----------------------------------------------------------
                           TeamGrumman-List Digest Archive
                                      ---
                     Total Messages Posted Fri 08/15/03: 2
           ----------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 11:25 AM - Re: Seat Belts (was:Replacing AA1A seat belts)  (Aucountry@aol.com)
     2. 11:35 PM - Re: TCP fuel additive - saftey reply  (Aucountry@aol.com)
 
 
 
________________________________  Message 1  _____________________________________


Time: 11:25:31 AM PST US
From: Aucountry@aol.com
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Re: Seat Belts  (was:Replacing AA1A seat belts)

--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Aucountry@aol.com


In a message dated 08/15/03 11:02:00 AM, sbw@sbw.org writes:


> Speaking of (AA1A) seat belts ...
> 

I've been flying a Tiger (with my new cowling I might add) and it has the 
retractable seat belts.   Well, that is to say, the should harness part retracts.

  It's ok.   I am not crazy about the tightening portion of the lap belt.   
First, it's on the wrong side and second, the excess kinda just gets in the 
way.

I was looking at the seat belts in my truck and they have a slip ring sort of 
thing for the latch that lets both the should and lap belts to adjust at the 
same time.   It has only one inertia reel on the shoulder harness portion.   
Is there anything like that for a plane?   Certainly, auto seat belts can't be

made to any less standards than airplanes.

A friends car has both the lap and shoulder harness with inertia reels and is 
stitched at the latching mechanism like the ones in the Tiger.

Does anyone make a seat belt that is both comfortable and practical for a 
plane?


Gary
www.AuCountry.com

Home of "Team Grumman"
TeamGrumman-List@matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe






________________________________  Message 2  _____________________________________


Time: 11:35:36 PM PST US
From: Aucountry@aol.com
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Re: TCP fuel additive - saftey reply

--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Aucountry@aol.com

Here is an issue being run on the 'other' venue.   See my comment at the end.
In a message dated 08/15/03 11:07:22 PM, schulte.m@comcast.net writes:

> NEVER used it, have owned two planes with NO lead fouling.=A0 Have rented
> DOZENS of planes, never used it in them.=A0 Amazing that all those planes
> are still in the air, huh?=A0 Not to mention all the thousands of hours
> confidently flown in the hot Texas sun using mogas by some of us right
> here on the gang!=A0 Oh yeah, let's not forget the 1300 PowerFlow-equipped
> planes flying out there!
>
> Are you starting to see a pattern here?=A0 You really oughta get a job
> working for OSHA, they'll believe ANYTHING...
>
> The sky is falling!=A0 The sky is falling!=A0 Wolf! WOLF!!!=A0 MOMMY!
>
>=A0 \|||/
>=A0 (@ @) - 6030L
> ooO__~_Ooo____________
> _____|_____|_____|____
> Mark Schulte=A0 |=A0=A0 |
> //////////////////////
>
>
When I had my first Cheetah, I used TCP religiously.   When I sold the
Cheetah, I gave them the TCP also.   In the 5 years since then, I've flown a lot
of
hours, not used TCP, and had the same results.  

Here is an observation:   I noticed a hugh buildup of lead and other fuel
deposits on the exhaust valve stems when using TCP and not so much when not=20using
it.   YMMV

Fact:   100LL used to contain 4 grams of lead per gallon of fuel.   It now
contains 1 1/2 grams per gallon and uses toluene as a knock inhibitor.  

Is it worth the hassle?   or cost?   I'm not convinced.


Gary
www.AuCountry.com

Home of "Team Grumman"
TeamGrumman-List@matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe