Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:38 AM - Engine upgrade (The Armstrongs)
2. 11:09 AM - Re: Engine upgrade (BobsV35B@aol.com)
3. 01:43 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (Marcos R. Della)
4. 01:56 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (Eric Poole)
5. 02:15 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (BobsV35B@aol.com)
6. 02:47 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (BobsV35B@aol.com)
7. 02:58 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (Eric Poole)
8. 03:06 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 03:16 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (BobsV35B@aol.com)
10. 03:36 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (Eric Poole)
11. 03:42 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (Eric Poole)
12. 08:56 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 09:14 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (BobsV35B@aol.com)
14. 09:21 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (Eric Poole)
15. 09:27 PM - Re: Engine upgrade (BobsV35B@aol.com)
16. 11:35 PM - Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] (Matt Dralle)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Beech-List message posted by: The Armstrongs <armstpat@comcast.net>
Anyone upgraded from a 470 to a 520 or 550? How much did it improve
take-off ground roll? How much did it cost?
Anyone have any thoughts on the reliability of the new 520/550 versus
the 470? The 470 seems rock-solid to me.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/1/04 11:39:05 AM Central Daylight Time,
armstpat@comcast.net writes:
Anyone upgraded from a 470 to a 520 or 550? How much did it improve
Take-off ground roll? How much did it cost?
Anyone have any thoughts on the reliability of the new 520/550 versus
the 470? The 470 seems rock-solid to me.
Good Afternoon To The Armstrongs,
I have not replaced a 470 with a 520 or 550, but I did replace a 520 with a
550.
I consider it to be the best investment I ever made in the airplane.
I do have an opinion which I will be happy to state concerning the
advisability of replacing a 470 with either of the larger engines.
DO IT!!
And make it the 550, not the 520.
I can see no reason to not make the change other than the
initial financial hit.
It isn't cheap. However, I think it is a good investment and
would be money well spent, IF you can afford the upfront expense.
If one is currently flying a TriPacer on extended cross country
trips, he/she could save money on those trips by buying a
Bonanza. However, it would require a larger investment in the aircraft.
The same reasoning applies to replacing a 470 with a 550.
The airplane will burn less fuel at the same speed or go faster
on the same fuel. It will also go a LOT faster if you want to use
the higher available power.
The difference in takeoff performance and rate of climb is on the
order of difference between a Piper J-3 and a Piper Super Cub.
The IO-550-B weighs a few ounces less than the IO-520-BB but
they each weigh about nine pounds less than the IO-470-N.
The only performance or payload negative that I can see is
that you will probably have to start carrying oxygen equipment
because you will be flying your legs at so much higher an altitude.
Your airplane, when equipped with a 550, becomes a whole
different flying machine. It will be faster, have longer range and
carry more payload.
I can't see why anyone would even consider overhauling any 470
or 520 when a 550 could be used to replace it.
I think you would find the investment would increase the value of
the airplane far above what it costs to make the conversion.
If you can beg, borrow or steal the money, do it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Beech-List message posted by: "Marcos R. Della" <mdella@cstone.com>
I had a similar question although I'm afraid I know the answer...
I have an older Bonanza with an E-225-8 and was wondering if there was
anything I could do to upgrade this engine or if this was basically the
"top" of the spectrum I can do based on the frame, W/B, etc...
Marcos
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-beech-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of BobsV35B@aol.com
Cc:=09
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Engine upgrade
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/1/04 11:39:05 AM Central Daylight Time,
armstpat@comcast.net writes:
Anyone upgraded from a 470 to a 520 or 550? How much did it improve
Take-off ground roll? How much did it cost?
Anyone have any thoughts on the reliability of the new 520/550 versus
the 470? The 470 seems rock-solid to me.
Good Afternoon To The Armstrongs,
I have not replaced a 470 with a 520 or 550, but I did replace a 520 with a
550.
I consider it to be the best investment I ever made in the airplane.
I do have an opinion which I will be happy to state concerning the
advisability of replacing a 470 with either of the larger engines.
DO IT!!
And make it the 550, not the 520.
I can see no reason to not make the change other than the
initial financial hit.
It isn't cheap. However, I think it is a good investment and
would be money well spent, IF you can afford the upfront expense.
