Roscoe

3 hours ago, RossK said:

I was was dumbfounded when the instructor said "turn left here", when the only clear air was to the right.

Yes I saw plenty of opportunities for a right turn into clear air!

Unbelievable lack of judgement i reckon.

6 hours ago, yampy said:

 Clearly showing the aircraft as 24-8182 with Sydney Flying Academy titles .

 

This was a very active flight school trainer. I heard it on the Radio at Bankstown regularly.

4 minutes ago, Roscoe said:

 

I seem to be having some finger trouble with my reply, however suffice to say I agree with OME,s thoughts on this matter

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

Oh dear!  I have a feeling that this is not going to end well. I see someone who has a pair of rose-coloured glasses.

 

I really think that we ought to create a document to be posted here dealing with the the things one should do when purchasing an aircraft and the pitfalls to avoid. It strikes me as crazy that someone would by a piece of machinery, sight unseen and take the word of the vendor that it is 100% (not implying malfeasance by this seller) AND fork out a non-refundable deposit. If a person agrees to pay a non-refundable deposit, that's the contract they entered and there's no way a Court would order the return of the deposit if the subject of the purchase turned out not to be as described, or suitable for purpose.

1 minute ago, Roscoe said:

Shajen, you need to get someone totally unfamiliar with the aircraft like i said before, to do the condition report, otherwise its not at arms length!

Ring around, google Engineers at local Airports and get quotes. Be prepared to pay for this service, the logbooks will take some time to scrutinise.

Get a PPSR Report to check for encumbrances like buying a car.

I dont see the need for Solicitor involvement here. When you are happy, just transfer into sellers account.

Dont rush. A reasonable seller should fully appreciate you researching the transaction.

Forgot to ask, is this your first Aircraft purchase?

Do you have any Engineer/Maint people that can help and advise?

1 hour ago, shajen said:

Roscoe, 

yes, thanks to this site, I am getting someone to check and go for a fly. He’ll check temps, and generally make sure it matches what is being advertised. The owner is organising the condition report. I feel much happier now. It’s also been suggested, if the owner insists on being paid prior to delivery, that I use a solicitor and put money in eschrow, to be released when all ok.  Sounds like a plan is happening 👍

Shajen, you need to get someone totally unfamiliar with the aircraft like i said before, to do the condition report, otherwise its not at arms length!

Ring around, google Engineers at local Airports and get quotes. Be prepared to pay for this service, the logbooks will take some time to scrutinise.

Get a PPSR Report to check for encumbrances like buying a car.

I dont see the need for Solicitor involvement here. When you are happy, just transfer into sellers account.

Dont rush. A reasonable seller should fully appreciate you researching the transaction.

Shajen you MUST get a pre purchase inspection done by an independant person not associated with the Aircraft, and a thorough examination of the logbooks. Sounds like you are organising this now.

As regards payment, a Bank transfer if done early in the day, will often hit the payees account same day, so thats how I would do it.

When i first read your Post, I became uncomfortable about the perceived pressure you were being put under, and my advice would be to take it slow, listen to what SSCBD says, and get it test flown before paying.

Let us know how you go

1 hour ago, lee-wave said:

My flying is fairly infrequent so I am trying this procedure on the hydraulic lifter Jab motor.   

 

At the end of the flight fuel cock off,    allow the motor to run out of fuel and shut down.   All electrics off.  Rotate the prop through a couple of times.  The thoughts there are oil has not drained or been washed away by the fuel, is less viscous so will readily coat all surfaces.

Before the next flight rotate prop as normal. It is important for me to feel good compressions on all 4 cylinders.

Then I press the starter for 5 seconds without the ignition on.  Then fuel cock open, 10 seconds on the fuel pump to refill the carb. 

After that choke fully out, throttle completely closed (engine will be harder to start if idle is set too high). Engine always starts instantly.  Do not touch the choke or throttle for at least 20 seconds.  Thereafter everything as normal.

Any comments on these procedures...?

I find that the normal Jab start procedure per the POH works fine for

me.

