring
renter's insurance which means YOU carry the liability, and even if they
don't require it you'd better have it because for any damage to the plane
they are going to come after you. On and on it goes.

If you only go out for a $100 hamburger once a month, renting is probably a
great option. However if you do more than 100 hrs per year, you should at
least consider partnership or club options.

Maxwell[_2_]

June 27th 08, 04:35 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Except for you, of course, since noone in their right mind would let oyu
> have an airplane solo...
>
>
> Bertie

And how would you know liar boi?

Larry Dighera

June 27th 08, 04:41 AM

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:42:04 -0400, GMOD10X > wrote
in >:

>Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Renting is far more depressing,.
>>
>> Yes, but the depression only lasts for a short while. When I leave the
>> airplane, and all the problems and expenses of ownership, sitting on the ramp, I
>> always leave with a happy smile on my face. Renting rocks!
>>
>> Vaughn
>>
>>
>>
>
>In this day and age of high cost's and excessive liability
>renting is becoming more economical and practical than owning

Not so. Sharing a plane among three or four pilot/owners makes it
affordable and fun.

Mxsmanic

June 27th 08, 05:20 AM

Charles Talleyrand writes:

> My kid and I just washed the plane. Even after washing it, there are
> still chips of paint missing, a bit of rust, a drip-stain of fuel, and
> so on. The panel looks like it has been modified every once in a
> while since 1966. My plane is relatively nice compared to the other
> ones on the field, but it's still in worse cosmetic condition than my
> car.
>
> None of these problems is a safety issue, and none of them could be
> fixed without spending significant time and/or money.
>
> One of the reasons we own airplanes is pride of ownership.
>
> This makes me sad. Makes me want to sell and rent.

It's a very expensive hobby.

Mxsmanic

June 27th 08, 05:21 AM

Larry Dighera writes:

> Not so. Sharing a plane among three or four pilot/owners makes it
> affordable and fun.

That requires a great deal of trust in the other pilots/owners.

Buster Hymen

June 27th 08, 06:17 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Not so. Sharing a plane among three or four pilot/owners makes it
>> affordable and fun.
>
> That requires a great deal of trust in the other pilots/owners.

How would you know? You don't fly. You've never owned an airplane.
You've never dealt with other pilots as a pilot. Go stick your head back
up your ass where it does something useful, fjjuktjard.

Buster Hymen

June 27th 08, 06:18 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Charles Talleyrand writes:
>
>> My kid and I just washed the plane. Even after washing it, there are
>> still chips of paint missing, a bit of rust, a drip-stain of fuel, and
>> so on. The panel looks like it has been modified every once in a
>> while since 1966. My plane is relatively nice compared to the other
>> ones on the field, but it's still in worse cosmetic condition than my
>> car.
>>
>> None of these problems is a safety issue, and none of them could be
>> fixed without spending significant time and/or money.
>>
>> One of the reasons we own airplanes is pride of ownership.
>>
>> This makes me sad. Makes me want to sell and rent.
>
> It's a very expensive hobby.
>

Only for life losers like you, Anthony.

Charles Talleyrand

June 27th 08, 07:07 AM

On Jun 26, 10:45 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > My kid and I just washed the plane. Even after washing it, there are
> > still chips of paint missing, a bit of rust, a drip-stain of fuel, and
> > so on. The panel looks like it has been modified every once in a
> > while since 1966. My plane is relatively nice compared to the other
> > ones on the field, but it's still in worse cosmetic condition than my
> > car.
>
> > None of these problems is a safety issue, and none of them could be
> > fixed without spending significant time and/or money.
>
> > One of the reasons we own airplanes is pride of ownership.
>
> > This makes me sad. Makes me want to sell and rent.
>
> It's possible to restore old paint. You'd be surprised what you can polish
> out. Older planes were actually painted with very high quality paint that
> can be restored. Chips can be polished and filled with paint. There's not
> much you can do with rust spots other than remove it and have the paint
> matched, but it should at least be tended to before it gets worse. You can
> either have all that done professionally or you can do it yourself. The
> following web site would be a great place to start:

It's not old paint. The paint is probably only six years old. My car
is also six years old, but I know I can replace my car when ever I get
sick of it. Planes are not so easy to exchange, and I would just get
another old plane anyway. At least this one has very few non-cosmetic
squawks (dang nose wheel shimmy).

I could rent and save money and still fly the same amount, but then I
would not have pride of ownership. I have a $20,000 Cessna 150. It
flies just fine but the cosmetics just don't touch a $20,000 car.
This reduces the pride of ownership and makes me more likely to sell
and rent. Of course renting is a pain in the butt here (there is one
plane; everyone must share it).

-still sad

Larry Dighera

June 27th 08, 08:23 AM

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:21:31 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Not so. Sharing a plane among three or four pilot/owners makes it
>> affordable and fun.
>
>That requires a great deal of trust in the other pilots/owners.

Why?

It requires that they be responsible adults, preferably business
people who can afford to own 1/3 of an aircraft.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 27th 08, 09:18 AM

Gene Seibel

June 27th 08, 02:06 PM

On Jun 26, 5:22*pm, Charles Talleyrand > wrote:
> My kid and I just washed the plane. *Even after washing it, there are
> still chips of paint missing, a bit of rust, a drip-stain of fuel, and
> so on. *The panel looks like it has been modified every once in a
> while since 1966. *My plane is relatively nice compared to the other
> ones on the field, but it's still in worse cosmetic condition than my
> car.
>
> None of these problems is a safety issue, and none of them could be
> fixed without spending significant time and/or money.
>
> One of the reasons we own airplanes is pride of ownership.
>
> This makes me sad. *Makes me want to sell and rent.

Our '66 is cosmetically challenged. Sometimes it depresses me for a
moment or two, but the second we start that takeoff run, nothing but
flying is on my mind. My money is going into hours in the air. That's
why I bought it. I notice that most of the people who have commented
about the condition, age, or speed of my airplanes don't even have one
and fly far less than I do or not at all.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

Gig 601Xl Builder

June 27th 08, 04:14 PM

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

>
> It's not old paint. The paint is probably only six years old. My car
> is also six years old, but I know I can replace my car when ever I get
> sick of it. Planes are not so easy to exchange, and I would just get
> another old plane anyway. At least this one has very few non-cosmetic
> squawks (dang nose wheel shimmy).
>
> I could rent and save money and still fly the same amount, but then I
> would not have pride of ownership. I have a $20,000 Cessna 150. It
> flies just fine but the cosmetics just don't touch a $20,000 car.
> This reduces the pride of ownership and makes me more likely to sell
> and rent. Of course renting is a pain in the butt here (there is one
> plane; everyone must share it).
>
> -still sad

There's always the option to repaint. :)

JGalban via AviationKB.com

June 27th 08, 05:55 PM

GMOD10X wrote:
>
>In this day and age of high cost's and excessive liability
>renting is becoming more economical and practical than owning

Depends on the type of flying you do. For just boring holes in the sky and
$100 hamburgers, you're correct. On the other hand, if you actually use a
plane for going places, renting is not very practical.

Maintenance is probably the biggest cost issue for me. I could reduce
that by doing more of my own work (I know several IAs that would sign off my
work), but I just don't have the time. When I'm not working, I'd rather
spend my limited free time flying.

Not sure what "excessive liability" means. My airplane insurance has
always cost less than my car insurance (for triple the coverage).

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200806/1

Mike[_22_]

June 27th 08, 06:20 PM

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 26, 10:45 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > My kid and I just washed the plane. Even after washing it, there are
>> > still chips of paint missing, a bit of rust, a drip-stain of fuel, and
>> > so on. The panel looks like it has been modified every once in a
>> > while since 1966. My plane is relatively nice compared to the other
>> > ones on the field, but it's still in worse cosmetic condition than my
>> > car.
>>
>> > None of these problems is a safety issue, and none of them could be
>> > fixed without spending significant time and/or money.
>>
>> > One of the reasons we own airplanes is pride of ownership.
>>
>> > This makes me sad. Makes me want to sell and rent.
>>
>> It's possible to restore old paint. You'd be surprised what you can
>> polish
>> out. Older planes were actually painted with very high quality paint
>> that
>> can be restored. Chips can be polished and filled with paint. There's
>> not
>> much you can do with rust spots other than remove it and have the paint
>> matched, but it should at least be tended to before it gets worse. You
>> can
>> either have all that done professionally or you can do it yourself. The
>> following web site would be a great place to start:
>
>
> It's not old paint. The paint is probably only six years old. My car
> is also six years old, but I know I can replace my car when ever I get
> sick of it. Planes are not so easy to exchange, and I would just get
> another old plane anyway. At least this one has very few non-cosmetic
> squawks (dang nose wheel shimmy).

If the paint is only 6 years old, it probably used a clear coat system. It
can still be restored as it probably isn't old enough to have lost the clear
coat finish. Oxidation is fairly easy to deal with, it just takes a bit of
work. A good quality mechanical polisher and the no-how to use it can make
a tremendous difference.

Viperdoc[_4_]

June 27th 08, 07:04 PM

My understanding is that most commercially available airplane paints are
single stage (Imron and Jetglow), and are usually not clear coated.

Mxsmanic

June 27th 08, 08:32 PM

Larry Dighera writes:

> Why?

They might total the airplane that you share. They might not maintain it
properly. They might damage it without telling anyone. There are many
possibilities.

> It requires that they be responsible adults, preferably business
> people who can afford to own 1/3 of an aircraft.

Many adults aren't that responsible. Pilots get themselves killed often
enough; why would they be any more cautious for someone else's sake?

Mike[_22_]

June 27th 08, 08:50 PM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> My understanding is that most commercially available airplane paints are
> single stage (Imron and Jetglow), and are usually not clear coated.

Since he had a 150 and the paint was 6 years old, I'm assuming it's
aftermarket and they used a cheaper clearcoat system especially since it's
already started to fail after 6 years, but this may be a bad assumption.

[email protected]

June 27th 08, 09:15 PM

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Larry Dighera writes:

> > Why?

> They might total the airplane that you share. They might not maintain it
> properly. They might damage it without telling anyone. There are many
> possibilities.

About the only impossibility is that you would ever get a clue.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Larry Dighera

June 27th 08, 09:16 PM

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:32:53 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Why?
>
>They might total the airplane that you share.

That's always a possibility, and one of the many reasons that
liability and hull insurance is mandatory.

>They might not maintain it properly.

While that may happen inadvertently, because they have a financial
interest in the airplane, it's not likely to be done deliberately.
There is only a limited amount of maintenance federal regulations
permit pilots to perform. For all else, an FAA certificated Airframe
and Powerplant mechanic must perform or directly supervise the work,
and sign the aircraft log books. Also, an FAA certificated Inspector
of Aircraft must annually attest to the airplane's compliance with
regulations and airworthiness requirements by signing the aircraft's
log books, so it's not likely anything will slip by unnoticed for too
long.

>They might damage it without telling anyone.

I presume you mean accidentally. Pilots examine the airplane before
each flight, so any visible damage would be discovered promptly. The
person responsible could be determined fairly easily. If the damage
is not immediately visible, it will most probably be discovered at the
next annual inspection.

In my experience, this isn't an issue, but in any case the cost to
repair the damage would be split among the pilots.

>There are many possibilities.

Indeed. On of the most important possibilities for trouble is the
liability exposure in the event of a crash. That can be addressed
easily by forming a Nevada/Delaware corporation to hold title to the
aircraft.

>
>> It requires that they be responsible adults, preferably business
>> people who can afford to own 1/3 of an aircraft.
>
>Many adults aren't that responsible.

Of course one must exercise caution in his business affairs. Normally
the all "aircraft owners" (and the insurance underwriter) must approve
of each other, and any new or replacement "owners." Mistakes in
judgment can be made, but the history of every pilot is somewhat
documented in their log books, and by the FAA/NTSB, and their medical
condition is officially checked by an FAA certificated Aviation
Medical Examiner periodically, so it's not as likely as one might
expect in other situations.

>Pilots get themselves killed often enough; why would they be any more
>cautious for someone else's sake?

Natural Selection soon eliminates pilots who are imprudent from the
ranks, so I don't see that as a significant risk, unless the pilot is
inexperienced. But pilot experience is documented and one of the
membership criteria, hopefully.

There are all sorts of risks in life. If we didn't take some risk, we
wouldn't do anything worthwhile. It all boils down to knowledge,
wisdom, and judgment. It usually doesn't take long to spot
unacceptable character flaws or personality defects. Should that be
the case with one of the "owners," the others by him out. Simple.

Maxwell[_2_]

June 27th 08, 10:18 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Why?
>
> They might total the airplane that you share. They might not maintain it
> properly. They might damage it without telling anyone. There are many
> possibilities.
>
>> It requires that they be responsible adults, preferably business
>> people who can afford to own 1/3 of an aircraft.
>
> Many adults aren't that responsible. Pilots get themselves killed often
> enough; why would they be any more cautious for someone else's sake?

Your assumptions are proving your ignorance and inexperience.

gatt[_5_]

June 28th 08, 12:28 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Larry Dighera writes:

> They might total the airplane that you share. They might not maintain it
> properly. They might damage it without telling anyone. There are many
> possibilities.

Thanks for clearing that up for all the pilots and aircraft owners,
Anthony. I'm sure without your experience it would never occur to them.

-c

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 28th 08, 01:00 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Larry Dighera writes:
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> They might total the airplane that you share. They might not
>> maintain it properly. They might damage it without telling anyone.
>> There are many possibilities.
>>
>>> It requires that they be responsible adults, preferably business
>>> people who can afford to own 1/3 of an aircraft.
>>
>> Many adults aren't that responsible. Pilots get themselves killed
>> often enough; why would they be any more cautious for someone else's
>> sake?
>
> Your assumptions are proving your ignorance and inexperience.
>
>
>

Your posts are proving you're a loon.

