Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:29 AM - Re: Re: Air Leak (nc69666@aol.com)
2. 05:32 AM - Re: Re: Air Leak (A. Dennis Savarese)
3. 08:14 AM - Re: SR-22 crash (Craig Winkelmann)
4. 09:11 AM - Re: 300 nm range restriction (barryhancock)
5. 10:04 AM - Re: Re: 300 nm range restriction (A. Dennis Savarese)
6. 01:20 PM - Re: 300 nm range restriction (GreasySideUp)
7. 01:45 PM - Re: Re: 300 nm range restriction (A. Dennis Savarese)
8. 02:03 PM - Re: Re: 300 nm range restriction (Roger Kemp MD)
9. 02:12 PM - Re: Re: 300 nm range restriction (A. Dennis Savarese)
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 |
|
I recently had the same symptoms on my CJ, it turned out to be a leaking air hose
on the up side of the landing gear, was leaking thru the wall of the hose,
hoses were getting along in life so replaced all hoises on the airplane.. No more
leak..??? Gary..? CJ?.... N22YK
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill1200 <billdykes52@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 2:08 pm
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Air Leak
So today I went to the hangar, pressure had bled down over day and a half to
20atm, filled up to 55atm when relief valve went off, could hear it bleed down
to about 50atm. Went flying for approx 40min with steady decline in pressure to
about 30atm, landed with about 20atm after gear,flaps,brakes. Wouldn't come back
up past that level sitting at 70% for 2-3 minutes. Shut it down, filled it back
up to 50 atm, sprayed soap/water on relief valve didn't see a leak, put gear
lever at neutral,checked it 3 hours later looks fairly stable. Will check it
again Friday to see if pressure holding with gear lever at neutral.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228533#228533
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 |
|
I would recommend contacting Cliff Coy at Gesoco. Cliff usually has new
pop-off valve pistons with the seals. Around $50 and well worth
replacing with a new piston. Even the seals that Jill sells, which are
good, do not last nearly as long as the new piston w/seal will.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter K. Van Staagen
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:29 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Air Leak
<petervs@knology.net>
Here is how I repair this...
Jill has the seals. I've made them myself out of a sheet of nitrile,
but
they don't last as long as the one's Jill sells. Her's are out of a
harder
rubber.
Basically you unwire, loosen the jam nut and unscrew the top of the
relief
valve. Count how many turns it takes to remove it so you can get it at
approximately the same setting when you reassemble. Be careful to go
slow at
the end if there is any pressure left in the system or you'll blow the
valve
guts across the hanger. Some people like to actuate the flaps and
brakes
until the air is gone, but I just unscrew the valve top slowly. Once
you
have the parts in hand you can pry out the rubber disk in the bottom
of the
brass actuator. If your pressure was ok when your engine was operating
and
consistent, you probably don't need to replace anything but the rubber
disk.
Clean everything until it is like new, dirt here causes problems.
Especially
clean the seat in the bottom of the valve body. Spraying brake parts
cleaner
on a q-tip and swabbing out the seat works good. Press the rubber disk
in
the brass actuator. Some people like to glue it in place, but I don't
and
have never had a problem. If you just press it in and you are
somewhere and
it fails, you can take it apart and flip the rubber disk over and be
back in
business. Coat everything with air tool oil and reassemble. Fill the
system
with air watching the gauges carefully. If you get to 45 or 50 you
need to
loosen the top of the relief valve until it is hissing good. Then add
air
again until it pops. If you add air too slow it will only hiss, but it
you
let the air in fast the valve your make a machine gun sound.
Personally I
set my air so that it pops at 45 and bleeds down and stabilizes at 40.
Many
guys run their air up at 55, but I think that higher pressure just
wears out
the pump and parts faster. If your plane is easy to start, 40 is
plenty. My
plane will start reliably down to 25 unless it is sooooper cold.
Good luck,
Pete
__|__
__|__ ----=(*)=----
__|__ ----=(*)=----
__|__ ----=(*)=----
----=(*)=----
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GreasySideUp
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:30 PM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Air Leak
<greasysideup@hotmail.com>
petervs(at)knology.net wrote:
> I agree with Dennis. This is almost always the pressure relief
valve.
> Sometimes dirt in the seat or just a worn seat. Very easy to
replace.
Seems
> like it has to be replaced about once a year or so.
>
> You can diagnose this by putting about 20 atm in the tank and then
soaping
> up the relief valve. There is a pair of small holes on the bottom of
the
> valve that will make bubbles if air is leaking by the seat.
>
> The last air trouble I had was that sometimes the air pressure would
be 20
> atm while flying and other times about 45 atm while flying. I went
through
> everything until finally replacing the relief valve seal, which
fixed the
> problem.
>
> Moral... Check the easy stuff first.
>
> Pete
>
>
> =EF=BD=EF=BD=EF=BD=EF=BD=EF=BD=EF=BD
=EF=BD=EF=BD__|__
> __|__ ----=(*)=---- __|__
> ----=(*)=---- __|__ ----=(*)=----
> ----=(*)=----
>
>
> --
I think this is my problem. Over the winter it now bleeds down to
about 15
when I fill externally. Where do I get those seals from? Should I
replace
the spring and any other internals as well?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228562#228562
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 |
|
First...the SR-22 is not a difficult aircraft to fly. Most insurance companies
require 10 hours with a CSIP (factory trained instructor) prior to being able
to fly solo. Some carriers require and additional 10-20 hours solo before carrying
passengers. The SR-22 is not an LSA, it is a high performance aircraft
and is equipped with a Ballistic Recovery System (BRS). Cirrus has worked hard
to make these aircraft some of the safest in the sky. New ones have the blue
button that will allow the autopilot to correct an unusual attitude as well
as the BRS.
Craig....the BRS is designed to save lives. It has a fairly good track record
of doing so. If you fly planes with one and leave the pin in place to not be
able to use it that is plain stupid. Would you want your surviving family to
know you have an option to save your life and did not use it? Do you not wear
seatbelts, disable the airbags in your car and fly your CJ without a parachute
when you do aerobatics. Don't be an aviation dinosaur. I also found the tone
of your response to be very disrespectful of a person who just lost three friends
or acquaintances.
Craig W.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228671#228671
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: 300 nm range restriction |
Agreed, it's odd, but beyond that do not ever take what someone tells you, regardless
of their "expertise" or position within the FAA, as license to deviate
from your Operating Limitations. If they want to cause you trouble they won't
care what Joe FSDO said, only what is in the Program Letter and whether or not
you complied with it.
We deal with the FAA on a rather regular basis and are in the process of joining
up with a Part 145 operation. My eyes have been opened as I've now seen the
"inner workings" of the way "interpretations", etc., can go down. It can get
ugly quick if you don't fully comply with your paperwork and fully cooperate
with the powers that be.
Again, what "someone" says, regardless of their position or authority, will matter
not when someone decides they want to violate you. The ONLY thing that is
going to save your bacon is working within the constraints of your program letter
and getting any even potential deviation approved in writing first.
--------
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228685#228685
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: 300 nm range restriction |
Well stated Barry.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: barryhancock
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 11:10 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: 300 nm range restriction
<bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com>
Agreed, it's odd, but beyond that do not ever take what someone tells
you, regardless of their "expertise" or position within the FAA, as
license to deviate from your Operating Limitations. If they want to
cause you trouble they won't care what Joe FSDO said, only what is in
the Program Letter and whether or not you complied with it.
We deal with the FAA on a rather regular basis and are in the process
of joining up with a Part 145 operation. My eyes have been opened as
I've now seen the "inner workings" of the way "interpretations", etc.,
can go down. It can get ugly quick if you don't fully comply with your
paperwork and fully cooperate with the powers that be.
Again, what "someone" says, regardless of their position or authority,
will matter not when someone decides they want to violate you. The ONLY
thing that is going to save your bacon is working within the constraints
of your program letter and getting any even potential deviation approved
in writing first.
--------
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228685#228685
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 300 nm range restriction |
So what is the purpose of the program letter? How is it used and what do they
need it for? How is it maintained, does anyone look at it and enter it into a
database or is it filed away never to be seen again? Is it something we can
all get together on and petition it's relevance?
It seems as though there are many rules that at one time had a great intent, but
over time the reason they were implemented is no longer valid.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228722#228722
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: | Re: 300 nm range restriction |
Many logical questions, which are all good. However, regardless of the
answers and whether or not they are meaningful or meaningless, the
Operating Limitations for your aircraft and mine require that we still
submit them. Whether the local FSDO looks at them, reviews them,
studies them, files them or just simply disregards them doesn't matter
because if you don't have it along with updates with you in the airplane
for any event you are attending that is not on your annual program
letter, if you get ramp checked you could be violated.
The whole mess goes back to 1993 when the first FAA Order 8127 was
issued covering Experimental Exhibition aircraft. The FAA wanted to
"control" where these aircraft flew because at the same time in 1993
there were quite a few Mig 15's being imported. When the applications
came in for Airworthiness Certificates for these former military
fighters, all of the sudden the FAA said "Whoa!". We don't know how to
handle this. So a moratorium was issued for all Experimental Exhibition
aircraft while the FAA tried to figure out what to do with these
airplanes. Yak's and CJ's that were issued Airworthiness Certificates
and OL's prior to June of 1993 did not have any proficiency area
limitations.
I guess they figured by knowing where these airplanes were going to fly
by the requirement of a program letter which is really a schedule of
events where the aircraft was to be exhibited, was the way to control
them.
Through the many reiterations of the FAA Order to what it is today,
8130.2F Change 3, the requirement for the Program Letter has remained.
Including with the issuance of the letter of Sept. 2007 removing the 300
and 600 mile proficiency areas. Unfortunately, not a lot of
intelligence went into the issuance of that letter. Instead of stating
something like "When carried in the aircraft, the 300/600 mile
proficiency area stated in the aircraft's Operating Limitations is
eliminated." or something to that effect. AIR 200 didn't think about
the additional paperwork required to reissue OL's to remove the 300/600
mile proficiency area. Nor did they ask themselves, "well....why does
the Experimental Exhibition aircraft need a Program Letter or Schedule
of Events if they are not restricted on where they can fly for
proficiency?"
I have discussed this entire issue with the EAA Gov't Affairs contact
person, Randy Hanson and he understands how foolish it is and is pushing
to have the program letter requirement removed when the FAA Order is
rewritten. Until such time as that occurs, we're stuck with what we
have and all the petitioning in the world is probably not going to make
things change until the Order is rewritten.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: GreasySideUp
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 3:19 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: 300 nm range restriction
<greasysideup@hotmail.com>
So what is the purpose of the program letter? How is it used and what
do they need it for? How is it maintained, does anyone look at it and
enter it into a database or is it filed away never to be seen again? Is
it something we can all get together on and petition it's relevance?
It seems as though there are many rules that at one time had a great
intent, but over time the reason they were implemented is no longer
valid.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228722#228722
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 300 nm range restriction |
Somewhere there is a shoe clerk getting his jollies off on these program
letters. This is a do so because I said so kind of deal.
Viperdoc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GreasySideUp
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 3:20 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: 300 nm range restriction
So what is the purpose of the program letter? How is it used and what do
they need it for? How is it maintained, does anyone look at it and enter it
into a database or is it filed away never to be seen again? Is it something
we can all get together on and petition it's relevance?
It seems as though there are many rules that at one time had a great intent,
but over time the reason they were implemented is no longer valid.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228722#228722
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 300 nm range restriction |
You got that right!
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp MD
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:02 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: 300 nm range restriction
<viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Somewhere there is a shoe clerk getting his jollies off on these
program
letters. This is a do so because I said so kind of deal.
Viperdoc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GreasySideUp
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 3:20 PM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Yak-List: Re: 300 nm range restriction
<greasysideup@hotmail.com>
So what is the purpose of the program letter? How is it used and what
do
they need it for? How is it maintained, does anyone look at it and
enter it
into a database or is it filed away never to be seen again? Is it
something
we can all get together on and petition it's relevance?
It seems as though there are many rules that at one time had a great
intent,
but over time the reason they were implemented is no longer valid.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228722#228722
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! --
|