Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:30 AM - Inlet temperatures (Gary Casey)
2. 07:34 AM - Re: Re: (James R. Cunningham)
3. 07:37 AM - Re: rebuild (Kent Ashton)
4. 07:39 AM - Re: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps clamav-milter version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net (flyv35b)
5. 08:03 AM - Re: rebuild (rocket2man@isp.com)
6. 10:12 AM - Re: rebuild (Joe Healy)
7. 01:50 PM - Re: rebuild (cgalley)
8. 02:22 PM - Re: rebuild (cgalley)
9. 02:22 PM - Re: rebuild (Joe Healy)
10. 05:28 PM - Re: rebuild (Kent Ashton)
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: | Inlet temperatures |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<My quest is to improve efficiency. I was
under the impression that heat in the combustion chamber is what produces
power, thus adding a little heat to the intake air should produce better
fuel vaporization and thus more efficiency due to reduction in pumping
losses. Please remember we are not interested in max power just more miles
per gallon.
Vic>>
Your impression is exactly right, Vic. But there are two effects working
for you. The reduction in pumping loss is because you can run wider
throttle openings (higher manifold pressure) to get the same mass air flow
into the engine with a hotter, less dense charge. The difference between
the inlet and exhaust pressure creates what we call "pumping loss." It can
be reduced by either increasing inlet pressure (full throttle) or reducing
exhaust pressure (higher altitude). Fuel vaporization in a carbureted
engine (not much effect in a fuel injected engine) can be improved by
increasing the inlet air temperature. The two effects are completely
independent, but both are improved by adding heat to the inlet air. The
detonation margin is reduced as it is a function of the temperature of the
charge at TDC, which increases with increasing inlet air temperature. The
detonation margin is minimum at about 50 ROP and is increased either rich or
lean from that. Since it wouldn't make sense to run rich with carb heat the
only choice is to run very lean - 30 to 50 LOP or at "leanest smooth
operation" as many POH's say. The increased heat load on the engine (higher
CHT's) will be insignificant. The EGT won't change very much either and
shouldn't be a concern.
Gary Casey
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
Nice website.
All the best,
JimC
Tracy Crook wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
>
> www.rotaryaviation.com<http://www.rotaryaviation.com/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: TeamGrumman@aol.com<mailto:TeamGrumman@aol.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:19 AM
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com<mailto:TeamGrumman@aol.com>
>
> In a message dated 11/1/04 5:52:42 AM, glcasey@adelphia.net<mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net> writes:
>
> >
> > Could you tell me how to get to your website?A0 I'd like to see the pictures.
> >
>
> www.AuCountry.com<http://www.aucountry.com/>
>
> Click on TeamGrumman
>
> Click on any of the pages.
>
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: Kent Ashton <kjashton@vnet.net>
> From: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
> It is a fact that the engine on my Vari EZ is completely unmodified and
> therefore is just like a certified 0-235.
Do you have a non-certified prop or prop extension on it? If you do, it's
no longer certified. In order to go back into service as a certifed engine,
it would have to be torn down and reassembled by the appropriately rated
persons. AFAIK
--Kent
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: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps clamav-milter |
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
--> Engines-List message posted by: "flyv35b" <flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com>
> Now as another thing that happens with turbo charging is that your
> effective
> compression ratio of the engine increases. The increase in compression
> ratio
> of an engine generally equates to more efficient engine. Thus turbo
> charged
> engine are usually a slight bit more efficient.
>
> Regards,
> Trampas
But most factory installed turbocharged aircraft engines lower the CR from
8.5 down to 7.0 because of their fear of detonation due to the higher
cylinder pressures and temperatures. As a result the engines are less
efficient at lower altitudes than their normally aspirated brethren. The
best of both worlds is a turbo-normalized engine with higher CR (no change)
and an intercooler. With balanced injectors and running LOP the CHTs are
keep cooler and efficiency is optimized and there is essentially no chance
of detonation at normal cruise power settings.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trampas" <tstern@nc.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps clamav-milter
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Trampas" <tstern@nc.rr.com>
>
> Very simply the burning of the fuel causes makes gas expand that produce
> the
> power. So to burn the fuel in a gasoline engine you need oxygen and fuel
> mixed close to 14.7:1. So heating the air cause the air to expand which
> means it has less oxygen per unit volume. Now heating the fuel does cause
> it
> to vaporize which can create a better mixing of the fuel and air. So
> basically you want the fuel well vaporized, like from a fuel injector and
> the air cold and dense.
>
> A turbo charger on an engine basically forces more air into the engine,
> which means you can add more fuel to get more power. Now when you compress
> air it will get hotter which is not what you want. Therefore most turbo
> charged cars today also have an intercooler which cools the air back down
> before going into engine.
>
> Now as another thing that happens with turbo charging is that your
> effective
> compression ratio of the engine increases. The increase in compression
> ratio
> of an engine generally equates to more efficient engine. Thus turbo
> charged
> engine are usually a slight bit more efficient.
>
> Regards,
> Trampas
> www.sterntech.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vic Jacko
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps
> clamav-milter
> version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>
> Ken, thanks for your impute. My quest is to improve efficiency. I
> was
> under the impression that heat in the combustion chamber is what produces
> power, thus adding a little heat to the intake air should produce better
> fuel vaporization and thus more efficiency due to reduction in pumping
> losses. Please remember we are not interested in max power just more
> miles
> per gallon.
>
> You may remember the Sterling Engine which Mazda used to increase engine
> efficiency. They actually used a turbocharger to heat the air prior to
> induction. Sure they had to control detonation by retarding the spark
> but
> it did work. Comments?
>
> Thanks again for the help.
>
> Vic
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken" <klehman@albedo.net>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps
> clamav-milter
> version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
>
>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>>
>> With carb heat you must run higher gas temps to get the same power which
>> may not be best for engine longevity.
>>
>> Altitude also reduces exhaust back pressure. For a given manifold
>> pressure, an increase in altitude actually means an increased mass flow
>> (due to an easier flowing exhaust) and efi systems do account for this
>> and add more fuel as altitude increases (for the same manifold
>> pressure). Even for an automobile this can easily be in the order of a
>> 5% correction from what I understand. Anyway the point is that heating
>> the intake charge does nothing to reduce exhaust back pressure.
>>
>> Pumping losses are only part of the equation. As you raise the intake
>> temperature you have less and less allowable combustion temp rise due to
>> metal temperature limitations and detonation margin which I believe
>> means lower thermal efficiency. I'm still mulling this but I think in
>> practice that is similar to saying that with a hot intake charge you
>> won't be able to lean as much and you end up in a losing situation. I
>> guess the answer is in the question - can you see a reduced fuel flow by
>> adding carb heat while maintaining the same cruise speed?
>>
>> Sure there are situations where carb heat increases fuel vaporisation
>> and efficiency but I doubt they are common on a warmed up engine.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> Vic Jacko wrote:
>>
>> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>> >
>> >Archie, would appreciate your feelings on reducing pumping losses by
>> >fooling the engine in believing that it is at a higher altitude than
>> it
>> >really is.
>> >
>> >If we can make the engine think it is at 8,000 to 10,000 feet one can
> run
>> >full throttle without exceeding 100 percent power. I am aware this
>> happens
>> >at a lower altitude depending on outside temperature.
>> >
>> >Full throttle reduces pumping losses rather than pulling the throttle
> back
>> >to reduce power for cruise efficiency. Sooo this is what I suggest:
>> >
>> >Please fell free to flame me! We will enjoy your remarks!
>> >
>> >My suggestion is to heat the incoming air charge above the cold side
>> of the
>> >ram air intake by using carb heat in the right proportion to cause the
>> >engine to think it is in a higher density altitude once cruise flight
>> >begins. One could use a fuel flow device to determine the most
> efficient
>> >engine operation at altitude.
>> >
>> >I am fully aware that one will lose power by applying carb heat. Power
> is
>> >not the point, pumping losses are what we want to reduce to increase
>> >efficiency.
>> >
>> >Also, correct me if I am wrong but will a warm intake charge increase
> the
>> >effective cylinder pressures than a cold charge at a given power
> output?
>> >
>> >If this is true then will we not have an increase in the effective
>> >compression ratio in the above question at the same power output.?
>> >
>> >I hope you have time to give us you view on these ideas. Maybe if I
>> am
>> >correct in my thesis we can save some fuel!
>> >
>> >Vic,
>> >
>> >Roswell, NM
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: rocket2man@isp.com
Joe -
I don't know who "cgalley" is since he doesn't properly address or sign
his cryptic and cynical reply but I too am interested in a reasonable
answer to your question. Posts like his to this information source do not
help distribute the knowledge of others and to me, are unwelcome. I guess
we can wait for a more informative answer. In some cases, interpretation
of the FARs has varied by region/GADO but the EAA has always been a good
direct source. JBB
--> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> What part of ALL don't you understand?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: rebuild
>
>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
>>
>> Kent,
>>
>> Your version of this issue seems most in line with a presentation I
> attended
>> at an EAA meeting years ago. I just wish I took notes.
>>
>> Someone (knowledgeable) told me that while my airplane was experimental,
> the
>> engine was not and that it would have to be overhauled by an A&P. I
>> could
>> not do it myself. Could that be true, even from some obscure point of
> view?
>>
>> It is a fact that the engine on my Vari EZ is completely unmodified and
>> therefore is just like a certified 0-235. However, it was my
> understanding
>> that if a certificated engine were to be removed from a certificated
>> airplane and installed on an experimental, even if the engine remains
>> completely unmodified, then it could not thereafter be returned to
>> service
>> on a certificated airplane. In other words, the simple act of mounting
> the
>> engine on an experimental plane "voids", as it were, the certification.
> Or,
>> does having all engine work done by an A&P result in the survival of the
>> certification?
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> J Healy
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Kent Ashton" <kjashton@vnet.net>
>> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>> >Therefore, by default, all other maintenance is wide
>> > open. In fact, you may do any work on anybody's experimental
>> aircraft,
>> even
>> > ones you didn't build and don't own. How's that for FREEDOM, my
>> friend?
>> > You just can't perform the annual condition inspection on these
>> aircraft
>> > unless you got a repairman certificate for it.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
-----------------------------------------
Join ISP.COM today - $8.95 internet , less than 1/2 the cost of AOL
Try us out, http://www.isp.com/
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
JBB,
The response from Kent (not reproduced here) seems to capture it best and is
in line with other reliable sources I have found. In short, you can work on
any part of your experimental plane, including rebuilding the engine. The
engine, even if it is a regular airplane engine, is experimental too.
However, if you didn't build the plane yourself and hold the repairman's
certificate, you can't sign off the required annual condition inspection
yourself. This leads to the next big question.
How hard will it be to find someone willing to sign off on your work?
As I understand it, there is a big difference between the annual condition
inspection needed for an experimental plane and the "annual" required for a
certified airplane. Maybe someone could comment on this issue.
It seems to me that having "EXPERIMENTAL" written at the entrance is
equivalent to a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for any A&P signing off on the
condition inspection for an airplane that the owner didn't build. Because
there is no "official" check list, or published AD's to comply with, what
would an A&P legally be expected to do other than offer his opinion
commensurate with the compensation paid for the service? For $5.00 he could
practically gallop past and say, "Well if you flew it here, it must be good
to go!" Who could hold his feet to the fire if a crash occurred on the next
flight? His lawyer would say, "My client checked all the available
published standards (none) and based on his prior experience (next to none)
could not identify anything that needed to be fixed in order to make it
airworthy." I thought that is why there is a placard required from the FAA
that loosely translated says, "We are not sure about the one that built this
plane, nor are we following up with anyone working on it. If you ride in it,
don't come crying to us if you are injured or killed."
J. Healy
----- Original Message -----
From: <rocket2man@isp.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: rebuild
> --> Engines-List message posted by: rocket2man@isp.com
>
> Joe -
> I don't know who "cgalley" is since he doesn't properly address or sign
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
I guess I was cynical but the day before I answered the question not once
but twice...
11/1/04 4:43 pm ---The only thing that you can do that anyone else can't do
on your airplane is do the conditional inspection. Anyone can work on any
experimental. After you sell the plane, you can still do the conditional or
anyone with an A&P can do the conditional inspection. But anyone can do the
work, but it of course will have to pass the conditional inspection.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
And on 10/30/04 at 12:56 pm I wrote in response to Joe's question...
If you have the manuals, time, and talent you can do the job. Just remember
that the A&P that does your "conditional Inspection" has to sign off your
work at that time.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
Subject: Engines-List: rebuild
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
>
> Nature
>
>
> I know this question must have been asked a million times, but...
> I have a Vari EZ that I did not build. The engine is an 0-235-c2c and it
is at TBO. The end play is out of spec, it smokes a lot and will not run
smoothly. What do I have to do in order legitimately break it down and
rebuild it myself? I have all the technology to do the task, but I am not a
licensed aircraft engine mechanic. How can I do this project myself?
> J. Healy
----- Original Message -----
From: <rocket2man@isp.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: rebuild
> --> Engines-List message posted by: rocket2man@isp.com
>
> Joe -
> I don't know who "cgalley" is since he doesn't properly address or sign
> his cryptic and cynical reply but I too am interested in a reasonable
> answer to your question. Posts like his to this information source do not
> help distribute the knowledge of others and to me, are unwelcome. I guess
> we can wait for a more informative answer. In some cases, interpretation
> of the FARs has varied by region/GADO but the EAA has always been a good
> direct source. JBB
>
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> >
> > What part of ALL don't you understand?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
> > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: rebuild
> >
> >
> >> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
> >>
> >> Kent,
> >>
> >> Your version of this issue seems most in line with a presentation I
> > attended
> >> at an EAA meeting years ago. I just wish I took notes.
> >>
> >> Someone (knowledgeable) told me that while my airplane was
experimental,
> > the
> >> engine was not and that it would have to be overhauled by an A&P. I
> >> could
> >> not do it myself. Could that be true, even from some obscure point of
> > view?
> >>
> >> It is a fact that the engine on my Vari EZ is completely unmodified and
> >> therefore is just like a certified 0-235. However, it was my
> > understanding
> >> that if a certificated engine were to be removed from a certificated
> >> airplane and installed on an experimental, even if the engine remains
> >> completely unmodified, then it could not thereafter be returned to
> >> service
> >> on a certificated airplane. In other words, the simple act of mounting
> > the
> >> engine on an experimental plane "voids", as it were, the certification.
> > Or,
> >> does having all engine work done by an A&P result in the survival of
the
> >> certification?
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> >>
> >> J Healy
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Kent Ashton" <kjashton@vnet.net>
> >> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> >> >Therefore, by default, all other maintenance is wide
> >> > open. In fact, you may do any work on anybody's experimental
> >> aircraft,
> >> even
> >> > ones you didn't build and don't own. How's that for FREEDOM, my
> >> friend?
> >> > You just can't perform the annual condition inspection on these
> >> aircraft
> >> > unless you got a repairman certificate for it.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Join ISP.COM today - $8.95 internet , less than 1/2 the cost of AOL
> Try us out, http://www.isp.com/
>
>
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Joe, The Minium for a "conditional inspection" is spelled out in Part 43
Appendix D. It is the same as a 100 hour inspection. This MINIMUM must done
by the A&P. In addition, many kit manufacturers have published a check list
specific to their particular airplanes. One might think that there are no
standards but they are listed in the operating limitations when the plane
was issued its experimental certificate. In operating limitations will be
references to the FARs to be observed.
So there are published standards but there are documents written by the FAA
that says that ADs do not apply. At the same time, one must show that during
the conditional inspection that the entire plane is airworthy. Meeting the
airworthiness means that you have fixed the problem listed in the AD. Is it
as simple as one would think? Doesn't look like experimentals have a magic
"get out of jail" card.
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: rebuild
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
>
> JBB,
>
> The response from Kent (not reproduced here) seems to capture it best and
is
> in line with other reliable sources I have found. In short, you can work
on
> any part of your experimental plane, including rebuilding the engine. The
> engine, even if it is a regular airplane engine, is experimental too.
> However, if you didn't build the plane yourself and hold the repairman's
> certificate, you can't sign off the required annual condition inspection
> yourself. This leads to the next big question.
> How hard will it be to find someone willing to sign off on your work?
> As I understand it, there is a big difference between the annual condition
> inspection needed for an experimental plane and the "annual" required for
a
> certified airplane. Maybe someone could comment on this issue.
>
> It seems to me that having "EXPERIMENTAL" written at the entrance is
> equivalent to a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for any A&P signing off on the
> condition inspection for an airplane that the owner didn't build. Because
> there is no "official" check list, or published AD's to comply with, what
> would an A&P legally be expected to do other than offer his opinion
> commensurate with the compensation paid for the service? For $5.00 he
could
> practically gallop past and say, "Well if you flew it here, it must be
good
> to go!" Who could hold his feet to the fire if a crash occurred on the
next
> flight? His lawyer would say, "My client checked all the available
> published standards (none) and based on his prior experience (next to
none)
> could not identify anything that needed to be fixed in order to make it
> airworthy." I thought that is why there is a placard required from the
FAA
> that loosely translated says, "We are not sure about the one that built
this
> plane, nor are we following up with anyone working on it. If you ride in
it,
> don't come crying to us if you are injured or killed."
>
> J. Healy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rocket2man@isp.com>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: rebuild
>
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: rocket2man@isp.com
> >
> > Joe -
> > I don't know who "cgalley" is since he doesn't properly address or sign
>
>
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
cgalley,
The unanswered question was whether or not an experimental airframe could
have a certificated engine. The response from others indicates no.
J. Healy
----- Original Message -----
From: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: rebuild
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> I guess I was cynical but the day before I answered the question not once
> but twice...
>
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: Kent Ashton <kjashton@vnet.net>
> From: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
> As I understand it, there is a big difference between the annual condition
> inspection needed for an experimental plane and the "annual" required for a
> certified airplane. Maybe someone could comment on this issue.
Per most recent Operating Limitations, the annual condition inspection
has meet the "scope and detail of Appendix D to Part 43".
>
> It seems to me that having "EXPERIMENTAL" written at the entrance is
> equivalent to a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for any A&P signing off on the
> condition inspection for an airplane that the owner didn't build. Because
> there is no "official" check list, or published AD's to comply with, what
> would an A&P legally be expected to do other than offer his opinion
> commensurate with the compensation paid for the service?
Well, the A&P is still responsible (if he signs off the inspection), and
most take it seriously. Some A&Ps put a fair amount of trust into the owner
and will not look as closely as they might with a certificated airplane.
Others will look very closely. I've encountered A&Ps that were hard-over
that ever AD had to be done even though they don't legally apply. The lack
of clear guidance about ADs and what's a certified engine causes confusion,
even among the professionals. Best to find an A&P who has some association
with your EAA chapter. They seem to understand that although YOU can
experiment to your heart's content, THEY have the obligation to reject a
non-airworthy aircraft.
--Kent
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! --
|