HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Another cylinder cracked!
Keywords: Mattituck O-360 Overhaul
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:12:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.205555.5427@eco.twg.com>, reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack) writes:
|> 
|> It seems we've cracked another cylinder in N6151H. Since this is the
|> second one to go in this plane, I'd like to solicit the opinions and
|> experiences of other Rec.Aviators.

|> ...descripition of cylinder problems omitted


I wish I has some useful suggestions for your problems, but about all
I could suggest is that you call Mattituck and get as much from them
as you can.

My main reason for posting is to thank you for the insights you've provided.
I had no idea that Mattituck, or any other overhauler, would replace
your cylinders with unknown stock from their inventory.  I recently bought
a factory overhauled engine with new cylinders and I'm really glad I
did after hearing this story.  Mattituck is one of the big-name rebuild
shops so this is particularly surprizing.  

My 172 had to have a cylinder replaced at about 1100 SMOH.  It had been
rebuilt once, and the old cylinders had been overhauled.  This makes me
wonder if the shop that did the one overhaul reused the original cylinders
or if they did the same thing Mattituck did to you.  This whole story
reemphisizes the need to understand as much as possible about exactly
what you are getting when you get an overhaul.  As I said, I decided to
get a factory overhaul because I know they do things that other shops
don't necessarily do (new cam, not a regrind, new cylinders, etc.)  It 
was only marginally more expensive than the lowest price quoted me by
a shop and it was the same price if I specified new cylinders to the
rebuild shops I contacted.

-- 
***********************************************************************
 Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
 Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
 phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
From: peggy@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Peggy golden)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Leaseback
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:09:38 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

We are on leaseback at an FBo in Boca Raton Florida and have had a good
experience so far. Here are some tips:

Be sure to compute a breakeven on the rental so you know if it is working
out.

We have occasional difficulty getting our own plane. See if the FBO will
make an arrangement for you to use other planes at the same discounted
rental at which you "flow through" cash on your own.

BE SURE that the insurance is adequate and covers any possibility that you
can encounter.

Leave an option for use of your own mechanic. Its a check and balance. We
have never used another mechanic but we can if we see the need to do so.

We are leasing back a Warrior. We think that a Warrior, C-172 or Arrow are
probably good bets but the demand is highest for the first two. Put in good
radios...renters will choose a plane with good radios, ceterus paribus.

Be sure that the flight school penalizes renters who leave on the master
switch...battery charges paid by you can add up.

Be present on a regular basis so they know you and respond to you.

Oh, and one last thing...build in a reserve for avionics and engine overhaul
into your bookkeeping so you really know what your costs are. The IRS does
not allow these as expenses but it will help you to keep the cash available
for these items.

Good luck.

Peggy A. Golden
Dept. of Management and International Business
Florida Atlantic University
also...Warrior N38897
golden@acc.fau.edu
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.owning:375 rec.aviation.misc:1276
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: ferrying an aircraft from greensboro-ft collins-sandyeggo
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:27:56 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.owning
Distribution: na
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <AfILSFC00WBK01OoBR@andrew.cmu.edu> jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Dunkle) writes:
!!!	I have a little time in C152s IFR. I always had this fantasy that
!!!one day I would be flying IFR into a severe headwind and get an ammended
!!!clearance requiring a hold at a VOR -- and just pull the power back until
!!!I could remain 'in a hover (sic)' over the VOR :-).
!! 
!!I once hover'd a C172 and of course an Aeronca 7AC is dirt simple
!!to hover.
!
!I suspect those of us old enough to have some "rag wing" time have
!similar stories....one of my fondest memories during my student days in
!a J-3 was the first time my instructor took me up for a lesson in a
!stiff wind and...among other things....we "hovered" over the same silo
!for 10 minutes or so.
!
!That "old salt" also tried to teach me how to "drag" the runway with the
!tail wheel, while keeping the mains off.....I never could for very
!long....he was able to...for as far as he pleased.  

Well, my original flight instructor was an `old navy style salt'
who once `had me' take-off in the parking lot! I can still remember this
vividly. It was in Troy, NY. It was blowing a bit that day, about 35 kts.
Pulled the airplane, a 7AC out of the hangar onto the parking lot
(grass field you know), faced it into the wind, me at the controls
and on the brakes, he propped the aircraft, crawled in back and
said I'll do the take-off, advance the throttle and the airplane
lifted off in about 30 feet while still in the parking lot! At
about 30 feet agl over the FBO shack he says `you've got it'.
I still have a picture of that FBO shack in my mind after some 35+
years!

Dave Rogers
From: lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: Leaseback
Date: 10 Jan 1993 22:38:14 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.aero.org

In article <Rig7wB2w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> peggy@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Peggy golden) writes:
>We are on leaseback at an FBo in Boca Raton Florida and have had a good
>experience so far. Here are some tips:

	And goes on to list some very good ones.

		I don't have a plane on leaseback, and
		never had, but here's a point worth
		considering, based on a major FBO at
		Santa Monica, California:

		Factor in, both legally, and financially,
		effects of the FBO going bankrupt.  California
		Aviation, a major Piper/Mooney FBO at SMO
		went under last month on very short notice
		(like the trustee walking in the door and
		telling everyone they're fired).

		The risk here is that the FBO will end up
		owing one or more month's revenue to the
		owner.  Then you're just another creditor
		trying to collect from the defunct FBO.

		I leave it as an exercise for the reader to
		decide on appropriate procedures to reduce
		the financial impacts of this happening.

-- 
Larry Miller		The Aerospace Corporation
lmiller@aero.org	PO Box 92957		
310-336-5597		LA, CA 90009-2957
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:48:18 GMT
Subject: Re: ferrying an aircraft from greensboro-ft collins-sandyeggo
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning

In article <737@oscar.UUCP>, hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz) writes:
>a few brews (i'm gonna need it after flying a 152 for 1250+ nautical
>miles from north carolina to colorado, in the winter, in 2 days..), give

Seems to me, you need a psychiatrist instead! ;-)

Bill Standerfer
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: mrl775@tigger.jvnc.net
Subject: Upgrading AA5A to 160 hp.
Followup-To: rec.aviation.owning
Summary: O-320 to high compression.
Reply-To: mrl775@tigger.jvnc.net
Organization: TheNews 
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:37:59 GMT

 I have a Grumman Cheetah with a 150 hp O-320 as well.  I have looked into the
STC for the cheetah, and it basically involves new piston heads (equated to a
top overhaul) and some little bit of work.  The stc for the cheetah is in the
neighborhood of $500 for the paperwork (can't recall the exact amount).  If you
are dealing with an aircraft that is certified for 160 Hp, you may not need an
STC. 

The additional 10 hp have been reported to increase the rate of climb from
about 700 fpm to about 1200 fpm, and cruise from about 120 knots to about 130
knots.  This is without repitching the prop (pitched to 59 inches).  The person
that reported this, was running the engine full out, at 2700 at altitude to get
the 130+ knots.  I would guess that if the prop was pitched out to 60 or 61,
the climb would stay pretty much the same, but the cruise would increase to
about130-135 knots at 2500.  

One thing to consider, at least for me, is that the 150 hp O-320 is STCable for
autogas, and burns 80 octane very nicely (much more nicely than 100 LL or auto
if you ask me).  The 160 hp is limited to 100LL.  That may not be significant
now, but come 1996, and there will be no leaded fuels.  It will be uneconomical
for the refineries to make 100LL as the only leaded fuel (containment and
disposal problems).  Thus, it may be very advantagous to have an autogas burner
by then. That, of course, can be weighed against the possible problem of
burning auto fuel with MTBE in it....

I am still trying to decide... though I think I am leaning towards the 160
conversion (for better high altitude performance and cruise), and think that
they (the powers that be) will come up with some acceptable substitute for
100LL by '96.. otherwise, I guess I could undo the 160 back to 150 for the cost
of a top.

Just my $0.02

Keith
From: hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: Temperatures after overhaul
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:22:33 GMT

In article <1hss00INN8fo@transfer.stratus.com>, lee@deneb.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider) writes:
> I just got Wiley back after he had his O-470 overhauled down at Penn Yan (boy,
> do refurbished engines look nice!).  I have been flying it hard and long, as
> 
> I have an engine monitor that registers 6 EGT's and 2 CHT's.  The latter are
> nominal (340 and 360) in cruise, but the EGT's seem odd.  During idle and
> runup they are all together and normal, but after climbing to altitude I get
> 
> 	1470  1550  1380  1525  1330  1250
> 
> That is, the spread between #2 and #6 is over 300 degrees, which is twice what

> Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
> Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"

you did say o-470. carbureted.  i'd wait another 5 or 10 hours.

i can think of several reasons. the air/fuel distribution to the
cylinders is not as uniform as you might expect from a fuel injected
engine. this is the primary reason why those flying non fuel injected
airplanes lean to peak and enrichen 50 or 75 degrees F. some cylinders
will and do run hotter than the others.

there is also some variance in the thermocouples. these egt probes are
not the most robust, and they see some fairly harsh environments, what
with vibration, thermal cycles of significant bandwidth, rain, and woody
woodpecker. figure some tolerance there from one to the next cylinder.

a new engine will run hot in the beginning until the heat caused by very
tight mechanical fits (ie new rings/cylinders) subsides (you hope). i
doubt this is a major factor in your situation, but its kinda
interesting nonetheless.

finally, another few hours may narrow that variance you are seeing,
but you may want to take a knife, and scrape off the carbon build-up or
residue that has probably formed on the egt probes. if you're not
comfortable with it, you may want to remove them under the watchfull eye
of your friendly a&p, or ai, and compare them. scraping off the cakey,
carbon junk, may help further...


dennis hurvitz
cutlass n5271u
duchess 6009k
mei



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: jtg0707@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jui Tien)
Subject: Parts for BeechCraft
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:35:23 GMT
Keywords: Bonanza

I like to solicit some experiences of acquiring parts for Beech Bonanza
or any GA aircraft that any of you may own.
	1. How much time/money do you usually spend hunting for replacements?

	2. Was parts availability a consideration when you purchased
	   the aircraft?

	3. Where do you usually get your parts?

Thanks in advance.
J.T.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson)
Subject: Where to rent - So. Cal.
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Distribution: socal
Date: 06 Jan 93 16:17:46 PST
Summary: Where to rent in the San Fernando Valley
Keywords: rental

Hello,

I will soon be moving to the Camarillo/Oxnard/Ventura area, and would like to
hear from renters in that area about FBO's and/or clubs at any of the area
airports.

Thanks,

Jav
jav@crash.cts.com
From: scottcr@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: RE: a nice touch (terra flame)
Date: 10 Jan 93 13:17:35 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY


In article <greg.726608500@saltydog>, greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
> 
> [ stuff removed ] 
> 
> I like touches like this.  Note that I paid a little less than $300.00 for
> the encoder and over $1000.00 for the transponder.  I'm still waiting for
> my letter from King...
> 
> 
> greg
> 

When I started doing avionic bench repair part-time I selected a Terra
transponder *not* because it was cheap; It was the most expensive, but
because conventional wisdom says solid state is better, and the terra
did not use a "tube" final amplifier.  I used the unit for 3 years
, having to replace the push-up push-down switches after 1 year, as
I did for many customers.

We have a "TIC" xpndr ramp checker that never would show a "solid"
reply from any Terra xpndr, but would for any King or Narco; Looking
at the reply bit stream on a scope, one could not discern any problem
however the Ramp checker (an artificial interrogator) did not like it.

I learned over time that my wanting to avoid a "tube" unit was a 
moot point; the output tubes are very reliable and having fixed more
than 100 transponders, I have only twice had to replace the tube.
Further, the local oscilator in the terra is not crystal controlled;
both the King and Narco are (and always have been).

Often while flying IFR with the Terra, ATC would ask me to recycle
transponder.  I now fly a Cherokee with a King KT76A (IMHO the finest
one available... a LSI chip does most things) and *never* get asked
to recycle, or *ever* have any problem being seen on radar.

