Anyone ever put the cart before the horse,

[cgzro]

and I sold it before anything big came up. WAAAAY cheaper than renting. GOOD IDEA! BUY A PLANE

And thats the trick. IF you can find a plane that will not need anything major for a couple of years at a good price then yes you can make out like a bandit. Aircraft maintenance costs come in bursts, you can go several years with very low costs and then wham, prop, engine, fabric etc. kind of gang up on you.

IF you can time it so that your purchase is right after the major expenses but before the next then for sure purchase is going to be way cheaper but if you are unlucky or don't do you homework then its going to cost you a lot more than renting.

I think if you are not mechanically inclined you are better off renting. If however you are the kind of person that has been working on your own car for years and can work with a local mechanic then you can probably save money purchasing but you should not keep it too long or an overhaul or other expensive item will screw with the costs.

There is a reason why rental rates seem so high .. its because thats what it actually costs!!

[Grantmac]

Make friends with mechanics!
The aircraft I own has a very passionate, helpful owners group. Through them I've found (in the US) an A&P who will supervise owner maitenance and an IA who does owner assisted annuals. Doing things that way certainly isn't as convenient as dropping the plane off for work, but it does save some money and I know exactly whats going on.
I love getting my hands dirty working on vehicles. Aircraft are just very simple, quirky vehicles that require special techniques. Learn them and you will save tons. Expect to show up, kick the tires and go flying; well its going to cost you. Expect to arrive at the airport at least 1 hour before your lesson, better yet have the plane preflighted before your instructor leave their home.

A word on aircraft choices:
Buy one with an engine that is common to lots of other aircraft.
Buy one with the least number of systems.
Buy one that someone is willing and able to instruct you with.

If you can afford a hangar I think the best damn aircraft out there is probably a fabric trainer from the 50-60s. The flight schools don't want them, they have most likely been recovered 2-3 times in their life (thats a good thing) and they can take a pounding.

-Grant

[Hedley]

I love getting my hands dirty working on vehicles. Aircraft are just very simple, quirky vehicles that require special techniques. Learn them and you will save tons.

Free advice: any time you do a new task (to you) on an aircraft, get someone to show you the right way to do it. For example, cleaning and gapping plugs. Just a little different from the automotive world.

Learning about your airplane, and getting your hands dirty on it, will do far more than just save you $$$. It will make you a far better and safer pilot, so that you make the right decisions when something goes wrong.

The really hard thing about being a pilot is knowing when something is really wrong with an aircraft. A good example is 4 cylinder Lycomings, which run really rough, even factory new. If a 6 cyl Continental ran that rough, I would ground it and take it apart and find out what was wrong. Betcha didn't know that.

As you progress in your pilot career, you will find that rarely do you fly "perfect" aircraft. Certainly not cosmetically, which does NOT affect airworthiness. But you need to know if an airplane is "right" or not. And all too often, even maintenance can be wrong about an airplane - the infamous "ground check serviceable", but you know it's not right in the air, compared to other supposedly identical aircraft of the same type.

Plenty to learn! A knowledgeable pilot is often referred to as a "maintenance test pilot", who flies and evaluates an aircraft when it is at it's most unreliable - when it just comes out of heavy maintenance.

Free lesson for you: the more maintenance that has been performed on an airplane, the less reliable and more of a dangerous unknown it is. Seriously.

Compare an aircraft which has just been refueled and has the windshield cleaned. Sure, you want to make sure the fuel caps are on, drain the sumps, and obstacles are clear. But that's about it. It's pretty much as reliable as when the line maintenance started.

Compare it to an aircraft with new engines, new props, new landing gear, new paint, new flight controls. If that doesn't make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, I don't know what would.

[iflyforpie]

Hedley speaks the truth.

In one week in a shop I worked in, we had three control reversals.

First was a Cessna 207 that I did a complete rebuild on. I usually replace cables one at a time on line aircraft to keep continuity, but every cable was already out and I had to use the terrible diagram where cables crossed (so you can't tell which cable is which after the cross, better diagrams put direction of travel arrows) to put it back together. Got both aileron cables crossed on both sides. One day chatting with my supervisor many months later after the wings were installed, and I casually moved the yoke from where I was standing and did a double-take. Thumb up, aileron down.

Second was an SC.7 Skyvan that we took the wings off of. Hooked the aileron trim back up by the book, and it was backwards. Crossed the cables the other way (there was a cable cross required, but the correct one was different from the book), and it worked fine.

