Opinions on "Experimentals"

Walter Klatt · Post by **Walter Klatt** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

There are definitely trade-offs. With a homebuilt, you are the
manufacturer, so you need to know what "AD"s apply. We like to
call them mods. That's also a great advantage in that you can
tailor and personalize your plane to be what you want. With
certified planes, you have someone else take care of the
airworthiness issues and you can just pay and fly. But your life
is now in someone else's hands.

Then there is performance. That's where the homebuilts really
shine, primarily because it is usually pretty easy to add on a
high horsepower engine. Also, I prefer the handling of the Rebel
over any certified that I have flown. It is still the only plane
I know where you don't have to fiddle with the elevator trim when
you change the throttle setting or go from climb to cruise. Also,
you can hold a very steep eyeball sinking turn with complete
confidence. I always get a kick at our local airport when I
outclimb the flying school Cherokees in the circuit, and I have
amphib floats.

So take your pick.

Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com
[mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of Ted
Waltman
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 5:43 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: Opinions on "Experimentals"

For the past week I've been asking many of the pilots
and A&P's that I
know what their opinion is on "certified" vs
"experimental" planes. As
I posted earlier this week, I'm looking at possibly
purchasing a 95%
Moose kit; turns out there is now a completed Moose
with 60 hours on it
on the market that I'm also going to look at.

Interestingly enough, I've gotton widely varying
opinions from folks on
the Moose vs, say, a 185. One very, very accomplished
A&P that I know
told me to run away from an experimental (this guy has
rebuilt many
certified planes in his career...AT6, Stearman,
Ag-Truck, Cub to name a
few). He told me experimentals are just not flight
tested as are
certified. For instance, certified planes are flight
tested so one can
still control & land if one has a split flap situation whereas
experimental are not. Go figure.

This same A&P says he has several friends with Yaks
who have no end of
oil leak problems with their MP-14's. Another local
guy I know who has
a Yak loves his MP-14. What a head trip...

A well respected CFI I know (ATP, all the ratings,
thousands of hrs in
all sort of single and multi-engine planes), is really down on
experimentals too. "You just never know what you're
getting into; No
formal AD process, who knows what's under the covers
workmanship-wise
that you can't see...," etc.

I told my wife all those folks in the EAA can't all be
wrong. She's
worried about the opinions above. Turns out the A&P I
mention above is
her cousin (ouch!).

I'm going to call EAA this a.m. to see if I can get a
local DAR or
technical counselor to look over the plane(s) with me.

Funny the WIDE mix of opinions out there.

I know this is kind of like asking the cat what he
thinks of mice, but,
what pro's and con's did you folks consider before
getting involved in
your kits?

Thank you yet again (even more beers are in order),

Ted

*------------------------------------------------------
-------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*------------------------------------------------------
-------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ted Waltman · Post by **Ted Waltman** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

For the past week I've been asking many of the pilots and A&P's that I
know what their opinion is on "certified" vs "experimental" planes. As
I posted earlier this week, I'm looking at possibly purchasing a 95%
Moose kit; turns out there is now a completed Moose with 60 hours on it
on the market that I'm also going to look at.

Interestingly enough, I've gotton widely varying opinions from folks on
the Moose vs, say, a 185. One very, very accomplished A&P that I know
told me to run away from an experimental (this guy has rebuilt many
certified planes in his career...AT6, Stearman, Ag-Truck, Cub to name a
few). He told me experimentals are just not flight tested as are
certified. For instance, certified planes are flight tested so one can
still control & land if one has a split flap situation whereas
experimental are not. Go figure.

This same A&P says he has several friends with Yaks who have no end of
oil leak problems with their MP-14's. Another local guy I know who has
a Yak loves his MP-14. What a head trip...

A well respected CFI I know (ATP, all the ratings, thousands of hrs in
all sort of single and multi-engine planes), is really down on
experimentals too. "You just never know what you're getting into; No
formal AD process, who knows what's under the covers workmanship-wise
that you can't see...," etc.

I told my wife all those folks in the EAA can't all be wrong. She's
worried about the opinions above. Turns out the A&P I mention above is
her cousin (ouch!).

I'm going to call EAA this a.m. to see if I can get a local DAR or
technical counselor to look over the plane(s) with me.

Funny the WIDE mix of opinions out there.

I know this is kind of like asking the cat what he thinks of mice, but,
what pro's and con's did you folks consider before getting involved in
your kits?

Thank you yet again (even more beers are in order),

Ted

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ted Waltman · Post by **Ted Waltman** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

Excellent points Bob. As my previous post indicated, I'm getting the
"hard press" from a few folks. I can't figure out what specifically
drives their bias against experimentals since neither has built one.

