Would you fly this Aircraft?

The first 100 hours on a brand new airplane, the first hour
after an inspection and the first 5 hours after maintenance
are times to be very extra cautious about the airplane, are
all the spark plugs properly torqued? Are the fuel lines
secure? Are the control cables routed and safetied?

Things that have happen to me personally on such airplanes,
just a sample.
Exhaust manifold broke the welds on one bank, this let the
exhaust drop into the air blast where it caused a lot of
vibration and would be blown back up, this cycle repeated
about 2 seconds. I was in a new airplane, carrying my first
passenger and about 10 miles from a landing. Almost 40 years
ago.
Test flying a Beech Duke that had just finished the annual
inspection, at about 12,000 feet the clamp that secures the
exhaust pipe to the turbocharger broke, which allowed the
hot exhaust gas to melt a very big hole in the cowling. All
I saw was a small spot on top of the left engine change
color, like the paint was a different shade of tan. Shut
down the left engine and returned for landing. The shop gad
wanted me to test fly it the night before, which wouldn't
have let me see the paint change color. A 1/2 inch fuel
line (stainless steel) was very close to the hot blast.

Tools left in the airplane become my property.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"C J Southern" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jose" wrote in message
| . net...
|
| The crux of the question really is "if the licenced
and qualified
| engineer -
| who would get paid for fixing the problem if there was
a problem - says
| that
| it's OK, does one trust that?
|
| Do you trust the FBO? Why or why not? Follow the
money.
|
| From a FBO position it's really not a "money thing" (I
used to run the
| outfit, and I know that that doesn't enter into it) - as
far as trusting
| engineers go, well, it's been my experience that they know
their stuff
| pretty well, but like all of us they make mistakes - and
I've been around
| the game long enough to have experienced many situations
where the aircraft
| has gone into the shop with 1 fault, and come out with 2
new ones - so I
| guess you could say that a "healthy dose of suspicion goes
a long way in
| this business".
|
|
|

#2 Full tanks increase fuel pressure, a poor seal on the
carb float needle valve will leak and fill the bowl, which
then over-flows. The tanks have about 10-15% free space
even when full to allow parking on non-level surfaces before
the tank vents begin to drain.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"C J Southern" wrote in message
...
|
| "John Gaquin" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Pointless question. Insufficient data for any kind of
decision.
| Presumably, you'd preflight the aircraft anyway, which
obviates your above
| question.
|
| Not really. For me, the question is do I bother making the
trip to the
| airport, or do I wait for someone else to be the "canary
in a cage". I've
| also got a slightly nervous a passenger to consider - last
thing I want is
| an engine fire with a nervous passenger sitting right next
to it.
|
| The crux of the question really is "if the licenced and
qualified engineer -
| who would get paid for fixing the problem if there was a
problem - says that
| it's OK, does one trust that? As a pilot I won't be able
to see where the
| leak is coming from without removing the cowling - which
is engineer only
| territory.
|
| Part 2 of the question is "why would full tanks cause
this - why wouldn't
| the excess get squeezed out the tank vents"?
|
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:II7Tf.118045$QW2.26850@dukeread08...
#2 Full tanks increase fuel pressure, a poor seal on the
carb float needle valve will leak and fill the bowl, which
then over-flows. The tanks have about 10-15% free space
even when full to allow parking on non-level surfaces before
the tank vents begin to drain.

Hold the phone, here.

You mean fuel tanks can build up pressure with functioning vent lines?
Hummm.

If it is a bad (plugged) vent, then I'm not going to fly it until *that*
detail is fixed.
--
Jim in NC

Fuel has weight, a little less than .5 pounds per foot of
distance. A high wing Cessna has about 3-4 feet between the
fuel tank and the carb float. The float in the bowl is
raised by the liquid fuel in the bowl and by a lever,
presses the needle valve closed, stopping the flow of fuel
by gravity.

If the needle valve is leaking, there are two problems,
during engine operation, the fuel level will be too high
making the mixture too rich, although this can be manually
leaned, but the bowl may still fill to over-flow and this
will cause a lose of fuel which can result in an fuel
starvation accident.

When parked, it can cause a fire hazard and certainly waste
expensive fuel.

For a science experiment, take a straw and place it in a
glass of water and place your finger over the end of the
straw. When you lift the straw, the water won't flow out of
the straw because it isn't vented, but the pressure of the
water is due to the weight of the water caused by gravity.

Low wing airplanes and some high wing airplanes with carbs
also have fuel pumps, all fuel injected engines have pumps
because gravity is not powerful enough to operate the
injection system.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

Just to explain this, ATP is Airline Transport Pilot
CFI, I have Gold Seal Airplane SMEL and Instrument
A&P Airframe and Powerplant mechanic



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Morgans" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:II7Tf.118045$QW2.26850@dukeread08...
| #2 Full tanks increase fuel pressure, a poor seal on
the
| carb float needle valve will leak and fill the bowl,
which
| then over-flows. The tanks have about 10-15% free space
| even when full to allow parking on non-level surfaces
before
| the tank vents begin to drain.
|
| Hold the phone, here.
|
| You mean fuel tanks can build up pressure with functioning
vent lines?
| Hummm.
|
| If it is a bad (plugged) vent, then I'm not going to fly
it until *that*
| detail is fixed.
| --
| Jim in NC
|

"C J Southern" wrote in message

Not really. For me, the question is do I bother making the trip to the
airport, or do I wait for someone else to be the "canary in a cage". I've
also got a slightly nervous a passenger to consider......


The crux of the question really is .......

No, the crux of the question is this: why won't you, as putative PIC, just
make a decision? Why do you need a committee of people thoroughly
unfamiliar with the details to consult with and support you? You don't fly
an aircraft, particularly a single-pilot aircraft, by consensus. You're
clearly hesitant about the aircraft and don't really want to take it, but
you post to the NG in a way that says 'I'm bothered by this craft, but I
don't want anyone to think I'm a wuus'. Take it, or don't take it, but make
a decision. If there's not enough data to confirm safety, then don't take
it.

If you aren't sure it's OK then it is NOT OK.

Mike Schumann

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"C J Southern" wrote in message

Not really. For me, the question is do I bother making the trip to the
airport, or do I wait for someone else to be the "canary in a cage". I've
also got a slightly nervous a passenger to consider......


The crux of the question really is .......

No, the crux of the question is this: why won't you, as putative PIC, just
make a decision? Why do you need a committee of people thoroughly
unfamiliar with the details to consult with and support you? You don't
fly an aircraft, particularly a single-pilot aircraft, by consensus.
You're clearly hesitant about the aircraft and don't really want to take
it, but you post to the NG in a way that says 'I'm bothered by this
craft, but I don't want anyone to think I'm a wuus'. Take it, or don't
take it, but make a decision. If there's not enough data to confirm
safety, then don't take it.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"C J Southern" wrote in message

Not really. For me, the question is do I bother making the trip to the
airport, or do I wait for someone else to be the "canary in a cage".
I've
also got a slightly nervous a passenger to consider......


The crux of the question really is .......

No, the crux of the question is this: why won't you, as putative PIC, just
make a decision? Why do you need a committee of people thoroughly
unfamiliar with the details to consult with and support you? You don't
fly
an aircraft, particularly a single-pilot aircraft, by consensus. You're
clearly hesitant about the aircraft and don't really want to take it, but
you post to the NG in a way that says 'I'm bothered by this craft, but I
don't want anyone to think I'm a wuus'. Take it, or don't take it, but
make
a decision. If there's not enough data to confirm safety, then don't take
it.

You've still got the wrong end of the stick. The Question was "Would you fly
this aircraft?", not "Should I fly this aircraft?". I was never going to fly
it like that - however - that decision / position will no doubt cause
"somewhat of a debate in certain circles" - and as such I was interested as
to how many others would come to the conclusion I did, given the same
information I had - and it seems that the answer is "most of them". It's got
nothing to do with "hesitation or flying by committee" - the opportunity for
the flight had passed before I even wrote the original post.

Given that if you were here to inspect it then you'd not be able to see
where the leak was coming from, and would not be permitted to remove the
cowl then you'd have had the same info I've given here to make a go/no-go
decision. To me it's a no brainer, but I tell you what - I bet that aircraft
flies again with someone else PIC without any further investigation.

"John Gaquin" wrote

Pointless question. Insufficient data for any kind of decision.
Presumably, you'd preflight the aircraft anyway, which obviates your above
question.

Insufficient date, yes.

Do tell, what is preflighting the aircraft going to tell you, other than
there is fuel leaking from a "bad place (tm) and to get to the bottom of it,
some dissassembly will be required?

Sounds like a no go, to me.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"John Gaquin" wrote

Pointless question. Insufficient data for any kind of decision.
Presumably, you'd preflight the aircraft anyway, which obviates your
above
question.

Insufficient date, yes.

Do tell, what is preflighting the aircraft going to tell you, other than
there is fuel leaking from a "bad place (tm) and to get to the bottom of
it,
some dissassembly will be required?

Sounds like a no go, to me.

Just for the record, it wasn't hard for me to come to the same conclusion -
highlighting the difference between "proving it's safe" (which is what I
require) and "not proving that it's unsafe" (which is what I've been
offered).