Third was a Navion Rangemaster. The Navion has an elevator trim from the Wright Flyer, where lawnmower cables move back and forth to position a tab on each elevator. We'd taken the elevators off for paint which meant we disconnected the four cables for the two tabs and labelled them. The labeling got destroyed by the paint (lots of times I would stamp labels into bits of aluminum, but I didn't this time) and so I had to guess which one went where. Got it together and went up to the cockpit to check the travel. The Rangemaster version of the Navion has a cabin instead of a canopy, and one door on the left side. I looked out, saw the tab went the right way, and went back to work. Passing by the rear of the aircraft, I noticed that one tab was up and the other down. The right tab, which I couldn't see, was hooked up backwards.

Now to be fair, none of these aircraft had a dual inspection yet and in the case of the 207 it hadn't even been rigged. There was a very small risk of the aircraft being released with backwards flight controls. But it just goes to show how easily these things can happen.

[Hedley]

Heavy maintenance is always something to be regarded with great respect and care, by a knowledgeable pilot.

But it doesn't even have to be heavy maintenance!

Does anyone remember a horrible accident, I think in South America, after a Boeing was washed? The ground crew forgot to remove the tape they put over the static ports, and when the aircraft next flew (at night) all the alarm bells went off - altitude, airspeed, everything was screwed up - and everyone on board died.

A little systems knowledge goes a long way.

[Shiny Side Up]

Hedley speaks the truth.

Indeed, he is very wise. I think a vast majority of airplanes that I've encountered problems with were ones fresh out of the shop or ones I've been doing that fun first maintenance flight on. I really love when the AMEs refuse to come along...

I think I hate playing with retractables the most.

[Geo]

But it doesn't even have to be heavy maintenance!

Does anyone remember a horrible accident, I think in South America, after a Boeing was washed? The ground crew forgot to remove the tape they put over the static ports, and when the aircraft next flew (at night) all the alarm bells went off - altitude, airspeed, everything was screwed up - and everyone on board died.

A little systems knowledge goes a long way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroper%C3%BA_Flight_603



g

[Hedley]

a piece of masking tape was accidentally left over the static ports (on the bottom side of the fuselage) after cleaning the aircraft that eventually led to the crash

Yeah. A very small detail resulted in a very bad day. 70 fatalities.

The static ports are critical to the operation of virtually all of those flight instruments that provide basic aerodynamic data such as airspeed, altitude and vertical speed, not only to the pilots but also to the aircraft's computers, which provide additional functions such as warnings when flight characteristics approach dangerous levels.
The blockage of all of the static ports is one of the few common-failure modes resulting in total failure of multiple basic flight instruments and as such is regarded as one of the most serious faults that can occur within the avionics systems

Gosh, is that 15 years ago, already?! Sh1t, I'm getting old.

[Grantmac]

Well my plane hasn't had a major since before I gave up on breastmilk (the first time ) so that hasn't been an issue.

I've been trying to learn how to safety-wire without donating blood, I'm not sure its possible.

One aspect of aircraft ownership that most renters just don't get is that you need to know how to spot and report a fault. You can't just return from a flight, say its doing something funny and expect someone to figure out what is going on.

Of course you need to be conversant in what you are allowed to do as an owner. I'm currently existing under US regs so I haven't been paying much attention to that part of the CARS, but down here you can lubricate, change oil, change air filter and grease. If you change your oil every 25 hours and fly 100 hours a year that gets damn expensive for a very simple operation. Likewise for wheel bearings, flap tracks and linkages.
Now when I preflight I often have a can of LPS2 with me, I get the exposed linkages and look for the starts of any corrosion to hit with the LPS3 when I tie down.

The last thing that has really struck home for me is that there are wide areas of adjustment built into the factory set-up of certain aircraft. I have a fabric wing Piper and its got almost as many wing adjustments as a sailboat. You can adjust Dihedral, twist and aileron position.
How many times have you rented a plane and it was obviously out of rig in some way. Maybe it dropped the same wing in every stall, perhaps it flew with the ball offset in cruise. When you own you can fix that, but only if you know enough about theory of flight to be able to diagnose and communicate the problem.

[Hedley]

Being an owner/operator teaches you an awful lot about airplanes, and IMHO makes you a far better pilot, although there are many people here with a different opinion.

[Shiny Side Up]

Being an owner/operator teaches you an awful lot about airplanes, and IMHO makes you a far better pilot, although there are many people here with a different opinion.

I would respectfully disagree in that planes don't automatically teach you stuff. I know of plenty of owner operators who are largely clueless about their aircraft and seem content to pay large sums of money without question when something goes wrong. Like Automotive mechanics, there are AME shops who "see them comming" and charge appropriately. I would modify the above to say that being an owner operator give you an unparalleled opportunity to learn a lot about airplanes and the best opportunity to hone your pilot skills.

