Shut-down magneto check - advice
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heston
If you are to follow SSD's Logic the Sport Cruiser is a Spam Can and it is powered by a Rotax.
The only diference is that the Rotax engine is likely to outlast the airframe, unlike most American airframes of similar constructuon that will outlast six or more engines.
The only diference is that the Rotax engine is likely to outlast the airframe, unlike most American airframes of similar constructuon that will outlast six or more engines.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Step
Spam Can is not a term used in North American aviation, other than to respond to UK posts. The can for spam is a very useful item, purposely designed to have usefulness beyond containing the meat. (flat sides).
But was it not the Great Chuck Yeager who opined of the first generation US space capsules "in one of those you are not a pilot. You are just Spam in a can"?
So maybe there's another allusion to a certain type of disappointing aeroplane.
Here's another spam can. Many of these were re-built and thus became much better machines:
http://locoyard.files.wordpress.com/...-tangmere1.jpg
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed it was Chuck Yeager who referred to an astronaut in a Mercury spacecraft as "spam in a can", though Chuck was perhaps ill informed, as it was Gordon Cooper who demonstrated the remarkable precision of maneuverability of the Mercury spacecraft by hand "flying" it through an excellent re-entry. Yes, I accept that the Mercury spacecraft looks a bit like a can. I think that Chuck would have been one of the very few people on earth who dare consider pilot astronauts as "spam". But, I will always defer to Chuck, as I admire him.
Define "car". Are we talking Porsche 928? or a Lada?
I have flown some aircraft with appallingly poor handling compared to others: A DC-3 is terrible to fly compared to an RV-4. But the RV-4 can't carry your overnight bag. The DC-3 can carry the RV-4 and the overnight bag. The Beaver has pretty poor handling compared to the Chipmunk, but it can take a half ton of your stuff into a little lake 500 miles away, and return. By the way, how isn't a Chipmunk a North American "spam can" - the engine? We can fix that, they're STC'd with Lycomings! It's a matter of what you want the plane to do. Personally, I would rather carry someone, and something somewhere, and home again. But, that's just me, to each their own.
I could find something appalling about any aircraft I've ever had the pleasure to fly, but I choose not to look for that aspect. I'd rather think about how lucky I am to have flown all the different planes I have, and to own two, which suit my needs well, are completely within my budget, and live a one minute walk from my home. If I were to go around describing people's chosen aircraft as appalling, they would not invite me to fly - my loss! Instead, I fly all kinds, and I like that! Would I come back from a flight test and tell the owner that his plane is appalling? I'd never be hired again!
So new pilots out there, check the mags the way you were trained AND understand what you are checking for, and the implications of incomplete checks. If you're flying a Cessna floatplane, please do live mag checks for the safety of your docking. And.. don't go around calling other people's planes "spam cans" or "appalling", it's just rude for no good reason...
car-like aeroplanes with appallingly poor handling
I have flown some aircraft with appallingly poor handling compared to others: A DC-3 is terrible to fly compared to an RV-4. But the RV-4 can't carry your overnight bag. The DC-3 can carry the RV-4 and the overnight bag. The Beaver has pretty poor handling compared to the Chipmunk, but it can take a half ton of your stuff into a little lake 500 miles away, and return. By the way, how isn't a Chipmunk a North American "spam can" - the engine? We can fix that, they're STC'd with Lycomings! It's a matter of what you want the plane to do. Personally, I would rather carry someone, and something somewhere, and home again. But, that's just me, to each their own.
I could find something appalling about any aircraft I've ever had the pleasure to fly, but I choose not to look for that aspect. I'd rather think about how lucky I am to have flown all the different planes I have, and to own two, which suit my needs well, are completely within my budget, and live a one minute walk from my home. If I were to go around describing people's chosen aircraft as appalling, they would not invite me to fly - my loss! Instead, I fly all kinds, and I like that! Would I come back from a flight test and tell the owner that his plane is appalling? I'd never be hired again!
So new pilots out there, check the mags the way you were trained AND understand what you are checking for, and the implications of incomplete checks. If you're flying a Cessna floatplane, please do live mag checks for the safety of your docking. And.. don't go around calling other people's planes "spam cans" or "appalling", it's just rude for no good reason...