A good friend of mine recently bought a 185. I can't tell you how many
times he has pulled me over in the hangar, when he's working on the
plane, with the comment, "Come look at Chicken @#@$ construction on
this."

Ted

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of
Robert Johnson
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 7:11 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: Opinions on "Experimentals"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Waltman" <tedwaltman@i1ci.com>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 8:43 AM
Subject: Opinions on "Experimentals"

Ted, I felt I had to reply to this one.- I built and have been flying a
Murphy Rebel for the last 2 1/2 years. Every passenger I have had up (63
to
date) have had nothing but good things to say about the aircraft in its
"roominess", solid feel, perfomance and general rugged construction.
Last summer I had a good look at a C185 torn apart for a complete
repaint. The wing attach points, bolts and fittings are heavier on my 2
place Rebel then on that "certified" 4 place spam-can. I know most home
built "kits" are designed extra strong to allow for the maybe" not so
great" building that may come from the not so experianced types. Take
this same aircraft and build it properly and in my opinion, you have a
much stronger, safer aircraft. Bob Johnson - Rebel "652" - Flying ( and
loving every minute of
it)

*-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Scott & Leere' Aldrich · Post by **Scott & Leere' Aldrich** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

Ted, where are you at? It would be nice to have someone familiar with the
Murphy construction to look at it.

I agree with most on here that the experimental can be better than the
factory built.

Having said that, I seen one Super Rebel that another guy purchased that
someone else built. I won't fly in it. It is very apparent that at some
point they (whoever "they" are) decided to just rush and finish it up to
sell. Even the inspector here in the US questioned why there were only two
rivets every 12 or 14 inches holding down the seat tracks but he still
passed it. The buyer didn't know this was wrong.

All the problems could easily be fixed though, but only if identified in the
first place.

Scott

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Johnson · Post by **Robert Johnson** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Waltman" <tedwaltman@i1ci.com>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 8:43 AM
Subject: Opinions on "Experimentals"

Ted, I felt I had to reply to this one.- I built and have been flying a
Murphy Rebel for the last 2 1/2 years. Every passenger I have had up (63 to
date) have had nothing but good things to say about the aircraft in its
"roominess", solid feel, perfomance and general rugged construction. Last
summer I had a good look at a C185 torn apart for a complete repaint. The
wing attach points, bolts and fittings are heavier on my 2 place Rebel then
on that "certified" 4 place spam-can. I know most home built "kits" are
designed extra strong to allow for the maybe" not so great" building that
may come from the not so experianced types. Take this same aircraft and
build it properly and in my opinion, you have a much stronger, safer
aircraft. Bob Johnson - Rebel "652" - Flying ( and loving every minute of
it)

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Drew Dalgleish · Post by **Drew Dalgleish** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

Hi Ted Your asking here isn't going to get any unbiased opinions either.
Many highly experienced pilots and mechanics have no experience with
experimental aircraft and fear the unknown. Some have had a bad experience
with one particular kit and paint all homebuilts with the same brush. To be
sure some kits are designed to give the ultimate performance possible with
less regard to safety. I don't think the rebel falls into that category.
The design was analized by Dick Hiscocks an aeronatical engineer who worked
on the design of the dehaviland beaver and fully flight tested. Zenith and
Van's are similarly fully engineered aircraft. These are all aluminum
planes, easy to inspect and no worries about the quality of fiberglass
layups etc. There's very little you can't see on a Moose and I think it's
reasonable to think that the quality of the workmanship would be consistent
through the whole plane. It's true you never know what you're getting into
with a used experimental but that's also true for a used certified plane
especially if it's 30 or 40 years old who knows what was done to it along
the way that didn't make it into the log books.
My only experience with an MP-14 was in a pitts model 12 built by my
hangar neighbour. His engine ran very strong with no oil leaks or any other
problems other than it was sometimes dificult to start. He first flew it
with a rebuilt russian wood prop and it leaked oil like crazy once he
changed to the MT he had no problems.
If your "freinds" manage to scare you away from the moose maybe you
should consider a brand new Found.

For the past week I've been asking many of the pilots and A&P's that I
know what their opinion is on "certified" vs "experimental" planes. As
I posted earlier this week, I'm looking at possibly purchasing a 95%
Moose kit; turns out there is now a completed Moose with 60 hours on it
on the market that I'm also going to look at.