bertie

Margy Natalie

June 28th 08, 02:39 AM

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> On Jun 26, 10:45 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>>"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>>
...
>>
>>
>>>My kid and I just washed the plane. Even after washing it, there are
>>>still chips of paint missing, a bit of rust, a drip-stain of fuel, and
>>>so on. The panel looks like it has been modified every once in a
>>>while since 1966. My plane is relatively nice compared to the other
>>>ones on the field, but it's still in worse cosmetic condition than my
>>>car.
>>
>>>None of these problems is a safety issue, and none of them could be
>>>fixed without spending significant time and/or money.
>>
>>>One of the reasons we own airplanes is pride of ownership.
>>
>>>This makes me sad. Makes me want to sell and rent.
>>
>>It's possible to restore old paint. You'd be surprised what you can polish
>>out. Older planes were actually painted with very high quality paint that
>>can be restored. Chips can be polished and filled with paint. There's not
>>much you can do with rust spots other than remove it and have the paint
>>matched, but it should at least be tended to before it gets worse. You can
>>either have all that done professionally or you can do it yourself. The
>>following web site would be a great place to start:
>
>
>
> It's not old paint. The paint is probably only six years old. My car
> is also six years old, but I know I can replace my car when ever I get
> sick of it. Planes are not so easy to exchange, and I would just get
> another old plane anyway. At least this one has very few non-cosmetic
> squawks (dang nose wheel shimmy).
>
> I could rent and save money and still fly the same amount, but then I
> would not have pride of ownership. I have a $20,000 Cessna 150. It
> flies just fine but the cosmetics just don't touch a $20,000 car.
> This reduces the pride of ownership and makes me more likely to sell
> and rent. Of course renting is a pain in the butt here (there is one
> plane; everyone must share it).
>
> -still sad

Touch up paint works wonders, my old paint was a perfect match with Ford
Engine Blue, but we repainted. I should find a "match" for the "new"
paint as there are a few spots that could use a touch up. We either
have to stop wearing wedding rings or deal with the fact that the paint
will be chipped off the handle we use to get up on the wing.

Margy (spent the day polishing the spinner!)

Mxsmanic

June 28th 08, 07:40 AM

gatt writes:

> Thanks for clearing that up for all the pilots and aircraft owners,
> Anthony. I'm sure without your experience it would never occur to them.

It certainly would never occur to some of them, given the exceptions of which
I've become aware.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 28th 08, 11:08 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Thanks for clearing that up for all the pilots and aircraft owners,
>> Anthony. I'm sure without your experience it would never occur to
>> them.
>
> It certainly would never occur to some of them, given the exceptions
> of which I've become aware.
>

You're not aware of anything outside your own colon.

Bertie

john smith

June 28th 08, 01:38 PM

Strip the paint off and fly with polished aluminum.
You will gain about 100 pounds of useful load and be able to tell at a
glance the condition of the aircraft.
Keep it polished and you will be amazed at how much better it performs
without all the surface imperfection drag.

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

June 28th 08, 03:06 PM

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:22:52 -0700 (PDT), Charles Talleyrand
> wrote:

>My kid and I just washed the plane. Even after washing it, there are
>still chips of paint missing, a bit of rust, a drip-stain of fuel, and
>so on. The panel looks like it has been modified every once in a
>while since 1966. My plane is relatively nice compared to the other
>ones on the field, but it's still in worse cosmetic condition than my
>car.
>
>None of these problems is a safety issue, and none of them could be
>fixed without spending significant time and/or money.
>
>One of the reasons we own airplanes is pride of ownership.
>
>This makes me sad. Makes me want to sell and rent.

I've looked at this post for a few nights now and I still have the
feeling that you're such a goose. you have an absolute gem in your
hands and cant see it.

you own what is probably the nicest little sporting aircraft ever
commercially built. they were such a superb handling aircraft that
they were used as trainers all over the world.

in fact *nothing* has been built since that has quite filled the
training niche they carved out for themselves. If Cessna put the
aerobat back into production tomorrow they would sell every aircraft
made without problem as the worlds training fleets were updated.
but they are plonkers and worry too much about liability so it is
passing from the worlds' stage.

You have a superb vintage aircraft and yours should be treated as
such. if you want true pride of ownership then set about restoring the
old girl to concourse condition. what this means in reality is easy.
get the aircraft professionally repainted, this involves removing all
the old finish, alodining the surface to passivate it,then repainting
the aircraft with proper aircraft paints.
the interior panels are from heat formable "Royalite" and can be
repaired, and I'm sure replaced. seats recovered in lambswool look and
feel a million bucks. new aircraft carpet (non flamable) isnt hard to
put in.

My mate Fred has an old Cessna 150A. it used to look absolute crap in
one of the most corroded bare aluminium finishes imaginable. he had it
professionally painted white. he thought that looked a bit plain and
costed a stripe. $500 bucks for a single thin red stripe is a bit much
so we kid people that it has a two tone white stripe :-)
like you he thought the aircraft was a bit underwhelming until I
pointed out a few things to him. I pointed out that his was the only
straight airframe I'd ever encountered. it had no trim tabs and had no
need for them. he keeps telling me that he has not encountered another
Cessna locally that doesnt need trim tabs.
I did the prop rpm vs speed calcs and found that his aircraft had to
have something wrong. the aircraft is supposed to have a 52" pitch
prop, the calcs came out at 46". It turns out that the previous owner
was compensating for an increasingly anaemic end of life engine by
repitching the prop down. with that corrected the aircraft is a
sprightly cruiser.
Freddo now loves his aircraft and sees it as a rare vintage beauty. I
do too.
I still love flying it on the odd occasion that we get together.

Go out one nice day and park your aircraft on the grass. lie under the
aircraft on the grass. lie there just looking over(under) the
aircraft. lie there for about an hour. (dont go to sleep)
in each 15 minute period the things you notice will be different from
the previous 15 minutes. in an hour you will have pretty well every
thing identified that isnt quite right.
then set about over the next few years and fix them one by one.
you'll end up with a classic restored aeroplane that you can be damn
proud of. ...or maybe you'll sell it and the next owner will have all
the pleasure.

what ever you do dont sit there complaining. aviation is only really
enjoyed by enthusiasts and a really good Cessna 150 *is* something to
be enthused over. The Continental O-200 engine in it is one of the
sweetest aircraft engines ever made.
you have an absolute gem there in your hands and you cant see it!!!!

mate you're looking like a goose. :-)

hell if you're that much of a whinger I'll give you $3000 for it and
ship it back to australia to fly it myself.

Stealth (wouldnt mind a cessna 150 to restore) Pilot

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

June 28th 08, 03:08 PM

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Gene Seibel
> wrote:

>On Jun 26, 5:22*pm, Charles Talleyrand > wrote:
>> My kid and I just washed the plane. *Even after washing it, there are
>> still chips of paint missing, a bit of rust, a drip-stain of fuel, and
>> so on. *The panel looks like it has been modified every once in a
>> while since 1966. *My plane is relatively nice compared to the other
>> ones on the field, but it's still in worse cosmetic condition than my
>> car.
>>
>> None of these problems is a safety issue, and none of them could be
>> fixed without spending significant time and/or money.
>>
>> One of the reasons we own airplanes is pride of ownership.
>>
>> This makes me sad. *Makes me want to sell and rent.
>
>Our '66 is cosmetically challenged. Sometimes it depresses me for a
>moment or two, but the second we start that takeoff run, nothing but
>flying is on my mind. My money is going into hours in the air. That's
>why I bought it. I notice that most of the people who have commented
>about the condition, age, or speed of my airplanes don't even have one
>and fly far less than I do or not at all.

an old pilot's aphorism: The air has no eyes!

the bloody stuff also has no respect :-)

Stealth Pilot

Darrel Toepfer

June 28th 08, 07:54 PM

Charles Talleyrand > wrote:

> At least this one has very few non-cosmetic squawks (dang nose wheel
> shimmy).

Add shims, make sure the fork/hinge doesn't have cracks, make sure the
tire doesn't have excessive wear or a bump on it, is the strut leaking
oil too? If so replace the seals, usually the damper shock isn't the
fault, but it could be weak too...

Jay Honeck[_2_]

June 30th 08, 01:33 AM

> Strip the paint off and fly with polished aluminum.
> You will gain about 100 pounds of useful load and be able to tell at a
> glance the condition of the aircraft.
> Keep it polished and you will be amazed at how much better it performs
> without all the surface imperfection drag.

Of course, you will have absolutely *zero* time to fly....but, dang, it'll
sure look cool!

We almost bought a bare aluminum Ercoupe. I'm really, REALLY glad we
didn't. I waste too much time already polishing Atlas' prop and spinner.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

john smith

June 30th 08, 03:12 AM

In article <6RV9k.231534$yE1.53416@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Strip the paint off and fly with polished aluminum.
> > You will gain about 100 pounds of useful load and be able to tell at a
> > glance the condition of the aircraft.
> > Keep it polished and you will be amazed at how much better it performs
> > without all the surface imperfection drag.
>
> Of course, you will have absolutely *zero* time to fly....but, dang, it'll
> sure look cool!
> We almost bought a bare aluminum Ercoupe. I'm really, REALLY glad we
> didn't. I waste too much time already polishing Atlas' prop and spinner.

It really isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
You polish on rainy spring days, before the real flying season begins
and let it go the rest of the year. Maybe touch it up in August on days
when it is too hot to fly.

Mike[_22_]

July 3rd 08, 12:55 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Why?
>
> They might total the airplane that you share. They might not maintain it
> properly. They might damage it without telling anyone. There are many
> possibilities.

Totaling the aircraft is a non-issue. That's what insurance is for. Damage
is a non-issue. That's what the pre-flight is for.

>> It requires that they be responsible adults, preferably business
>> people who can afford to own 1/3 of an aircraft.
>
> Many adults aren't that responsible. Pilots get themselves killed often
> enough; why would they be any more cautious for someone else's sake?

I've been in a couple of shared ownership situations and have had no
problems. The biggest concern is actually a deadbeat partner that doesn't
cover their share of the recurring fixed costs. That's why a good up-front
agreement with collection abilities is a must.

My first partnership had 7 other owners. I was putting almost half the
yearly hours on the plane. Basically I was doing the flying and others were
paying the bills. It was a beautiful arrangement.

Mxsmanic

July 3rd 08, 02:13 AM

Mike writes:

> Totaling the aircraft is a non-issue. That's what insurance is for. Damage
> is a non-issue. That's what the pre-flight is for.

The greater the number of aircraft totaled, the higher the insurance premiums,
so it's not quite a non-issue.

And you can miss things during a pre-flight inspection.

> My first partnership had 7 other owners. I was putting almost half the
> yearly hours on the plane. Basically I was doing the flying and others were
> paying the bills. It was a beautiful arrangement.

Sounds nice. Why didn't the other owners use the plane much?

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

July 3rd 08, 02:16 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mike writes:
>
>> Totaling the aircraft is a non-issue. That's what insurance is for.
>> Damage is a non-issue. That's what the pre-flight is for.
>
> The greater the number of aircraft totaled, the higher the insurance
> premiums, so it's not quite a non-issue.
>
> And you can miss things during a pre-flight inspection.
>
>> My first partnership had 7 other owners. I was putting almost half
>> the yearly hours on the plane. Basically I was doing the flying and
>> others were paying the bills. It was a beautiful arrangement.
>
> Sounds nice. Why didn't the other owners use the plane much?
>

Probalby couldn't fly./

Like you.

Bertie

Jay Honeck[_2_]

July 3rd 08, 02:53 PM

> Sounds nice. Why didn't the other owners use the plane much?

Because people are often poor estimators of time. In the case of
partners/flying club members in aircraft, pilots are often high-achieving,
hard-working folks who lead busy lives. I call them "doers".

Doers *think* they're gonna fly every other day, just like they think they
can (and often do) accomplish anything, so they get involved in owning an
airplane -- only to discover that their lives are already full. So, flying
becomes something they can only do as time permits -- and there isn't a lot
of unused time in a doers life.

So, the planes tend to sit a lot. It's a sweet deal if you have more
available time than the other partners.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Mxsmanic

July 3rd 08, 04:05 PM

Jay Honeck writes:

> Because people are often poor estimators of time. In the case of
> partners/flying club members in aircraft, pilots are often high-achieving,
> hard-working folks who lead busy lives. I call them "doers".
>
> Doers *think* they're gonna fly every other day, just like they think they
> can (and often do) accomplish anything, so they get involved in owning an
> airplane -- only to discover that their lives are already full. So, flying
> becomes something they can only do as time permits -- and there isn't a lot
> of unused time in a doers life.
>
> So, the planes tend to sit a lot. It's a sweet deal if you have more
> available time than the other partners.

It certainly sounds like it would be great for someone who has reasonable
money _and_ some free time on their hands.

It's true that many people who have lots of money also have almost no free
time, and vice versa. Having both money and time is a hard problem. I know
that it's very easy to make millions of dollars, if one is willing to
sacrifice all waking hours to the task, but I don't see the point in having
millions if you spend 16 hours at work, seven days a week.

Being born into money gets around this issue, but unfortunately that is the
luck of the draw, not something one can arrange. Sometimes one can make lots
of money, invest it, and live off the proceeds without having to work, but
even where this is possible, it often occurs so late in life that health
concerns limit its utility. There's not much advantage in being able to buy
your own aircraft if you're confined to a wheelchair by the time you've
accumulated the money.

Mike[_22_]

July 4th 08, 06:16 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike writes:
>
>> Totaling the aircraft is a non-issue. That's what insurance is for.
>> Damage
>> is a non-issue. That's what the pre-flight is for.
>
> The greater the number of aircraft totaled, the higher the insurance
> premiums,
> so it's not quite a non-issue.
>
> And you can miss things during a pre-flight inspection.

If you miss damage during the pre-flight, then you're not doing a
pre-flight.

>> My first partnership had 7 other owners. I was putting almost half the
>> yearly hours on the plane. Basically I was doing the flying and others
>> were
>> paying the bills. It was a beautiful arrangement.
>
> Sounds nice. Why didn't the other owners use the plane much?

There were a lot of old guys who were part owners. They basically just
wanted access to a decent plane once or twice a year to go on a trip and
they would fly short trips every other month or so just to stay current. A
couple of them had let their medicals expire possibly because they suspected
they wouldn't pass and they didn't fly at all. I suppose being part owner
in a plane allowed them to stay in touch with their youth for a modest
monthly recurring charge. I don't know and I didn't bother asking. They
were paying their bills and that was good enough for me.

Mxsmanic

July 4th 08, 11:41 AM

Mike writes:

> If you miss damage during the pre-flight, then you're not doing a
> pre-flight.

So the crash of Japan Air Lines flight 123 was the pilot's fault, since he
missed the damage to the bulkhead.

Vaughn Simon

July 4th 08, 02:18 PM

"Mike" > wrote in message news:Imibk.517$HY.404@trnddc01...
>
> If you miss damage during the pre-flight, then you're not doing a pre-flight.

Nonsense. If you are human, and especially if you lack x-ray vision, you can
miss damage on a preflight.

I teach my students that they are looking for damage for two reasons: 1) To
preserve their own lives. 2) So that they do not get blamed for something
someone else did.

