Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:39 AM - Re: Engine Through-Stud Sheer... (W J R HAMILTON)
2. 05:21 AM - N$!$C in the air (N395V)
3. 06:45 AM - Props (W J R HAMILTON)
4. 07:03 AM - Re: AC Manual (Moe - Ross Racing Pistons)
5. 08:04 AM - Re: AC Manual (Barry Collman)
6. 08:46 AM - More Weight & Balance Follies (Steve at Col-East)
7. 09:01 AM - Re: Engine Through-Stud Sheer... (Bruce Campbell)
8. 09:27 AM - Re: Engine Through-Stud Sheer... (yourtcfg@aol.com)
9. 09:33 AM - Flight Load Factors (Barry Collman)
10. 09:50 AM - Re: Engine Through-Stud Sheer... (Bruce Campbell)
11. 12:11 PM - Re: Engine Through-Stud Sheer... (Robert S. Randazzo)
12. 08:59 PM - Re: Through Stud Sheer Pictures... (Myron Ashley)
13. 10:18 PM - Re: Through Stud Sheer Pictures... (Robert S. Randazzo)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine Through-Stud Sheer... |
Folks,
Is an STC really necessary, has anybody explored a field upgrade.
I say this, because several upgrades with which I have been involved
in Australian (not AC) have been done on our (near) equivalent of a
377 field approval system, with the appropriate CAR 35 (DER) input.
As a simplification, it is assumed that the extra power will be a
"bonus", there was no attempt to re-certify any increased performance.
This has avoided the need to re-determine Vmc figures etc., if the
upgrade is a twin.
I know it all sound a bit rough and ready, but there is little
involved in putting the IO-520 in the 500A, I doubt that the IO-550
is much more of a bother, with a co-operative FAA man.
Needless to say, one would be wise to have some carefully established
"informal guidelines", if in fact you just happened to be
"inadvertently" taking advantage of the additional HP, and one quit.
Fortunately the wonderful engine out handling of Aero Commanders in
general make this somewhat less fraught than some other
manufacturer's products that started with IO-470, but have acquired
IO-520 along the way.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
At 03:24 AM 15/08/2007, you wrote:
>Good idea about the 550... A guy in the hangar here has a Bonanza
>with one and he loves it... I guess put out a call for all 12 of
>the existing 500A owners left to see what interest might be shown ;)
>
>
>David Owens
>Aerial Viewpoint
>N14AV
>AC-500A-Colemill
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: | N$!$C in the air |
About time you got it back in the air.
I always suspected I was a bit heavy. The recent TOLD spreadsheet that Nico posted
is for N414C (assuming correct weight)
How is the presurisation working?
Id love to put one of those 520Ks on my F1 Rocket.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=129295#129295
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 |
|
Folks,
An advertisement in the Australian Aviation Trader, thought it might
interest somebody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZELL HC-A3V 20-2 out of Aero Commander 560E, two props. 235hrs.
SOH both Phone (03) 9764 3514
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From outside Australia that would be +61 3 9764 3514.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
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 |
|
Ray,
If all else fails, you might try contacting Dick Mackoon. If needed I can
look up his phone number for you.
Moe
N680RR
680F(p)
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray
Mansfield
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:54 PM
Subject: Commander-List: AC Manual
Hello,
I fly a Aero Commander 680 FLP with the Mr. RPM Conversion. I'm in need
of a manual for the air conditioning system. It's not the standard system
that came on the plane. I believe it's the same system that is on an Aero
Commander 690. The system is located aft of the baggage compartment with a
compressor turned by an electric motor. (A $6,000 motor...I know, it's been
replaced twice) The evaporators are under the back seat. If anyone knows
where I can locate an operation or maintenance manual or both please let me
know. Thank you.
Ray Mansfield
hcourier@cox.net
850-217-5185
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 |
|
Hi Ray,
I emailed Dick MacCoon (MR RPM) about your email and he says:
"The air conditioners were custom built from I believe a common air
conditioner at that time. I would suggest contacting Gary Gadberry
(aircntr@aol.com) who has a very modern system and lots of experience
with designs."
Hope that helps!
Best Regards,
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Mansfield
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 4:54 AM
Subject: Commander-List: AC Manual
Hello,
I fly a Aero Commander 680 FLP with the Mr. RPM Conversion. I'm
in need of a manual for the air conditioning system. It's not the
standard system that came on the plane. I believe it's the same system
that is on an Aero Commander 690. The system is located aft of the
baggage compartment with a compressor turned by an electric motor. (A
$6,000 motor...I know, it's been replaced twice) The evaporators are
under the back seat. If anyone knows where I can locate an operation or
maintenance manual or both please let me know. Thank you.
Ray Mansfield
hcourier@cox.net
850-217-5185
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: | More Weight & Balance Follies |
500 Series drivers.....
Weight & Balance turned out to be far more complex for our machine than
I could have first thought. Since I posted a version of a spreadsheet
out there, I feel obliged to share what I've learned so far, and offer
the latest version of the sheet. Many of you may not care, and the
information may not be new to you if you've complied with appropriate
bulletins all along..... There could be a couple of old B's or
conversions to B that this might be especially relevant to.
Our comedy of errors may have started with the factory not having
recognized our aircraft as a 'real' 500B, because the airframe was
converted from a 500A under STC.
There have been several changes made that impact the envelope since the
machines were first built.
While we were operating using the Weight and Moment Allowables table in
our AFM, by 1973 it appears that the table was already referencing
Service Bulletin 128 and 129, and publishing two tables in parallel, one
for aircraft complying with S.B. 128 or 129, and one for aircraft not in
compliance. S.B. 128 and 129 was the bobweight bulletin. Apparently,
quickly pulling full aft on the elevator to maximum travel was bad. (Who
knew?)
The new table allowed for an expanded forward envelope, and appears to
have tucked the aft in a little.
The Bobweight Bulletins eventually became an Airworthiness Directive for
all the aircraft somewhere around 1975(?).
Then in 1984, Service Bulletin 199 was released. S.B. 199 was a revised
Weight and Moment Allowables table for 500B, 500S and 500U aircraft.
This bulletin would seem to have codified the expanded envelope to the
B, S, & U (presumably all now in compliance with S.B. 128/129) to
"prevent inadvertent operation of the aircraft outside approved center
of gravity limits".
Again, in a table from a 500B AFM forwarded to us from 1973, the two
envelopes were published in parallel. But manuals prior to this
publication may be the old table. With just a small change to the aft
C.G. and a much narrower forward C.G., the primary trouble would be the
ease in which the aircraft can run forward of the old envelope (as
was/is the case with our aircraft.)
I've not researched the 500A thoroughly enough, but believe the elevator
travel was modified as part of the requirements to bring us into B
status. This alone could restrict the A from operating with as forward a
C.G. as the new tables for the B and up....
I've changed the spreadsheet to reflect the best information I presently
have. I am not an engineer, and don't wish to pretend to be one. Please
use the data, tables and sheets with caution.
As an aside, I believe I've uncovered some serious mistakes in old
weight & balance paperwork involving a camera installation under STC.
Luckily the installation included a fresh weighing of the aircraft that
provided a baseline all up with fuel for all these years. Had the
numbers been for real, the thing should have resembled a lawn dart a
long time ago. We're going to reweigh again.
Steve Welebny
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: | Engine Through-Stud Sheer... |
FAA doesn't allow field approvals for engines.
One the other hand, an STC should be a piece of cake if one could find
a candidate (victim) aircraft to do the flight testing.
BTW, Bob, I wonder if anyone could get Beryl DeShannon's assistance in
providing the engineering data, since they've already got it for
upgrading Barons and Bananas? That would make the issue largely a paper
chase.
Bruce
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R
HAMILTON
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Through-Stud Sheer...
Folks,
Is an STC really necessary, has anybody explored a field upgrade.
I say this, because several upgrades with which I have been involved in
Australian (not AC) have been done on our (near) equivalent of a 377
field approval system, with the appropriate CAR 35 (DER) input.
As a simplification, it is assumed that the extra power will be a
"bonus", there was no attempt to re-certify any increased performance.
This has avoided the need to re-determine Vmc figures etc., if the
upgrade is a twin.
I know it all sound a bit rough and ready, but there is little involved
in putting the IO-520 in the 500A, I doubt that the IO-550 is much more
of a bother, with a co-operative FAA man.
Needless to say, one would be wise to have some carefully established
"informal guidelines", if in fact you just happened to be
"inadvertently" taking advantage of the additional HP, and one quit.
Fortunately the wonderful engine out handling of Aero Commanders in
general make this somewhat less fraught than some other manufacturer's
products that started with IO-470, but have acquired IO-520 along the
way.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
At 03:24 AM 15/08/2007, you wrote:
Good idea about the 550... A guy in the hangar here has a Bonanza with
one and he loves it... I guess put out a call for all 12 of the
existing 500A owners left to see what interest might be shown ;)
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
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 Through-Stud Sheer... |
There is no way to really know what happened.? I don't believe that Continental
requires that the thru bolts be changed at O/H (they should be).? Event though
this is the first cyl to be remove after this O/H, that stud could easily have
been torqued a dozen times in it's service life.? These engines are known for
cyl failures.? So, I would strongly suggest that you replace both thru bolts
at that station.?Good luck? jb
-----Original Message-----
From: David Owens <dowens@aerialviewpoint.com>
Sent: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 9:18 am
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Through-Stud Sheer...
Here are a few pics of the damage...
?
?
________________________________________________________________________
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: | Flight Load Factors |
Hello One & All,
>From various sources, I have traced the "Positive" Flight Load Factors
for, without checking them, all the different Commander Models.
But, it seems that some sources also quote the "Negative" Flight Load
Factors, but this does not seem to be published for all Models.
Has anybody any ideas as how to get this information?
Very Best Regards,
Barry
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: | Engine Through-Stud Sheer... |
This is a turbocharged engine, yes?
Many a twin engine pilot's hanger story start with the words "I knew I
had an engine problem when I saw the cylinder go through the cowling".
Not much comfort, but I suppose it could have been worse.
Bruce
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Through-Stud Sheer...
There is no way to really know what happened. I don't believe that
Continental requires that the thru bolts be changed at O/H (they should
be). Event though this is the first cyl to be remove after this O/H,
that stud could easily have been torqued a dozen times in it's service
life. These engines are known for cyl failures. So, I would strongly
suggest that you replace both thru bolts at that station. Good luck jb
-----Original Message-----
From: David Owens <dowens@aerialviewpoint.com>
Sent: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 9:18 am
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Through-Stud Sheer...
Here are a few pics of the damage...
________________________________
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 Through-Stud Sheer... |
Bruce
That happened to me two years ago... Same story opener...
Robert S. Randazzo
Precision Manuals Development Group
http://www.precisionmanuals.com
On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Bruce Campbell
<brcamp@windows.microsoft.com
> wrote:
> This is a turbocharged engine, yes?
>
>
> Many a twin engine pilot=99s hanger story start with the words
=9CI
> knew I had an engine problem when I saw the cylinder go through the
> cowling=9D. Not much comfort, but I suppose it could have
been wors
> e.
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
> From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of yourtcfg@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:27 AM
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Through-Stud Sheer...
>
>
> There is no way to really know what happened. I don't believe that
> Continental requires that the thru bolts be changed at O/H (they
> should be). Event though this is the first cyl to be remove after
> this O/H, that stud could easily have been torqued a dozen times in
> it's service life. These engines are known for cyl failures. So, I
> would strongly suggest that you replace both thru bolts at that
> station. Good luck jb
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Owens <dowens@aerialviewpoint.com>
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 9:18 am
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Through-Stud Sheer...