However unless i slowly push the choke in immediately after the engine starts, it runs rough but smooths out as soon as the choke is in

4 minutes ago, lee-wave said:

For sure I let it cool down before rotating prop.  There are schools of thought re leaving a dry carb bowl for long periods of disuse. Do the 'o rings /seals dry out and become brittle etc... but from the UK Jab motor guru (my brother) for the past 25 years of Jab motor repairs he has not seen any problems with wet or dry carb bowls.

As an aside I use Esso 97 synergy mogas during the summer.  It is the only fuel guaranteed not to have any methanol additives.  

Toward winter, like now, I start filling with Avgas, so that there is mostly Avgas during Dec/Jan in the wing tanks. 

So far I have not done a full inhibit on the Jab because, on my mainly chalk strip on the north downs,  the drainage is very good and there is always the opportunity to fly at least once a fortnight....

Probably discussed before but what are your thoughts re flring up the motor for ground runs every now and then...? 

The EAA Presenter said their is absolutely no value in a ground run unless the oil temp is brought up to operating level and kept their for a while to dissipate any moisture and or sludge

10 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I think it is good practice to rotate the prop slowly through a number of compressions (I would suggest a minimum of 2 rotations of the engine). This is not just to pre-lubricate (valuable) it also helps the pilot assess evenness of compression as a measure of engine "health".

 

In Rotax 912/914 engines it is a recommended pre first  flight action of the day, to to relocate any "pooled" oil from the crankcase back to the reservoir (the famous "gurgle"). 

 

If the engine is being used very infrequently, your advisers observations may have some validity. In this case proper "mothballing" of the engine should be considered (see your POH).

 

If it were possible I would pre lubricate every engine befor the first start of the day - in the past heavy machinery did this with the use of a "pilot" motor to bring oil/fuel pressures up to minimum operating, befor the main "donk" kicked in.

Yes I am aware of the compression check which i do before every flight. The EAA Presenter was in the USA and probably referring to Cold weather and Pilots pulling thru their Engines once a week to scatter the oil around.

I watched an EAA Webinar a couple of days ago and asked a question about the practice of pulling the Prop through a few revolutions to move the oil around if the Aircraft had been idle for a few weeks.

I quote part of his reply and  am interested to hear what you think.

IT ACTUALLY MAKES THINGS  WORSE BY ACCELERATING THE MIGRATION OF OIL FROM THE TOP OF THE CYLINDER TO THE BOTTOM.

WHEN CYLINDERS DEVELOP RUST PITTING, IT TENDS TO BE MOSTLY ALONG THE TOP BECAUSE THATS WHERE THE OIL FILM IS LOST FIRST.

I know its far better to fly the Aircraft and get the oil up to operating temp.

Any comments?

14 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

No offence Roscoe but -

• I dont think this is a Jab/Other discussion its about making the use of ULP/MoGas safer using portable quality  a assessment devise (if a cost effective one exists at all??)
• Jabirus comment (which I have heard befor) has all the hall marks of a, "cover all the bases/arse" & "sit on the fence" remark. Analyse it and I suggest you find: Its okay to use MoGas  & its okay to use AvGas. So in the proverbial "nut shell" Jab are saying the choice is the pilots/owner - all good  - no further debate.
• Your final comment makes no sense as Jab (the engine builder) have already stated (according to you) that they accept both Mogas & AvGas - so good on you! you have decided to go with AvGas - no prob!
• As for your "mogas which should be  used within 30 days or put into your lawn mower." - this Forum has hosted several extensive debates on this subject - it is now accepted (by most) that MoGas, stored in an approved, sealed container at above 70% (or was it 75%) capacity, has a shelf life of well over 6 months - may I suggest that you are doing a Donald on this matter.

.

 

 

No offence taken Skippy, was just expressing my opinion and my views after reading about the pros and cons.

But your suggestion about DOING A DONALD ?..... bit harsh.

Glen, it will take a long time to recoup your money if you spend $4k on a test gadget for mogas.

Jabiru say Mogas is ok but recommend avgas due to quality control issues.

My recommendation...... go with the Manufacturers advice, Avgas is readily available, change oil every 25 hours, examine spark plugs which are cheap to replace, and save the hassle of lugging around jerry cans of mogas which should be  used within 30 days or put into your lawn mower.