For the average young student pilot (all young folks think they are immortal)
I feel that reason #2 is more motivating. I don't care WHY they do the proper
preflight, I just want them to do it.

Vaughn

Mike[_22_]

July 4th 08, 04:46 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike writes:
>
>> If you miss damage during the pre-flight, then you're not doing a
>> pre-flight.
>
> So the crash of Japan Air Lines flight 123 was the pilot's fault, since he
> missed the damage to the bulkhead.

You mean the damage which was improperly repaired almost 10 years prior?

Do you even know what a bulkhead is?

Mike[_22_]

July 4th 08, 05:03 PM

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:Imibk.517$HY.404@trnddc01...
>>
>> If you miss damage during the pre-flight, then you're not doing a
>> pre-flight.
>
> Nonsense. If you are human, and especially if you lack x-ray vision,
> you can miss damage on a preflight.

The chances of any such 'invisible' damage being a safety of flight issue
are pretty much nil. Someone might crinkle a firewall with a wheelbarrow
landing or overstress the airframe, but the chances of that being a safety
of flight issue in the near term are next to nothing. But if someone bangs
up a wing or a tail against a hanger, flat spots a tire, or has a prop
strike this is going to show up during a proper pre-flight.

> I teach my students that they are looking for damage for two reasons: 1)
> To preserve their own lives. 2) So that they do not get blamed for
> something someone else did.
>
> For the average young student pilot (all young folks think they are
> immortal) I feel that reason #2 is more motivating. I don't care WHY
> they do the proper preflight, I just want them to do it.

So what trick do you use to get them to do the runup?

Vaughn Simon

July 4th 08, 09:16 PM

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:2Rrbk.459$713.307@trnddc03...
>> Nonsense. If you are human, and especially if you lack x-ray vision, you
>> can miss damage on a preflight.
>
> The chances of any such 'invisible' damage being a safety of flight issue are
> pretty much nil. Someone might crinkle a firewall with a wheelbarrow landing
> or overstress the airframe, but the chances of that being a safety of flight
> issue in the near term are next to nothing. But if someone bangs up a wing or
> a tail against a hanger, flat spots a tire, or has a prop strike this is going
> to show up during a proper pre-flight.

Obviously, you haven't seen some of the things I have seen. One of the more
tender, and more invisible spots on some airframes is where the horizontal
stabilizer connects to the fuze. Many designs allow a tremendous moment arm for
any non-balanced load on the stabilizer to stress the attachment points. This
shows up as cracked spars on Cessnas, and I have seen stressed and cracked
fittings from another airframe. How can this happen? Well on Cessnas it
happens from folks using improper procedures to back the plane into a parking
spot. It can also happen from innocent (but ignorant) bystanders, mowers,
animal activity, or any of thousands of other posibilities.

Also, you don't know what happened on the last flight. Excessively hard
landing? Botched manuver? These and countless other things can cause
difficult-to-detect damage to an airframe.

One list item: The standard for passing a preflight inspection is not
"safety of flight in the near term". I would hope that you would consider an
airplane not airworthy long before that.

> So what trick do you use to get them to do the runup?

The most polite thing I can say is that was an unnecessary comment.

(I don't want this to turn into a flame war so you may have the last word.)

Vaughn

>

Mike[_22_]

July 4th 08, 11:56 PM

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:2Rrbk.459$713.307@trnddc03...
>>> Nonsense. If you are human, and especially if you lack x-ray vision,
>>> you can miss damage on a preflight.
>>
>> The chances of any such 'invisible' damage being a safety of flight issue
>> are pretty much nil. Someone might crinkle a firewall with a wheelbarrow
>> landing or overstress the airframe, but the chances of that being a
>> safety of flight issue in the near term are next to nothing. But if
>> someone bangs up a wing or a tail against a hanger, flat spots a tire, or
>> has a prop strike this is going to show up during a proper pre-flight.
>
> Obviously, you haven't seen some of the things I have seen. One of the
> more tender, and more invisible spots on some airframes is where the
> horizontal stabilizer connects to the fuze. Many designs allow a
> tremendous moment arm for any non-balanced load on the stabilizer to
> stress the attachment points. This shows up as cracked spars on Cessnas,
> and I have seen stressed and cracked fittings from another airframe. How
> can this happen? Well on Cessnas it happens from folks using improper
> procedures to back the plane into a parking spot. It can also happen from
> innocent (but ignorant) bystanders, mowers, animal activity, or any of
> thousands of other posibilities.

I always give each side a good heave up and down for this very reason, so
such can easily be checked on the preflight for impending failure.

> Also, you don't know what happened on the last flight. Excessively
> hard landing? Botched manuver? These and countless other things can
> cause difficult-to-detect damage to an airframe.

Certainly. But that's what pre-flight and annual inspections are for. My
A&P found a cracked bulkhead in the tail on my first annual after I bought
the plane. It had probably been that way for years. Such problems you
mentioned are common, but how many airframes do you see breaking up in
flight because of it?

> One list item: The standard for passing a preflight inspection is not
> "safety of flight in the near term". I would hope that you would consider
> an airplane not airworthy long before that.

The preflight is just a simple way to find out if the aircraft is airworthy
to the best of the pilot's ability. I never suggested it was anything else,
so you should go back and check your inference for any degree of
reasonableness.

> > So what trick do you use to get them to do the runup?
>
> The most polite thing I can say is that was an unnecessary comment.
>
> (I don't want this to turn into a flame war so you may have the last
> word.)
>
> Vaughn

So why do you take a simple statement and take it to the nth degree? The
previous poster (who has no flight experience, btw) condemned partial
ownership because another owner might "damage" the airplane and not tell
anyone. It was a ridiculous statement to begin with because a proper
preflight and regular inspections make such a non issue to the safety of
flight. That was the context of my statement. Instead you want to turn
this into some obscure situation. Is it possible to have damage that goes
undetected during a preflight? Yes. Is such damage a concern? The
statistics suggest you should be more concerned about being hit by
lightning. If you don't want to get flamed, try working your way up the
thread and figuring out what the context is before you jump on a comment and
try to make it something it isn't.

My "comment" was far more valid than yours, BTW. If you have a student that
you can't even trust to do a preflight, how are you going to trust them to
do anything else that can save their lives? If you have such students you
can't trust to perform basic safety of flight tasks, you shouldn't let them
solo until they mature.

Mxsmanic

July 5th 08, 05:23 AM

Mike writes:

> You mean the damage which was improperly repaired almost 10 years prior?

Yes. Why didn't he catch it on the preflight? You said that if you miss
damage on a preflight, you're not doing a preflight.

> Do you even know what a bulkhead is?

Yes. Apparently the pilot of that aircraft didn't do a preflight inspection,
because you've indicated that the only way to miss damage is to not preflight
the aircraft.

Mxsmanic

July 5th 08, 05:25 AM

Mike writes:

> The chances of any such 'invisible' damage being a safety of flight issue
> are pretty much nil.

What natural law ensures that damage related to safety is usually visible? It
seems to have failed that Japanese pilot, not to mention a long list of other
pilots.

Mxsmanic

July 5th 08, 05:31 AM

Mike writes:

> I always give each side a good heave up and down for this very reason, so
> such can easily be checked on the preflight for impending failure.

It is unlikely that you can create the same magnitude and type of stress with
"a good heave" that the aircraft would or could experience in flight.