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, how isn't a Chipmunk a North American "spam can" - the engine? We can fix that, they're STC'd with Lycomings!
I have hundreds of hours in C172s, a 205 and 180 (the latter two meat bombing - the 180 was almost OK), several tens in the C150 and PA38 and a handful (I'd have died of boredom were it more) in the PA28, including the Arrow. And many, many more in the Chippy, Cub, Yak52, Citabria and others, even the Tiger Moth with its awful ailerons and poor control harmony but bags of character that more than make up for that!
Brian Lecomber in one of his wonderful books described these spammy sort of aeroplanes as 'having the airman's art designed out of them'.
If you don't know what that means, or think 'so what?', I can never explain it to you.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 23rd Nov 2014 at 19:26.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, there are "art" aircraft, and yes, I've flown a couple. I like the RV-4 and Bellanca Viking. But who says that the only reason for a plane to exist with pride is so it can be art? Maybe "useful" in opposition to art has merit too! The Porsche is "art", the pickup truck is not. But sometimes only the pickup truck will get the job done, so why should that be criticized? None of the "art" planes I have flown will get my job done at all - not even poorly. They would be wrecked trying, or cost a fortune. But my two modest American non art airplanes get my job done between them very nicely, so why would anyone want to knock that?
One of my favourite "jobs" is to land and camp on this lake - 150 miles from the nearest settlement, and 270 miles from the nearest fuel. I can't think of any "art" plane which could do that, and get me home safely.
Why would anyone want to disillusion a new pilot by allowing them to think we older pilots (or maybe you older "art" pilots) aren't completely happy to have them join our ranks as proud pilots, even if they did turn up to the fly in in a 150? Sure, they might like to fly the "art" plane, but they will be much less inclined to want to be an "art" pilot, if they don't like the self declared art pilots they meet along the way. I never made a friend in aviation by knocking their plane. I sure learned a lot about the fun stuff you could do in a plane by trying different ones!
So, having drifted this thread so far from magneto talk that no one would even recognize it. I shall stand proudly on the case I have made. If someone wants to start a thread on knocking other people's choice of planes, perhaps I'll respond there.....
One of my favourite "jobs" is to land and camp on this lake - 150 miles from the nearest settlement, and 270 miles from the nearest fuel. I can't think of any "art" plane which could do that, and get me home safely.
Why would anyone want to disillusion a new pilot by allowing them to think we older pilots (or maybe you older "art" pilots) aren't completely happy to have them join our ranks as proud pilots, even if they did turn up to the fly in in a 150? Sure, they might like to fly the "art" plane, but they will be much less inclined to want to be an "art" pilot, if they don't like the self declared art pilots they meet along the way. I never made a friend in aviation by knocking their plane. I sure learned a lot about the fun stuff you could do in a plane by trying different ones!
So, having drifted this thread so far from magneto talk that no one would even recognize it. I shall stand proudly on the case I have made. If someone wants to start a thread on knocking other people's choice of planes, perhaps I'll respond there.....
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the fcuk's an 'Art Pilot'? Someone who draws pretty pictures in the sky with smoke trails?
Step, this is the Private Flying forum. Most private pilots in UK fly for fun. If you want to shift freight or pax, try a 747 or A380.
There is no reason I can see that a weekend fun flyer's fun in their few expensive trips into the third dimension should be compromised by an aeroplane that handles as if the flight controls include a few yards of soggy sponge. Richard Bach expressed similar views in 'A Gift of Wings'. I didn't know how true his words were until shortly after (having been inspired by that book) I did a PPL on C150s.
In the Chippy or Yak, the stick is held finger-thumb, with the pressures so light it's almost done by thought rather than stick movement, with instant response from the aeroplane. It makes the aeroplane part of the pilot - an extension of the body.
In a spammy one rolls on some aileron. And nothing happens. So roll on some more.And it sluggishly deigns to follow your input, provided there isn't a gust the opposite way that it'd rather follow. These aeroplanes are driven, a bit like a big bus, rather than flown, like a bird.