If one is currently flying a TriPacer on extended cross country
trips, he/she could save money on those trips by buying a
Bonanza. However, it would require a larger investment in the aircraft.
The same reasoning applies to replacing a 470 with a 550.
The airplane will burn less fuel at the same speed or go faster
on the same fuel. It will also go a LOT faster if you want to use
the higher available power.
The difference in takeoff performance and rate of climb is on the
order of difference between a Piper J-3 and a Piper Super Cub.
The IO-550-B weighs a few ounces less than the IO-520-BB but
they each weigh about nine pounds less than the IO-470-N.
The only performance or payload negative that I can see is
that you will probably have to start carrying oxygen equipment
because you will be flying your legs at so much higher an altitude.
Your airplane, when equipped with a 550, becomes a whole
different flying machine. It will be faster, have longer range and
carry more payload.
I can't see why anyone would even consider overhauling any 470
or 520 when a 550 could be used to replace it.
I think you would find the investment would increase the value of
the airplane far above what it costs to make the conversion.
If you can beg, borrow or steal the money, do it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: Eric Poole <epoole@scoot.netis.com>
At 02:08 PM 5/1/2004 -0400, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> I can't see why anyone would even consider overhauling any 470
> or 520 when a 550 could be used to replace it.
>
> I think you would find the investment would increase the value of
> the airplane far above what it costs to make the conversion.
>
> If you can beg, borrow or steal the money, do it!
Hi, Bob.
Of course, to paraphrase a point you make elsewhere in your note, some of
us are less independently wealthy than others and are less able to take the
financial hit.
I spent two years trying to find a way to do the upgrade from a 470 to a
550 for less than about $60,000, with my only restriction being that I
wanted an engine that was better than the average TCM factory reman, and I
was not able to find a way to do it.
Maybe sixty large is "worth it", but some of us are simply not that wealthy
and probably never will be.
I ended up with a Superior Millennium 470 which was the best I could
afford, and so far it's treating me well enough ... maybe next time, 550
upgrades will be within a million miles of "reasonable" in price, but
probably not...
Eric Poole / M35-N122X / NH
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/1/04 3:43:57 PM Central Daylight Time, mdella@cstone.com
writes:
--> Beech-List message posted by: "Marcos R. Della" <mdella@cstone.com>
I had a similar question although I'm afraid I know the answer...
I have an older Bonanza with an E-225-8 and was wondering if there was
anything I could do to upgrade this engine or if this was basically the
"top" of the spectrum I can do based on the frame, W/B, etc...
Marcos
Good Afternoon Marcos,
While a 470, 520 or 550 can be installed in anything from an A35 through the
G35, it does not seem to be a financially viable conversion. Any of those
three engines will add almost eighty pounds to the empty weight and there is no
gain in allowable gross due to the larger engine. The performance would be
spectacular, but all of the speed and weight limits would remain the same.
If you want a major change in performance, it appears to be better to buy an
H35 or later and add a 550.
It is my not so humble opinion that the early E-series powered Bonanzas are,
by far, the best flying airplanes of the entire series. However, they lose too
much payload when heavier engines are installed and really can't take maximum
advantage of the extra power provided.
I would either appreciate the airplane for what it is or move up to an H35 or
later airplane.
I know of no engine that is available for the G35 and earlier that puts out
more power and is as light or lighter than the E-225. As you are already
aware, the problem is that parts are getting hard to find. Not only for the
engine, but also for the propellor. Even some of the accessories can be trouble
to
get repaired.
One major advantage of getting an H35 or newer airplane with an IO-550-B
installed is that the engine, propellor and all accessories are then current
production items. On top of that, it can be done with no addition of weight or
required beefing of the airframe.
All it takes is money!
If you put a bigger, heavier engine in a G35 or earlier, the airframe needs
beefing. Combine the weight of the engine with the beefing required and a lot
of payload is lost. Not only that, but the cost is even higher than it would
be to put the larger engine in a later airframe.
I keep hoping Superior, or somebody, will develop a nice light weight engine
built from modern parts that could be dropped in the Bonanza in place of the
E-225. So far, I have seen nothing proposed that would fit and do the job.
Sure would be nice if it happened though. Even if there was no increase in
power, it would be nice to be able to get new parts and modern accessories.
Those early machines make up almost half of the fleet of all Bonanzas ever
built. It would be a shame to lose all of that nice flying just because we
can't find a suitable engine and prop for it.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/1/04 3:56:41 PM Central Daylight Time,
epoole@scoot.netis.com writes:
I ended up with a Superior Millennium 470 which was the best I could
afford, and so far it's treating me well enough ... maybe next time, 550
upgrades will be within a million miles of "reasonable" in price, but
probably not...
Good Afternoon Eric,
I know we have discussed this before, but I can't imagine why your
costs should be so much higher than everyone else's costs. Most
folks report that the upgrade from a 470 to a 550 takes about eighteen
to twenty-thousand more than it would cost to just overhaul the 470.
That includes trading propellors and getting the new baffling as well
as the certification costs. Some folks are better horse traders and
others find special deals, but the eighteen to twenty figure seem
quite consistent for everyone but you!
As you know, Ernie went from a 520-BA with a two blade to a 550-B with three
blade for seven thousand bucks. It can be done.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: Eric Poole <epoole@scoot.netis.com>
At 05:15 PM 5/1/2004 -0400, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> One major advantage of getting an H35 or newer airplane with an IO-550-B
> installed is that the engine, propellor and all accessories are then
current
> production items. On top of that, it can be done with no addition of
weight
> or required beefing of the airframe.
Bob,
One of the major players in the big-engine STC business assured me that the
forward airframe, where the engine is mounted, would have to be beefed up
in order to mount a 550 on my M-35.
That was a relatively minor but still non-trivial part of the $60,000 it
would have cost me to do the upgrade.
Eric
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/1/04 3:43:57 PM Central Daylight Time, mdella@cstone.com
writes:
Anyone have any thoughts on the reliability of the new 520/550 versus
the 470? The 470 seems rock-solid to me.
Good Afternoon Once Again to the Armstrongs,
I am afraid I neglected to discuss reliability.
I have no authoritative figures, but I'll bet you will find that the 520
and 550 are at least as reliable as are the 470s. For what it is worth,
when the 470s first came on the scene, they were considered to be
a terrible engine. It took a few years to work out the bugs. The same
was true when the 520 was introduced. The 550 has had no specific
problems that are not also endemic to the other engines. The factory
has had some early failures due to quality control problems, but those
quality control problems affect the 470s and 520s just as badly as
they do the 550s. Obviously, Continental wants to put out good
reliable engines just as bad as we want them to. I don't believe you
will find any significant difference in the failure rates of all three
engines.
Some of the early 550s were plagued with cooling problems. That was
partially due to the poor baffling that Beech was using at the time and
partially due to the takeoff fuel flows being used.
Beech has upgraded their baffling and the major after market
converters have designed vastly improved cooling devices.
Continental has upped the recommended fuel flow to provide better
cooling. Now if we could just get a few of the more recalcitrant
mechanics to up the fuel flows to what the eigne really needs, the
cooling problem should be far behind us. I currently have almost
fourteen hundred hours on a set of factory cylinders. They may
make it to TBO and they may not, but fourteen hundred hours isn't
bad by today's standards. It isn't the size of the engine, it is a
problem of when it was built. The low quality at Continental affected
the 470s, 520s and 550s equally. Mine were built in 1998. Not a
good time for a Continental factory cylinder.
Pre 1990 engines of all models regularly made TBO.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/1/04 4:59:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
epoole@scoot.netis.com writes:
One of the major players in the big-engine STC business assured me that the
forward airframe, where the engine is mounted, would have to be beefed up
in order to mount a 550 on my M-35.
Eric,
There is absolutely no beef up required to put the 550 in your
airframe. There will have to be some changes made, but it is
NOT a beef up. If you have the small intake tube, the larger tube
is required. That tube is required for the IO-470-N as well as
the 520 and the 550.
There are also sheet metal changes to accommodate
the front mounted alternator and the rear mounted oil cooler.
However, the 520 and the 550 weigh less than your 470.
No additional strength is required at all.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: Eric Poole <epoole@scoot.netis.com>
At 05:46 PM 5/1/2004 -0400, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> I know we have discussed this before, but I can't imagine why your
> costs should be so much higher than everyone else's costs. Most
> folks report that the upgrade from a 470 to a 550 takes about eighteen
> to twenty-thousand more than it would cost to just overhaul the 470.
> That includes trading propellors and getting the new baffling as well
> as the certification costs. Some folks are better horse traders and
> others find special deals, but the eighteen to twenty figure seem
> quite consistent for everyone but you!
I don't know either, but every quote I got over a two year period worked
out to the mid 50's or higher, if everything fell into place first
time. Since nothing ever does fall into place the first time, I added a
few thousand and came up with the $60,000 budget.
This all includes $7K or so for the required three blade prop, plus a few
thousand more for the required airframe beef-ups that a big player in the
engine-upgrade STC business assured me was necessary for the M-35.
Note that this was with what you call a boutique engine, of the Superior or
Ultimate variety. I planned to do this once and never again, so I wanted
the best production engine I could get at anything like a reasonable
premium in price.
I suppose I could have gotten a used mid-time engine, or a runout and had
it locally overhauled, or even gotten a TCM factory reman, all for a bit
less money, but then in a few years (or less) I'd be back with more engine
problems to deal with. At least the Millennium engine I ended up with has
a five year warranty and a very good reputation.
Maybe I missed something (no big surprise there), but all I got from two
years of research was wildly unaffordable quotes, and a widespread report,
circulated by one individual in the business (and I know who he is), to the
effect that I was a pain in the ass who was only interested in wasting
everyone's time and wouldn't ever really do anything. That essentially got
me shut out of the market, including at two shops here in New England (one
of which was the place where I bought the freakin' airplane to begin with!)
that were at the top of my list of shops to do the work, and who both made
it clear they weren't interested in my business. So, I ended up with a
Millennium 470, installed at Gate City Air in Nashua, NH, where they were
happy to have my business and did (and continue to do) an excellent job on
my bird, at a fair price.
> As you know, Ernie went from a 520-BA with a two blade to a 550-B with
three
> blade for seven thousand bucks. It can be done.
Hmmm ... I might have known that, but if I did, I forgot. Anyway,
upgrading from a 520 to a 550 is probably cheaper than from a 470 to a 550,
not true?
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: Eric Poole <epoole@scoot.netis.com>
At 06:15 PM 5/1/2004 -0400, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> There is absolutely no beef up required to put the 550 in your
> airframe. There will have to be some changes made, but it is
> NOT a beef up. If you have the small intake tube, the larger tube
> is required. That tube is required for the IO-470-N as well as
> the 520 and the 550.
>
> There are also sheet metal changes to accommodate
> the front mounted alternator and the rear mounted oil cooler.
>
> However, the 520 and the 550 weigh less than your 470.
> No additional strength is required at all.
I believe you, but all I can report is what was told me by the source for
the STC, when I was trying to find a way to get it done.
The claimed requirement for the beef-up was due to the higher power and
torque, not the weight of the engine.
It didn't make any sense to me either, but that was their story and they
were stickin' to it.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/1/04 5:43:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
epoole@scoot.netis.com writes:
I believe you, but all I can report is what was told me by the source for
the STC, when I was trying to find a way to get it done.
The claimed requirement for the beef-up was due to the higher power and
torque, not the weight of the engine.
It didn't make any sense to me either, but that was their story and they
were stickin' to it.
Good Evening Eric,
I have no doubt they told you that, but it just isn't true.
Unfortunately, you don't have to know what you are talking
about to sell a product.
As long as the weight and speed limits are not exceeded, the
extra power is turned into better acceleration, a better climb
rate and better altitude capabilities.
There is a very small increase in torque, but it is so small that
it need not be considered, the structure required to just carry
the engines weight is more than is required to handle the
additional torque.
The strength required to hold things together is a function
of the load to be a carried, not the force applied. If you have
a ten pound bucket and lift it with a force of eleven pounds,
there will still only be a ten pound force applied to the buckets
bale. If you lift the bucket using a twenty pound force, the bale
still only feels the ten pound force. The bucket will just accelerate
a bit faster. Obviously there are some acceleration forces to be
considered, but like the torque, they are not significant and no
additional structure is required to add the extra horsepower to
your M35.
Admittedly, if you pull on that bucket's bale hard enough and
fast enough, you can momentarily exceed the bales strength while
overcoming the inertia, but the numbers that can be developed by the
horsepower increase we are discussing are nowhere near a
sufficient multiple of the original power available to provide any
significant snatch force.
If you were adding the 550 to a G35, or earlier,
airframe, structural reinforcements would be required. However,
those reinforcements would be principally to carry the extra
weight of the heavier engine. Once those beef ups were made,
the resulting structure would be more than strong enough to
carry any additional torque or acceleration induced loads.
It is just not a problem with the structures being considered.
No beef up is required for your machine.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/1/04 5:37:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
epoole@scoot.netis.com writes:
Hmmm ... I might have known that, but if I did, I forgot. Anyway,
upgrading from a 520 to a 550 is probably cheaper than from a 470 to a 550,
not true?
Good Evening Eric,
Absolutely, but some folks have spent as much as fifteen
thousand to do the same deal. You mentioned seven
thousand for a new prop. If your old prop is in good shape,
it is worth a few thousand against that seven needed for a new
prop. If it is not in good shape, you need a new prop anyhow.
If you need new baffling, it costs about the same for new baffling
for a 470 as it does for new baffling for a 550.
It has been my understanding that it costs about ten grand
to upgrade the M35 airframe to take a 520 or 550, including the
new baffling. The rest of the cost is in the engine and the propellor.
Even that ten grand is subject to how skillfully you can negotiate
the sale of the components being removed.
A boutique engine can add quite a bit to the cost depending
on how much extra you want done. Once again, if you give
the boutique treatment to a 470, the cost rises by about the
same amount.
Ultimate has some numbers that allow them to claim that the
cost per hour with their engine is no higher than with a factory
reman. Any such numbers are open to interpretation and are
argumentative, but most folks still seem to get the upgrade done
at somewhere around that twenty G figure.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: Eric Poole <epoole@scoot.netis.com>
At 11:56 PM 5/1/2004 -0400, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> I have no doubt they told you that, but it just isn't true.
> Unfortunately, you don't have to know what you are talking
> about to sell a product.
I have seen that on several levels in a number of segments of industry. :-(
Consider this ... I believe you that no beef-ups are required from an
engineering perspective, but the claim was made to me that it was required
by the terms of the STC, presumably meaning that when the engineering work
for the STC was done, it was done on an aircraft with beefed-up engine
mounting. I have never actually seen an official copy of the STC (or an
unofficial copy, for that matter). If the claimed language is actually in
there, how does one get around it ... via a field approval or ??
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine upgrade |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/1/04 11:22:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
epoole@scoot.netis.com writes:
Consider this ... I believe you that no beef-ups are required from an
engineering perspective, but the claim was made to me that it was required
by the terms of the STC, presumably meaning that when the engineering work
for the STC was done, it was done on an aircraft with beefed-up engine
mounting. I have never actually seen an official copy of the STC (or an
unofficial copy, for that matter). If the claimed language is actually in
there, how does one get around it ... via a field approval or ??
Use a different approval. Most do not require any beef up. Anyone who added
any beef up was doing work that was not required by the FARs.
It is true that if a beef up was included, required or not, in the original
approval for that particular STC, the beef up must be in place for the approval
to be valid. I just doubt that any beef up was made.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] |
DNA: do not archive
--> Beech-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Lister,
Please read over the Beech-List Usage Guidelines below. The complete
Beech-List FAQ including these Usage Guidelines can be found at the
following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/Beech-List.FAQ.html
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
******************************************************************************
Beech-List Usage Guidelines
******************************************************************************
The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the Beech-List.
You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein.
Failure to use the Beech-List in the manner described below may result
in the removal of the subscribers from the List.
Beech-List Policy Statement
The purpose of the Beech-List is to provide a forum of discussion for
things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals
are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver
high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie
among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals
requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of
the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established:
- Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit
posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long
lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc.
- THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be
relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it.
- Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive
that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and
terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and
responses.
- Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address,
aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line
about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid
bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary
space in the archive.
- DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is
easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the
web page or FAQ first.
- If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of
your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it
easy to find threads in the archive.
- When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your
response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the
reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that
quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive
can not be overstated!
- When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT
then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the
"reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your
response to the original poster. You might have to actively address
your response with the original poster's email address.
- DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something
to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I
agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent
to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large.
- When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to
comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly
contribute something valuable.
- Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
-------
[This is an automated posting.]
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|