Are You Flying a "Beater?"

"Jay Honeck" wrote
AvWeb is reporting that "an alarming number of aircraft" are in poor
mechanical condition.

Yes - the ones owned by people who really don't know enough to do
their own maintenance, but spend plenty and truly believe their
airplane is in great shape. Sound like anyone you know?

He's an otherwise "normal" individual, yet he seems to take
pleasure in running his engine way over TBO

You mean like Mike Busch?
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/187037-1.html

and flying around on upholstery that has metal sticking through the mesh.

Since when is upholstery safety critical? Personally, I consider it
the last thing to worry about.

His panel is mostly non-functional

Does he fly IFR? If not, what does he need a panel for?

the paint is long gone, and all plastic parts are badly
cracked and chipped.

See above comment on upholstery.

The worst piece-of-junk planes I've ever seen for sale had new paint
and upholstery - with serious engine and airframe problems. The best
buys out there are planes with lousy paint and upholstery - but
otherwise in good condition. In fact, when you see a plane for sale
with new paint and upholstery, more than likely you're looking at a
polished turd.

With airplanes especially, you can't judge a book by its cover.

Michael

"Michael" wrote:
In fact, when you see a plane for sale
with new paint and upholstery, more than likely
you're looking at a polished turd.

Hee-hee! Truth!

And beware of airplanes for sale with 0 hours SMOH, too.

My airplane is really starting to look seedy, since I've been unwilling
to spend a nickel on cosmetics until I'm confident that my engine woes
of the last two years are really over. Someone looking at '87 Delta
might conclude that her owner doesn't give a damn about maintaining his
airplane, but it ain't so: she's in prime running shape.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Masino wrote:

The implication was operating at or above redline.

All those years as an engineer and you choose to communicate by implication
instead of by specific well-defined terms?

Nobody advocates operation above redline, as I expect the poster you criticize
will agree. Though the practicality of continuous operation at redline would
best be determined by reference to the POH for a given engine/aircraft
combination, the poster's implied confidence in aircraft engines is not
misplaced -- they do, however, require some understanding and appreciation for
their needs.

The statement, "Continuous operation at full throttle...isn't unsafe", is not
untrue WRT to light aircraft with which I have had experience. I'd wager that
your 140 is rarely able to achieve tach redline at full throttle in level
flight, that you could certainly operate it at full throttle continuously and in
fact would need to do so in takeoff, climb, and cruise to achieve book
parameters, except at low altitudes in cool weather.


There are young pilots reading these newsgroups and it's not
prudent to make these sorts of claims.

Since the "young pilots" about whom you are concerned are unlikely to be
operating high performance aircraft without training beyond that required to
deal with the rigors of piloting a Cherokee 140, your concern is probably
misplaced. If you are worried about neophytes misapplying poorly understood NG
snippets you might make a more worthy contribution by not taking shortcuts in
your own posts.


Someone might follow his claim and go out and get themselves hurt.

Since one is at least as likely to get hurt by being reluctant to use a high
power setting as by using too much power, why not recommend complete
familiarization with the operating manual for one's specific aircraft, as well
as supporting documentation. Helping out around your A/P's shop, coupled with an
electronic engineering background, doesn't qualify you as anything other than
just another know-it-all engineer, and not an aviation authority.


From the original post which you criticized:

Running at "redline" in a light aircraft
isn't the same as in your car.

PROBABLY TRUE.


Aircraft engines turn very slowly, by comparison,
and "red line" is set conservatively low.

MAYBE.


Continuous operation at full throttle
burns a lot of gas, but it isn't unsafe.

TRUE, IN VERY MANY CASES.


Would you care to take on these points a bit more circumspectly, or do you still
maintain that those who ruffle your feathers must be unqualified?



Jack

In article nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

..... He's an otherwise "normal" individual, yet he seems to take
pleasure in running his engine way over TBO


As a non-owner ... but hope to be one day ... let me ask.

What is the deal with TBO? What do the regs say about it? I hear of
people running past it ... so is it not a legal issue? I wouldn't do it
for safety reasons ... but is it legal to run a 2000hour TBO engine up
to 5000 hours as long as it still passes the annual?

Edward

"Edward Todd" wrote in message
...
In article nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

..... He's an otherwise "normal" individual, yet he seems to take
pleasure in running his engine way over TBO


As a non-owner ... but hope to be one day ... let me ask.

What is the deal with TBO? What do the regs say about it? I hear of
people running past it ... so is it not a legal issue? I wouldn't do it
for safety reasons ... but is it legal to run a 2000hour TBO engine up
to 5000 hours as long as it still passes the annual?


http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/187037-1.html

/excerpt on

April 14, 2004

The Savvy Aviator #4: Debunking TBO

By Mike Busch


Engine TBO (time between overhauls) seems to be one of the most
misunderstood concepts in aviation maintenance. There are lots of
TBO-related old wives tales that are widely believed by owners and mechanic
alike, and they can cost owners a great deal of money. Mike Busch endeavors
to clear up these misconceptions, and explain what TBO really means

/excerpt off

(I'm not sure the annual checks for engine internal condition)

Tom
--
"Real science doesn't work on consensus.
It works on contention. When a new fact
is announced, it is attacked voraciously
from all sides and corners. If it holds up,
and proves to be true, it is then, and only
then, accepted as a fact.

With real science, you don't need
consensus. Only facts. " - Dave Hitt

First, allow me to repost your quote from Dave Hitt:

"Real science doesn't work on consensus. It works on contention. When a new
fact is announced, it is attacked voraciously from all sides and corners.
If it holds up, and proves to be true, it is then, and only then, accepted
as a fact.

With real science, you don't need consensus. Only facts. " - Dave Hitt


It's an interesting quote, but it's totally wrong! Without consensus there
would be no facts; there would only be individual scientists offering their
own, frequently differing opinions.

There is a generally accepted distance between Earth and the moon (roughly a
quarter of a million miles). This would generally be described as a "fact".
But no one has ever taken a ruler and actually measured that distance.

What has been done is a method of measuring distances has been developed,
and introduced to the scientific community. Then, as Mr. Hitt noted, the
scientific community takes a run at the method and attempts to discredit it.
But eventually, a consensus will develop that the method is valid. The
distance to the moon is then measured by that method and that distance
replaces the old distance as a fact.

So facts are almost totally the result of consensus...



"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Edward Todd" wrote in message
...
In article nN_xc.23080$HG.18275@attbi_s53,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

..... He's an otherwise "normal" individual, yet he seems to take
pleasure in running his engine way over TBO


As a non-owner ... but hope to be one day ... let me ask.

What is the deal with TBO? What do the regs say about it? I hear of
people running past it ... so is it not a legal issue? I wouldn't do it
for safety reasons ... but is it legal to run a 2000hour TBO engine up
to 5000 hours as long as it still passes the annual?


http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/187037-1.html

/excerpt on

April 14, 2004

The Savvy Aviator #4: Debunking TBO

By Mike Busch


Engine TBO (time between overhauls) seems to be one of the most
misunderstood concepts in aviation maintenance. There are lots of
TBO-related old wives tales that are widely believed by owners and
mechanic
alike, and they can cost owners a great deal of money. Mike Busch
endeavors
to clear up these misconceptions, and explain what TBO really means

/excerpt off

(I'm not sure the annual checks for engine internal condition)

Tom
--
"Real science doesn't work on consensus.
It works on contention. When a new fact
is announced, it is attacked voraciously
from all sides and corners. If it holds up,
and proves to be true, it is then, and only
then, accepted as a fact.

With real science, you don't need
consensus. Only facts. " - Dave Hitt

In article ,
Edward Todd wrote:

What is the deal with TBO? What do the regs say about it? I hear of
people running past it ... so is it not a legal issue? I wouldn't do it
for safety reasons ... but is it legal to run a 2000hour TBO engine up
to 5000 hours as long as it still passes the annual?


TBO is a reference established by the manufacturer for certification.
If you run an engine the way the factory did it, you will get the wear
as measured by the manufacturer.
In reality, there are many different ways to operate and engine. These
many different methods of operation will result in different wear
patterns. Some methods will allow you to go beyond TBO, others will
significantly reduce your TBO.
ie... Lycoming AEIO-540 in aerobatic service have a TBO of 1200 hours.
In the real world of aerobatic use, 600-700 is normal. When you go from
full throttle to idle with great rapidity in a 15 minute practice or
competition sequence, you are not operating the engine the same way the
factory did to establish the TBO.
Take that same engine and run it in a Cherokee Six, Cessna 210, or
Beech Bonanza, baby it, and you will go most likely go well beyond 1200
hours.

Would you care to take on these points a bit more circumspectly, or do you
still
maintain that those who ruffle your feathers must be unqualified?

Thanks, Jack. Nice rebuttal, but certainly more thorough and over-arching
than the post required. (The proverbial "kill a gnat with a hammer"
rebuttal is always fun to read, however!)

Masino likes to primp his gee-whiz engineering degree around once in a
while, as if it has anything to do with aircraft piloting or ownership.
He'll blow himself out in a few more posts, and then move on to the next
thing that bothers.

"And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming..."

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

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
First, allow me to repost your quote from Dave Hitt:

"Real science doesn't work on consensus. It works on contention. When a
new
fact is announced, it is attacked voraciously from all sides and corners.
If it holds up, and proves to be true, it is then, and only then, accepted
as a fact.

With real science, you don't need consensus. Only facts. " - Dave Hitt


It's an interesting quote, but it's totally wrong! Without consensus there
would be no facts;

Fact exist independant of consensus. What's your subscribe to is called
"subjectivism" (reality exists in in mind, not independant of human
"perception").

there would only be individual scientists offering their
own, frequently differing opinions.

And those opinions are based on...what?

There is a generally accepted distance between Earth and the moon (roughly
a
quarter of a million miles). This would generally be described as a
"fact".
But no one has ever taken a ruler and actually measured that distance.

Not a ruler, but they've used lasers that are accurate to wintin a few
inches. That was one of the pieces of equipment left behind by one of the
Apollo missions.


What has been done is a method of measuring distances has been developed,
and introduced to the scientific community. Then, as Mr. Hitt noted, the
scientific community takes a run at the method and attempts to discredit
it.
But eventually, a consensus will develop that the method is valid.

There's been a lot of "consensus" by the scientifc community over the
centuries, often wrong. Often completely wrong.

The
distance to the moon is then measured by that method and that distance
replaces the old distance as a fact.

You replace the method, not the "facts".

So facts are almost totally the result of consensus...

Sigh....and the consensus' mentioned above?

Your "reasoning" is cyclical.

Jay Honeck wrote:

I must admit that their assessment matches my own observations. Some of the
planes I see regularly flying are almost scary -- and some of the planes
I've seen in hangars and on ramps I can only pray never take flight under
their own power.

How do you know anything about their mechanical condition? Outside of my own aircraft
and two planes that have not had air in the tires for years, I know absolutely zilch
about what's been done to any aircraft at Old Bridge. I'd bet you don't know much
more about any at Iowa City. So far, it sounds like you're assuming that lousy paint
means lousy mechanicals as well. That's not a good assumption.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.