And there is absolutely no reason why the 'airman's art' has been designed out of them that I can see.
Maybe it's like American cars which are great in a straight line but don't do corners, designed for 500 miles of dead straight Interstate. A Mustang will blow your socks off in a straight line, but an MX5 with a fraction the power is a far more rewarding drive in the UK Peak District and will leave the Mustang in the dust on the first corner.
Spammys - US horses on a UK course?
Step, this is the Private Flying forum. Most private pilots in UK fly for fun. If you want to shift freight or pax, try a 747 or A380.
There is no reason I can see that a weekend fun flyer's fun in their few expensive trips into the third dimension should be compromised by an aeroplane that handles as if the flight controls include a few yards of soggy sponge. Richard Bach expressed similar views in 'A Gift of Wings'. I didn't know how true his words were until shortly after (having been inspired by that book) I did a PPL on C150s.
In the Chippy or Yak, the stick is held finger-thumb, with the pressures so light it's almost done by thought rather than stick movement, with instant response from the aeroplane. It makes the aeroplane part of the pilot - an extension of the body.
In a spammy one rolls on some aileron. And nothing happens. So roll on some more.And it sluggishly deigns to follow your input, provided there isn't a gust the opposite way that it'd rather follow. These aeroplanes are driven, a bit like a big bus, rather than flown, like a bird.
And there is absolutely no reason why the 'airman's art' has been designed out of them that I can see.
Maybe it's like American cars which are great in a straight line but don't do corners, designed for 500 miles of dead straight Interstate. A Mustang will blow your socks off in a straight line, but an MX5 with a fraction the power is a far more rewarding drive in the UK Peak District and will leave the Mustang in the dust on the first corner.
Spammys - US horses on a UK course?
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 23rd Nov 2014 at 21:10.
Step
We live in a country where GA still thrives and where you can actually just jump in your airplane and go somewhere. Those Brits are just jealous......
You are right it is a Better Chippy. Having flown a Chippy with the piece of Shyte, boat anchor Dripsy Major, and one with a properly done 180 hp Lycoming conversion, I can say the Lycoming engined one was a far superior airplane.
Both the Dripsy and the Lycoming/Continental flat four designs originated in the 1930's. Which one is still in production and widely used ? I rest my case.
We live in a country where GA still thrives and where you can actually just jump in your airplane and go somewhere. Those Brits are just jealous......
You are right it is a Better Chippy. Having flown a Chippy with the piece of Shyte, boat anchor Dripsy Major, and one with a properly done 180 hp Lycoming conversion, I can say the Lycoming engined one was a far superior airplane.
Both the Dripsy and the Lycoming/Continental flat four designs originated in the 1930's. Which one is still in production and widely used ? I rest my case.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretentious elitist and inward looking
While SSD and his mates are sitting in the bar of the flying club drinking second rate lager and eating pork scratchings taking about intracasys of the Tiger moths slow roll rate the PA28R pilot is south of France with wife sipping a sharp white wine and eating lobster.
Aircraft are for going places and seeing the world, the stable predictable nature of the PA28 so derided by SSD is a real asset when you have done four hours IMC flying to get to the sun of the south of France.
The post war British aircraft industry built aircraft for the likes of SSD and failed to survive, the American industry built aircraft for people who wanted safe transport and is survived dispite the best efforts of the blood sucking lawyers.
If you build for the mass market you can also enable your industry to build specialist aircraft due to the volume of parts production and the availability at the entry level to aviation, build aircraft that have "sole" as SSD says and your market is a few old farts in the flying club bar........and half of them can't afford to fly the thing you have built !
Aircraft are for going places and seeing the world, the stable predictable nature of the PA28 so derided by SSD is a real asset when you have done four hours IMC flying to get to the sun of the south of France.
The post war British aircraft industry built aircraft for the likes of SSD and failed to survive, the American industry built aircraft for people who wanted safe transport and is survived dispite the best efforts of the blood sucking lawyers.
If you build for the mass market you can also enable your industry to build specialist aircraft due to the volume of parts production and the availability at the entry level to aviation, build aircraft that have "sole" as SSD says and your market is a few old farts in the flying club bar........and half of them can't afford to fly the thing you have built !
