Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:21 AM - Make A List Contribution - It's Your Personal Squelch Button... (Matt Dralle)
1. 04:43 AM - Re: Borescope (FLYaDIVE)
2. 05:40 AM - Re: Borescope (Mel Beckman)
3. 06:22 AM - Re: Borescope (Harley)
4. 09:40 AM - Re: Borescope (FLYaDIVE)
5. 10:57 AM - Re: Borescope (Mel Beckman)
6. 12:44 PM - Re: Borescope (Sanders, Andrew P)
7. 02:56 PM - Re: Borescope (FLYaDIVE)
8. 03:28 PM - Re: Borescope (Mel Beckman)
9. 04:42 PM - Re: Borescope (FLYaDIVE)
Message 0
| 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: | Make A List Contribution - It's Your Personal Squelch |
Button...
There is an automatic "squelch button" of sorts for the Fund Raiser messages.
Here's how it works... As soon as a List member makes a Contribution through
the Matronics Fund Raiser web site, their email address is automatically added
to this year's Contributor List and they instantly cease to receive further Fund
Raiser messages for the rest of the month! Its just that simple! :-)
I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support
the Lists. It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware
and software that are required to run a List Site such as this one. It also goes
to pay for the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the huge electric
bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered
on. I run all of the Matronics Email List and Forums sites here locally which
allows me to control and monitor every aspect of the system for the utmost in
reliably and performance. Your personal Contribution matters because, when combined
with other Listers such as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site
up and running. I accept exactly ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics
Lists sites. I can't stand the pop-up ads and all other commercials that are
so prevalent on the Internet these days and I particularly don't want to have
it on my Email List sites.
If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email
Lists, please make a Contribution to keep it that way!!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
[Note that there are certain circumstances where you might still see a Contribution
related message. For example, if someone replies to one of the messages,
when using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum.
The system keys on the given email address and since most of these are anonymous
public access methods, there is no simple way to filter them.]
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 |
|
Ralph:
Two questions:
1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope inspection?
2 - What do you expect to find?
The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be better
spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not a fan of
bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that either the pilot
knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common sense
testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way as to be
noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW.
Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that was
not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a new
cylinder than on a bore scope.
Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
Barry
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope. (Cylinder and general
> inspection) Does anyone on the list have direct experience with any of the
> lower cost devices <$500?
> Thanks.
>
> Ralph Hoover
> RV7A
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
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 |
|
Barry,
As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of $500
is high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under half
that. I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry
Electronics sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field,
illumination, and resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and
hook attachments. Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated
laser measurement tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording
capability, but you don't need that for aircraft engine work.
Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other
measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is
still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis.
Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on
ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine
service bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery
(e.g. http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes
today have image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas
year to year.
There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first hand.
A borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine compression
problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal corrosion, and
the location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help you identify its
cause. Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any other way, is
instantly visible with a borescope. The image capture capability makes
it easy to email images to an experienced mechanic for a second opinion,
and even a pilot can gain valuable insight by comparing image changes
over time.
Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well. Have you ever
dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there --
it could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face
hours of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find
the part in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an
inexpensive borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to
stay on top of internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses
for it as well.
Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you can
have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine, at
a very low cost?
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
> Ralph:
>
> Two questions:
> 1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope
inspection?
> 2 - What do you expect to find?
>
> The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be
better spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not
a fan of bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that
either the pilot knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common
sense testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way
as to be noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already
KNOW. Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that
was not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a
new cylinder than on a bore scope.
> Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
>
> Barry
>
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra@comcast.net> wrote:
<hooverra@comcast.net>
>
> I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope. (Cylinder and
general inspection) Does anyone on the list have direct experience with
any of the lower cost devices <$500?
> Thanks.
>
> Ralph Hoover
> RV7A
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> ==========
> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> le, List Admin.
> ==========
> nes-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I agree with Mel, Barry...
I've had the unit that Harbor Freight sells (very similar to the
one Frys sells, but currently on sale for $89) and it has proved
invaluable a couple of times. Just recently dropped some parts
into the hell hole on my Long EZ, for example, as well as
checking out the interior of my centersection spar for dropped
parts. Also used it to look into the transmission on my truck.
However, the camera on either of these from Frys or Harbor
Freight is not quite small enough to fit in a spark plug hole.
Also, the display on the one that I have is detachable and
wireless. The newer models don't appear to do this. This allows
one to hold the display steady and remote from the camera (up to
10 feet or more away) while moving the camera and it's holder
around...something much more difficult to do with the attached
units like they sell now.
Having said all that, Harbor Freight DOES have one that fits in
spark plug holes:
http://tinyurl.com/6o5c4hs $200
All of the above can store the images in a computer
Harley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On 11/7/2011 8:35 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Barry,
>
> As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point
> of $500 is high -- even high quality video borescopes today
> cost well under half that. I've seen very good units for under
> $150. For example, Fry Electronics sells one for $120 with
> excellent depth of field, illumination, and resolution, and
> includes on-board mirror, magnet, and hook attachments. Yes,
> you can spend big bucks on units with integrated laser
> measurement tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording
> capability, but you don't need that for aircraft engine work.
>
> Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other
> measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual
> inspection is still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended
> on a routine basis. Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming
> recommend borescoping cylinders on ALL its engines every 100
> hours, or at least annually. And engine service bulletins offer
> useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery (e.g.
> http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes
> today have image capture capabilities that let you compare
> suspect areas year to year.
>
> There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions
> first hand. A borescope lets you better identify the cause of
> engine compression problems. For example, a borescope will
> instantly reveal corrosion, and the location of the corrosion
> (top vs bottom) will help you identify its cause. Cylinder wall
> scoring, impossible to detect any other way, is instantly
> visible with a borescope. The image capture capability makes it
> easy to email images to an experienced mechanic for a second
> opinion, and even a pilot can gain valuable insight by
> comparing image changes over time.
>
> Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well. Have you
> ever dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't
> leave it there -- it could jam a control during flight. WIthout
> a borescope you might face hours of searching with a magnet;
> with a borescope you can likely find the part in minutes -- I
> have, on several occasions.
>
> In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an
> inexpensive borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap
> way to stay on top of internal engine conditions, and you'll
> find other uses for it as well.
>
> Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when
> you can have a high quality visual record of what's going on in
> your engine, at a very low cost?
>
> -mel
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
>> Ralph:
>>
>> Two questions:
>> 1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore
>> scope inspection?
>> 2 - What do you expect to find?
>>
>> The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could
>> be better spent with standard diagnostic (common sense)
>> testing. I am not a fan of bore scopes because they REALLY do
>> not show anything that either the pilot knows they did wrong
>> or they just repeat what common sense testing already shows.
>> When a problem show itself in such a way as to be noticed in
>> flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW.
>> Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows
>> that was not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use
>> the $500 on a new cylinder than on a bore scope.
>> Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra@comcast.net
>> <mailto:hooverra@comcast.net>> wrote:
>>
>> <hooverra@comcast.net <mailto:hooverra@comcast.net>>
>>
>> I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope.
>> (Cylinder and general inspection) Does anyone on the list
>> have direct experience with any of the lower cost devices
>> <$500?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Ralph Hoover
>> RV7A
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> ==========
>> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>> ooks.com <http://ooks.com>"
>> target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> le, List Admin.
>> ==========
>> nes-List"
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
Mel:
In aviation it always comes down to opinions. You surely have the right to
disagree, but, I as an A&P also have never had a problem that a bore scope
solved.
Does anyone do a bore scope after each flight?
That is the only way a bore scope would qualify as
a Preventive Maintenance device.
So something has had to happen to bring up the need to do a bore scope.
What would a bore scope do that investigative research could not do?
Show scratches on the cylinder walls? OK - Then what... You tare the
cylinder down.
Just putting a Grain of Wheat Light Bulb on a variable power supply and
dropping it down the spark plug hole would show the same thing.
OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
So, you can't see the valves. Well yes you can with a simple mirror on a
wand. What is the bore scope going to show... Well, yes, much better
picture than a 3/8" Dia. mirror.
But, why are you looking at the valves - Maybe because they are leaking!
A compression check will show that also. OK - Then what... You tare the
cylinder down.
A bore scope will not show valve wobble... SB388. A bit of time and a good
dial indicator and fixture will do that better than a bore scope.
The only good argument for getting a bore scope would be as Ralph says...
"General Inspection" - Yes, there sure are areas that are just a royal
PITA to see. Inside fuel tanks, up under <--- I just love that oxymoron -
the dash.
Now what I did not realize is the drastic price drop - I would NEVER pay
$500... But for LQQKing up under (LOL) the dash or in the tail cone... Now
there you have a argument that *holds water.* <--- Tong in cheek.
So, Ralph... If you can get a real good camera (hate the term bore scope)
at a real good price - - - Go for it. Just don't expect it to solve
problems inside the engine.
Barry
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@becknet.com> wrote:
> Barry,
>
> As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of $500 is
> high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under half that.
> I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry Electronics
> sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field, illumination, and
> resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and hook attachments.
> Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated laser measurement
> tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording capability, but you
> don't need that for aircraft engine work.
>
> Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other
> measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is
> still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis.
> Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on
> ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine service
> bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery (e.g.
> http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes today have
> image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas year to year.
>
> There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first hand. A
> borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine compression
> problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal corrosion, and the
> location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help you identify its cause.
> Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any other way, is instantly
> visible with a borescope. The image capture capability makes it easy to
> email images to an experienced mechanic for a second opinion, and even a
> pilot can gain valuable insight by comparing image changes over time.
>
> Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well. Have you ever
> dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there -- it
> could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face hours
> of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find the part
> in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
>
> In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an inexpensive
> borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to stay on top of
> internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses for it as well.
>
> Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you can
> have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine, at a
> very low cost?
>
> -mel
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
> Ralph:
>
> Two questions:
> 1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope inspection?
> 2 - What do you expect to find?
>
> The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be better
> spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not a fan of
> bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that either the pilot
> knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common sense
> testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way as to be
> noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW.
> Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that was
> not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a new
> cylinder than on a bore scope.
> Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
>
> Barry
>
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope. (Cylinder and general
>> inspection) Does anyone on the list have direct experience with any of the
>> lower cost devices <$500?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Ralph Hoover
>> RV7A
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> ==========
>> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>> ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> le, List Admin.
>> ==========
>> nes-List" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> *
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
Barry,
We can agree to disagree, but my practice is in line with
manufacturers' recommendations. Your arguments seem a little contrived,
what with old-school widgets such as grain-of-wheat bulbs and tiny
mirrors.
I never said a borescope is a panacea; you should use all the tools at
your disposal, selecting the best one for a particular task. A borescope
will often be the fastest way to get information about the inside of the
cylinder. For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by listening
to compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important
preventative maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data
immediately.
Why not just get a borescope and take advantage of modern technology at
a great price? Perhaps you'll "tare" down fewer engines ;)
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 9:34 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
> Mel:
>
> In aviation it always comes down to opinions. You surely have the
right to disagree, but, I as an A&P also have never had a problem that a
bore scope solved.
> Does anyone do a bore scope after each flight?
> That is the only way a bore scope would qualify as a Preventive
Maintenance device.
> So something has had to happen to bring up the need to do a bore
scope.
> What would a bore scope do that investigative research could not do?
> Show scratches on the cylinder walls? OK - Then what... You tare the
cylinder down.
> Just putting a Grain of Wheat Light Bulb on a variable power supply
and dropping it down the spark plug hole would show the same thing.
> OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
> So, you can't see the valves. Well yes you can with a simple mirror
on a wand. What is the bore scope going to show... Well, yes, much
better picture than a 3/8" Dia. mirror.
> But, why are you looking at the valves - Maybe because they are
leaking!
> A compression check will show that also. OK - Then what.. You tare
the cylinder down.
> A bore scope will not show valve wobble... SB388. A bit of time and a
good dial indicator and fixture will do that better than a bore scope.
> The only good argument for getting a bore scope would be as Ralph
says... "General Inspection" - Yes, there sure are areas that are just
a royal PITA to see. Inside fuel tanks, up under <--- I just love that
oxymoron - the dash.
>
> Now what I did not realize is the drastic price drop - I would NEVER
pay $500... But for LQQKing up under (LOL) the dash or in the tail
cone... Now there you have a argument that holds water. <--- Tong in
cheek.
>
> So, Ralph... If you can get a real good camera (hate the term bore
scope) at a real good price - - - Go for it. Just don't expect it to
solve problems inside the engine.
>
>
> Barry
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@becknet.com> wrote:
> Barry,
>
> As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of $500
is high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under half
that. I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry
Electronics sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field,
illumination, and resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and
hook attachments. Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated
laser measurement tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording
capability, but you don't need that for aircraft engine work.
>
> Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other
measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is
still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis.
Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on
ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine
service bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery
(e.g. http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes
today have image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas
year to year.
>
> There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first
hand. A borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine
compression problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal
corrosion, and the location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help
you identify its cause. Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any
other way, is instantly visible with a borescope. The image capture
capability makes it easy to email images to an experienced mechanic for
a second opinion, and even a pilot can gain valuable insight by
comparing image changes over time.
>
> Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well Have you ever
dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there --
it could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face
hours of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find
the part in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
>
> In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an
inexpensive borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to
stay on top of internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses
for it as well.
>
> Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you
can have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine,
at a very low cost?
>
> -mel
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
>> Ralph:
>>
>> Two questions:
>> 1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope
inspection?
>> 2 - What do you expect to find?
>>
>> The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be
better spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not
a fan of bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that
either the pilot knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common
sense testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way
as to be noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already
KNOW. Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that
was not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a
new cylinder than on a bore scope.
>> Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra@comcast.net> wrote:
<hooverra@comcast.net>
>>
>> I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope. (Cylinder and
general inspection) Does anyone on the list have direct experience with
any of the lower cost devices <$500?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Ralph Hoover
>> RV7A
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> ==========
>> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>> ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> le, List Admin.
>> ==========
>> nes-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List">http://ww
w.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>
>
>
>
> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> s-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Bought one from Costco a month or so ago. Works great! Records stills and video,
10mm head easily fits through spark plug hole. Comes with a flexible extension
to double the reach (to about 4'). The video head detaches from the handle/probe
and works wireless. Worked great in resolving the rust/debris issues
in the old VW. WISH I had it when I was chasing the fuel leak in the Cardinal
wing tank!
Best part... $150.
Andrew
>Subject: LycomingEngines-List: Borescope
>From: Ralph <hooverra@comcast.net>
>I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope. (Cylinder and general inspection)
>Does anyone on the list have direct experience with any of the lower cost
>devices <$500?
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 |
|
Mel:
I am Old School... And proud of it ;-) I won't give away my age.
Every generation has to reinvent the wheel and lay claim to it.
In your example: For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by
listening to compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important
preventative maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data
immediately.
Here is Old School Logic:
- If the corrosion is that light a good run will remove it.
- If the corrosion is that heavy you will see it with that Old School
Grain of Wheat bulb.
- If the compression tests were GOOD why would one look inside with a
bore scope?
- If the compression tests were BAD... You would have low compression.
Air escaping into the sump area - AND - Then you would be hearing it.
Or escaping out the exhaust pipe - AND - Then you would be hearing it. Or
escaping out the Carb - AND - Then you would be hearing it. SOoooo why
would you need a bore scope? You can see the problem on the compression
gauge and/or hear it.
- Then what would your next action be? - - -
- WHOOPS... I guess you would be tearing down the cylinder... No help
from the bore scope here. Just another proof of the obvious.
- And, if there was corrosion - that could be found out with the Old
School - Grain of Wheat Bulb... LED's are just not right for all jobs.
Cost... Less than $3 for bulb, wire and adjustable power supply. My ideas
- - - - old yes, but not contrite. Are what got us to where WE are today.
I know you were amazed at what McGiver could do with a bobby pin and a
book of matches. If you can't relate to Mcgiver maybe the 'A' Team
impressed you.
What I do like about a bore scope - AND - Wish I had one last Wednesday -
As I said: Is to LQQK up under the dash. Will I spend $150 for one?
Nope... But I will ask Santa.
Barry :-)
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@becknet.com> wrote:
> Barry,
>
> We can agree to disagree, but my practice is in line with manufacturers'
> recommendations. Your arguments seem a little contrived, what with
> old-school widgets such as grain-of-wheat bulbs and tiny mirrors.
>
> I never said a borescope is a panacea; you should use all the tools at
> your disposal, selecting the best one for a particular task. A borescope
> will often be the fastest way to get information about the inside of the
> cylinder. For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by listening to
> compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important preventative
> maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data immediately.
>
> Why not just get a borescope and take advantage of modern technology at a
> great price? Perhaps you'll "tare" down fewer engines ;)
>
> -mel
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 9:34 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
> Mel:
>
> In aviation it always comes down to opinions. You surely have the right
> to disagree, but, I as an A&P also have never had a problem that a bore
> scope solved.
> Does anyone do a bore scope after each flight?
> That is the only way a bore scope would qualify as
> a Preventive Maintenance device.
> So something has had to happen to bring up the need to do a bore scope.
> What would a bore scope do that investigative research could not do?
> Show scratches on the cylinder walls? OK - Then what... You tare the
> cylinder down.
> Just putting a Grain of Wheat Light Bulb on a variable power supply and
> dropping it down the spark plug hole would show the same thing.
> OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
> So, you can't see the valves. Well yes you can with a simple mirror on a
> wand. What is the bore scope going to show... Well, yes, much better
> picture than a 3/8" Dia. mirror.
> But, why are you looking at the valves - Maybe because they are leaking!
> A compression check will show that also. OK - Then what.. You tare the
> cylinder down.
> A bore scope will not show valve wobble... SB388. A bit of time and a
> good dial indicator and fixture will do that better than a bore scope.
> The only good argument for getting a bore scope would be as Ralph says...
> "General Inspection" - Yes, there sure are areas that are just a royal
> PITA to see. Inside fuel tanks, up under <--- I just love that oxymoron -
> the dash.
>
> Now what I did not realize is the drastic price drop - I would NEVER pay
> $500... But for LQQKing up under (LOL) the dash or in the tail cone... Now
> there you have a argument that *holds water.* <--- Tong in cheek.
>
> So, Ralph... If you can get a real good camera (hate the term bore scope)
> at a real good price - - - Go for it. Just don't expect it to solve
> problems inside the engine.
>
>
> Barry
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@becknet.com> wrote:
>
>> Barry,
>>
>> As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of $500 is
>> high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under half that.
>> I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry Electronics
>> sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field, illumination, and
>> resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and hook attachments.
>> Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated laser measurement
>> tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording capability, but you
>> don't need that for aircraft engine work.
>>
>> Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other
>> measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is
>> still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis.
>> Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on
>> ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine service
>> bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery (e.g.
>> http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes today
>> have image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas year to
>> year.
>>
>> There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first hand. A
>> borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine compression
>> problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal corrosion, and the
>> location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help you identify its cause.
>> Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any other way, is instantly
>> visible with a borescope. The image capture capability makes it easy to
>> email images to an experienced mechanic for a second opinion, and even a
>> pilot can gain valuable insight by comparing image changes over time.
>>
>> Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well Have you ever
>> dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there -- it
>> could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face hours
>> of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find the part
>> in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
>>
>> In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an inexpensive
>> borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to stay on top of
>> internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses for it as well.
>>
>> Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you can
>> have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine, at a
>> very low cost?
>>
>> -mel
>>
>> On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>>
>> Ralph:
>>
>> Two questions:
>> 1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope
>> inspection?
>> 2 - What do you expect to find?
>>
>> The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be better
>> spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not a fan of
>> bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that either the pilot
>> knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common sense
>> testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way as to be
>> noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW.
>> Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that was
>> not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a new
>> cylinder than on a bore scope.
>> Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope. (Cylinder and
>>> general inspection) Does anyone on the list have direct experience with any
>>> of the lower cost devices <$500?
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Ralph Hoover
>>> RV7A
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>>> ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>>> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> le, List Admin.
>>> ==========
>>> nes-List" target="_blank">
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>>> ==========
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> le, List Admin.
>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>> com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> s-List <http://www.matronics.com/contributions-List>" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-Listtp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> *
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
Sigh. I'm in my 50's, but I've progressed with technology. Hopefully
Santa will be good to you ;)
-mel
On Nov 7, 2011, at 2:53 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
> Mel:
>
> I am Old School... And proud of it ;-) I won't give away my age.
>
> Every generation has to reinvent the wheel and lay claim to it.
>
> In your example: For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by
listening to compression sounds, which I would consider to be an
important preventative maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you
great data immediately.
>
> Here is Old School Logic:
> If the corrosion is that light a good run will remove it.
> If the corrosion is that heavy you will see it with that Old School
Grain of Wheat bulb.
> If the compression tests were GOOD why would one look inside with a
bore scope?
> If the compression tests were BAD... You would have low compression.
Air escaping into the sump area - AND - Then you would be hearing it.
Or escaping out the exhaust pipe - AND - Then you would be hearing it.
Or escaping out the Carb - AND - Then you would be hearing it. SOoooo
why would you need a bore scope? You can see the problem on the
compression gauge and/or hear it.
> Then what would your next action be? - - -
> WHOOPS... I guess you would be tearing down the cylinder... No help
from the bore scope here Just another proof of the obvious.
> And, if there was corrosion - that could be found out with the Old
School - Grain of Wheat Bulb... LED's are just not right for all jobs.
Cost... Less than $3 for bulb, wire and adjustable power supply. My
ideas - - - - old yes, but not contrite. Are what got us to where WE are
today. I know you were amazed at what McGiver could do with a bobby pin
and a book of matches. If you can't relate to Mcgiver maybe the 'A'
Team impressed you.
> What I do like about a bore scope - AND - Wish I had one last
Wednesday - As I said: Is to LQQK up under the dash. Will I spend $150
for one? Nope... But I will ask Santa.
>
> Barry :-)
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@becknet.com> wrote:
> Barry,
>
> We can agree to disagree, but my practice is in line with
manufacturers' recommendations. Your arguments seem a little contrived,
what with old-school widgets such as grain-of-wheat bulbs and tiny
mirrors.
>
> I never said a borescope is a panacea; you should use all the tools at
your disposal, selecting the best one for a particular task A borescope
will often be the fastest way to get information about the inside of the
cylinder. For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by listening
to compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important
preventative maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data
immediately.
>
> Why not just get a borescope and take advantage of modern technology
at a great price? Perhaps you'll "tare" down fewer engines ;)
>
> -mel
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 9:34 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
>> Mel:
>>
>> In aviation it always comes down to opinions. You surely have the
right to disagree, but, I as an A&P also have never had a problem that a
bore scope solved.
>> Does anyone do a bore scope after each flight?
>> That is the only way a bore scope would qualify as a Preventive
Maintenance device.
>> So something has had to happen to bring up the need to do a bore
scope.
>> What would a bore scope do that investigative research could not do?
>> Show scratches on the cylinder walls? OK - Then what... You tare the
cylinder down.
>> Just putting a Grain of Wheat Light Bulb on a variable power supply
and dropping it down the spark plug hole would show the same thing.
>> OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
>> So, you can't see the valves. Well yes you can with a simple mirror
on a wand. What is the bore scope going to show... Well, yes, much
better picture than a 3/8" Dia. mirror.
>> But, why are you looking at the valves - Maybe because they are
leaking!
>> A compression check will show that also. OK - Then what.. You tare
the cylinder down.
>> A bore scope will not show valve wobble... SB388. A bit of time and
a good dial indicator and fixture will do that better than a bore scope.
>> The only good argument for getting a bore scope would be as Ralph
says... "General Inspection" - Yes, there sure are areas that are just
a royal PITA to see. Inside fuel tanks, up under <--- I just love that
oxymoron - the dash.
>>
>> Now what I did not realize is the drastic price drop - I would NEVER
pay $500... But for LQQKing up under (LOL) the dash or in the tail
cone... Now there you have a argument that holds water. <--- Tong in
cheek.
>>
>> So, Ralph... If you can get a real good camera (hate the term bore
scope) at a real good price - - - Go for it. Just don't expect it to
solve problems inside the engine.
>>
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@becknet.com> wrote:
>> Barry,
>>
>> As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of
$500 is high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under
half that. I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry
Electronics sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field,
illumination, and resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and
hook attachments. Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated
laser measurement tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording
capability, but you don't need that for aircraft engine work.
>>
>> Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other
measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is
still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis.
Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on
ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine
service bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery
(e.g. http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes
today have image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas
year to year.
>>
>> There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first
hand. A borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine
compression problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal
corrosion, and the location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help
you identify its cause. Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any
other way, is instantly visible with a borescope. The image capture
capability makes it easy to email images to an experienced mechanic for
a second opinion, and even a pilot can gain valuable insight by
comparing image changes over time.
>>
>> Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well Have you ever
dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there --
it could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face
hours of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find
the part in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
>>
>> In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an
inexpensive borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to
stay on top of internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses
for it as well.
>>
>> Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you
can have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine,
at a very low cost?
>>
>> -mel
>>
>> On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>>
>>> Ralph:
>>>
>>> Two questions:
>>> 1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope
inspection?
>>> 2 - What do you expect to find?
>>>
>>> The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be
better spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not
a fan of bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that
either the pilot knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common
sense testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way
as to be noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already
KNOW. Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that
was not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a
new cylinder than on a bore scope.
>>> Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
>>>
>>> Barry
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra@comcast.net> wrote:
<hooverra@comcast.net>
>>>
>>> I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope. (Cylinder and
general inspection) Does anyone on the list have direct experience with
any of the lower cost devices <$500?
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Ralph Hoover
>>> RV7A
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>>> ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>>> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> le, List Admin.
>>> ==========
>>> nes-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>>> ==========
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> le, List Admin.
>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
>>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
>>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List">http://ww
w.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>> com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> s-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List">http://ww
w.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>
>
>
>
>
> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> s-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Thanks Mel:
Yea, I do have more than a hand full of years on ya.
I'll LQQK at Coscos and see what they offer and ask Santa... Maybe even
sooner it is my birthday this month... A very famous national holiday.
Barry
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@becknet.com> wrote:
> Sigh. I'm in my 50's, but I've progressed with technology. Hopefully Santa
> will be good to you ;)
>
> -mel
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 2:53 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
> Mel:
>
> I am Old School... And proud of it ;-) I won't give away my age.
>
> Every generation has to reinvent the wheel and lay claim to it.
>
> In your example: For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by
> listening to compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important
> preventative maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data
> immediately.
>
> Here is Old School Logic:
>
> - If the corrosion is that light a good run will remove it.
> - If the corrosion is that heavy you will see it with that Old School
> Grain of Wheat bulb.
> - If the compression tests were GOOD why would one look inside with a
> bore scope?
> - If the compression tests were BAD... You would have low
> compression. Air escaping into the sump area - AND - Then you would be
> hearing it. Or escaping out the exhaust pipe - AND - Then you would be
> hearing it. Or escaping out the Carb - AND - Then you would be hearing
> it. SOoooo why would you need a bore scope? You can see the problem on
> the compression gauge and/or hear it.
> - Then what would your next action be? - - -
> - WHOOPS... I guess you would be tearing down the cylinder... No help
> from the bore scope here Just another proof of the obvious.
> - And, if there was corrosion - that could be found out with the Old
> School - Grain of Wheat Bulb... LED's are just not right for all jobs.
> Cost... Less than $3 for bulb, wire and adjustable power supply. My ideas
> - - - - old yes, but not contrite. Are what got us to where WE are today.
> I know you were amazed at what McGiver could do with a bobby pin and a
> book of matches. If you can't relate to Mcgiver maybe the 'A' Team
> impressed you.
>
> What I do like about a bore scope - AND - Wish I had one last Wednesday -
> As I said: Is to LQQK up under the dash. Will I spend $150 for one?
> Nope... But I will ask Santa.
>
> Barry :-)
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@becknet.com> wrote:
>
>> Barry,
>>
>> We can agree to disagree, but my practice is in line with manufacturers'
>> recommendations. Your arguments seem a little contrived, what with
>> old-school widgets such as grain-of-wheat bulbs and tiny mirrors.
>>
>> I never said a borescope is a panacea; you should use all the tools at
>> your disposal, selecting the best one for a particular task A borescope
>> will often be the fastest way to get information about the inside of the
>> cylinder. For example, you can't detect corrosion reliably by listening to
>> compression sounds, which I would consider to be an important preventative
>> maintenance inspection. A borescope gives you great data immediately.
>>
>> Why not just get a borescope and take advantage of modern technology at a
>> great price? Perhaps you'll "tare" down fewer engines ;)
>>
>> -mel
>>
>> On Nov 7, 2011, at 9:34 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>>
>> Mel:
>>
>> In aviation it always comes down to opinions. You surely have the right
>> to disagree, but, I as an A&P also have never had a problem that a bore
>> scope solved.
>> Does anyone do a bore scope after each flight?
>> That is the only way a bore scope would qualify as
>> a Preventive Maintenance device.
>> So something has had to happen to bring up the need to do a bore scope.
>> What would a bore scope do that investigative research could not do?
>> Show scratches on the cylinder walls? OK - Then what... You tare the
>> cylinder down.
>> Just putting a Grain of Wheat Light Bulb on a variable power supply and
>> dropping it down the spark plug hole would show the same thing.
>> OK - Then what... You tare the cylinder down.
>> So, you can't see the valves. Well yes you can with a simple mirror on a
>> wand. What is the bore scope going to show... Well, yes, much better
>> picture than a 3/8" Dia. mirror.
>> But, why are you looking at the valves - Maybe because they are leaking!
>> A compression check will show that also. OK - Then what.. You tare the
>> cylinder down.
>> A bore scope will not show valve wobble... SB388. A bit of time and a
>> good dial indicator and fixture will do that better than a bore scope.
>> The only good argument for getting a bore scope would be as Ralph says...
>> "General Inspection" - Yes, there sure are areas that are just a royal
>> PITA to see. Inside fuel tanks, up under <--- I just love that oxymoron -
>> the dash.
>>
>> Now what I did not realize is the drastic price drop - I would NEVER pay
>> $500... But for LQQKing up under (LOL) the dash or in the tail cone... Now
>> there you have a argument that *holds water.* <--- Tong in cheek.
>>
>> So, Ralph... If you can get a real good camera (hate the term bore scope)
>> at a real good price - - - Go for it. Just don't expect it to solve
>> problems inside the engine.
>>
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@becknet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Barry,
>>>
>>> As an A&P, I could not disagree more. First, the price-point of $500
>>> is high -- even high quality video borescopes today cost well under half
>>> that. I've seen very good units for under $150. For example, Fry
>>> Electronics sells one for $120 with excellent depth of field, illumination,
>>> and resolution, and includes on-board mirror, magnet, and hook attachments.
>>> Yes, you can spend big bucks on units with integrated laser measurement
>>> tools, wireless video screens, and motion recording capability, but you
>>> don't need that for aircraft engine work.
>>>
>>> Although you can infer internal cylinder condition from other
>>> measurements, such as engine compression sounds, a visual inspection is
>>> still valuable and, I believe, highly recommended on a routine basis.
>>> Engine manufacturers such as Lycoming recommend borescoping cylinders on
>>> ALL its engines every 100 hours, or at least annually. And engine service
>>> bulletins offer useful guidance in analyzing borescope imagery (e.g.
>>> http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf). Most video borescopes today
>>> have image capture capabilities that let you compare suspect areas year to
>>> year.
>>>
>>> There's just no substitute for seeing cylinder conditions first hand.
>>> A borescope lets you better identify the cause of engine compression
>>> problems. For example, a borescope will instantly reveal corrosion, and the
>>> location of the corrosion (top vs bottom) will help you identify its cause.
>>> Cylinder wall scoring, impossible to detect any other way, is instantly
>>> visible with a borescope. The image capture capability makes it easy to
>>> email images to an experienced mechanic for a second opinion, and even a
>>> pilot can gain valuable insight by comparing image changes over time.
>>>
>>> Borescopes can be invaluable at other times as well Have you ever
>>> dropped a screw in the belly of an aircraft? You can't leave it there -- it
>>> could jam a control during flight. WIthout a borescope you might face hours
>>> of searching with a magnet; with a borescope you can likely find the part
>>> in minutes -- I have, on several occasions.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, every aircraft owner should have at least an
>>> inexpensive borescope on hand at all times. It's a very cheap way to stay
>>> on top of internal engine conditions, and you'll find other uses for it as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> Why perform the equivalent of seeing-eye dog maintenance when you can
>>> have a high quality visual record of what's going on in your engine, at a
>>> very low cost?
>>>
>>> -mel
>>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:39 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>>>
>>> Ralph:
>>>
>>> Two questions:
>>> 1 - What do you think you have done that justifies a bore scope
>>> inspection?
>>> 2 - What do you expect to find?
>>>
>>> The reason for these questions are: Your time and money could be better
>>> spent with standard diagnostic (common sense) testing. I am not a fan of
>>> bore scopes because they REALLY do not show anything that either the pilot
>>> knows they did wrong or they just repeat what common sense
>>> testing already shows. When a problem show itself in such a way as to be
>>> noticed in flying, a bore scope ONLY confirms what you already KNOW.
>>> Seriously I have never seen anything that a bore scope shows that was
>>> not diagnosed previously without it. Better to use the $500 on a new
>>> cylinder than on a bore scope.
>>> Bore Scopes are better for a Colonoscopy.
>>>
>>> Barry
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Ralph <hooverra@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking into the purchase of a video Borescope. (Cylinder and
>>>> general inspection) Does anyone on the list have direct experience with any
>>>> of the lower cost devices <$500?
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph Hoover
>>>> RV7A
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> ==========
>>>> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>>>> ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>>>> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> le, List Admin.
>>>> ==========
>>>> nes-List" target="_blank">
>>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>>>> ==========
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> ==========
>>>> le, List Admin.
>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
>>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
>>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>>> com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> s-List <http://www.matronics.com/contributions-List>" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-Listtp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>> com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> s-List <http://www.matronics.com/contributions-List>" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-Listtp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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! --
|