Interestingly enough, I've gotton widely varying opinions from folks on
the Moose vs, say, a 185. One very, very accomplished A&P that I know
told me to run away from an experimental (this guy has rebuilt many
certified planes in his career...AT6, Stearman, Ag-Truck, Cub to name a
few). He told me experimentals are just not flight tested as are
certified. For instance, certified planes are flight tested so one can
still control & land if one has a split flap situation whereas
experimental are not. Go figure.

This same A&P says he has several friends with Yaks who have no end of
oil leak problems with their MP-14's. Another local guy I know who has
a Yak loves his MP-14. What a head trip...

A well respected CFI I know (ATP, all the ratings, thousands of hrs in
all sort of single and multi-engine planes), is really down on
experimentals too. "You just never know what you're getting into; No
formal AD process, who knows what's under the covers workmanship-wise
that you can't see...," etc.

I told my wife all those folks in the EAA can't all be wrong. She's
worried about the opinions above. Turns out the A&P I mention above is
her cousin (ouch!).

I'm going to call EAA this a.m. to see if I can get a local DAR or
technical counselor to look over the plane(s) with me.

Funny the WIDE mix of opinions out there.

I know this is kind of like asking the cat what he thinks of mice, but,
what pro's and con's did you folks consider before getting involved in
your kits?

Thank you yet again (even more beers are in order),

Ted

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

Drew

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Legeorgen · Post by **Legeorgen** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

Hi Ted,

Keep in mind these A&P's would be out of a job if everyone flew experimental.
If you like Government burocracy you'll like certified. most Certified planes
fly on 50 year old technology they can't change and are locked into.

Skystar in 92, for example, changed the wing on the Kitfox because of airfoil
test done by NASA. Not possible with a certified plane! Experimental's
almost always out perform the heavier and out dated technology of the certified
world.

Personally, I feel more secure with the Rebel than I ever did in the Cassia's
and Mooney I used to own and flew for years.

Bruce

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Delcambre · Post by **Bill Delcambre** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

Ted, you're touching on an old, well worn subject. There are examples of
good homebuilts and bad ones. For reasons yet to be explained to me, a lot
of A&P's that I've spoken with, don't care for experimentals. There are
some of these guys, on the other hand, who're quite involved in sport
aviation and have built their own planes. If you haven't found a mechanic
who's "experimental friendly" keep looking and asking. Your local EAA
chapter is a great place to begin. You shouldn't have any trouble getting
rides in a couple of Experimentals. You'll find that they're generally good
flying craft.

As for the issue of flight characteristics, your man may or may not be
correct. The fact that no one has yet certified a design doesn't mean that
it hasn't been put through a strenuous regime of flight testing. I recall a
few years back, being involved in a discussion at Sun-N-Fun, where Len Fox
(sp?) was talking about flight testing of the twin-turbo'd Glasair III.
This fellow was (my understanding) an ex-military test pilot, hired
specifically to explore flight characteristics. While the design was never
certified, the conversation that I heard assured me that nothing I was ever
going to do with my plane would exceed the parameters he'd already
investigated. I suspect that someone at MAM can shed some light on the
flight tests that the Moose has undergone. As for the split flap
phenomenon, I seriously doubt if such a situation, occurring at low
altitude, is survivable in very many, if any, certified craft. Read the
NTSB reports of aircraft accidents. You'll find that the same things happen
in experimentals as happen in Certified planes. Folks run out of gas, off
the runway and they fly VFR into IMC. You'll be hard pressed to find
structural failures in any planes. One thing that does happen in
Experimentals, however, is that many builders do their own flight testing.
Think real hard about this, fellas. If you're not qualified, let someone
who is qualified, do the initial tests. You'd better be darned well 'second
nature' in the type plane you're building if you're gonna test fly it. If
it doesn't sound 'Macho' to have someone else do the flight tests, how do
you think the obituary is going to sound if everything goes to crap, due to
a minor problem. This issue, is a major difference between certified and
experimental aircraft.

As for the air start question; Everyone that I know, who's flown an air
start engine, loves the system and considers it superior to electric starts.
Granted, I know only about a half a dozen of these folks, but they've all
spoken highly about the air start. Something that I haven't seen mentioned
on this list, is that the M-14 is supposed to be extremely easy to hand
prop, in the event that no air is available. I've been told that some of
the hard core acro guys remove some of the air system, to reduce weight.
They just prop em over to start. Personally, I'm going to avoid this end of
the plane, during starts.....

Bill Delcambre

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Waltman" <tedwaltman@i1ci.com>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 7:43 AM
Subject: Opinions on "Experimentals"

For the past week I've been asking many of the pilots and A&P's that I
know what their opinion is on "certified" vs "experimental" planes.