To further my soapbox Terra flame:
My present Terra audio panel/MB rcvr burned me on an actual
ILS to minimums: I heard the OM fine, but when I reached DH
and saw nothing I was momentarily confused about *NOT* hearing/
seeing the MM.  The terra's MB receiver has three audio filters
post detector; the middle marker one (1300 hz)  drifted off.
IMHO a fail safe design would have the audio output pre-filter
to still allow aural reception should a filter fail.  Not the
Terra; the audio output is post filter (probably to make the
audio sound cleaner, no doubt influenced by the !#$@ marketing
dept).

On a more positive note: The new display design has probably
cured the terrible button failures; only now the price is so
high, that for the same money one could by real avionics.

-- 
Chris Scott,  C/E Public Radio,  Western KY Univ,  (502) 745-3834
SCOTTCR@WKUVX1.BITNET      fx off: 745-2084     fx hm: 781-1232  
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Date: Mon,  4 Jan 1993 08:36:56 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: 0-320 conversion experience?
	<1993Jan3.225319.13192@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
Distribution: na

>I was speaking to the local maintenance people yesterday about a similar
>conversion - upgrading a 172 from 140hp to 180hp. One of the locals has
>done this and reports an increase in speed from 110 knots to about 150.
>Part of this increase is due to the fact he also put new paint on the
>plane. He says, though, that the fuel consumption went up so much that
>the range is actually less with the bigger engine. Another fellow here
>spoke to the Penn-Yan (sp?) people about this, and they verified that.
> 
>The experience here is that you actually lose a little time on some long 
>runs because of the greater number of fuel stops.
> 
>This owner currently has three 172s on leaseback. One has the 180hp,
>one has 160hp, and I'm not sure about the other. Based on the wet rental
>prices, I take the 160 up when I need to rent one.

Two of my flying clubs' planes are C-172s, a 1979 and 1980 model.  We
had the 1980 one converted to an 0-360 at last overhaul, and had the Max
GW STC increased to 2,550 lbs. (the flap extension gets restricted to 30
degrees with this STC by the way).  Results: (realistic vs. published)
Climb at low altitudes consistantly between 900 and 1050 f/min.
Cruse increase:  about 7 kts....120kts at 2500 RMP (about 75% at cruse
altitude)
Fuel consumption: block, (i.e. all hours/all fuel) = 10.2 g/hour (tach
time..not hobbs)  
Note: club planes see a lot of pattern work/hour so fuel
consumption/hour is high.

Unless you want the GW increase.....I'm not too enthusiastic about the
conversion.  By the way....the total bill for the project, with an
overhauled 0-360, not a factory new engine, and both STC's, one for the
engine swap, one for the GW increase...was a bit over $18,000.

Jeff Dunkle

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Subject: Upgrading a Piper Warrior to 160hp?
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 00:42:54 GMT


In article <1993Jan2.061356.21174@mdd.comm.mot.com>, fraser@mdd.comm.mot.com (Cameron Fraser) writes:
|>i have a pa-28-151 with the 150hp O-320 not far from overhaul - a local
|>overhaul shop suggests that at overhaul time it would be minor to change
|>it to 160hp. Has anyone had any experience following this route or along
|>a similiar line is anyone aware of an stc for putting in a 180hp engine?

Like Cameron, we have a 150hp Warrior approaching TBO, and we're also looking
at upgrading to 160hp. Does anyone out there have any experience with this
particular conversion?

The other thread immediately veered into the C-172 160hp to 180hp conversion,
but that's not gonna be much help when it comes to the Warrior. Maybe the
subject change will keep this one on track.

--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL-IA -- Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
From: jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Dunkle)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: Temperatures after overhaul
Date: 4 Jan 93 03:23:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.sfG3cwi00iUzA0yXh_
Distribution: world
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>I have an engine monitor that registers 6 EGT's and 2 CHT's.  The latter are
>nominal (340 and 360) in cruise, but the EGT's seem odd.  During idle and
>runup they are all together and normal, but after climbing to altitude I get
> 
>	1470  1550  1380  1525  1330  1250
> 
>That is, the spread between #2 and #6 is over 300 degrees, which is twice what
>the engine monitor thinks is reasonable, so it lights the red light.  The
>temperature for each cylinder is stable during an hour or two of flight.
> 
>Also, when I lean the mixture, the temperature come together, that is, cold
>cylinders come up a bit and the hot cylinders come down.  It makes it look as
>though the hot cylinders are running lean and the cold cylinders are running
rich.

There are generally three factors which contribute to "temperature"
variations among cylinders...

1) Relative cooling - i.e. position in the engine and how well and
evenly the cooling air is distributed.  In most baffel/cooling flow
configurations, rear cylinders run hotter for obvious reasons.

2) Mixture - the mixture selected at that moment (for overall engine
temp, and the mixture "distribution" among cylinders.  In carbureted
engines, depending on what mixture setting is selected, flow streaming
and uneven flow distribution in the manifold often result in individual
cylinders "seeing" different fuel/air mixes.  Since your "spread"
narrows when leaning, this may be part of whats going on at richer
settings.  

3) Mechanical & Oil stuff - obviously, if oil flow to the mechanicals in
a cylinder head is restricted, or if a valve is sticking, burned, or a
ring is broken, etc.  abnormal cylinder head temps can result. 
Hopefully not on a recent rebuild though.

I suspect what you're seeing is a combination of 1 & 2.  

Jeff Dunkle
From: jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Dunkle)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: Upgrading a Piper Warrior to 160hp?
Date: 6 Jan 93 05:04:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.wfGjHay00UzxA1WJYI
	<1993Jan5.004254.29264@eco.twg.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I have a friend who owned a Warrier (past tense...was destroyed last
month in a hangar collapse from snow...)  who had several years running
experience with this conversion.  Summation...he was fairly happy with
the outcome....nothing dramatic.  Will be happy to give anyone who
wishes ...his name and phone number here in the Pittsburgh area.

Jeff Dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: lee@deneb.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: ferrying an aircraft from greensboro-ft collins-sandyeggo
Date: 11 Jan 1993 16:59:51 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: deneb.sw.stratus.com

In article <2616@usna.NAVY.MIL> dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
>I once hover'd a C172...

And I flew at MCA in a 152 straight into a 50 knot headwind.  We were moving
briskly backwards over the ground and I found that the visual clues to being
close to a stall were hard to overcome.  I was nervous as heck, even though
airspeed was a few knots above the stall warning.
-- 
Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Re: 0-320 conversion experience?
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:35:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <C0CAIE.1Jq@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:

>In article <1993Jan3.225319.13192@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r) writes:

>|> I was speaking to the local maintenance people yesterday about a similar
>|> conversion - upgrading a 172 from 140hp to 180hp. One of the locals has
>|> done this and reports an increase in speed from 110 knots to about 150.
>|> Part of this increase is due to the fact he also put new paint on the
>|> plane. He says, though, that the fuel consumption went up so much that
>|> the range is actually less with the bigger engine. Another fellow here
>|> spoke to the Penn-Yan (sp?) people about this, and they verified that.

>The 180hp Penn Yan 172 I have flown several times doesn't go anywhere near
>150kts.  It is closer to about 125kts at most at 75%.  It does carry more
>weight and climb very well, though.  But I'd be suspicious of anyone who
>claims 150kts.  

This issue seems to pop up on a regular basis.  I have been
considering the conversion, and concluded that the higher fuel flow is
just about countered by the higher speeds (at cruise), but IFR reserve
requirements end up reducing your effective range.

One solution: trade some of the optionally higher gross weight for
more gas.... install long(er) range tanks.  I already have 50 gallons
usable, and seldom fly more than 4 hours in a leg.  That's all me and
my bladder can handle, and it leaves me with 2 hours remaining.  180
hp and 10 gal/hour would get me further, and still leaves me with a
one-hour reserve.

The "150" claim is common, but I thought it was "mph", not "knots".
And most references say something like "150 mph at altitude", which I
assume to mean in the vicinity of 10,000 feet.
--
Paul Barnett
MPP OS Development     (214)-497-4846
Convex Computer Corp.  Richardson, TX
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning