Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:42 PM - Certified Engine question (Ben Charvet)
2. 04:03 PM - Re: Certified Engine question (Jack Phillips)
3. 04:03 PM - Re: Certified Engine question (Jack Phillips)
4. 06:39 PM - Re: Certified Engine question (Don Emch)
5. 07:04 PM - Re: UK built-up wing spar (Robert Ray)
6. 08:17 PM - Piet Flying (Perry Rhoads)
7. 08:55 PM - Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003 (Graham Hansen)
8. 09:14 PM - Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 005 (Graham Hansen)
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: | Certified Engine question |
I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished
project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness
inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder
to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by.
Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled
the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear.
I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine
came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through
phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good.
Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild.
So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience
rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in
automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started
overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case,
crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental
A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be
signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed
and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent
in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do
this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would
drive the insurance folks nuts.
I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in
bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley
metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the
Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just
swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the
A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date.
I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than
its engine/prop anyway.
This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a
tough choice.
My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified
engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a
Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are
concerned?
Thanks
Ben Charvet
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: | Certified Engine question |
Oh, I never answered your question. I left the original dataplate on the
engine. It was riveted to the crankcase and was all but illegible, but it's
still there.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Charvet
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question
I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished
project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness
inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder
to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by.
Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled
the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear.
I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine
came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through
phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good.
Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild.
So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience
rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in
automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started
overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case,
crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental
A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be
signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed
and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent
in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do
this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would
drive the insurance folks nuts.
I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in
bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley
metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the
Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just
swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the
A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date.
I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than
its engine/prop anyway.
This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a
tough choice.
My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified
engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a
Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are
concerned?
Thanks
Ben Charvet
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 |
|
| Subject: | Certified Engine question |
Ben,
I rebuilt my A65, with no logbooks at all. I built it under the supervision
of an IA, but he didn't turn a wrench on it, and didn't sign anything off.
I made a new log for it, with the following notation:
"Recording Tach time: 0.00 Hours; Total Time in Service: Unknown;
Overhauled engine in accordance with Continental Overhaul Manual to "New"
limits. Installed the following overhauled components: Crankcase,
overhauled by Divco, Inc. "Yellow Tag" WDC#79640. Crankshaft, S/N
S111199-2, overhauled by Aircraft Specialties, Connecting rods S111199-2,
overhauled by Aircraft Specialties, Rocker Arms P/N 639615, overhauled by
Triad Aviation. The following parts were magnafluxed by Triad Aviation:
Crankshaft Gear, Camshaft Gear, Oil Pump Impellers. Installed the following
new parts: Camshaft (P/N 4546) - Fresno Air Parts; Cam Followers (8) (P/N
21608) - Fresno Air Parts; Millennium Cylinders (S/N 65A01988/89/90/91 -
Superior Air Parts; Magnetos (Slick 4333), new Unison ignition harness,
UREM40E Sparkplugs. Overhauled Stromberg NAS3-A1 Carburetor with stainless
steel needle valve. Installed Brackett air filter, BA-4106. Installed new
stainless steel intake pipes."
I dated that notation July 8, 2002, which was when I built the engine.
Then, when the FAA came out to inspect the airplane (I used the local FSDO,
rather than a DAR. The DAR wanted $500 to inspect it. The FAA was free,
but I had to wait a week for them to come out.), the inspector asked me to
make the following notation in the log:
Date 10/5/2004; Recording Tach Time 00.77 hours;
"I certify that I have inspected this engine and propeller in accordance
with the scope and details of Appendix D to Part 43 and found it to be in a
condition for safe operation"
Signed: J.C. Phillips (Repairman- Pending)
That was all there was to it. The inspector was aware that I had rebuilt
the engine, and that it had a certificated prop. He signed off the airplane
with a 25 hour phase 1 test period. I think the FAA Inspectors are actually
quite a bit more lenient than the DAR's are (probably because they don't
worry about the FAA breathing over their shoulders like the DARs do).
Good luck,
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Charvet
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Certified Engine question
I had installed a used Continental A-65 on my recently finished
project. In the process of getting ready for my airworthiness
inspection with the FAA we did a compression test and found one cylinder
to be low(35/80). The engine ran great but did have a lot of blow-by.
Oil pressure was appx 25 at idle and mid 30's above 1200 rpm. I pulled
the weak cylinder and found that the #1 rod bearing has excessive wear.
I mean like you can do the push pull thing and feel slop. The engine
came with log books, was 1500 SMOH, but I was hoping to get through
phase 1 flight testing, since the logbook compressions were all good.
Basically I understand now the engine needs a total rebuild.
So here is my question.. I am no an A&P, but have lots of experience
rebuilding engines of both air cooled and water cooled all in
automobiles. I'm confident I can do this myself. I already had started
overhauling parts prior to finding this engine and have a rebuilt case,
crank, and cam. I've been told that to call my engine a Continental
A-65 and leave the data plate on, that all this work would need to be
signed off by an A&P. I have a certified Sensenich wood prop installed
and was hoping for a 25 hr Phase 1. All the paperwork is already sent
in the the FAA and the inspection is scheduled for Dec 4. So if I do
this work myself , do I call it a Ben Charvet 65 HP? Bet that would
drive the insurance folks nuts.
I also have one other option. I have my trusty old Baby Ace that is in
bad need of a restoration, but has a 350 SMOH A-75 with a McCaulley
metal prop (would help my W&B). I was really hoping to keep flying the
Baby Ace right up till my first flight in the Piet, but I could just
swap that engine on, change the paperwork with the FAA, and rebuild the
A-65 at my convenience while restoring the Baby Ace at some later date.
I was really hoping to sell the Baby Ace, but its not worth more than
its engine/prop anyway.
This is without a doubt the longest post I've ever made, but this is a
tough choice.
My main question is: If a non-certified mechanic rebuilds a certified
engine, can you legally leave the data plate on? Is it still a
Continental A-65 legally as far as the FAA/Insurance companies are
concerned?
Thanks
Ben Charvet
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: Certified Engine question |
Ben,
Jack's experience sounds exactly like mine. I also had the FAA do the inspection.
They had me write a similar entry in my logbook. He was aware that I had
done a large amount of the work on the engine too. It's almost like that didn't
even matter. I also didn't have an IA signature.
As a side note. Although these engines are super simple and there are many overhaul
shops out there, the guys that truly know these engines (the small Continentals)
are getting harder and harder to come by. I would encourage anyone that
has access to a mechanic that is very knowledgeable on these engines to soak
up as much info as you can. Learn and understand your engine well. They really
are remarkable little engines.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272992#272992
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: UK built-up wing spar |
Who approved it the Queen or Prince Charles?
Russell McRay
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com> wrote:
> Will he sell them to Canadians?
>
> Ryan
>
> do not archive
>
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM, <catdesigns@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Over the years I as well as others have been unsuccessfully in getting
>> the UK spar plans. The person who designed the spar will not sell them to
>> anyone in the U.S. due to liability concerns.
>>
>> Chris
>> Sacramento, CA
>> WestCoastPiet.com
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Lloyd Smith <lesmith240@gmail.com>
>> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:34 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: UK built-up wing spar
>>
>> Oscar, I have looked at the built up spars as well, and it is hard to
>> determine how they are constructed from photos. I have searched for a place
>> to order the PFA drawings for this spar, but all I have found is Mr.
>> Trextor's drawings of his proposed spar. It looks doable, but I'm
>> interested in the necessity of intercostals where the ribs attach, filler
>> blocks where fittings attach, etc. These things are just as important as
>> the spanwise loads because that's how we hang the fuse from the wing, :-)
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Oscar Zuniga <taildrags@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> taildrags@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is the built-up (box) wing spar that is approved
>>> for use in the U.K. a 3/4" thick spar or 1"? I've
>>> looked at pictures of one (Paul Shenton's, I believe)
>>> and can't see how it could possibly be 3/4".
>>>
>>> Oscar Zuniga
>>> Air Camper NX41CC
>>> San Antonio, TX
>>> mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
>>> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> ="_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.
>>> ==========
>>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>> ==========
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists
>> or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." --British
>> publisher and writer Ernest Benn (1875-1954)
>>
>> *
>>
>> 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/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>>
>> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>>
>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.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 |
|
Just a few random Pietenpol flying pictures from yesterday in central
Illinois.
I can't let this thing sit in the hangar all winter !!!
Perry Rhoads
N12939
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: | Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003 |
Group,
Today, November 15th, is the 39th anniversary of the first flight of my
Pietenpol. Due to other commitments, I flew it yesterday because after
39 years a day either way didn't seem significant.
Here is a shot taken over the nose before the camera battery gave up
because of the cold (about 35 degrees F.). I'll send another shot taken
on this flight in a following post.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen (in central Alberta, Canada)
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
attachments:
Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 003
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: | Emailing: Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 005 |
Group,
Here is another shot taken toward the port side showing lots of landing
spots (stubble fields) in case of an engine failure.
This little airplane has been a great source of pleasure to me, and I
hope all of you have as much fun with your Pietenpols as I have had with
mine.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen (in central Alberta, Canada)
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
attachments:
Pietenpol CF-AUN--Nov.14, 2009 005
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! --
|