HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Early C172's W/Continental O300
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 13:27:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.215533.21104@nmsu.edu> bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (BOSWELL) writes:

>  When our club  
>A&P pulled the plugs on those cylinders, they were *FOULED!*  (the rest of the
>plugs on the other cylinders were fine!).  The engine only has 300 hours since
>overhaul, 200 since top (it had a similar problem earler, but on different  
>cylinders).  

>Has anyone heard of/experienced a similar problem with this engine?  One other
>fact I forgot to mention (though I seriously doubt it's the problem): the plane
>is STC'd for Auto, and was designed to run on 80 octane.  For it's first 50  
>hours after the major overhaul, the shop that overhauled it told us to run the  
>plane on 100LL to break in the engine.  This we did. 


It's a problem.  The Continental O-300 in older 172's is relatively loosely
cowled, according to John Frank of the Cessna Pilot's Association, and as
a result it's cylinder head temps may not get high enough to activate the
lead scavenger in 100LL.  C-150's have the same problem, only worse.  As
a result, on a steady diet of 100LL they predictably accumulate lead fouling
of plugs, and sometimes of valves.  The disparity between some plugs being
clean and others fouled can be due to a lot of things, such as external
baffles which don't seal, inhomogeneity of air-fuel mixture, poor sealing
of rings, improperly gapped or defective plugs (it happens), or improperly
seating valves.

I think the shop would have been better advised to tell you to run it for
50 hours on 80 octane before going back to mogas.  This is, after all, 
what they did until 100LL made its appearance in about 1975.

CPA advises for 80 octane capable engines that the preferred priority for
fuels is 80 avgas > 87 mogas >> 100LL.  Be sure to add TCP if using 100LL;
at least the lead deposits will be fluffy and easy to remove rather than
welded on.  (CAP also has said at OSH that, as far as using mogas, the
experience with Cessnas as far as trouble free operation is something
like C182 > 150hp C172 > 145hp C172 >> C150.)

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Cherokee 140 vs. C-172
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:57:11 GMT
Organization: South Coast Computing Services, Inc.

May I have some opinions on the following thought process?

All of my training time has been in a C-152.  Just fine for training, but 
marginal for cross-country flying involving more than one adult human.  So,
with a Cessna state of mind, I pretty much took it for granted that a 172
would be the right plane to purchase.  After reading about the plane's
performance specs, however, I am doubting that.  For x-c flying, it 
apparently is really a three adult plane.   

If I am willing to settle for a three-person aircraft, why not purchase
a less expensive PA28-140?  The Cherokee-140's listed in TAP are roughly 
$7,000-$10,000 less than the 172's.  From what I have read, the PA28-140 has
the capability (like the 172) of carrying four adult humans (but not with full
fuel, again like the 172).  I understand that the original 140 model didn't
have a rear seat, but was a popular option package.  Many of the ones listed
in TAP indicate this.

So, folks, I am curious to know what I would be giving up by purchasing a 
little Cherokee?  Am I missing something?  

Thank you.

Mark Conover  //conover@nuchat.sccsi.com
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:09:41 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Aircraft Financing

Excerpts from netnews.rec.aviation.owning: 21-Nov-92 Aircraft Financing
by Mark Rogers@eplrx7.es.du 
> The subject pretty much says it all.  How do people finance their own
> aircraft?  I know about groups of people sharing the cost (heck, I'm a
> club member myself), but what kinds of terms do lending institutions have
> for aircraft loans?  Is it like car loans (1-5 years at a higher rate) or

A year ago I was in the market for a plane representing an "owner's
group" breaking off from a club.  We didn't end up getting a plane, but
we did learn alot about insurance rates and financing.  Others on the
nets have noted what most local banks, etc say.  I got my best financing
quotes from several ads in Trade-A-Plane.  1 1/2 years ago folks wanted
20% down at 12% interest.  Today I'm sure you'd ddo better.  My point is
that each issue of Trade-A-Plane listed at least 3 to 6 finance
companies and I found most I called pleasant, professional, and
competitive.  After a little shopping I got one who dropped downpayment
to 15% and inkled he'd go to 10% with a well qualified group of buyers.

Good luck.

Jeff Dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: ulick@bernini.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford)
Subject: Re: Cherokee 140 vs. C-172
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:16:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.155711.16741@nuchat.sccsi.com> conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover) writes:
>May I have some opinions on the following thought process?
>
>If I am willing to settle for a three-person aircraft, why not purchase
>a less expensive PA28-140?  The Cherokee-140's listed in TAP are roughly 
>$7,000-$10,000 less than the 172's.  From what I have read, the PA28-140 has
>the capability (like the 172) of carrying four adult humans (but not with full
>fuel, again like the 172).  I understand that the original 140 model didn't
>have a rear seat, but was a popular option package.  Many of the ones listed
>in TAP indicate this.
>
>So, folks, I am curious to know what I would be giving up by purchasing a 
>little Cherokee?  Am I missing something?  

Find an FBO that rents PA28-140's.  Bring 3 friends.  Thry to sit them
comfortably inside...  Make no mistake I much prfer to fly the 140, and
it's great for 2 people, but there  is zero legroom in front of the backseat.
You would be giving up a lot in comfort.  Have you considered a Beechcraft
Sundowner?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
+ 'There was a  master come unto the earth, + Ulick Stafford, PP-ASEL       +
+    born in the holy land of Indiana,      + Dept of Chemical Engineering, +
+ in the mystical hills east of Fort Wayne'.+ Notre Dame, IN 46556          +
+      B'fhearr liom bheith ag eitilt.      +    ulick@bach.helios.nd.edu   +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: glennw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (glenn.r.wesley)
Subject: Archer vs. Arrow Costs?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:25:06 GMT
Keywords: archer arrow


Our club is going to be purchasing either a Piper Archer or a Piper
Arrow.  We are only considering the tapered wing designs.
    So, what can we expect in costs?  Insurance, overhaul, fuel burn,
maintenance costs?  How much additional cost per hour would be due to
the Arrow's prop and gear?
    Our ultimate decision will be based on the difference in hourly
cost vs. additional benefits of having the extra features of the
Arrow.
    Please share your insights and experience.
    Thanks in advance.
=========================================================================
Glenn Wesley			PP-ASEL
glennw@alux1.att.com		230 hrs and climbing...
AT&T Bell Laboratories		Lehigh Valley Flying Club
Allentown, PA			Warrior 30LV, Charger 40LV, Archer 47480
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Cherokee 140 vs. C-172
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:23:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.191304.16219@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r) writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.155711.16741@nuchat.sccsi.com> conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover) writes:
>>May I have some opinions on the following thought process?
>
>How 'bout some facts instead.
>
>>If I am willing to settle for a three-person aircraft, why not purchase
>>a less expensive PA28-140? 
>
>Comparing the C172 with the PA-28 150hp versions;
>
>                Cessna                            Piper
>                ------                            -----
>Max              139mph                            same
>Cruise           131                               130
>Stall             49                                53
>Fuel              42 gal                            36 gal
>Ceiling       13,100'                           14,300'
>ROC              645fpm                            660
>TO over 50'    1,525'                            1,750'
>Ground run       865'                              800'
>Land over 50'  1,250'                            1,890'
>Ground roll      520'                              535'
>Gross          2,300 lb                          2,150
>Empty          1,265 lb.                         1,205
>TBO            2,000 hours                       1,200 w/o mods 2,000 with
>
>Both have versions of the Lycoming O-320. As you can see, the 172 can carry
>more and get in and out of shorter fields. According to the NTSB, the 172
>has the best safety record in its class and the Piper has one of the worst.
>
>All data taken from "The Illustrated Buyer's Guide to Used Airplanes". This
>book obtained these figures from the manufacturers.

I couldn't resist adding my $.02 here: fuel capacity is 36 gallons to
the bottom of the tabs in the tank (called, euphamistically, standard
capacity); full capacity is 50 Gallons for gross weight computations.  
TBO, unless the plane has been sitting unused on a ramp since 1967, and
has 3/16" valve stems rather than 1/4" stems, is 2000 hours.  According
to Lycoming, they don't even produce 3/16" valves anymore, and haven't
since the early 70's...for all intents and purposes, 2000 hours is the
number.

Obviously, george, you fly those high wing trainers out of Wichita-

I have owned both, and prefer the Piper?  Why?  higher wing loading=
smoother ride, low wing=better visibility, better crosswind manners
(look at which planes are flying on a gusty day-better yet, observe the
final approach antics by the high-wing jocks versus the low-wing
planes...), easier to check fuel level without stepladders or climbing
all over wing struts, and so forth.  You want a real plane, look at
the cherokee 180's...2500 gross, 1100+lbs useful, 10 gph fuel burn.

BB
 

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (BOSWELL)
Subject: Early C172's W/Continental O300
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:55:33 GMT

Hello!  I am on the board of directors of a flying club in Las Cruces, NM.  We  
seem to have a minor problem at the moment and I was wondering if anyone's  
heard the likes of this one.

It seems our 1960 172A with the 6-cylinder Continental O300 has a compression  
problem on two of it's cylinders so it's been grounded.  One time when I was in  
the air with it, I was fiddling with the cylinder head temperature guage, and I  
noticed that #4 and #2 were redlined, but the rest were fine.  When our club  
A&P pulled the plugs on those cylinders, they were *FOULED!*  (the rest of the  
plugs on the other cylinders were fine!).  The engine only has 300 hours since  
overhaul, 200 since top (it had a similar problem earler, but on different  
cylinders).  At top, the engine was still under warranty, so the work was done  
for free.  But now the engine's out of warranty and is going to run us a  
minimum of $1000, as far as we can tell talking to various aircraft engine  
shops around this part of the country (we're not taking it back to the shop on  
field that overhauled it last time!).

Has anyone heard of/experienced a similar problem with this engine?  One other  
fact I forgot to mention (though I seriously doubt it's the problem): the plane  
is STC'd for Auto, and was designed to run on 80 octane.  For it's first 50  
hours after the major overhaul, the shop that overhauled it told us to run the  
plane on 100LL to break in the engine.  This we did.  It was also broken in on  
it's first 50 hours with straight mineral oil.  Afterwards, we started running  
it on Phillips 20W50 X/C aircraft multigrade, just like the rest of the club's  
aircraft.  The compression on both of the questionable cylinders is in the low  
'50s, while the good cylinders are running 78-79.

In the meantime, we have a 1968 172I with the Lycoming O-320 on backup, but  
there's demand from our members to have two working 172's!!!


Any help will be appreciated!
  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Subject: Re: Log Book Observations
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:39:59 GMT


In article <134110001@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com>, bcarroll@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Bryan Carroll) writes:
|>Thought I'd share some data I have been collecting from my Airframe
|>and Engine Log Books.
|>
|>We recently had both a Vacuum Pump failure followed (a month or so
|>later) by an alternator failure.  This prompted my searching the logs
|>to see what had been done with these systems over the years.  The
|>aircraft in question is a 1977 Mooney 201 with lots of goodies that
|>put lots of load on the electrical system (our stormscope controls 
|>and a few other goodies are mounted UNDER the panel on the co-pilots
|>side due to lack of panel space).
|>
|>Alternator History:
	[...deleted for brevity...]
|>Vacuum History:
|>
|>Date			Tach
|>	Life Time		Life (in Tach Hours)
|>----------------------------------------------------
|>1/77			0
|>	10 years		918 hrs.
|>7/87			918
|>	5 years			~1600
|>9/92			~2400
|>
|>It seems we were also lucky with the second (and maybe the first
|>also) vacuum pump.  
|>
|>I was a little surprized at the numbers.  I was expecting the 
|>alternator to last a little longer and would not have been surprized
|>if the vacuum pump did not last as long as it did.                   
|>
|>Comments anyone???

My club flies Pipers...currently a Warrior, an Archer II, a Dakota, and
until last year an Archer I. After the vacuum pump failed in our Warrior
(while I was out doing unusual attitudes practice at night as a student
with my instructor...great timing, eh?) I spoke at length with a couple
of A&Ps about vacuum pumps.

According to the consensus, vacuum pumps have an average lifespan of about
600 to 700 hours. Many will run for hundreds of hours beyond that, and of
course some will fail before that. The ones installed in our aircraft are
actually factory marked with "Replace after 600 hours of operation".

Interestingly enough, the folk I talked to were split over whether the pump
should actually be replaced after their rated lifespan. One group felt that
it should be, while the other felt that since the actual lifespan varied so
much from unit to unit a properly operating pump should be left in place
until it failed. Ours are run until failure, and if I remember right have
almost always have exceeded the 600 hour lifespan by quite a bit.

The warning signs I was told to watch for were a slow drop in the vacuum
below the regulator setting, especially when operating at low RPM, and a
fine black dust accumulating on or near the pump overboard tube. Both are
supposed to be caused by sharp increase in the wear of the pump vanes, and
signal the impending failure of the pump. Of course any pump is also subject
to catastrophic failure without warning, so currency in no-gyro procedures
is always recommended.

--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL-IA -- Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover)
Subject: 80 Octane engines on 100LL
Organization: South Coast Computing Services, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:15:43 GMT

I am beginning to do the ground work for the eventual purchase of an
airplane.  Most of the aircraft in my price range were manufactured in the
1960's and early 1970's, when 80 octane fuel was (apparently) the norm.

My question:  How well do these older planes' engines operate with 100 octane
              fuel?  I have heard of "lead fouling".  How serious is this?

Thanks for any info.

Mark Conover  // conover@nuchat.sccsi.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella)
Subject: Re: Early C172's W/Continental O300
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:14:24 GMT



1/ I'm sure happy I am no longer beholden to a Continetal (Lycoming in my 
Mooney).

2/ Sounds like leaky valves to me.

3/ Lead serves the wonderful service of building up a dynamic seal for the
valves which may be lacking in your case (I'm guessing).

4/ In that case a much longer service with 100LL or even periodic 100LL use
may be your long term answer.

5/ re 1/ above, we had a Debonair A-33 from '70 to '79 (Cont. IO-470-J)
which always had serious exhaust gasket leakage troubles.  When the 80-octane 
disappeared from the market, the troubles were much more rare.  I traced it to 
an opportune build-up of lead dust, creating a neat gasket seal!

Luck!
From: goose@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Pilot)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Place to eat near Maryland or Del
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:44:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <stellabo.722030534@phage.cshl.org> stellabo@phage.cshl.org (Fred Stellabotte in Computer Center - CSHL) writes:
>I am planning a flight south from NY to Maryland or
>Del. .. This Sunday .. Just for lunch ..
>
>Can anyone suggest a Airport with a restrant that has
>good seafood ..??
>
>
  The BEST place for lunch is the 94th Aerodrome Restaurant on the field
at College Park Airport, Maryland.  The restaurant is setup in what looks
like a WWI bunker/redoubt.  For lunch it is reasonably priced, about $6 - 10
per person including drinks etc.. , and you literally walk 50 feet from the 
plane to the restaurant !!  Their phone number is- (301) 699-9400 and they are
open for lunch between 11 am and 2:30 pm.  Reservations aren't usually needed
on weekdays, but are recommended.  Email if you need more specifics..

	      Dave

p
s

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Aviation in itself is not inherently   |  David W. Gosnell          |
|   dangerous; but it is terribly         |  goose@sage.cc.purdue.edu  |
|  unforgiving of any carelessness,       |  Purdue University         |
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: phil@pex.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Stay on the ground, Reba.
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:56:50 GMT

In article <ahng.722198752@ee.ualberta.ca> ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng) writes:
>phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>
>>Warning:  pet peeve ahead.....
>
>Edited 
>>I guess it's just that old "airplanes are deadly mentality":  the
>>newscasters are calling it a "close call", etc.  I'm sorry, but that
>>didn't sound like a "close call" to me.
>
>Maybe I am just a candy ass but landing without nose gear sounds pretty
>scary to me.  Like a former instructor used to say "A superior pilot tries,
>not to get into a situation where she/he (not gender sensitivity) might 
>have to display her/his (again) superior skill."  