>
> Here are a few pics of the damage...
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
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: Through Stud Sheer Pictures... |
Hello Robert,
It is hard to tell from the pictures but it appears that the failure is due
to fatigue and not excess load. Fatigue, in this application, typically can
be caused in two ways. One, the part has been in service to long (to many
cycles, this is hard to do with steel parts) or the part was not properly
torqued and vibration caused the cycle loading to become exponential,
therefore causing fatigue cycle failure. I simplified this explanation to
keep from putting you to sleep.
It makes you wonder if the torque was correct at first, but after operating
the engine, the mating parts of the engine "seated" against each other
thereby causing the stud or studs to become loose.
You might think about re-torqueing the new studs after ground run. This
would ensure that everything has had a chance to go through a thermal and
vibration cycle.
I hope this helps,
Myron Ashley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo@precisionmanuals.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:56 AM
Subject: Commander-List: Through Stud Sheer Pictures...
> Commanders!
>
> Here are a few (not so good) images of the sheered through stud.
>
> It is interesting to note that the stud appears to have been damaged/bent
at
> some point. Possibly during installation? We found what appear to be
> impact marks from a hammer or ram on one end. Go figure.
>
> The internals of the engine appear fine- looks like a brand new engine on
> the inside. No metal found in the oil, and the cylinder and pushrods are
> fine.
>
> We are trying to get some guidance on what should happen with this engine.
> The hope is that the stud can be replaced- and we'll be good-to-go.
>
> I'll keep you all posted.
>
> Robert S. Randazzo
>
>
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: | Through Stud Sheer Pictures... |
Myron, Moe, et al-
Thanks for your input. We had the piece examined by a metallurgist and his
assessment was the same. He felt the part was likely damaged during a
previous removal- and was subsequently forced into this engine build. End
result being that the part failed...
We were able secure input from TCM today- (good contacts are worth their
weight in gold!) and their technical assessment was to replace the stud, and
the opposing cylinders/pistons/pushrods at that location. Once those are
installed- they provided a test to ensure that the bearing is within
limits....
This engine has <400hrs, so this will be a relatively low cost repair given
my initial expectations. Of course- it's another two weeks or so before we
can re-commence flight testing.
Thanks for your input, gents- it is always good to have corroborating
information.
Robert S. Randazzo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Myron Ashley
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Through Stud Sheer Pictures...
Hello Robert,
It is hard to tell from the pictures but it appears that the failure is due
to fatigue and not excess load. Fatigue, in this application, typically can
be caused in two ways. One, the part has been in service to long (to many
cycles, this is hard to do with steel parts) or the part was not properly
torqued and vibration caused the cycle loading to become exponential,
therefore causing fatigue cycle failure. I simplified this explanation to
keep from putting you to sleep.
It makes you wonder if the torque was correct at first, but after operating
the engine, the mating parts of the engine "seated" against each other
thereby causing the stud or studs to become loose.
You might think about re-torqueing the new studs after ground run. This
would ensure that everything has had a chance to go through a thermal and
vibration cycle.
I hope this helps,
Myron Ashley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo@precisionmanuals.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:56 AM
Subject: Commander-List: Through Stud Sheer Pictures...
> Commanders!
>
> Here are a few (not so good) images of the sheered through stud.
>
> It is interesting to note that the stud appears to have been damaged/bent
at
> some point. Possibly during installation? We found what appear to be
> impact marks from a hammer or ram on one end. Go figure.
>
> The internals of the engine appear fine- looks like a brand new engine on
> the inside. No metal found in the oil, and the cylinder and pushrods are
> fine.
>
> We are trying to get some guidance on what should happen with this engine.
> The hope is that the stud can be replaced- and we'll be good-to-go.
>
> I'll keep you all posted.
>
> Robert S. Randazzo
>
>
__________ NOD32 2465 (20070816) Information __________
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! --
|