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C - you just don't get it, do you? Someone with taste and sensitivity to fly a real aeroplane like a Chippy as opposed to an aerial motor car like a PA28 wouldn't go within a mile of a pint of lager!
Step - enjoy your Bugatti with its drip-free modern diesel engine. I'll enjoy the character of an original and use an oil tray. We have Lycoming Chippys over here for glider tugging, and they look and sound awful. A great flat conk instead of that slender dH nose, and no more lovely Gipsy blatter either. And the prop goes round the wrong way!
I suppose you'd put one in a Spitfire as well!
Step - enjoy your Bugatti with its drip-free modern diesel engine. I'll enjoy the character of an original and use an oil tray. We have Lycoming Chippys over here for glider tugging, and they look and sound awful. A great flat conk instead of that slender dH nose, and no more lovely Gipsy blatter either. And the prop goes round the wrong way!
I suppose you'd put one in a Spitfire as well!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD
It's you that is missing the point, the aircraft you talk of are from an age when labour was cheap, parts expensive and air travel was only for the very ritch
The DHC-1 is a typical example, it costs lots to run, costs lots to maintain and flys very slowly. The only thing it is good for is as a military trainer ( and at that it is superb) and yet the very moment someone who has another role for the aircraft (in this case as a glider tug) and optimizes the aircraft for this role by putting a lower cost power unit in the front you witter on about the aircraft loosing its sole.
What the aircraft is doing now is economically pulling gliders into the sky at a cost that the less wealthy club members can afford...........you are thinking about the aircraft loosing its sole...........I am thinking about the glider pilots who are flying because they can now afford the aero tow and those who are NOT stuck on the ground because the Gypsy has quit for the umpteenth time.
Old aircraft do have there place but they need viewing as part of history NOT the only pure way to fly.
The DHC-1 is a typical example, it costs lots to run, costs lots to maintain and flys very slowly. The only thing it is good for is as a military trainer ( and at that it is superb) and yet the very moment someone who has another role for the aircraft (in this case as a glider tug) and optimizes the aircraft for this role by putting a lower cost power unit in the front you witter on about the aircraft loosing its sole.
What the aircraft is doing now is economically pulling gliders into the sky at a cost that the less wealthy club members can afford...........you are thinking about the aircraft loosing its sole...........I am thinking about the glider pilots who are flying because they can now afford the aero tow and those who are NOT stuck on the ground because the Gypsy has quit for the umpteenth time.
Old aircraft do have there place but they need viewing as part of history NOT the only pure way to fly.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C you continue to miss my point. And it's 'rich', and 'soul', by the way.
Oh, and 'Gipsy'. And if they are handled and maintained correctly they are no less reliable (probably more reliable) than a Lycoming.
Oh, and 'Gipsy'. And if they are handled and maintained correctly they are no less reliable (probably more reliable) than a Lycoming.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD
I agree that the Gipsy is as reliable as the Lycoming when properly maintained ........ The problem is that it takes twice as much labour to do so add to this the lack of new parts and you have a mix that is ........ Expensive !
To compare the O-360 and Gipsy major, a Quality overhaul by the likes of Nicolson McClarren of the O-360 will cost IRO £15 K, Vintech are the quality option for the Gipsy Major and you are unlikely to get charged any less than £30K.
The O-360 is likely to go to about 1000 hours untill a cylinder change is required ( thanks to some excellent work by the BGA on engine management ) and then go to the 2000 hour TBO may be further on extension.
Do you honestly think you a Gipsy to 1000 hours with no cylinder work ? And then go on to to 2000 hours without further work ?
I would guess that using a gipsy rather than a Lycoming to tow gliders would add a minimum of £3-4 to each aero tow and that is before we get into the extra down time for maintenance of the Gipsy.
Ask your average glider pilot to pay extra to be dragged into the air by an aircraft with sole ( sorry soul) and all you will get is a big line of gliders behind the aircraft with the Lycoming engine.
To compare the O-360 and Gipsy major, a Quality overhaul by the likes of Nicolson McClarren of the O-360 will cost IRO £15 K, Vintech are the quality option for the Gipsy Major and you are unlikely to get charged any less than £30K.
The O-360 is likely to go to about 1000 hours untill a cylinder change is required ( thanks to some excellent work by the BGA on engine management ) and then go to the 2000 hour TBO may be further on extension.
Do you honestly think you a Gipsy to 1000 hours with no cylinder work ? And then go on to to 2000 hours without further work ?
I would guess that using a gipsy rather than a Lycoming to tow gliders would add a minimum of £3-4 to each aero tow and that is before we get into the extra down time for maintenance of the Gipsy.
Ask your average glider pilot to pay extra to be dragged into the air by an aircraft with sole ( sorry soul) and all you will get is a big line of gliders behind the aircraft with the Lycoming engine.
Last edited by A and C; 24th Nov 2014 at 15:10.
I almost bought a Portuguese Chipmunk once on the basis of it being a fun plane and my affinity for 'antiquey' stuff. What turned me off was the engine, and the fact that on this example the owner literally had to mop pools of oil oil out the cowling with rags after every flight. I'd expected something more like a US or Russian radial but the Gipsy design isn't that advanced - its more like a 1920s engine.
Its a roughly similar situation with the local (US) Bücker Jungmanns - we have a great many locally, with the numbers having grown slowly but surely since the 60s. Over the years and with so many Tigre and (to a lesser extent) Walter Minor engine failures, the owners accepted reality. At least in compensation they climb at a tremendous rate now, don't leak and don't need to be treated like museum pieces. The Gipsys are more reliable than a Tigre but no less fiddly and leaky.
Its a roughly similar situation with the local (US) Bücker Jungmanns - we have a great many locally, with the numbers having grown slowly but surely since the 60s. Over the years and with so many Tigre and (to a lesser extent) Walter Minor engine failures, the owners accepted reality. At least in compensation they climb at a tremendous rate now, don't leak and don't need to be treated like museum pieces. The Gipsys are more reliable than a Tigre but no less fiddly and leaky.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A and C
Ask your average glider pilot to pay extra to be dragged into the air by an aircraft with sole ( sorry soul) and all you will get is a big line of gliders behind the aircraft with the Lycoming engine.
Mike - I'm not normally a spelling pedant, but in A and C's case I made an exception!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Gypsy series of engines are derived from half a Renault V8 engine of WW1 - that is why the thread system on the nuts and bolts is metric. A Major Halford was the designer - later known for his involvement with early gas turbine engines.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD
So let my try one more time, you ridicule aircraft because they are NOT old unreliable, expensive, difficult to fly and lack mass market appeal.
It looks to me like the attitude that resulted in the end of both the British light aircraft and the Motorcyle industry's , Fortunatly the motorcycle industry has recovered with a range of modern motorcycles that meet the aspirations of the market.
The down side is that I see very little chance of the light aircraft industry recovering with the help of the backward looking attitude demonstrated by yourself.
May be I have missed your point, probably because I can't see it is worth making, this opinion has been formed over the last few years of dealing with one and a half Gipsy majors welded together to result in twice the problems, the result is a wonderful historic aircraft for flying on sunny days but I certainly don't see it as being superior to modern aircraft just because there is a section of aviation enthusiasts who think it is a classic British aircraft.
It looks to me like the attitude that resulted in the end of both the British light aircraft and the Motorcyle industry's , Fortunatly the motorcycle industry has recovered with a range of modern motorcycles that meet the aspirations of the market.
The down side is that I see very little chance of the light aircraft industry recovering with the help of the backward looking attitude demonstrated by yourself.
May be I have missed your point, probably because I can't see it is worth making, this opinion has been formed over the last few years of dealing with one and a half Gipsy majors welded together to result in twice the problems, the result is a wonderful historic aircraft for flying on sunny days but I certainly don't see it as being superior to modern aircraft just because there is a section of aviation enthusiasts who think it is a classic British aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You said it, A and C. You appear to look at things 100% logically. That's daft where flying for fun is concerned; what's logical about spending lots of money going nowhere?
But it does explain your blindness to my viewpoint.
But it does explain your blindness to my viewpoint.