Non sequitor.

Mechanical failures DO happen.  Landing gear DO fail to extend.  Engines
DO fail.  And it's not always the pilot's fault.  Pilots are trained (or
at least are supposed to be trained) to handle such situations.  Yes it's
scary, but so is having a blowout on a front tire when travelling at 65
mph on a rainy night.  My point is this:  is it really SO scary that it
needs to be on the prime time news?  I claim that giving it so much 
attention is nothing more than sensationalism.  As someone pointed out
to me in a mail message:  remember, the news media is not there to keep
us informed, it's there to sell advertising time.

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Civil Air Patrol/CAP thou
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

JB> .Any constructive comments on joining the Civil Air Patrol program?  I just
  > .received my license and have considered joining the CAP organization to
  > .gain flying experience and do something useful with my license (flying 200
  > .miles for a hamburger lunch is not my idea of useful things to do with a
  > .license).

Check the squadron out carefully.  I was interested in joining a local
squadron.  I attended a few meetings, and based on what I heard, decided
that it was not prudent to entrust my life to the aircraft they were
flying.  Their maintenance standards and mine were just too far apart.

I've spoken to CAP members from other areas and they've told me that my
experience is atypical, but not unheard of.

"Y'all be careful out there!"

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: The home field accident...
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 17:18:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.154051.27951@b30.ingr.com> medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com writes:
...an account of a brand new pilot killing self and friends in an
   overloaded 172.  

I recall that as a young, newly minted pilot, a key element of personal
experience I lacked was understanding the difference in aircraft
performance at or near gross weights.  And naturally so, because all
of my training was either just an instructor and I, or flying solo.
Though I knew of the *theoretical* problems of flying a heavily loaded
plane, I never experienced it and at age 19 I guess I wouldn't have
believed it either.  After all, aren't airplanes "over-engineered" to
perform beyond their published limitations??

There is no substitute for experience.  So let me ask how many of the
net.CFI's make it a practice to put their students in a 4 seater, fill
the other 3 seats, and get some real experience with that real
queasy feeling of an airplane struggling to climb at gross weight?
I bet it would save a life every now and then.

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: martinl@torolab6.VNET.IBM.COM
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 13:46:46 EST
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Pitts for Competition
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: Usenet 3.0

> S2A,S2B,S2E ...... are not suitable for competition..

Sorry, Gopal, I have to disagree with you on this.

Basically, the S2B is an S2S with an added seat. The airframe is identical,
except for the torque tube (for 2 sticks), canopy, and a couple more
instruments. The Pitts factory says the S2S has the highest penetration
of any factory machine. With only a few more pounds the S2B is not far
behind (flown solo). The B has better penetration that the T model, and
I can get 2 full vertical rolls from straight and level at 185. How many
can one get from a FP 200HP S1S?

The second point to remember is that of the 600-700 competition pilots
out there, only 50 or so fly unlimited, where you really need the
penetration. You can fly (and win) Advanced with an S2A. Most pilots
fly Sportsman or Intermediate, where almost any Pitts (or almost
anything else) will do. Of course, having a snazzy plane in these
categories does make the flying easier.

Gopal, your post indicates that you have 550 hours in Pitts, which is a LOT-
I'm impressed. Certainly more than me. How 'bout some war stories -
what sort of stuff did you do accumulating all that time.
(For the uninitiated flying a Pitts 50 hrs a year is quite a bit -
100 hrs is world level. If you don't think this is a lot, try the
Advanced or Unlimited sequences. Then imagine 50 more hours of it.
Fun, but tiring).

Martin