[iflyforpie]

Grantmac, your discussion about rigging reminds me of so many owners who come to me and say 'my airplane doesn't fly straight'.



The first thing I ask is, 'where was the ball?' This is usually followed by 'what?' Then I ask again, was the aircraft coordinated?

Because of this magical thing called slip-roll coupling, any yaw that is present is going to induce a roll. This is why our cycle of aircraft control is yaw, roll, pitch.

If a pilot doesn't control the yaw but corrects the roll, you've got two forces fighting against each other (slip-roll coupling and aileron roll) which is robbing your aircraft of speed and your passengers of comfort.



If you have a heavy wing during cruise, put the ball in the center. If it goes away, your rudder springs are weak or we need to walk the rudder cables. If it is still there, then it could be a number of other things. But we first need to adjust the rudder so the plane is coordinated feel off during cruise (you still always need right or left rudder as applicable for climbs and power off descents).

Once the rudder or fin is set up, then we can try and correct wing heaviness. Aircraft with tip tanks or large wing tanks will always get a heavy wing. There is nothing you can do about it other than hold an input or use aileron trip or a wing leveler. Same goes with fat people on one side of the airplane.

Many pilots point to the ailerons as causing a heavy wing, but that is simply not the case.

The ailerons have pretty much nothing to do with a heavy wing, even though they are used to counteract it. With most ailerons I can walk the cables so the wheels are straight, walk the cables between the wheels so they are straight to each other, shorten the balance cable to take out droop, or shorten the direct cables to make them droop more. You will still feel the same wing heaviness you felt before.

In order to correct the wing heaviness, which is a deficiency of lift, we need to make the static portion of the wing produce more lift by increasing its angle of attack.

On rag and metalized aircraft, it is done with the jury strut, the second strut that goes to the aft spar. Shorten it or lengthen it and that will change the wing angle. Other aircraft (like Spamcan Pipers) use the flap adjustment to correct wing heaviness. Metal Cessna singles use an eccentric bushing on each rear wing attach. Look at a 172 from behind and see how the flaps meet up with the fuselage fairing. It's not poor workmanship, it is the different incidence angles of the wings.

[Grantmac]

IFlyforpie,

You're totally right. I actually spent the time to calibrate the ball first. Level ground and plumb-bob told me that in level its 1/2 ball to the left. This works well for me because I fly that airplane from the right and so it lines-up correctly from my seat, I have to think about it for a second in the left seat though.
That particular aircraft has lots of dehedral so it roll couples very strongly, you can fly it with just your feet while reading a map pretty comfortably, but it means that you need to have the ball exactly centered to get good data for rigging.

I find that a physically (as opposed to aerodynamically) heavy wing seems to get heavier as airspeed is decreased, which makes sense because both wings need to operate at a higher angle of attack to produce the required lift as the aircraft slows.
If I wing is light in cruise but stalls first then I'd be thinking it needs more wash-out, or the other wing needs a little removed.

My aircraft doesn't have strong rudder springs, and its a damn good thing because you would completely wear-out your legs. It requires constant attention if you want that ball in the center, but very little pressure so its not tiring. Flying spam-cans wears my legs out because I refuse to let the rudder just do its own thing.

In my case I was correcting two things:
1) My left wing was slightly heavy in scruise. So I took the right jury strut out one turn.
2)Both my ailerons were slightly reflexed and the aircraft had to be kept faster on landing and take-off then others of that type do. So they came down a bit. They may still have a little ways to go, but little steps one at a time in the way I like to do things.

-Grant

P.S. A childhood of building models seems less of a waste these days.

[Hedley]

You guys will think I'm nuts, but I like to rig for a right roll.

It's easy and natural to push the stick to the left, but when you pull the stick right, you have to clamp it with your hand, so a built-in right roll helps that.

[Geo]

You guys will think I'm nuts, but I like to rig for a right roll.

It's easy and natural to push the stick to the left, but when you pull the stick right, you have to clamp it with your hand, so a built-in right roll helps that.

Do you fly right handed?

g

[Hedley]

Do you fly right handed?

With the stick in the center, and the throttle on the left side (Pitts, Citabria, Ryan, Cornell, Stearman, Harvard, L39, etc, etc, etc, etc) I have never, ever seen anyone cross their arms and fly with the stick in their left hand, and the throttle in their right hand.

I've never even heard of such a bizarre thing, but this is the internet, so 102,493 people will immediately respond that their step-uncle Normie, who fought in WWII and died in an unfortunate farming accident in 1985 in Burma, told them about the cousin of a guy's girlfriend's sister that he used to know in New Zealand during the Korean War, that used to do it all the time.

