![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have a maintenance question.
I read somewhere that the mixture control should not bottom-out against the firewall when full rich, as the pilot would not be able to tell if the full-rich position was achieved, or if the knob just hit the firewall stop. However, I'm wondering if this is just a rule of thumb, or if there is an actual FAR which dictates it, and which FAR that is? Thanks, -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mark Hansen wrote:
I have a maintenance question. I read somewhere that the mixture control should not bottom-out against the firewall when full rich, as the pilot would not be able to tell if the full-rich position was achieved, or if the knob just hit the firewall stop. However, I'm wondering if this is just a rule of thumb, or if there is an actual FAR which dictates it, and which FAR that is? I'm not aware of any such FAR. I would think if the FARs said anything about it, the place would be: ------------------------------ Sec. 23.1147 Mixture controls. (a) If there are mixture controls, each engine must have a separate control, and each mixture control must have guards or must be shaped or arranged to prevent confusion by feel with other controls. (1) The controls must be grouped and arranged to allow-- (i) Separate control of each engine; and (ii) Simultaneous control of all engines. (2) The controls must require a separate and distinct operation to move the control toward lean or shut-off position. (b) For reciprocating single-engine airplanes, each manual engine mixture control must be designed so that, if the control separates at the engine fuel metering device, the airplane is capable of continued safe flight and landing. ------------------------------ There could, of course, be something more specific in the maintenance procedures for your airplane or engine. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 02/14/06 07:45, Roy Smith wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote: I have a maintenance question. I read somewhere that the mixture control should not bottom-out against the firewall when full rich, as the pilot would not be able to tell if the full-rich position was achieved, or if the knob just hit the firewall stop. However, I'm wondering if this is just a rule of thumb, or if there is an actual FAR which dictates it, and which FAR that is? I'm not aware of any such FAR. I would think if the FARs said anything about it, the place would be: ------------------------------ Sec. 23.1147 Mixture controls. (a) If there are mixture controls, each engine must have a separate control, and each mixture control must have guards or must be shaped or arranged to prevent confusion by feel with other controls. (1) The controls must be grouped and arranged to allow-- (i) Separate control of each engine; and (ii) Simultaneous control of all engines. (2) The controls must require a separate and distinct operation to move the control toward lean or shut-off position. (b) For reciprocating single-engine airplanes, each manual engine mixture control must be designed so that, if the control separates at the engine fuel metering device, the airplane is capable of continued safe flight and landing. ------------------------------ Yes, that seems like where it should be. I guess it's not a regulation, then. There could, of course, be something more specific in the maintenance procedures for your airplane or engine. I think I read this in 'Aircraft Engine Operating Guide' by Kas Thomas. I'll have to dig that out and re-read it. Thanks for your help. -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy Smith wrote:
I'm not aware of any such FAR. I would think if the FARs said anything about it, the place would be: Even that FAR doesn't apply to a much of the GA fleet. It doesn't to mine. You couldn't tell the mixture from the cabin heat control as it came off the factory line. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cherokee Six?
Ron Natalie wrote: Roy Smith wrote: I'm not aware of any such FAR. I would think if the FARs said anything about it, the place would be: Even that FAR doesn't apply to a much of the GA fleet. It doesn't to mine. You couldn't tell the mixture from the cabin heat control as it came off the factory line. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Robet Coffey wrote:
Cherokee Six? Navion, the mixtuure, the cabin heat, the hydraulic bypass control carb heat and probably a few others I'm not remembering were the same aluminum knob. The throttle was a big doorknob sized thing. I've now got modern throttle/mixture/prop controls. Oddly the Navion did have a flap-shaped flap control and a wheel-shaped gear control (unlike the contemporary bonanza which just had the same shape toggles for both). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... I have a maintenance question. I read somewhere that the mixture control should not bottom-out against the firewall when full rich, as the pilot would not be able to tell if the full-rich position was achieved, or if the knob just hit the firewall stop. However, I'm wondering if this is just a rule of thumb, or if there is an actual FAR which dictates it, and which FAR that is? While it's probably not a regulation, most service manuals specify that both throttle and mixture knobs have a certain amount of "springback" instead of the knob contacting the panel; the Piper Cherokee manual, for instance, specifies 1/16" to 1/8" springback. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 02/14/06 10:13, John Kunkel wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... I have a maintenance question. I read somewhere that the mixture control should not bottom-out against the firewall when full rich, as the pilot would not be able to tell if the full-rich position was achieved, or if the knob just hit the firewall stop. However, I'm wondering if this is just a rule of thumb, or if there is an actual FAR which dictates it, and which FAR that is? While it's probably not a regulation, most service manuals specify that both throttle and mixture knobs have a certain amount of "springback" instead of the knob contacting the panel; the Piper Cherokee manual, for instance, specifies 1/16" to 1/8" springback. Is it possible to determine whether or not this is specified in the service manual for the particular Cessna aircraft I'm flying? It's a 172N model. Are the service manuals available online? I guess what I'm looking for is something that I can show to the maintenance people at the club, as they said the mixture control is working correctly when I complained that it should not hit the firewall. Thanks, -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mark Hansen wrote:
Is it possible to determine whether or not this is specified in the service manual for the particular Cessna aircraft I'm flying? It's a 172N model. Are the service manuals available online? I guess what I'm looking for is something that I can show to the maintenance people at the club, as they said the mixture control is working correctly when I complained that it should not hit the firewall. Thanks, Mark, I don't know about online, but this most certainly *is* spelled out in the maintenance manual, under "Engine Controls: Rigging". (It's chapter 11 in my 1969 182 service manual). Besides clearly stating that all engine controls be set up with a 1/8" cushion, this is one of the most basic, rudimentary procedures that first year A&P students are taught. I suspect the mechanics you are talking to are trying to shine on the job of replacing and re-rigging a worn out mixture cable. Happy Flying! Scott Skylane N92054 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Is it possible to determine whether or not this is specified in the
service manual for the particular Cessna aircraft I'm flying? It's a 172N model. Are the service manuals available online? Cessna gives NOTHING away. Paper copies of their manuals will start at around US$180, and if there's any temporary revisions they charge $12 or $15 for two or three pages. The 172 manuals I have here (L and M) call for some "bounce." It's standard aircraft practice to ensure that full travel is obtained at the engine device, whether it's throttle, mixture, carb heat or whatever. Even flight controls should hit the stops at the control surface's mechanism before the cockpit end hits anything. Control systems flex and stretch, especially under load. Many companies will publish manuals or other service information on the 'net to make sure it's available, and others want every buck they can squeeze from it. Cessna requires a rather expensive subscription ($360/yr) for service info (updates, service bulletins and service letters, etc.) while American Champion maintains a website to do the same thing. Lycoming's website publishes a service manual currency page, but McCauley and Cessna do it only through subscription. All of them are owned by Textron, yet there's no consistency. Dan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!! | Eliot Coweye | Home Built | 237 | February 13th 06 03:55 AM |
Most reliable homebuilt helicopter? | tom pettit | Home Built | 35 | September 29th 05 02:24 PM |
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? | Ric | Home Built | 2 | September 13th 05 09:39 PM |
Mini-500 Accident Analysis | Dennis Fetters | Rotorcraft | 16 | September 3rd 05 11:35 AM |