I know you will come across owners who swear by Mogas and say their engine runs smoother and cleaner, but for me, Not being Mechanically astute, I prefer to take advice from the Engine Builder and fill up with Avgas and plan my flights where I know Avgas is available

I have the D2, superceded by the D3.

Great display, easy to interpret. Mine is attached to the Panel with the included hardware, I use a remote Antenna sitting on the Dash as i found the internal  Antenna unreliable.

Thats what i said when this post was originally put up.

As I said then, some people are very clever at altering things. Still looks like models to me, the way they move about!

Just re read my Policy and I have $2mill combined pax and property coverage, on my QBE Policy. Aircraft is RAA registered.

And also it depends on how many times you take a passenger!

95% of my flying is solo. How many of you guys add extra coverage for your pax?

Agree that $250K is not nearly enough.

This has got me thinking, how many RAAUS reg airplanes just fly around and rely on the RAA 3rd party coverage provided to members.

My LSA will be 7 yrs old when next Ins renewal is due, in the past I have insured the Hull and added a bit more 3rd party to the RAA coverage as well, but will really give it serious thought next renewal

After reading all the comments on this thread, I still maintain the good old C182 does  the job. 

Plenty still flying, parts available, good payload, good turn of speed, comfortable for pax, etc etc

On 06/10/2020 at 10:06 AM, KRviator said:

In my ongoing quest for a 4-seater that will at least keep up with my RV-9, I keep coming back to the Piper Comanche...

 

I've looked at the Cardinal and it has several, well, issues that concern me, being the funky Cessna gear, SIDS and the major one, the spar carry-through structure, which if it fails the NDI, basically writes off the aircraft as replacements are essentially, unavailable. If you have an old Cardinal in your barn and the carry through spar tests good, it is almost worth its' weight in gold...

 

I've thought long and hard about the Bonanza series, but again, they aren't perfect. There's a nice-ish N35 Bonanza for sale down Victoria way but I'm wary of the V-tails, not because of tail itself, but because of the balancing issue I've heard about. I got the W&B data sent up to see if it would work, but with 4 x 80Kg people & only a few KG of bags, you're outside the aft CG limit at ZFW - and as your CG moves aft as fuel is consumed, that's not ideal in any way. So that rules that out. I've emailed another broker - Ian Baillie Aircraft - about a long-advertised S35 and been ignored twice (great service if you're into selling things, ignoring a potential customer, but meh 😖)

 

I had heard many a good thing about the -250 and -260 Comanches, but they don't seem to pop up for sale very often. I did see a -260B advertised briefly a couple months ago, spoke to the broker at the time and the seller pulled it from sale. It's now re-advertised (and from memory $10K higher than originally) and after a few emails back and forth with the broker who didn't seem to twig I needed the weight and balance data, not just BEW & MTOW we got there in the end and it checks out good, with a claimed 1250Lb payload & 90 gallons of fuel, or 710lbs in the cabin with full tanks. The seller brought it for $92.5 a year ago and has it listed at $105K and all he has done in that time, from what I can see, is install a GTX-327 and GNC300XL, both of which would need to come out anyway as they aren't suitable for ADS-B, so I'm yet to be convinced the asking price is reasonable. It also desperately needs a new panel - though this is based on my flying behind an EFIS for the last several years and not wanting to downgrade to a horrendously-installed 6-pack...

 

After many an hour on Google, the following seem to be the cautionary issues about the Comanche singles:

• The landing gear Bungees especially, but also the bungee rollers. A very quick & cheap item to replace at each 100 hourly (bungees, not rollers) , but not always done
• The landing gear has an obscure 1000-hr AD requirement that is often overlooked.
• The landing gear 'conduits' have often never been replaced and are expensive when they need to be.
• The stabilator horn has a recurring AD unless replaced by an Australian-designed version
• The Laminar-flow wing needs very precise speed control on landing if you are to achieve anything resembling book figures.
• And it is a 60-year-old design with little parts support from Piper, though aftermarket suppliers have stepped up to bridge the gap.
• Visibility isn't as good as say a Bonanza, or particularly a 2 seat RV

 

From what I can find, both the -250's and -260's will haul 1100-1300lbs at 150-165KTAS burning around 15GPH to do so, dependant on altitude. Tip tanks are available as are a few other speed mods and they are reported to be quite a comfortable touring aircraft, though the aforementioned visibility is off-putting to some.