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wayne G. O'Shea · Post by **Wayne G. O'Shea** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

Ted, you read on the back of most Electricians vans around here "Wiring is
not a Hobby... hire an electrician". This mentality that you have to have a
"title" to be able to do something, even though you may have a higher
education or ability, is questionable in many circumstances. This goes for
A&P's (AME's up here) stating exactly what you are relaying about
experimental aircraft. They feel that since they are being built be "Joe
Blow" and not an A & P they are death traps. Turn around as ask these A &
P's how many airplanes they have built ! and I can most likely tell you the
answer from here. It's like asking a car mechanic how many cars he has built
from scratch and you will get the odd one that actually has, but most
wouldn't know where to start... even though they may be top notch as
"maintaining" one.

When an airplane goes down the line at Cessna or Bombardier they're not A &
P's that are assembling the thing. In most cases just average educated
individuals that have the ability to run a rivet gun and be smart enough to
select the correct rivets and panel overlaps.... per a sample board or
drawing. This is exactly what the "kit" builder is doing.... taking
premanufactured parts, reading the manual to insure he/she has the correct
rivet/bolt to assemble the item and "banging" them together. It's not rocket
science and to steal from J.D. Murphy "your not building a Swiss watch, but
you're not building a railroad bridge either"!

This A&P/AME attitude is also the main reason that our Canadian MD-RA
inspection system makes an attempt to steer away from soliciting them to be
inspectors. They are maintainers, they are not builders (in most cases) and
do not know what to look for in the safe construction of an airframe. There
are of course exceptions to this out there, that's for sure, but I am sure
everyone here can relate to at least one A&P/AME that they fear enough just
because they have the ability to sign out an airplane, let alone if they
actually built one! I've got one here locally that I caught hammering out a
Cessna door latch with a long screwdriver and a 2lb ball peen a couple years
ago. I asked him to stop and give me the screw driver, which he did, and
then I simply lifted the spring tab up out of the way and handed him the
latch. Sure wouldn't want him building anything!!

Wayne

..............................

For the past week I've been asking many of the pilots and A&P's that I
know what their opinion is on "certified" vs "experimental" planes.

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

bdelcambre · Post by **bdelcambre** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

As usual, Wayne brings out an incredibly valid point! I'm sure we all know A&P's that we wouldn't let within arm's length of our planes. I sure know some!

Bill

From: "Wayne G. O'Shea" <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
Date: 2004/05/07 Fri PM 05:10:49 CDT
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: Opinions on "Experimentals"

but I am sure

everyone here can relate to at least one A&P/AME that they fear enough just
because they have the ability to sign out an airplane, let alone if they
actually built one!

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Legeorgen · Post by **Legeorgen** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

OK, just so we don't slam all A&P's and AME's. My most trusted "plane
question" person (and we all have one don't we?) just happens to be an A&P. And he
has built several experimental and a few certified aircraft...at present a
Meyers OTW.

And our local EAA chapter is full of A&P's that love the experimental stuff.
But to bad, and what a shame, that some licenses mechanics deny themselves
this whole new world of great planes with the liberty to scratch you $%! without
getting a STC and a stack of paper to go with it, or something else... But
that's their problem.

Bruce

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wudoktor · Post by **Wudoktor** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

Experience with an A&P.

To add to the discussion on A&P's, there may be some who, like mechanics on a
car, do poor quality work in the hopes that you fet return business. While I
personally have some close freinds who actually instruct A&P and are straight
shooting people with integrity, know your A&P.

I recently pulled apart a Lycoming (inspecting it) that had only 2.2 hours
since a major overhaul. I came from an aircraft recently sold by an A&P/owner.
I found metal particles (big chunks) in the oil screen which would give grave
concerns to anyone. However, the engine was clean inside. I also found two
connecting rods that failed inspection by a reputable aircraft rebuilding shop
(one had a big chunk out of the material where the connecting rod bolts
squeeze the rod around the crankshaft with the rod itself beat up significantly
more than the others - - looked like he pulled from a pile in the corner of his
shop; the other had a significant ding on the lower half of the rod so severe
that it pinched the bearings). The crankshaft had to be ground down .006 on
the mains and .003 on the connecting rod surfaces.

I am satisfied with the "inspection" and rebuilding it using the factory
manual and complying with AD's in consultation with my AI and A&P instructor
colleagues.

For some reason, I have been unable to get the original logs on the engine
from the prior A&P/owner.

T

Rebel N518R

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
http://www.dcsol.com:81/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at http://www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------