> Certainly. But that's what pre-flight and annual inspections are for. My
> A&P found a cracked bulkhead in the tail on my first annual after I bought
> the plane. It had probably been that way for years. Such problems you
> mentioned are common, but how many airframes do you see breaking up in
> flight because of it?

More than necessary. And an annual inspection provides a year for things to
go wrong in flight.

> The preflight is just a simple way to find out if the aircraft is airworthy
> to the best of the pilot's ability. I never suggested it was anything else,
> so you should go back and check your inference for any degree of
> reasonableness.

You said that if a pilot doesn't find damage, he hasn't done a preflight,
which implies that a preflight will find all damage. Have you changed your
mind?

> So why do you take a simple statement and take it to the nth degree?

It is only necessary to show that the statement cannot stand, which has been
done.

> The previous poster (who has no flight experience, btw) condemned partial
> ownership because another owner might "damage" the airplane and not tell
> anyone. It was a ridiculous statement to begin with because a proper
> preflight and regular inspections make such a non issue to the safety of
> flight.

Except that this is not true.

You made an absolute statement where a qualified one was required.

> If you don't want to get flamed, try working your way up the
> thread and figuring out what the context is before you jump on a comment and
> try to make it something it isn't.

In the future, structure your statements more carefully, and you will not find
yourself in a corner in debate.

> My "comment" was far more valid than yours, BTW.

Your statement that, in effect, a preflight cannot fail to find damage and
that a pilot who does not find damage has not done a preflight inspection was
manifestly false, and does a disservice to pilots who do a thorough preflight
inspection and yet die anyway as a consequence of damage that no preflight
inspection can detect.

Frank Olson

July 5th 08, 06:25 AM

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> My kid and I just washed the plane. Even after washing it, there are
> still chips of paint missing, a bit of rust, a drip-stain of fuel, and
> so on. The panel looks like it has been modified every once in a
> while since 1966. My plane is relatively nice compared to the other
> ones on the field, but it's still in worse cosmetic condition than my
> car.
>
> None of these problems is a safety issue, and none of them could be
> fixed without spending significant time and/or money.
>
> One of the reasons we own airplanes is pride of ownership.
>
> This makes me sad. Makes me want to sell and rent.

We added this stuff to our Aerostar (inboard wing sections and
horizontal stabs not protected by the de-ice boots). Works wonders. No
stone chips. As for the rust... deal with it. Not only is it a sure
sign you need a paint job, it also tells me you're not spending enough
time with your baby. :-)

http://www.getwrapped.ca/leadingedge/

Mike[_22_]

July 5th 08, 03:19 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike writes:
>
>> You mean the damage which was improperly repaired almost 10 years prior?
>
> Yes. Why didn't he catch it on the preflight? You said that if you miss
> damage on a preflight, you're not doing a preflight.
>
>> Do you even know what a bulkhead is?
>
> Yes. Apparently the pilot of that aircraft didn't do a preflight
> inspection,
> because you've indicated that the only way to miss damage is to not
> preflight
> the aircraft.

What part of improperly repaired do you not understand?

Mike[_22_]

July 5th 08, 03:42 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike writes:
>
>> I always give each side a good heave up and down for this very reason, so
>> such can easily be checked on the preflight for impending failure.
>
> It is unlikely that you can create the same magnitude and type of stress
> with
> "a good heave" that the aircraft would or could experience in flight.

Nor is that the intention.

>> Certainly. But that's what pre-flight and annual inspections are for.
>> My
>> A&P found a cracked bulkhead in the tail on my first annual after I
>> bought
>> the plane. It had probably been that way for years. Such problems you
>> mentioned are common, but how many airframes do you see breaking up in
>> flight because of it?
>
> More than necessary.

How many do you think that is?

>> The preflight is just a simple way to find out if the aircraft is
>> airworthy
>> to the best of the pilot's ability. I never suggested it was anything
>> else,
>> so you should go back and check your inference for any degree of
>> reasonableness.
>
> You said that if a pilot doesn't find damage, he hasn't done a preflight,
> which implies that a preflight will find all damage. Have you changed
> your
> mind?

Actually I said damage was a non-issue because of the preflight because any
damage that would be an issue for the next flight is going to be found
during the preflight.

>
>> So why do you take a simple statement and take it to the nth degree?
>
> It is only necessary to show that the statement cannot stand, which has
> been
> done.
>
>> The previous poster (who has no flight experience, btw) condemned partial
>> ownership because another owner might "damage" the airplane and not tell
>> anyone. It was a ridiculous statement to begin with because a proper
>> preflight and regular inspections make such a non issue to the safety of
>> flight.
>
> Except that this is not true.
>
> You made an absolute statement where a qualified one was required.

Actually what I have done is show that your fear of "damage" by someone else
is irrational and a weak point against partial ownership.

So once again you've shown your "experience" is limited by what Microsoft FS
can offer.

>
>> If you don't want to get flamed, try working your way up the
>> thread and figuring out what the context is before you jump on a comment
>> and
>> try to make it something it isn't.
>
> In the future, structure your statements more carefully, and you will not
> find
> yourself in a corner in debate.
>
>> My "comment" was far more valid than yours, BTW.
>
> Your statement that, in effect, a preflight cannot fail to find damage and
> that a pilot who does not find damage has not done a preflight inspection
> was
> manifestly false, and does a disservice to pilots who do a thorough
> preflight
> inspection and yet die anyway as a consequence of damage that no preflight
> inspection can detect.

Go do a search of the NTSB database sometime and see how many of those cases
you can find, then tell me again about my "disservice".

Mike[_22_]

July 5th 08, 03:44 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike writes:
>
>> The chances of any such 'invisible' damage being a safety of flight issue
>> are pretty much nil.
>
> What natural law ensures that damage related to safety is usually visible?
> It
> seems to have failed that Japanese pilot, not to mention a long list of
> other
> pilots.

The damage to the JAL aircraft WAS detected.

[email protected]

July 5th 08, 05:45 PM

On Jul 4, 4:56 pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> > Obviously, you haven't seen some of the things I have seen. One of the
> > more tender, and more invisible spots on some airframes is where the
> > horizontal stabilizer connects to the fuze. Many designs allow a
> > tremendous moment arm for any non-balanced load on the stabilizer to
> > stress the attachment points. This shows up as cracked spars on Cessnas,
> > and I have seen stressed and cracked fittings from another airframe. How
> > can this happen? Well on Cessnas it happens from folks using improper
> > procedures to back the plane into a parking spot. It can also happen from
> > innocent (but ignorant) bystanders, mowers, animal activity, or any of
> > thousands of other posibilities.
>
> I always give each side a good heave up and down for this very reason, so
> such can easily be checked on the preflight for impending failure.

A good heave up and down on the end of the stab of a 172
flexes the center of the forward spar, eventually cracking it. A
gentle bit of push-pull is all that's needed, to see if there's
unusual tip travel. I bet your spar is cracked now. Many are. Cessna
calls for stopdrilling the crack unless it has reached the spar
flange, in which case it has to be repaired. I once flew a 172 that I
subsequently found had a broken spar, busted clear through both
flanges so that the skin was all that was holding it. The thing could
have killed me if I gotten into turbulence or had to take violent
evasive action. We run several 172s and have seen cracks, up to four
of them, in a spar; we now forbid students to push down on the things.
No more cracks.
172s suffer cracking at the bottom of the aft doorposts. Some
models crack inside the forward doorposts. Do I need to point out that
these doorposts are what the wing pulls on to lift the airplane, along
with the struts? No preflight will find those. The wing spar attach
lugs are known to crack at the bolt holes. In older 172s the forward
elevator bellcrack bracket would break loose, reducing elevator
control. In newer 172s (rod-style gear; 1973 or so and on) the landing
gear retaining bolt sometimes shears and totals the airplane on
landing. As the years go by, these older airplanes will become the
subjects of ADs addressing age-related airframe failure, probably
after a couple come apart in flight. Sooner or later.

Dan

More_Flaps

July 5th 08, 10:58 PM

On Jul 6, 4:45*am, wrote:
> On Jul 4, 4:56 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > *Obviously, you haven't seen some of the things I have seen. *One of the
> > > more tender, and more invisible spots on some airframes is where the
> > > horizontal stabilizer connects to the fuze. *Many designs allow a
> > > tremendous moment arm for any non-balanced load on the stabilizer to
> > > stress the attachment points. *This shows up as *cracked spars on Cessnas,
> > > and I have seen stressed and cracked fittings from another airframe. *How
> > > can this happen? *Well on Cessnas it happens from folks using improper
> > > procedures to back the plane into a parking spot. *It can also happen from
> > > innocent (but ignorant) bystanders, mowers, animal activity, or any of
> > > thousands of other posibilities.
>
> > I always give each side a good heave up and down for this very reason, so
> > such can easily be checked on the preflight for impending failure.
>
> * * * * *A good heave up and down on the end of the stab of a 172
> flexes the center of the forward spar, eventually cracking it. A
> gentle bit of push-pull is all that's needed, to see if there's
> unusual tip travel. I bet your spar is cracked now. Many are. Cessna
> calls for stopdrilling the crack unless it has reached the spar
> flange, in which case it has to be repaired. I once flew a 172 that I
> subsequently found had a broken spar, busted clear through both
> flanges so that the skin was all that was holding it.

Why did your push-pull test not detect it? I prefer to give a shake
and feel the nature of surface response.

Cheers

Peter Clark

July 5th 08, 11:26 PM

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:45:11 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>evasive action. We run several 172s and have seen cracks, up to four
>of them, in a spar; we now forbid students to push down on the things.
>No more cracks.

Just out of curiosity, is this before or after Cessna put the
reinforced spars (R and S models?) in at the factory? I don't believe
the newer models are prone to this kind of issue, but wouldn't do it
in practice anyway - using the towbar is always better for the
aircraft, and done by hand I don't think it's possible to damage a
172/182 nosewheel.

[email protected]

July 6th 08, 01:40 AM

On Jul 5, 3:58 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:

> Why did your push-pull test not detect it? I prefer to give a shake
> and feel the nature of surface response.

That's why I have a push-pull test now. Didn't do it until
after I flew that airplane and took it apart after I got it here.
Found a lot of other stuff, too: lower strut attach bolts with no
nuts, and backing out of their holes; cracks in lots of places; scary
stuff galore. The owner trucked it away. In pieces.

Dan

[email protected]

July 6th 08, 02:01 AM

On Jul 5, 4:26 pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:45:11 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
> >evasive action. We run several 172s and have seen cracks, up to four
> >of them, in a spar; we now forbid students to push down on the things.
> >No more cracks.
>
> Just out of curiosity, is this before or after Cessna put the
> reinforced spars (R and S models?) in at the factory? I don't believe
> the newer models are prone to this kind of issue, but wouldn't do it
> in practice anyway - using the towbar is always better for the
> aircraft, and done by hand I don't think it's possible to damage a
> 172/182 nosewheel.

There's a Service Bulletin dealing with this, and it's dated to
before the R/S models went into production, so it's safe to figure
that Cessna fixed the problem in these models. The SB calls for
stopdrilling and monitoring every 100 hours, and fixing it by
installing a doubler either right away or when the cracks go too far.
The problem with waiting is that the centre section needs to be
replaced if the cracks reach the flanges.
I'll know more later. We're getting a new or newer one, maybe
two, soon. Interesting to see what they've improved, and what they
haven't but should have.
Which reminds me: there are other places that crack, not
readily visible. The rudder hinge brackets (on the rudder itself, not
the fin) will break in the bend radii. The top hinge is the worst, as
it has the loads of the lead balance weight wobbling around in the
turbulence to deal with. Got to use a tiny mirror and lots of light to
see the break. We spin these airplanes all the time, and in a spin
the tail wiggles around a lot, so maybe the non-spinning pilot won't
have a problem with these. Spins are also hard on gyros, whacking the
internal gyro cases against their stops and Brinelling the bearings.
But that's all part of flight training, and we charge enough to cover
things like that. We go through more propellers, too, operating off
rougher strips and picking up small stones.
These rudder brackets also wear against the fin lugs, since the
spacing at the factory was often screwed up so that the bottom hinge's
top bracket doesn't ride on its bearing flange like it's supposed to,
letting the middle and/or upper hinges take the thrust loads so they
wear thin. No thrust flanges on those bearings; just aluminum against
aluminum, and sitting outside in the wind those hinges get full of
grit and the wind wiggles the rudder and the brackets eat themselves.
I've asked Cessna to issue some teflon washers to shim the bottom
bearing and get the load off the others, but they pay no attention to
a hick from rural Canada. The law here says we have to use only the
stuff from the parts manuals, and they don't list any such washers.
The rudder bar springs put tension on the rudder cables. Those
cables aren't pulling perpendicular to the hinge line becease the
rudder is tilted back, so the rudder is pulled down, increasing the
load on the hinge thrust faces.

Dan

Mike[_22_]

July 6th 08, 03:50 AM

> wrote in message
...
> On Jul 4, 4:56 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>> > Obviously, you haven't seen some of the things I have seen. One of
>> > the
>> > more tender, and more invisible spots on some airframes is where the
>> > horizontal stabilizer connects to the fuze. Many designs allow a
>> > tremendous moment arm for any non-balanced load on the stabilizer to
>> > stress the attachment points. This shows up as cracked spars on
>> > Cessnas,
>> > and I have seen stressed and cracked fittings from another airframe.
>> > How
>> > can this happen? Well on Cessnas it happens from folks using improper
>> > procedures to back the plane into a parking spot. It can also happen
>> > from
>> > innocent (but ignorant) bystanders, mowers, animal activity, or any of
>> > thousands of other posibilities.
>>
>> I always give each side a good heave up and down for this very reason, so
>> such can easily be checked on the preflight for impending failure.
>
> A good heave up and down on the end of the stab of a 172
> flexes the center of the forward spar, eventually cracking it. A
> gentle bit of push-pull is all that's needed, to see if there's
> unusual tip travel. I bet your spar is cracked now. Many are. Cessna
> calls for stopdrilling the crack unless it has reached the spar
> flange, in which case it has to be repaired. I once flew a 172 that I
> subsequently found had a broken spar, busted clear through both
> flanges so that the skin was all that was holding it. The thing could
> have killed me if I gotten into turbulence or had to take violent
> evasive action. We run several 172s and have seen cracks, up to four
> of them, in a spar; we now forbid students to push down on the things.
> No more cracks.
> 172s suffer cracking at the bottom of the aft doorposts. Some
> models crack inside the forward doorposts. Do I need to point out that
> these doorposts are what the wing pulls on to lift the airplane, along
> with the struts? No preflight will find those. The wing spar attach
> lugs are known to crack at the bolt holes. In older 172s the forward
> elevator bellcrack bracket would break loose, reducing elevator
> control. In newer 172s (rod-style gear; 1973 or so and on) the landing
> gear retaining bolt sometimes shears and totals the airplane on
> landing. As the years go by, these older airplanes will become the
> subjects of ADs addressing age-related airframe failure, probably
> after a couple come apart in flight. Sooner or later.

1. By "good heave" I don't mean raising the nosewheel off the ground. I
just mean applying enough pressure both directions to listen for any
irregularities.

2. I don't have a 172.

Dylan Smith

July 11th 08, 01:00 PM

On 2008-06-30, John Smith > wrote:
> It really isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
> You polish on rainy spring days, before the real flying season begins
> and let it go the rest of the year. Maybe touch it up in August on days
> when it is too hot to fly.

Coming in to this thread very late...

Actually, it is as bad as that unless you live in the desert. I owned a
polished plane (Cessna 140). It was only half polished, too - just the
lower half of the fuselage, the tailplane, and flaps. The rest was
painted.

To keep it looking nice required a whole day of polishing, a minimum
period of once every two months. By whole day I mean at least 12 hours.
(I rarely did it all in a day, usually I spent a weekend doing it so I
could do other stuff too). This was for an itty bitty plane and only
half polished with the more difficult to polish bits (things like upper
wing surfaces) painted. A completely polished Cherokee, for example,
would be at least three days work every two months to keep looking nice.
The plane absolutely must be hangared too. We also used Nuvite, the
final polish grade of that stuff also leaves a bit of a coating that
keeps it shiny for much longer.

The result with our C140 was of course stunning, especially when the
plane was parked on a rural turf airfield, with the polished underside
and tail reflecting the green grass, trees and blue sky. But it was a
BIG commitment to keep it that way. On the plus side you really get to
know the skin of the plane well and each session of polishing is a
rather thorough inspection.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Jay Honeck[_2_]

July 11th 08, 11:06 PM

> The result with our C140 was of course stunning, especially when the
> plane was parked on a rural turf airfield, with the polished underside
> and tail reflecting the green grass, trees and blue sky. But it was a
> BIG commitment to keep it that way. On the plus side you really get to
> know the skin of the plane well and each session of polishing is a
> rather thorough inspection.

(Note: I've deleted .piloting from this reply. That group is gone, I'm
afraid.)

This is an asset of a cosmetically well-maintained plane that rarely gets
mentioned. The act of thoroughly cleaning/polishing/waxing an aircraft
gives you the opportunity to really inspect your plane, and lets you detect
problems early on.

For example, just the other day I was cleaning the 'Coupe when I bumped into
the exhaust pipe -- and it moved! Turns out a clamp was loose, and we were
able to simply tighten it up, rather than "discovering" it in flight when it
could have potentially become a serious problem.

Just another reason to look askance at planes with two summers' worth of
dead bugs on the struts...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Maynard

July 12th 08, 02:19 AM

On 2008-07-11, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> For example, just the other day I was cleaning the 'Coupe when I bumped into
> the exhaust pipe -- and it moved!

This is why I was taught, on preflight, to give the exhaust stack a firm
shake. (Unless the engine was just run, of course.)
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

Jay Honeck[_2_]

July 12th 08, 04:29 AM

> This is why I was taught, on preflight, to give the exhaust stack a firm
> shake. (Unless the engine was just run, of course.)

Reminds me of an (otherwise good) movie we watched at "Movie Night at the
Inn" a few months ago. George Peppard stars in "The Blue Max", a story
about German World War I aviators. After he lands his plane, he jumps out
and is engaged in conversation with another pilot.

The scene cuts away, and then back -- and they show Peppard with his hand
laying casually on the cylinders/exhaust stack! Everyone in the movie
night crowd let out a yelp of disbelief and sympathetic pain. Needless to
say, the guy in charge of continuity in *that* movie really dropped the
ball...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Morgans[_2_]

July 12th 08, 04:53 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> The scene cuts away, and then back -- and they show Peppard with his hand
> laying casually on the cylinders/exhaust stack! Everyone in the movie
> night crowd let out a yelp of disbelief and sympathetic pain. Needless to
> say, the guy in charge of continuity in *that* movie really dropped the
> ball...

Funny! I'll have to look for that, next time I see it.

I really enjoyed The Blue Max. Great flying scenes and camera work, as I
recall.
--
Jim in NC

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

July 12th 08, 02:13 PM

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:00:56 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2008-06-30, John Smith > wrote:
>> It really isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
>> You polish on rainy spring days, before the real flying season begins
>> and let it go the rest of the year. Maybe touch it up in August on days
>> when it is too hot to fly.
>
>Coming in to this thread very late...
>
>Actually, it is as bad as that unless you live in the desert. I owned a
>polished plane (Cessna 140). It was only half polished, too - just the
>lower half of the fuselage, the tailplane, and flaps. The rest was
>painted.
>
>To keep it looking nice required a whole day of polishing, a minimum
>period of once every two months. By whole day I mean at least 12 hours.
>(I rarely did it all in a day, usually I spent a weekend doing it so I
>could do other stuff too). This was for an itty bitty plane and only
>half polished with the more difficult to polish bits (things like upper
>wing surfaces) painted. A completely polished Cherokee, for example,
>would be at least three days work every two months to keep looking nice.
>The plane absolutely must be hangared too. We also used Nuvite, the
>final polish grade of that stuff also leaves a bit of a coating that
>keeps it shiny for much longer.
>
>The result with our C140 was of course stunning, especially when the
>plane was parked on a rural turf airfield, with the polished underside
>and tail reflecting the green grass, trees and blue sky. But it was a
>BIG commitment to keep it that way. On the plus side you really get to
>know the skin of the plane well and each session of polishing is a
>rather thorough inspection.

I once had the care of a polished all aluminium cessna 150A.(lovely
thing)
polishing it took a weekend. what caused it to be painted eventually
was the realisation that the night time condensation appeared to
penetrate the wax polish. this continued the activity in surface
pitting that had developed all over the aircraft.
the eventual cure to the pitting was the wash and phosphoric acid prep
done prior to alodining the aircraft and painting it.

since painting, not a problem since.

in hindsight if I wanted an all aluminium finish aircraft I'd paint it
that colour.

Stealth pilot

Blueskies

July 13th 08, 02:06 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:vyVdk.249112$yE1.134425@attbi_s21...
>> This is why I was taught, on preflight, to give the exhaust stack a firm
>> shake. (Unless the engine was just run, of course.)
>
> Reminds me of an (otherwise good) movie we watched at "Movie Night at the Inn" a few months ago. George Peppard stars
> in "The Blue Max", a story about German World War I aviators. After he lands his plane, he jumps out and is engaged
> in conversation with another pilot.
>
> The scene cuts away, and then back -- and they show Peppard with his hand laying casually on the cylinders/exhaust
> stack! Everyone in the movie night crowd let out a yelp of disbelief and sympathetic pain. Needless to say, the
> guy in charge of continuity in *that* movie really dropped the ball...
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> Ercoupe N94856
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Well, they would land many of those old birds dead stick, modulating the mags on and off, so maybe by the time he
deplaned, etc, it would have been cool enough. What kind of plane was it?