 

So, my questions to the knowledge bank here is: "What else is there to know about the Comanche?"  and "What don't you like about the Comanche singles?"

As you have mentioned, I would have concerns around parts availability. We are talking about a 50yr old aircraft and I would also worry about corrosion. Rare to find an ALWAYS HANGARED aircraft of this age and a really thorough pre purchase inspection by an independant Lame goes without saying, but i see from your comments that you are very experienced as a builder and know all this anyway.

I keep coming back to the 182 and while its not as fast as you want, you wouldnt be too much behind the Comanche over a 2 hour flight.

I havent seen a Comanche at Bankstown Airport in a long time, but they must be around somewhere. 

My concerns would be age, corrosion, parts, condition of Instruments and Avionics which may be original, and payload.

Keep us informed with your search, hope it all goes well.

Would a C182 do the job?

There must be lots around with SIDS done at a reasonable price.

A good genuine 4 seater and load carrier!

23 minutes ago, Kenlsa said:

T88, we have 2 tugs but all their maintenance is done at Parafield by LAMEs. But seems like every service they are in need of a heart lung transplant according to the shop!

This( potential) leading problem has only come about in the last few months and picked up at the 50/100 hr service. Zorst valve each time.

Easy to fix but time consuming, and I am glad I have had my Lead Inoculation, so I am quite safe!

The Committee decided last night to go full bore on the MOGAS for the Jabs and ROKO with the Tugs remaining on the AVGAS, though they have an STC for MOGAS and so has my Colt.  I think the tuggies are nervous of a 46 deg day towing a ballasted twin seater to 3000 ft.  They feel safer with Avgas. 

Ken 

Ken what are your thoughts about Jabirus recommendation for Avgas over Mogas due to QC and traceability issues?

Not sure, but this could be a DOCTORED video with model planes made to look like a real crash!

Some people are really clever at doing this.

The Jabiru J 170 Manual says that with average Pilot Technique, direct steady crosswinds of 14kts can be handled safely.

It also talks about variables such as gusts, terrain, and technique to use.

In some GA Flt Manuals, they talk about max demonstrated crosswind but these numbers are usually taken from test pilots under controlled conditions.

Well I have a story to tell about this. I have had it demonstrated to me it is possible.

 

Reading that article as a fresh student being challenged multiple times daily with engine fail drills in circuits, my feeling is that that article is very conservative and really represents flying 101 - practice your glide approaches regularly from all different situations.....

 

Now, as for "the impossible turn" :

 

While it has been drummed well and truly into me, do not turn back, since I have had more EFATO drills thrown at me than i can remember, I am aware that the math says the energy was available to do it with a bit of height. And so my instructor did an EFATO on me, and showed me that it is possible,

 

My instructor of 50 years flying experience at I think about 500 ft AGL (I think?) in still air nil wind, on the upwind climb, simulated engine failure, then put it into a steep banked (~45-60 deg) descending turn , and put it back down on the strip (downwind) ... It was an aggressive but smooth maneuver, Not once in the maneuver did the airspeed drop below about 70 kts (flaps up, Vstall=45 kts@MW).

Then he told me- while it is possible with much experience of flying and the plane, do not do this ! always choose a less hazardous option , for example if there are flat fields of Canola available....than this one.

Obviously there is a minimum amount of altitude required to execute this maneuver. That would be able to be calculated fairly easily for a particular plane and wind* .'

 

I don't think it would be possible at less than about 350 feet judging by the altitude loss, * or with much headwind (which turns into a tailwind half way round your turn back to the strip 'the wrong way')

 

Glen.

No doubt your Instructor is highly skilled and experienced, however i would have preferred that this manouvre be demonstrated at altitude as discussed in the Zimmerman article.