Now, when you gotta do stuff on the right side of the cockpit, you take your left hand off the throttle, hold the stick with your left hand, and do the stuff on the right side of the cockpit with your right hand.

But that's not "crossing the streams", so to speak.

[Grantmac]

You guys will think I'm nuts, but I like to rig for a right roll.

It's easy and natural to push the stick to the left, but when you pull the stick right, you have to clamp it with your hand, so a built-in right roll helps that.

Makes sense to me, a whole lot less tiring to rest your hand on your leg with slight pressure into it then having to grasp the stick continuously. I may have to keep that in mind.
In my aircraft the pedals as so closely set that you can trim then fly with just your legs for both the stick and rudder. Its not for choppy days but when its smooth you could pour hot coffee no problem.

-Grant

[Shiny Side Up]

You guys will think I'm nuts, but I like to rig for a right roll.

It's easy and natural to push the stick to the left, but when you pull the stick right, you have to clamp it with your hand, so a built-in right roll helps that.

You should switch to a spade grip for your control column.

[Geo]

Do you fly right handed?

With the stick in the center, and the throttle on the left side (Pitts, Citabria, Ryan, Cornell, Stearman, Harvard, L39, etc, etc, etc, etc) I have never, ever seen anyone cross their arms and fly with the stick in their left hand, and the throttle in their right hand.

I've never been on any of those, and the aircraft I am learning on has stick in the centre, throttle on my right. Hence I fly southpaw.
I am not nearly skilled enough to "cross the streams".

Actually I was just trying to visualize your earlier post, and it wasn't coming up straight in my mind...figured it was right handed, but I wanted to be sure so I asked.

After all, if I had assumed. I would have made an ass out of you and me.

:p
g

edit: PS Nice use of the Ghostbusters pic. That's a good "burn".

[Expat]

Buy! Nothing beats a quiet night flight after dinner, when all cumulus have dissipated. You just go to the airport, and fly... Best hours to build time are night hours...
You can also make a few bucks as owner/pilot...
Do some work yourself. I took engines and props out more than once. Removing and installing an engine is much easier that changing one in the family car...

Myth: Rental planes are safer because they have commercial registration, and better and more frequent inspections...

Because of the strong cdn dollar, planes are dirt cheap now...

Buy a high wing, because you can use it to fly with CASARA, if you want...

It also feels good to say that it is my plane!!!

...and...number one...Your ride, you can pimp!!!

[Canuck223]

The really hard thing about being a pilot is knowing when something is really wrong with an aircraft. A good example is 4 cylinder Lycomings, which run really rough, even factory new. If a 6 cyl Continental ran that rough, I would ground it and take it apart and find out what was wrong. Betcha didn't know that.

I suspect I know the answer, but I'm willing to risk the public humiliation....

I'm assuming that you can't replace the type of engine on your own plane unless there is already a certification for that combination unless you're prepared to reregister it as experimental???

I do get many of the reasons why it's probably not kosher, weights and balances, horsepower, cowl shape for proper cooling, etc. I just wondered if someone with the required knowledge could switch an engine with the one with a similar size and power output, or replace a high time engine with a newer version of the same engine.

[iflyforpie]

The really hard thing about being a pilot is knowing when something is really wrong with an aircraft. A good example is 4 cylinder Lycomings, which run really rough, even factory new. If a 6 cyl Continental ran that rough, I would ground it and take it apart and find out what was wrong. Betcha didn't know that.

I suspect I know the answer, but I'm willing to risk the public humiliation....

What Hedley is talking about is the characteristics of each different engine. The first thing pretty much anybody comments on upon starting up their first six-cylinder is how amazingly smooth it is compared to the four cylinder engines. The six-cylinder O-320 accelerates much faster too, giving the impression at first of more power than the Lycoming O-320.

But the O-320 is always rough.

Here's a good read about why the two engines are so different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat-6#Bal ... smoothness

I have heard of four-cylinder engines becoming very smooth. This is usually right before main bearing failure at specific RPMs where the crank manages to 'float' in the bearings because of harmonics. A suddenly smooth engine can be something to be wary of as well. I hate any time an engine changes its behaviour.

I'm assuming that you can't replace the type of engine on your own plane unless there is already a certification for that combination unless you're prepared to reregister it as experimental???

You are correct. The certification is either on the aircraft's Type Certificate Data Sheet or added as a Supplemental Type Certificate.

The engines aren't just specific models (O-320) but usually specific dash numbers as well (O-320-E2D).

I use Type Certificate Data Sheet to check applicability of all kinds of things, like engines, propellers, and governors, since they count as Approved Data (compare to an Illustrated Parts Catalogue, which technically isn't even Data at all).

For those who own Cessnas with non-functioning electric stall warnings, you might want to check the TCDS for your aircraft rather than save the ~$2000 one of those lift detectors cost. Most require a functioning lift detector for certification and a part number is listed right on the TCDS.

Here is the link to the FAA TCDS site. Lots of good and approved (as legal as any POH) info on your aircraft.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... /MainFrame

[Canuck223]

What Hedley is talking about is the characteristics of each different engine. The first thing pretty much anybody comments on upon starting up their first six-cylinder is how amazingly smooth it is compared to the four cylinder engines. The six-cylinder O-320 accelerates much faster too, giving the impression at first of more power than the Lycoming O-320.

But the O-320 is always rough.

I assumed that he was refering to the manufacturers, but now that I realize you're refering to equal displacement engines, but with different numbers of cylinders, I get it. Curious though, does the 6 cylinder follow the automotive trend? Does the smaller lighter piston also run at faster RPM's with the power curve at the high end of the range? I suppose since they are normally run at least at 65% throttle, that's not an issue.

Considering the purchase price, I understand why an engine swap compared to a rebuild would be uncommon. I am surprised that upgrading the existing engine to newer standards isn't common. Considering the potential benefits for owners in fuel consumption, and the added profit for the manufacturers, I would have expected support. I'm sure there are very good reasons why it's not the case.

[iflyforpie]

What Hedley is talking about is the characteristics of each different engine. The first thing pretty much anybody comments on upon starting up their first six-cylinder is how amazingly smooth it is compared to the four cylinder engines. The six-cylinder O-320 accelerates much faster too, giving the impression at first of more power than the Lycoming O-320.

But the O-320 is always rough.

I assumed that he was refering to the manufacturers, but now that I realize you're refering to equal displacement engines, but with different numbers of cylinders, I get it. Curious though, does the 6 cylinder follow the automotive trend? Does the smaller lighter piston also run at faster RPM's with the power curve at the high end of the range? I suppose since they are normally run at least at 65% throttle, that's not an issue.

Considering the purchase price, I understand why an engine swap compared to a rebuild would be uncommon. I am surprised that upgrading the existing engine to newer standards isn't common. Considering the potential benefits for owners in fuel consumption, and the added profit for the manufacturers, I would have expected support. I'm sure there are very good reasons why it's not the case.

Actually, it was supposed to be the six-cylinder O-300. I mistyped.

Direct-drive piston engines are limited by the propeller to around 2700 RPM. That being said, they did make a GO-300 (G for geared) six cylinder that brought the engine RPM up to 3200 and the power from 145 to 175HP. But the GO-300s had a reputation as terrible engines as the gearbox is the achilles heel of the engine with throttle-monkey pilots. Many Cessna 175s (higher performance 172s) that had these engines have been converted by STC to O-360 engines which give 180 HP with direct drive.

Since most light aircraft engines are direct-drive and RPMs are limited, the cylinders are comparatively large. The O-320 has bore of over 5 inches and a stroke of nearly four inches. The 330 cubic inch engine in my truck has eight tiny cylinders of 3.5 inch diameter and a stroke of just over four inches.

The RPM limitations are also why large aircraft engines produce low power for their displacement.

[Shiny Side Up]

But the GO-300s had a reputation as terrible engines as the gearbox is the achilles heel of the engine with throttle-monkey pilots.

Indeed, the problem existing more between the throttle and the seat.

Cessna SkyLark

The GO-300 engine

An unusual feature of the 175 is the geared Continental GO-300 engine. Whereas most single-engine airplanes use direct drive, this engine drives the propeller through a reducing gearbox, so the engine runs at 3200 rpm to turn the propeller at 2400 rpm. The GO-300 engine suffered reliability problems and helped give the 175 a poor reputation. Some Skylarks flying today have been converted to larger-displacement direct-drive engines though almost 90% still retain the GO-300.

The GO-300's tainted reputation may have been undeserved, since its problems were the result of pilots who were familiar with direct-drive engines simply not operating the engine correctly. Pilots unfamiliar with the engine often operated the engine at low RPM settings (2300-2700) appropriate to direct-drive engines, while the 175's Operating Handbook called for cruising at 2900 RPM. The low RPM prevented the engine's air-cooling system from operating effectively, caused harmonic vibration in the reduction gear between the quill shaft and crankshaft, and resulted in a lack of reliability.

Too bad people didn't figure it out, the 175 I fly has no more reliability issues than the 172s and certainly the extra horsepower makes it jump off the ground in a more spritely manner.